Roadmap To the OOXML Process

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."

Comments

Bureaucracy

[Dan East]

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

Re:Bureaucracy

[Simon Brooke]

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.

Re:Bureaucracy

[badfish99]

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.

Comparison

[Ethanol-fueled]

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

Re:Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Comparison

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

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.

Re:OOXML

[Ash-Fox]

More info on Roadmap To the OOXML Process

It's a trap!

grim.

[apodyopsis]

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.

Czech comments resolved by the ECMA

[zmotula]

...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.

Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA

[adpsimpson]

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.

Re:Czech comments resolved by the ECMA

[hey]

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.

Re:You must be new around here

[aproposofwhat]

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