Slashdot Mirror
Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through
640 Comments Are Enough for Anyone writes "Microsoft is going back on one of their promises concerning OOXML. While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over OOXML with the ECMA. This is significant because the ECMA is the group that originally rubber-stamped OOXML. It seems unlikely that they will force changes to correct problems with the standard. In Microsoft's new plan, the ISO would only be allowed to publish lists of errata and would be unable to make OOXML compatible with existing ISO standards, while the ECMA would be the one to control any new versions of the standard."
...not EMCA? But it's fun to stae and the EMCA...Bow-ties are cool.
Microsoft was running circles around itself in an effort to get this monstrosity known as Office XML specification (note the absence of "Open," since it is my belief there is nothing "open" about it) just 4 months ago, loading standards panel with shills for the voting process, and now they're thumbing their noses at another standards body over the same specification?
Way to go, Microsoft! Another shot to the foot. Keep shooting and maybe we can take out a knee next, eh?
Anyone who expects Microsoft to keep its word on a matter like this is possessed of a level of ingenuousness approached only by two-year-olds, puppies and sociology professors.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
OOXML is not standard anything. It's a proprietary format owned by Microsoft. Why do people refer to this as standard?
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
What is this excellent work? ECMA's Wikipedia page is just a laundry list of rubber-stamped Microsoft products.
Guys, let's wait for Microsoft's SilverLight platform. I can guarantee that there will be more controversy on that front, and again, some members of the OSS community will quickly join the band wagon.
Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.
They do, but Microsoft either a) ignores the ruling and throws money and lawyers at the courts to get an appeal and/or b) doesn't pay the fines/make the required changes. So until someone gets the balls to arrest the board of directors and throw them in jail for contempt, it's business as usual.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
My unicorn is out back, eating glitter... Terrible. She farts rainbows for a couple days afterwards.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Are you suggesting that ISO should have granted them ISO recognition in spite of the fact that OOXML is vaguely defined at best?
Anything Microsoft puts out is a moving target when it comes to being compatible or interoperable. Samba may be an exception, but only because Samba was relentless in keeping up with the changes and Microsoft seems to have run out of wriggle room in messing around with the standard while maintaining compatibility with their own software.
OOXML is simply unworthy. Microsoft is simply untrustworthy. Microsoft's behavior is quite consistent in this respect. Story after story is available illustrating "partnerships" formed only to have Microsoft turn on these partners when it suits them. They are more than a business. They are predatory, dishonest and untrustworthy. They epitomize everything that's wrong with contemporary business.
Specifically, what was the point in saying "Microsoft is a business"?
I am an American. That doesn't make me fat, lazy, and stupid, and it doesn't mean I support Bush.
There are businesses which are not corrupt, and which would not insist on keeping control of a "standard" once it became a standard. And that's the way it should be, and when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
> Nobody should be surprised by this, much less Rob Weir. He feigns surprise and acts like this is a shocking development.
:]
He does? I didn't see any "surprise" in there. I saw him saying that Microsoft promised that the ISO would get this control and then went back on its promise. You'll forgive me if I don't find that surprising.
From what Rob Weir wrote, as quoted on Groklaw (which, BTW, is what the Slashdot submission actually links to, just so you know):
So much for the promises. What makes this story worthy of a blog post is that we now know that, as these promises were be made to NB's, at that same time Ecma was planning something that contradicted their public assurances.
> Here's news for you, and Rob, and everyone else. *NO FAST TRACK ISO STANDARD IS OWNED BY ISO*. Fast tracking, by it's very design, puts the onus on standards maintenance and evolution on the standards body that submits it.
So... Microsoft promised something it knew it wouldn't deliver? Nope. Still not surprised. That doesn't make this any better, and I'm kinda disappointed in anyone who voted for OOXML because of that empty promise, but I'm definitely not surprised. How many people have been burned for trusting Microsoft? Or maybe I should ask, can anyone name a Microsoft "partner" that wasn't left out to dry when things became inconvenient or unprofitable for Microsoft? Yes, yes, even "partners" should expect that. I know that I sure as hell would. But that's why I try to avoid having anything to do with them if possible. I know they'll shaft me for a nickel.
> Rob knows this, but he's being deliberately disingenuous.
More or less disingenuous than someone with a track record of defending Microsoft claiming that Rob shouldn't be "surprised" by this when he's not, but merely calling on Microsoft to fulfill its promise? Disappointed, maybe, but I just don't see the "surprise" because this isn't the first time Microsoft has done something like this by any means.
> By the way, the same is true for ODF. OASIS is the steward for current ODF maintenance and improvement.
Can you point to anywhere where OASIS promised the ISO this control? No? Then then the two issues aren't really comparable, are then? I mean, OASIS can't break a promise they never made. I mean, even if Rob had been surprised by this, do you really think that complaining that someone was surprised that Microsoft lied because they should've somehow expected this is a good thing?
I mean, honestly, what the hell kind of supporters does Microsoft have these days?