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.
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."
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....
Which OOXML most certainly isn't. There's real doubts that even Microsoft could implement it as it currently stands.
It's a scam, pure and simple.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
And here's their latest trick: sending all the JTC1 NB's a poorly-researched, demonstrably inaccurate study.
Many reasons:
1. There is already an ISO standard for this same purpose.
2. There are exclusions in Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, meaning Microsoft can sue over other parties writing implementations of some of the things that the OOXML standard references (ActiveX and VBA are examples).
3. OOXML is designed so that fully-compliant applications can only be written by Microsoft, and mostly-complaint applications can be written by other parties but only to run on a Windows platform. Therefore OOXML is not inter-operable with other applications and especially not with non-Windows platforms, and the whole purpose of making something a standard is to facilitate such inter-operation.
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.
5. OOXML includes deliberately mandating bugs (such as dates before 1900) just to pander to errors in Microsoft software.
6. OOXML is controlled by just one corporation
7. ISO 26300 already has many implementations by many vendors on multiple platform. OTOH even Office 2007 running on Windows Vista does not implement OOXML
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.
9. ISO 26300 has a compliance test suite. You can use this test suite to make sure a given application works properly with ISO 26300. No such thing exists with OOXML.
10. It makes no sense to have "choice in standards"
They actually hold multiple patents (18 currently held, or pending) that apply to OOXML. My worst fear however, is that they'll maintain the format, and change it continually, not warning anyone when they're going to make a unilateral move. Leaving everyone else who wants to read documents sent to them in that format in the dark.
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.
I make a point of nat being a grammar nazi, but there does come a time where the meaning you are trying to express is obscured by grammatical errors. IE in terms of Microsoft usually refers to Internet Explorer. IE in terms of ISO means Ireland's TLD. In future you might want to try using "i.e." which the most accepted abbreviation for the latin "id est," meaning "that is; in other words" and is the least confusing way to express your meaning.
What's funny is not everybody can access the standards. ISO sells most of the standards documentation. Around 100$ for a pdf of something that should be open for everyone? come on!
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.
It's a scam, pure and simple.
So what do we do?
That's right: whenever you receive a .docx, .xlsx and other .*x documents, send them back, asking that they be converted into a readable format.
Include a link for Sun's ODF plugin for MS Office, if need be.
Fight fire with fire.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Well, the reality is that I've had to install the compatibility pack on our Office 2003 installs. Ironically, most of this is not coming from business contacts, but from people writing from their home PCs with Office 2007 installed. As much as I'd love to tell my coworkers to send back messages saying "Save in Word 2003 format" the reality is that it's my job to make things work, so here comes the compatibility pack, the ultimate admission that whatever the ISO does or doesn't do, in the short-term, at least, we're stuck with Redmond's whims and machinations.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
They have partial implementations. Quit making things up. Not even Microsoft has an implemented ECMA-accepted OOXML product out there so how can you justify what you're saying.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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 ?
No kidding
No. Not at all.
Even if it were the case that the
So now we have a
The converters you speak of, I believe, are meant for the
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
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.
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.
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.
Point taken; however ...
Yeah Apple is so open and this is the reason i can run OS X on my beige bo- OH WAIT I CANNOT !
Actually you can. There are a bunch of sites explaining how; that is much more useful than running XP on the new Intel Macs, which you can also do.
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 !
You have to convert them first; you can do that in Itunes.
Well at least Itunes runs on Linux, to- SHIT IT DOESN'T !
It works with wine apparently, or Crossover Office.
Google Knows All.
I wonder ... have you installed ODF plugin? So that those workers using OOo can be supported.
How about the other, about a million different, formats?
I would not consider "things to work" if there is several random file formats for word documents.
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
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.
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.
I call bullshit on this one. I actually did look at both specs. OOXML is indeed a quick and dirty XML-like version of Office formats and doesn't even pretend to try to make functionality generic enough to make it easy for any application to implement. Even for functionality that is designed to interoperate with other types of applications OOXML is written just for the most popular add-on. ODF, on the other hand, makes a reasonable attempt at implementing functionality in a generic way so that it can be easily implemented by not only existing software packages but also new software developers who have no access to the source to existing applications. It certainly isn't perfect, but it is a night and day comparison to OOXML. ODF is already fairly well implemented by software from numerous commercial entities as well as open source projects. OOXML would be very, very hard for any third party to implement as written and it is unclear if anyone will ever be able to write to the spec instead of (as is the current case with MSOffice formats) trying to reverse engineer enough for partial compatibility.
OOXML is MS's attempt to create something close enough to an open standard to fool some bureaucrats or give them plausible deniability when they're bribed, but at the same time make sure that users don't gain the benefits of a truly open standard, which is to say interoperability with numerous programs so that users can easily switch from one to the other and gain all the benefits of real competition. This is business as usual for MS. If you look at their "shared source" initiative it was very much the same strategy. Customers wanted the advantages of open source software (many eyes to find bugs, competitive bids for new development, guaranteed migration path and future proofing) so MS came up with something sort of like open source that they could claim was "just as good" to people who didn't understand what the benefits really were and just knew that open source was beneficial in some way.
HTML is also a document standard.Yeah HTML is a document standard, but the stuff that you have to hand to IE in order to have it work properly is not HTML because it has to break the standard to work. It also fails to implement pretty much any of the last 6 years of development on HTML and other Web standards. I don't think you picked a very promising example if you're arguing in favor of MS's willingness to use standards. The whole of Web technologies has been artificially retarded by nearly a decade as a way to keep the Web from being a viable alternative platform to Windows. Progress has been crippled and billions of dollars wasted every year in order to insure MS's platform lock-in and avoid fair competition in the marketplace. The whole point of requiring standards compliance in the first place is to insure competition and the other benefits of avoiding a single vendor lock-in for office applications. MS understandably would rather have guaranteed profits than have to actually make a better product, but there is no reason why anyone other than them and people they have paid to go along with it. That is why it is important to have a truly open standard that can be and is fully implement by multiple vendors all of who are truly interoperable. OOXML is clearly an attempt to avoid that.
Is it really possible that you don't see how ridiculous it is for giant government customers to ask vendors to create products that comply with a specification and to have one monopolist tell the customer that "No we won't make a product that meets those specifications. Unlike everyone else we're going to invent another format that is incompatible and we're going to try to force you to use it using our monopoly influence in several markets." Not only should governments not be accepting OOXML as a standard, they should be charging MS with criminal antitrust violation for trying to foist it upon them.
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
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.