Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does

Posted by kdawson on from the strange-bedfellow dept.

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.'"

7 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Read Contra Durusau by Rob Weir by jkrise · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  2. Re:Rob Weir's response to Patrick's sudden flip fl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Don't fully understand his arguments by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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/

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  4. From the Horse's mouth by jeremiahbell · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    --
    "Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
  5. Re:Don't fully understand his arguments by pembo13 · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  6. Re:3 questions... by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  7. Re:3 questions... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).