Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Roadmap To the OOXML Process

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the pay-no-attention-to-the-coming-media-blitz dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With all the pieces floating around on OOXML, it's been hard to get a good sense of where it is in the standardization process. Fortunately, IBM's Rob Weir has a provided us a road map. Today Microsoft is due to submit its set of proposals for resolving the 3,522 comments to JTC1, which controls OOXML. Tomorrow or soon after, we can expect a media blitz heralding these 'changes,' as numerous reporters are, reportedly, being flown to Redmond. But all those recommendations are non-binding, because only JTC1 can change the standard and that happens during the Ballot Resolution Meeting. And even if all of the recommendations are adopted, no one has to change their vote. The BRM, where all the real work will happen, isn't until February 25-29. Within the 30 days after that, everyone will be able to reconsider their vote. That's when we can expect the real fireworks."

48 comments

  1. 3,522 comments by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    3,522 comments: maybe too thin?
    Bloviated pettifoggery!
    Let the trimming begin.
    Emancipation from thuggery
    Starts with JTC1's chin.
    Burma Shave

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  2. Bureaucracy by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sad part is that most of the great advancements in computing, be it software or hardware, were not the result of a bureaucratic process such as this.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Bureaucracy by minginqunt · · Score: 1

      When all is said and done, it's just another format to support. If it's not very good... Nothing to see here, please move along.

    2. Re:Bureaucracy by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad part is that most of the great advancements in computing, be it software or hardware, were not the result of a bureaucratic process such as this.

      This isn't a great advancement in computing. It's a convicted monopolist's attempt to lock the world's documents up in a format which it can change arbitrarily at will to stifle competition.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    3. Re:Bureaucracy by badfish99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, if it's "just another format", how come Microsoft are paying for reporters to fly to Redmond? How come Microsoft have bribed whole countries to take part in previous votes? If we take your attitude, Microsoft will take over the world while we're not looking.

    4. Re:Bureaucracy by BrentH · · Score: 1

      Interaction between large groups of humans (and fileformats) == Bureaucracy There is _no_ way around this, unless you make it less democratic ofcourse. It's not a coincidence that the most succesfull governments (in achieving their goals) are not very democratic and the reverse (UN anyone ?). Large groups means that things have to be formalized and to make sure the end result is satisfactory to most if not all affected. Formalizing is bureaucracy. The reason I make this point is that bureaucracy generally gets a lot of flak while I think that, in it's function as a mediator, it's serves a very important purpose: it makes sure we're all be happy in the end, without useless fights of wars (on level of states: pick a choice, level of industry: BluRay vs. HDDVD). Things like standardisation organistion on the level of industry and the UN/NATO in the level of state, can prevent these and compromize around the table and as such is preferable over option 1. So even on the topic of document formats, it's not necessarily bad. Sure, the process itself isnt a great innovating contributor (that'll always be the genuises with the great ideas), but in making sure we get something we all want: interoperability, it serves it's purpose in the best I know. Perhaps in this case (most certainly even) it would be better to compare the obvious competitors directly, ooxml and opendoc, but that's for another day.

    5. Re:Bureaucracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you misunderstood granparent's intent. Reread, remembering that it was a response to its parent post.

    6. Re:Bureaucracy by psbrogna · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree- advancement do seem to come from petri dishes unfettered by compliance restraints. However once certain stable plateaus of functionality are reached, it seems that shifting to a fairly static model would benefit everyone. For example, 120 VAC 60 Hz is a fairly workable standard for the delivery of a commodity in the US. I'm sure in the beginning there was a window of experimentation. Now though, there's no need to be looking to innovate that & in fact doing so would come at an enormous cost to the entire user base. I believe "productivity applications" have reached a similar point in their evolution.

    7. Re:Bureaucracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why /. watches them. Constantly.

    8. Re:Bureaucracy by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      The spec for OOXML is something like 8000 pages. MS controls it, at least defacto. MS wants to prevent interoperability at all costs because it knows that most people don't need office but are forced to use it for company interoperability reasons.

      Just more vendor lockin from MS.

  3. Get a copy of Microsoft's Road Map... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    ...here.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:Get a copy of Microsoft's Road Map... by Chemicalscum · · Score: 1
      Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!

      Aaargh! vi vi vi - The sign of the Beast. Sorry Offtopic.

    2. Re:Get a copy of Microsoft's Road Map... by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. They're an office supply house.

      Sorry, we have no products that match your search roadmap. Did you mean road?

      Hmm...reflective vests that make me safer if I want to walk a road at night. I must be benighted.

      Perhaps you're confused by the use of the word "roadmap", which is a powerpointism that means something like, "plan to make magic happen, and create order out of chaos". Remember, a roadmap is really a type of map, a graphic depiction of a certain territory, showing items of interest. In the case of roadmaps, that would be...um...roads. I forget where I was going with this. Where were you going? Do you have a map?

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
  4. Comparison by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OOXML is to ODF as the Zune is to the iPod: relatively incomplete, too hastily implimented, too late, and ugly.

    1. Re:Comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm...I'm thinking that if YOU'RE thinking the Zune is a good thing (tm), then YOU, sir, are the fanboi.

    2. Re:Comparison by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Well said! ...Or else you were paid a shitload of money to be a fanboi(tm) :)

    3. Re:Comparison by ColourlessGreenIdeas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This fails to deal with the main problem.

      Most criticisms of OOXML deal with the fact that it is a hastily implemented pile of incomprehensible rubbish that no-one in the world will ever implement correctly and that Microsoft is allowed to change at will without consultation. However, this actually utterly misses the point of the problem of OOXML, and the reason why MS is so opposed to ODF.

      The issue is that ODF forbids you from embracing and extending while OOXML allows you to. This means that if you've got an ODF document and an ODF reader, you can read the document. This is not true for OOXML as anyone (MS) is allowed to put random rubbish in the middle of the document, that a different application might not understand.

      MS criticises ODF for missing features, but never make clear that this 'problem' cannot be fixed by adding features; they are in fact criticising ODF for standardising what constitutes a valid ODF document.

      --
      In soviet russia stale jokes recycle you!
  5. Re:OOXML by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Funny

    More info on Roadmap To the OOXML Process
    It's a trap!
    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  6. You must be new around here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The proper technological ephithet needs to be done in a Haiku.

    1. Re:You must be new around here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Sweeny Todd with all Burma Shave hecklers!

    2. Re:You must be new around here by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Funny
      A putative Microsoft shill
      With time on his hands left to kill
      Perverted the process
      Of standards, with success
      And earned a big blowjob from Bill

      Oh - haiku? I thought you meant limerick!

      :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  7. grim. by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its certainly a triumph of commercial interests and bureaucracy over design and common sense. I suspect we all know the eventual outcome from this farce.

  8. Yawn !!!! by ThirdPrize · · Score: 1

    Turns over and goes back to sleep.

    --
    I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    1. Re:Yawn !!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is your nightmare - Billy Borg Gates staring right in your face as you wake up.....

  9. Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by zmotula · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...see the post by the guy who evaluated the OOXML specification for the Czech Normalization Institute. This means that Czech Republic is most probably going to vote for OOXML when the time comes.

    1. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by adpsimpson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly the absolute worst elements, such as 'footnoteLayoutLikeWW8', 'lineWrapLikeWord6' and 'useWord97LineBreakRules' (the parent's article lists objections to about a dozen of these) seem to have been resolved.

      This does raise the prospect that a truly open implementation of the format could be created, which was my biggest worry about a format which calls itself 'open'. What we were faced with before was a supposed standard format which had unexplained and undocumented hooks to long defunct, proprietary formats which only Microsoft could correctly implement. If these are now correctly documented, we may now have a format which anyone may be able to implement, although still in the firm grasp of Microsoft.

      We may even have more information about how old versions of MS Office operated (if, for example, the mysterious footnote behaviour of various versions of Word has been explained).

      However, since the resolution from ECMA is behind a passworded site, the official resolutions cannot be accessed. Odd behaviour for a standards creating body at a consultation stage, leaving us hoping the Czech team, and the others, have done their work.

      --
      Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
      John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    2. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by hey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The CZ report says (essentially) that it makes no sense to have two office standards then
      makes that comment green - meaning no objection. Why? Their conclusion doesn't match their
      data. Perhaps they just think there is no way Microsoft can be stopped.

    3. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by marcansoft · · Score: 1

      They're commenting on the changes to OOXML that are to be implemented. No change to OOXML would fix that problem: that it doesn't make sense when we already have ODF. Their text was introductory only, not a real "thing to fix" in OOXML, since there is nothing they could do to OOXML to fix that.

      Here's to hoping that they'll still consider it an issue when voting again.

    4. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      This does raise the prospect that a truly open implementation of the format could be created, which was my biggest worry about a format which calls itself 'open'.

      It's not the only problem.

      MSOOXML is an order of magnitude harder to write a parser for than ODF. Choosing it as a default format sets the barrier to entry for smaller players much higher.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      "MSOOXML is an order of magnitude harder to write a parser for than ODF."

      The Gnumeric devs disagree with your assessment, as they've said it was easier to implement OOXML into Gnumeric than ODF. (Maybe you're making the point that ODF is "easier" because it's so incomplete. After all, ODF doesn't even support spreadsheet formulas, so that's one thing you don't need to implement in an ODF parser, but that's hardly a *good* thing.)

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    6. Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      After all, ODF doesn't even support spreadsheet formulas

      Ah yes, right on cue. You Microsoft boosters have been parroting the guff from Bill Hilf's lab for quite some time now.

      ODF supports, but does not define spreadsheet formulas. By contrast, OOXML's spreadsheet formulas are worse than missing. It has incorrect formulae that, if implemented according to the standard, would result in a spreadsheet that calculates incorrect results.

      The ODF team are working on a set of formulas, but unlike Microsoft, they are doing so carefully and ensuring they comply with existing standards. And of course, Microsoft had the opportunity to participate in the development, but declined.

      The Gnumeric devs disagree with your assessment, as they've said it was easier to implement OOXML into Gnumeric than ODF.

      And more disingenuous misdirection from Microsoft marketing. Shall I quote the actual statement from the Gnumeric devs, sans spin?

      ODF's model of 'chartness' didn't fit well with Gnumeric. In contrast XLSX may be ugly, but it''s concepts were very familiar from XLS. We already had much of the code required to handle it. How's the Kool aid tasting now?
      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  10. I didn't read past the title but I am FUMING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so angry I'm literally shaking uncontrollably.
    "Roadmap to the OOXML Process"

    Process! Like a set of steps!! an algorithm, as it were.

    Boy, let me tell you what kind of godforsaken "algorithm" it would be if we call Microsoft's ooxml frankenstein lovechild creation a "process".

    It would be Bogo sort.

    "process" my shiny metal arse.

  11. Interesting Timing by macurmudgeon · · Score: 1

    Is Microsoft trying to hide this announcement by releasing it on Steve Jobs' dog and pony show day? Or are they trying to steal some publicity?

  12. Call me cynical by wavefreak · · Score: 1

    Sadly, when OOXML is approved, all credibility for the standards process will be lost. Standards are boring, tedious, and often over worked, but they are important. The only good thing they had going for them was a modicum of fairness. And so it goes.

  13. Re:Call me cynical by cbart387 · · Score: 1

    I would say you're not cynical enough. My opinion is that the illusion of fairness will be broken.

    --
    Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
  14. Editorial Changes by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    The BRM is practically irrelevant since the only changes to the document will be editorial in nature. None of the objectionable technical content will be changed because Microsoft has already released its products.

    So, the only relevant issue now is how many new bullshit third-world countries will include themselves in the process (assuming they still can) and tip the vote.

    1. Re:Editorial Changes by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      The collector of the Czech Reupblic's OOXML comments would disagree with you:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=418352&cid=22049468

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  15. A good day to bury bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems that the friendship between Bill G and Tony Blair/Gordon Brown is paying off.
    On 9/11, one Labour party exec is reported as saying that this would be a god day to announce/bury bad news.

  16. Not quite... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It's a convicted monopolist's attempt to fool the people in high places who recognize the urgent need for open formats into believing that Office has finally started using an open format.

    If they fail, good. Justice is served.

    If they succeed, a new generation of Office products will be given the go-ahead in places they don't belong... ...but do they really think they'll get away with it in the long term? Surely it'll be a case of "once bitten, twice shy" and the next round will see them losing badly, with people actively avoiding Microsoft at all costs.

    Surely the best strategy is to use an open format and compete on quality (Microsoft Office is generations ahead of other office suites in terms of integration and overall ability).

    Trouble is, the ingrained Microsoft mentality simply can't see this coming.

    http://collantes.us/lets-make-sure/

    --
    No sig today...
  17. Yeah, they might "remove" those, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft will still stick the (now nonstandard) attributes in converted documents. I mean, they wrote OOXML and they don't actually follow it. God help you if you find things like Sharepoint extensions in the document.

    So it's not much of a concession, but we can't really trust Microsoft to play fair in the first place. They're seeing their monopoly attacked, and they want to defend it.

  18. Use MS-OOXML and reduce confusion by nadaou · · Score: 1

    To reduce the (probably intended) market confusion over the pedigree of the format names, it would be nice if people used "MS-OOXML" to differentiate it from ODF and OpenOffice.

    --
    ~.~
    I'm a peripheral visionary.
  19. How Come, OOXML Is Superb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come? Why the sudden need to modify OOXML when Miguel said it's a superb standard?

    1. Re:How Come, OOXML Is Superb by cloakable · · Score: 1

      Because Miguel is off his face on crack.

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  20. Re:OOXML by digipres · · Score: 1

    To check out the futurama headers you might also try: curl -I http://slashdot.org/ #that's curl minus capital i