Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Standing Firm On OOXML ISO Vote
christian.einfeldt writes "Microsoft has responded via the industry trade group ECMA to some of the thousands of criticisms of its submission of Office Open XML as an ISO standard. Open standards advocate Russell Ossendryver takes a look at those responses to see if Microsoft has made significant changes in either the substance of OOXML or the manner in which the OOXML specification will be maintained going forward. Ossendryver concludes that Microsoft's position has not significantly changed, but only hardened in place in advance of the Ballot Resolution Meeting which is to occur from February 25 through 29 in Geneva. While no one can say for certain whether Microsoft will succeed in having OOXML win the nod from the international community, Ossendryer thinks that Microsoft's firm stance is likely to backfire."
I believe Microsoft made 5 billion in revenue from having customers worldwide locked into their proprietary office document format.
The vendor lockin from Office makes up almost half the company's yearly revenue.
Microsoft would cease to exist as we know it if the office document lockin revenue went away to an open format.
Fight? LOL! This is the type of shit Microsoft execs live for.
Fake grassroots efforts.
Standards body subversion.
Paid for media shills.
Shame studies.
Mysterious compatibility problems with the competition.
All in a days work.
We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile. it just seems so descriptive of what MS is trying to do.
All of the yes with comments votes now have it confirmed that their comments have noit actually been taken involved. The involvement of the EU in investigating MS's practices leading up to the fast track also means that they involved have to be more circumspect about gathering votes, so they really don't need to be annoying people like this.
Of course, the plan could just be to say "We would have got away with ISO approval, if it wasn't for that pesky IBM". It's a bit odd, but there we are. MS is losing the EU to open standards.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
well... as long as it's a real standard, doesn't really matter who came up with it. That's the whole point of standards. They are open and anyone can use them.
MSFT has so badly screwed up ISO, I can see many parties who were going to vote yes to change it into No.
directly because of MSFT the ISO has done nothing but stumble around they can't get the majorities that they need in oder to pass standards. Everything is stagnate. Here's to hope that MSFT gamed the system so hard that it blows up in MSFT's face.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
the file format from global communications is too important to be left to a for-profit corporation that has a history of manipulating market for maximizing profits...
truly open file formats are the only resolution for ALL office documents used in business & government. for audio/video multimedia file formats too but office communications it is just simply too important to be left to a private corporation...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Petition currently running at noooxml.org
http://www.noooxml.org/petition
All I could think of when reading this is a M$FT rep saying "Come on, we're Microsoft! You can trust us!" while hiding a +10 Spiked Club of Patent Trolling behind their back....
Guarantee to me in writing that you will update Office 2007 and Office 2008 so that the version of OOXML that they use will be exactly identical to your ISO submission in every way, and then carry out your promise, and I will join the OOXML camp.
Sincerely,
ODF supporter.
OOXML has been fully documented for a long time.
It works well and plugins for OO.org already exist for it.
Why not let it be a recognised standard?
à_à
What "nod" are they trying to win? They lost the nod, and they lost it bigtime, if you take a look at the countries who didn't show up just for that one vote. The only question is whether or not they paid enough to "buy the nod".
I'm hoping that the non-bought votes that voted "yes" last time figure out what's going on and vote "no" this time. We'll see.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
The horse has left without the cart. Office already saves thousands, if not millions, of documents in OOXML - today. MS cannot change their format - the spec is in the field. I'm somewhat surprised they haven't taken some things into consideration for future releases, but frankly the reality set.
OOXML is not a standard. It cannot be used to shield any entity from MS's product changes. Also, OOXML extends into nebulous areas where other implementors or translators will be unable to replicate the viewers or editors like Office. Governments or corporations must take it or leave it.
PS
I recently received a DOCX from an MS rep and wrote back asking for a DOC format (we've not upgraded). They sent me a PDF. Moral: OOXML isn't a standard. There's no turning back - its a conversion world, not an interoperable one.
When they do, they should go after several hundred million per day and redistribute it to all open source projects. If M$ wants the bleeding of cash to stop, then the only stipulation the governments should allow is for M$ to open all source and release all specs to every one of their proprietary formats, both under the GPL 3. But if they refuse to comply then they will lose their whole cash reserves until they are so far in debt they will have no way of staying in business. This will be a win/win for freedom and lose/lose for M$.
___________________________________________
Friends don't help friends install M$ Junk.
Australia has been entirely corrupted by Microsoft. An Ecma employee is attending the BRM on Australias behalf. This makes me ashamed about my country.
Take out his points that are wrong, and take out his points that are valid but would also apply as well to ODF, and there isn't much left.
And here's their latest trick: sending all the JTC1 NB's a poorly-researched, demonstrably inaccurate study.
The "Deluge of facts KOs OOXML" article says that the "ECMA [is] a RIAA-like industry group dedicated to advancing its members' interests". wtf? Hardly!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yeah, well, here's the kicker:
If they lose, it just proves what I've said all along: in the end, being proprietary and closed will catch up with you and you will become irrelevant. Just ask a company that's had to learn that lesson the hard way over the years.
My blog
We have discussed this before, and in the end it doesn't matter. Those DOCX Files are out in the wild. I see people at school saving their documents in DOCX all the time. The people using those MS Office can't open ODF Files. The Genie is out of the bottle. The ECMA can say OOXML is completely banned from becoming an ISO format ever and ODF is the true open format as it should be, in the end it makes no difference. M$ will just give the standards board the middle finger and people who use M$ Office will continue to use Office and like it because they have no other choice.
OOXML and ODF are both thin veneers on particular application products.
.sxc, etc) were vaguly similar to the ODF formats, but not the same. (And of course native formats aside, there are plenty of other office apps that can read/write ODF.)
OOXML may be (or pretend to be), but what application products were you thinking of for ODF? Were you aware that KOffice (no relation at all to OpenOffice.org) also uses ODF as its native document format? The old StarOffice/OpenOffice.org formats (.sxw,
The "thin veneer" argument against ODF is just Microsoft FUD.
-- Alastair
Yeah Apple is so open and this is the reason i can run OS X on my beige bo- OH WAIT I CANNOT !
But that's not such an issue at least songs i downloaded with Itunes can be played on my noname mp3 play- OH NOES IT FAILS !
Well at least Itunes runs on Linux, to- SHIT IT DOESN'T !
Does anyone have a compiled list of national ISO-bodies to whom we could mail our concerns?
Some thing like :
"Hello, Microsofts practice in this whole affair has been ridiculous because (insert reason), it's format is flawed because (insert reason), and if approved it would compete with another ISO-standard constructed for the exact same (claimed) purposes of OOXML. Vote no in Geneva"
OZYMANDIAS I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things, The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains: round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away. Kind of fitting actually.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Start making calls, Aussie.
Ozymandias
by Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Good, I am glad that some of the details are being documented. Tim S PS, I liked your prior signature. I think the irrational fear was funny.
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Quoting from zmotula's post:
"...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."
Read that post and you see that nearly every one of the Czech Republic's objections has been addressed (the only one not satisfactorily addressed was the Czech Republic's complaint that part of the spec has redundant info). Let me quote:
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Oh! That's how Microsoft is paying this guy... I was wondering what was his reason to defend that load of crap. Thanks for clarifying that!
Phil
Not to mention that this idiot has a blog at O'Reilly's website. WTF?
Rick was the guy who submitted most of Australia's comments with their vote in September, he is probably best qualified to work out how valid the responses are.
He is CTO of an Australian ISV, I can't remember the name.
Also came accross this Disclosure: In January 2007, Rick became embroiled in a controversy after mentioning in his XML.COM blog an approach from Microsoft for a several-day contract job to correct some Wikipedia entries from a neutral point of view, as an experienced technical writer with credible first-hand knowledge of standards and procedures. This was incorrectly reported as being a secret plot to subvert Wikipedia. With the support of many editors on Wikipedia, with complete transparency, and with care to respect the Wikipedia rules, Rick has started participating on the Wikipedia entries.
The company that is the co-owner of Topologi has a long-standing training business and will be providing some presenters for some Microsoft sponsored-events in 2007 in Australasia. It is highly likely that Rick will be one of the presenters on standards matters at some of these. link
Seems he has lots of involvement with MS.
Shame studies.
I think you meant "sham" studies but I sorta like your way better. It's a sham that's also a shame. ;)
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Rick Jelliffe most decidedly does not represent me.
To whom and exactly how would I go about making vigorous protest against this guy?
Go over their head -- get heads of industry to contact the government (citizens won't hold as much authority as them).
All in a days work.
I think you meant "business as usual"
He certainly won't do what's best for Australia, which is his mandate as a delegate.
This is a prediction about the future -- it's my educated-guess based on his behaviour.
I have an article in the pipeline on OOXML. I SO hope it shows up in time. It'll be in the XML section on developerWorks.
KEEP PEELED EYES! Mmmm. Peeled eyes.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
M$ won the initial vote in Pakistan. LinuxPakistan is fighting back. Here is the link http://www.linuxpakistan.org/ooxml/index.php
"1. There is already an ISO standard for this same purpose.
Since, clearly, different competing standards are bad. Which is why there is only one standard type of screw drive head, Flathead. I once heard someone claim that there were other standards, such as Philips (better for automated assembly) and Pozidriv (allows latge torque without gouging the screw); but I reckon they were lying. I mean, how could competition possibly be better than one standard having a monopoly? Everyone knows how good monopolies are."
Analogy police called, they want to arrest you for horrendous analogue.
First: Screws don't interoperate, no need to standardize that
Second: Screws are installed and forgotten, strict one-time use, no need to care about re-use
Third: Different screws are for different usages
Obviously you don't know anything about screws, either. Flat head is the oldest standard and practically extinct now,
Phillips is newer but rapidly vanishing and new ones use Pozidriv, Supadriv or Torx.
If you don't know, the threaded part (functional part) of all of these screws is identical, only the head is different. So they are essentially the same anyway, if made for the same purpose.
A good analogue to OOMXL would be a picture of a screw no-one can make.
Well, because the "standard" is so convoluted, it's not totally clear.
.docx files end up chock full of VML because of linkage with proprietary MS tech. See the "Application-defined" binary blobs for Microsoft Ink(TM) data?
.docx using such deprecated or proprietary features (i.e., saving a file which is not interoperable with non-MS products using the OOXML standard). And you have to be some kind of genius to know what not to use.
.bin file format" might be interesting to you also.
The OOXML standard states that use of (proprietary) VML is deprecated, but if you search the web for "VML"+"office 2007" you get lots of info on how most
This may or may not be OK with the standard, the big point is that there is no mode for Office 2007 which warns you when you save
"Office 2007
Remember, folks. It's MOOXML. Just to make sure we all know what we are talking about...
I call bullshit.
Keeping the old defects in a new standard for reasons of "compatibility" is not a good idea, because it means missing a good opportunity for improvement.
Keeping them in new versions of the old products is something I can (barely) understand, but declaring bugs to be features for the whole industry is just plain wrong. I think if Microsoft/ECMA keep insisting on that, ISO should reject OOXML outright.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Since, clearly, different competing standards are bad. Which is why there is only one standard type of screw drive head, Flathead. I once heard someone claim that there were other standards, such as Philips (better for automated assembly) and Pozidriv (allows latge torque without gouging the screw); but I reckon they were lying. I mean, how could competition possibly be better than one standard having a monopoly? Everyone knows how good monopolies are."
There is no single corporation that provides both the all the screwdrivers and/or all the screws.
Yes... but it means they'd have to do some hard work.
Why bother with that when you can lock up everybody's valuable data then take your time adding just enough new features to get people to upgrade?
No sig today...
You bring up this link: http://xmlguru.cz/2008/01/ecma-response-to-czech-ooxml-comments
Have you actually tried to open the PDF files with "Proposed dispositions" that the page links to? You cannot, because they are password protected. No one knows what these dispositions are, and even if they exist at all. We only have to believe the words of this so called "expert" and have no way to check them.
Seriously, this is not off-topic. I studied this poem many years ago in school, it sums up Microsoft and their current situation perfectly.
Fucking idiots, read and understand the poem before throwing your mod-points around.
Because once you have a generally accepted standard and applications that support it, you should be able to use those applications for a very long time.
If an individual vendor ceases to support the standard, you have a good chance of finding another who will do so. In that case, you may have some expenses for switching applications but you can still can use your document format.
With Microsoft, your chances of getting either are slim:
-they often change their document formats, which leads to users of later Office versions sending you documents you cannot use without upgrading.
-third party support for MS formats usually depends on reverse engineering because the formats are poorly specified. Note that you can usually download some specifications, but those tend to be out of date and incomplete. This leads to third party support that sucks, and I think the Open Office developers did a quite good job by getting it almost right under those circumstances.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Governments have a need to keep documents for pretty long times, and they are increasingly aware of the problems they will get from a vendor that changes the default formats of its applications every few years. If you watch the IT news, you will see a tendency to mandate open document standards for government use.
;-)
Now Microsoft has three options:
1) Give the standards board the middle finger and lose the government business. Financial ouch, and more importantly companies who work with the government a lot might switch to the same application as the government (like Open Office) for convenience. Great way to erode the dominant position of Microsoft Office.
2) Use ODF. Might not support all quirks of their old documents (which is a valid concern but not reason enough to support those quirks for eternity). But more importantly, it kills the vendor lock-in. Another great way to erode the dominant position of Microsoft Office.
3) Try to push a lousy pseudo-standard like OOXML through the standards boards. I will skip the discussion of the details here and just say I think the opponents are right when they say only Microsoft would be able to support OOXML (halfway) well. Result if MS gets away with it:
Microsoft can claim to save documents in a standardized format, any legal requirements in that regard are satisfied. A great step towards keeping the government business without being really interoperable with others.
Now guess what Microsoft is trying
C - the footgun of programming languages
No you are not, you have not got the slightest interest in implementing this specification regardless of whether it is fully documented or not. This is simply a game that the Slashdot community is playing.
The real issue is that people think they can force government IT depts to stop using word by preventing OOXML being declared an ISO standard.
I oppose this because I don't like the idea of top down dictators deciding what tools people use. This is not about free choice for the user, its all about ramming Open Office down the government employees throats whether they want it or not.
That is not what standards are for. If a tool is good there is no problem getting people to use it. The Mozilla folk have no problem getting people to use their product voluntarily.
In itself a standards designation, particularly an ISO designation means absolutely nothing. OOXML has an ECMA designation, that is plenty. There is not a single IETF Internet standard that has an ISO designation although this is possible in theory. All an ISO designation means is that people have to pay for the standard in future. Thats the same whether its OOXML or ODF that gets an ISO designation, transfer of the copyright is a mandatory part of the process.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Standards for bolts and screws? Don't get me started!
:-
..] different competing standards are bad. Which is why there is only one standard type of screw drive head, Flathead. I once heard someone claim that there were other standards, such as Philips (better for automated assembly) and Pozidriv (allows latge torque without gouging the screw); but I reckon they were lying.
..] I mean, how could competition possibly be better than one standard having a monopoly? Everyone knows how good monopolies are.
You wrote
[sarcasm
Are you trying to say that having these these different screw head standards is OK, therefore two document standards will also be OK?
Low torque screw heads are a good example of why there should only be one standard - Pozidriv in this case. Philips was an earlier cross head, still used by the Far East, but Pozidriv was an improvement on it. And any crosshead is better than flat head - more blade drive area and less likely to slip out.
Many people do not understand though that such standards are NOT compulsory (except in some safety areas). Even if dropped as a standard, Flathead would always be widely used in special areas - like on camera battery compartments meant to be opened with a coin. Likewise there will be "anti-tamper" heads which are essentially non-standard.
Note I said "low torque" use. Standards can overlap. There are also standards for hexagon and Allen heads, used for high torque and larger applications. While there can be overlap with low torque applications, they are basically for different applications. ODF and OOXML however are NOT for different applications.
[sarcasm
Standards don't "have monopolies". Standards are NOT monopolies. In fact, standards are the very opposite idea from monopolies. One idea of ODF is to stop monopoly.
Standards should enable any company to come along and join in the party without fear of patent or copyright infringement. That is why Microsoft hate standards, because they love their own monopoly. But, recognising that the world is demanding a standard here, they are desparately promoting a crippled half-baked one in OOXML in the hope that their rivals will find hard to implement, and that its control will be retained by themselves.
That they deliberately named the damned thing to look like a piece of open office is dispicible.
http://wwwfail.com/?url=en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOffice_Open_XML
Good, I am glad that some of the details are being documented.
No you are not, you have not got the slightest interest in implementing this specification regardless of whether it is fully documented or not. This is simply a game that the Slashdot community is playing.
Sigh. If it was fully documented it would be different. Look at the spec. Look at the ECMA TC45 committee charter and scope which states that OOXML must be fully compatible with the formats used in Microsoft Office. How much clearer can it be that this standard is just for Microsoft?
The real issue is that people think they can force government IT depts to stop using word by preventing OOXML being declared an ISO standard.
This argument is too funny. Word has been forced on countless numbers of people simply because it was the only way to reliably read
OOXML does nothing to improve that. It would merely grant Microsoft even more control than they have now. Microsoft defines the standard.
ODF is vendor neutral. I want a format that is not controlled by any single company. How about not being forced to use Word?
I oppose this because I don't like the idea of top down dictators deciding what tools people use. This is not about free choice for the user, its all about ramming Open Office down the government employees throats whether they want it or not.
You think there is free choice now? Please.
That is not what standards are for. If a tool is good there is no problem getting people to use it. The Mozilla folk have no problem getting people to use their product voluntarily.
In itself a standards designation, particularly an ISO designation means absolutely nothing. OOXML has an ECMA designation, that is plenty. There is not a single IETF Internet standard that has an ISO designation although this is possible in theory. All an ISO designation means is that people have to pay for the standard in future. Thats the same whether its OOXML or ODF that gets an ISO designation, transfer of the copyright is a mandatory part of the process.
Microsoft has stated that they feel no obligation to actually follow the ECMA standard. Indeed, the whole thing is merely a farce.
You sir are the reason that Anonymous Cowards are permitted.
Non-moderator +1 from me.
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the
MS biggest asset is that there are a lot of brainwashed (or brainless?) minds in the budget and management departments to be converted to use free software.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
It's not about forcing openoffice down anyone's throats...
It's about giving people the freedom to choose whatever program they want based on their individual benefits, rather than on compatibility with proprietary microsoft formats where other vendors will always be at a disadvantage.
Firefox is gaining ground because the web is based on standards, with only a relatively small (and decreasing) level of corruption by microsoft. By comparison, their office document formats are entirely controlled and dictated by microsoft and not disclosed to third parties.
A significant number of organizations have looked at using openoffice, and most of those who decided against it did so because of compatibility concerns. If an open format was dominant, then openoffice would have a significant market share today (even if based on cost alone), the application itself would be significantly better (more users would attract more developers, and less time spent reverse engineering proprietary formats would leave more time to improve other areas) and other competing applications would also be significantly improved in order to compete.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Thats not true at all.
The Massachusetts dictat that all departments had to change to open office forthwith was not a matter of choice, it was an order from the IT dept that was widely praised on Slashdot and elsewhere.
I don't like central control by IT departments. They get it wrong far too often. They choose products according to features that they like which are typically irrelevant to the end users.
The reason that the Web took off at CERN was that CN division operated in classic MIS dept. fashion, dictating the use of an obsolete, IBM mainframe to aggrandize its own power. Tim only tells one half of the story, the CERN phonebook was available online before the Web came along - but only on CERNVM which ran a dreadful botch of a DIY operating system CN division cobbled together. The Web made it possible to bypass CERN-VM entirely.
This is about giving 'freedom' to an abstract set of people by forcing a particular office suite on actual people. Its a rather Trotskyite view of revolution as far as I am concerned.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
They dictated that all departments had to change to the ODF format forthwith, not the openoffice format (as used in openoffice 1.x) which is somewhat different and now deprecated.
Thus, they require that you use applications which support the ODF format, giving you the choice of using:
Open Office
Star Office
IBM Workplace / Lotus
KOffice
MSOffice (with odf-converter plugin)
MSOffice (with sun odf plugin)
OSX TextEdit (text documents only)
AbiWord (text documents only)
Gnumeric (spreadsheets only)
Google Docs&Spreadsheets
As opposed to using microsoft's formats, which gives you the "choice" of using:
MSOffice
How exactly are they forcing anyone? They are giving users more choice than they had before, not less.
What would you prefer the Massachusetts government do, and how would this provide more choice to users?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!