ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does

An anonymous reader writes "The editor of the Open Document Format standard has written a letter (PDF) that strongly supports recognizing Microsoft's OOXML file format as a standard, arguing that if it fails, ODF will suffer. 'As the editor of OpenDocument, I want to promote OpenDocument, extol its features, urge the widest use of it as possible, none of which is accomplished by the anti-OpenXML position in ISO,' Patrick Durusau wrote. 'The bottom line is that OpenDocument, among others, will lose if OpenXML loses... Passage of OpenXML in ISO is going to benefit OpenDocument as much as anyone else.'"

Comments

Read Contra Durusau by Rob Weir

[jkrise]

on his blog for more details.

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.html

This guy Durusau seems to have changed his mind to a pro-MS shill in recent times.

Re:Rob Weir's response to Patrick's sudden flip fl

[Anonymous Coward]

That post by Rob is particularly good, I recommend it.

In addition,

Patrick Durusau is one of several editors on ODF (in ODF 1.0 he was one of six editors) and in ODF 1.1 and the 1.2 drafts he's one of three and one of two respectively. So he's not the editor, he's an editor.

Patrick doesn't present technical arguments, he only presents political ones, and generally he seems to be of the opinion that it's better that Microsoft be involved in ISO than not (and this opinion overrides any issues of quality, or whether anyone else can implement OOXML). This is the idea that this way we get to have more of an impact on Microsoft.

In my opinion OOXML is an insincere involvement in the ISO process (as shown by minimum change during the fast-track, and poor documentation of OOXML) and I think it's naive to expect more in the future. So to me the political angle on this fails.

The technical angle on it fails completely.

Re:Don't fully understand his arguments

[pembo13]

I was a bit troubled by my inability to grasp the logic of the arguements put forward by this editor, and so I started Googling a bit to understand his background, etc. I am still going at this, but I cam across this link which others may find interesting: http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/12/trips-to-microsoft-speculation/

From the Horse's mouth

[jeremiahbell]

Wanna know how much Microsoft has reformed this sort of thing?

[Microsoft Internal Document] I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.

You can get it all here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958

Re:ODF editor on OOXML

[NotZed]

OOXML doesn't have a specified mapping either.

see comment 3.

So this argument is rubbish. I suspect they will not ever supply a proper mapping, otherwise it would just be used by ODF, and make OOXML even more redundant than it already is.

Re:Don't fully understand his arguments

[pembo13]

Also of possible interest Patrick Durusau site:blogs.msdn.com

If OOXML wins then ODF loses

[DrXym]

I do not see how OOXML becoming a standard is a good thing for ODF. Microsoft is pushing for OOXML because they don't want to support ODF.

If OOXML became an ISO standard the chances of ODF support in MS Office is zero. I'm sure Microsoft will act all conciliatory once they get their standard but they will never offer more than token support for ODF. If they produce anything at all I expect it will be some broken tools that conveniently convert ODF to OOXML but botch OOXML to ODF conversion.

How anyone can think that OOXML standardization is a good thing just boggles the mind. It will either kill ODF or marginalize it so much that it doesn't matter any more.

Re:3 questions...

[KDR_11k]

The last time that topic came up many people mentioned that Office 2007's xml files don't match the OOXML standard so this isn't just "what if".

Re:How this kind of thing works - Soft Bribery

[Thomasje]

They dropped their opposition, recommended the MS deal, and got paid a quarter of a million (equivalent) to do sweet fuck-all for 6 months. My friend feels like a sell-out, but his daughter's now in a better school. Wow, way to defend corruption. As if selfish, short-term monetary benefit is the only thing in the world that matters. OK, in all fairness, according to the current American political dogma, that is exactly true, but then again, that is exactly why so many people elsewhere hate the stereotypical "ugly American".
To get back to the point, I wonder if this guy will ever have the nerve to tell his daughter how he managed to send her to the extra-fancy school? To defend not only this elitism (how about working to improve the non-fancy schools instead?) but his act of screwing other people over just for her (don't those other people deserve consideration as well)?

"This is how it's done, people." Bah. Anyone should be ashamed to even play the apologist for this kind of behavior. Now excuse me while I go to the bathroom to throw up.

Re:3 questions...

[shutdown -p now]

The java debacle was not that they changed the underlying java spec (and it was in no way an ISO spec), but that they added their own namespaces which didn't stand out enough.

This is incorrect. Visual J++ extended Java language with new constructs, namely, delegates. These did not compile to standard Java bytecodes, and so couldn't run on e.g. Sun's (or any other compliant) JDK. Then there was J/Direct, which also pointedly made it as easy as possible to write non-portable code. Of course, J++ never passed Sun's Java compliance tests, either, which is why Sun sued (Microsoft had a license from Sun to implement Java, but the condition of doing so was to be a fully compliant implementation, which was to be proved by successfully passing the tests).