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."

19 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. How 'Firm' Would You Stand For 20 Billion A Year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. This is really quite the stupid move by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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."
  3. the file format is too important by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Dear Microsoft, by CSMatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Horse running, cart rolling out of gate by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Horse running, cart rolling out of gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      MS cannot change their format - the spec is in the field.
      Of course they can change the format, they changed from binary to Ecma-376 and they'll change it to OOXML (regardless of ISO approval). They could change it to ODF if they wanted.
  6. ECMA an RIAA-like organization? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. We have discussed this. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:We have discussed this. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But it does make a difference. Microsoft isn't doing this just to promulgate yet another document format. This is about the long-term viability of one of their major profit centers; the Office suite. Sure, docx is out in the wild, and sure we're all going to have to deal with until it's dumped and/or heavily modified version-by-version just as the Office 97 formats have been.

      As more and more organizations, and in particular various government agencies around the world start mandating that all documents be saved in an open format, this is where Microsoft's viability in the long term comes into question. If OOXML fails at the ISO (as it appears that it has a good chance of doing) then Microsoft has got a real long-term problem. Adopting ODF means opening up Office to meaningful competition. It means OO.org, KOffice, Google Docs and who the hell knows what else is coming down the pike over the next decade are going to start to eat into Office's huge market share.

      Now I think it's safe to say that in the medium term, Microsoft will continue with OOXML no matter what the ISO does, and it will, even if it adopts to some degree ODF try to mutilate by the "adopt, extend, extinguish" doctrine, and a good many government agencies, regardless of the mandate by politicians and senior bureaucrats, will roll over, but not all, and as long as a few major government agencies in North America and/or Europe refuse to recognize OOXML or whatever Microsoft comes up with next as an open format, the long-term viability of Office is in question.

      We're not talking about next year, or even in the next five years, but I think over the next decade or so, if Microsoft can't fool ISO into accepting its worthless, unimplementable format, then it's going to have a real problem. The whole structure of company is built on the operating system and Office divisions keeping the money rolling in. Everything else doesn't matter, and probably loses money, existing solely in the interests of brand name placement.

      The long-term solution I suspect Microsoft will move towards is some sort of rubber stamp standards commitee to compete with ISO, just like ECMA. The ultimate question is how long governments are going to let it get away with all of this. The EU seems to have a distinct hard-on against Microsoft at the moment, but the US doesn't currently give a damn one way or the other.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. Re:Can we get some *new* FUD, please? by erlehmann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Relying on current application behaviour is not bad per se. It is bad not to reveal what the application does. Things like autoSpaceLikeWord95 are referenced but not specified. This is objectively bad. Just think of it: I give a new screw standards paper to the ISO. It simply says that the screw can easily be driven in with my old Bauhaus 95 screwdriver. However, the spec doesn't say what the dimensions of my screwdriver actually are. Do you think ISO should make this a standard ?

  9. OOXML, ODF, and FUD by SEMW · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You make some good points, but some rather bad ones.

    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.

    4. OOXML is technically very inferior to the existing standard, ISO 26300. For example, OOXML specifies three different implementations of "a table", instead of just one common to different Office applications. This means that you cannot write a "table handling class" as a library, but instead you have to duplicate equivalent functionality several times over. You cite one example where ODF is apparently better than OOXML. And indeed, Wikipedia cites several technical advantages of both ODF over OOXML and, conversely, OOXML over ODF. For example, ODF apparently has only a weakly defined formula syntax, inhibiting ODF spreadsheet implementations based only on the spec (supposedly most implementors just use whatever de facto syntax OO.org decides on). To claim that one format is universally hailed as technically "very inferior" is rather misleading at best.

    6. OOXML is controlled by just one corporation ... ISO 26300 belongs to ISO. That's a circular argument. It shouldn't be an ISO standard because it currently isn't an ISO standard?! (Granted, aspects of the canonical implementation will probably de fact be decided by what MS Office does, but then the same applies to ODF and OO.o -- see previous item...)

    8. ISO 26300 even works with Microsoft Office (up to Office 2003) using a free plugin written by Sun. Microsoft deliberately broke Office 2007 file filters so that this plugin (or any other plugin not written by Microsoft) would not work in Office 2007 That is just plain wrong, and FUD to boot. Not only does a 10 second Google search show that the Sun plugin does support Office 2007, but Microsoft apparently also sponsored their own open-source ODF add-in (hosted on Sourcefourge) for Office, which also supports Office 2007 (& below).

    10. It makes no sense to have "choice in standards" How is this different from your first point? Anyway, see my response to that.
    --
    What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    1. Re:OOXML, ODF, and FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your arguments are pot, and I could easily just flip OOXML and ODF (and the related entities) and they'd still apply.


      Sorry, but only by stubbornly ignoring all of the facts could you even try to pretend to "flip OOXML and ODF".

      - Only ODF is an agreed, consensus standard, approved as an ISO standard via unanimous vote.
      - Only ODF has multiple implementations by multiple vendors working on multiple platforms.
      - Only OOXML has no implementations at all.
      - Only ODF can be validated against a test suite.
      - Only ODF is truly open.
      - Only OOXML has "exclusions" in associated "promises not to sue".
      - Only OOXML is constrained via proprietary dependencies to run on just one platform.
      - Only OOXML has failed at fast-track approval, and has 3500 as-yet-unresolved objections against it.
  10. Re: Ozymandias, properly formatted by SEMW · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.
  11. Re:well... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You confuse open with free. Both are great, but only the first one is important.

    A standard is open for everyone to implement. ISO doesn't discriminate on who it provides copies to.

  12. Re:well... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Picky picky picky. You got the meaning, didn't you?

    Sure, the third time I read it trying to figure out what internet explorer had to do with it.

    Not punctuating that is hardly the most atrocious of grammatical errors I've seen here.

    There are entire books I've read that eschew punctuation and were still understandable. The problem isn't lack of punctuation. The problem is lack of punctuation and improper capitalization used in a context where it makes the phrase you're trying to express not the first thing people associate with your text, nor even the second thing. I generally don't care if people use incorrect grammar. This is a casual forum where I don't proof my submissions and don't expect others to. The problem is when grammatical errors obscure the meaning to a significant extent, such that it is actually difficult to tell what it is you're trying to express.

  13. Re:well... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No kidding

    Yep, no kidding. A grammar Nazi is a person who strictly and dogmatically points out grammatical nuances that are fairly immaterial to the readability or understandability of the text presented. This is not such a case. In this case, the error was misleading and made it very difficult for both myself and others to even understand what the writer was trying to express.

  14. Re:Apple isn't proprieta- NO WAIT ! by TeacherOfHeroes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that there are work-arounds for all of these things doesn't negate the fact that they were locked down in the first place.

    The iTunes DRM is roughly equivalant to a false positive for piracy in Windows Genuine Advantage. They've purchased the product, but now there are these digital hand-cuffs keeping them from using it. I doubt anyone saying that "false positives in WGA aren't too bad - there are work arounds. [link]" would get modded up too far, though.

  15. Re:Microsoft's Latest Trick by meosborne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Burton Group responses are a joke. Are you sure you actually read them? To them, Microsoft can do no wrong.

    It is completely disingenuous of them to go on and on about Sun controlling ODF and make no mention at all of Microsoft's control of OOXML. The ECMA TC45 committee charter explicitly stated (and the scope still does) that the OOXML standard had to be fully compatible with the file formats used in Microsoft Office. If that's not total control, then what is?

    The OASIS TC for ODF had no such provision in their charter. There were and are no artificial application dependencies in ODF.

  16. Re:well... by jhol13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am not saying you should move to OOo.

    I am saying you really should have "official" allowed document formats list. And "what people happen to find in mail" is not the way to do this.