Slashdot Mirror


Norway's Yes-To-OOXML Is Formally Protested

An anonymous reader writes "Norway's yes-to-OOXML may tip the vote in favor of accepting it as an ISO-standard, but the committee chairman just faxed a formal protest to the ISO. 'I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman (of 13 years standing) of the Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34. I wish to inform you of serious irregularities in connection with the Norwegian vote on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML) and to lodge a formal protest. You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway's vote from No with comments to Yes.'"

20 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. Money can't buy you love. by inTheLoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or truth or science. A lie is a lie no matter how many people you pay to repeat it. Corruption has no place in any technical organization that will be litened to and respected.

    Groklaw predicts more challenges

    and notes the results will now be announced on Wednesday, so and ISO standard for M$XML is not going to be one of the worst April Fools jokes of the next decade.
    --
    No calls now, I'm ...
  2. Stupid governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway's vote from No with comments to Yes."

    This is why we need open source governance.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governance

  3. Nice Sentiment by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a nice gesture, but it's a lost cause. The ISO has been undermined by Redmond and its agents, and now an unimplementable file format will give Microsoft the highground it needs to peddle its monopoly, to the detriment of anyone interested in a real open file standard.

    I leave it to the EU (as the US DoJ clearly has no interest in this any more) to take Microsoft to task, and hopefully empty their coffers a little bit. That seems to be the only thing to be done with Microsoft until the time comes when they're anti-competitive behavior is finally met by government agencies of sufficient power to break the company up.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Nice Sentiment by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete. Microsoft has graphically demonstrated how easily ISO's processes can be corrupted, which means that other corporations will follow suit (assuming they didn't get there first.) Don't expect the world to have the same respect for ISO after this.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Nice Sentiment by Chirs · · Score: 5, Informative

      The point of an ISO standard is that multiple organizations can implement it.

      In this case only Microsoft can possibly implement it, because various sections refer to proprietary MS software and basically say "do it like that".

      Since only Microsoft knows what that actually means, nobody else can implement it. Therefore it is worthless as a "standard".

    3. Re:Nice Sentiment by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And that is the real tragedy here.

      We already had OOXML rubber-stamped by Ecma, proving, once again, that Ecma likes to rubber-stamp things. Having it ISO-certified, while a blow, is perhaps not the most serious result of this...

      If OOXML is certified, we're put in a lose/lose situation. Either we accept it, and OOXML becomes a "standard", even though it really isn't -- or we continue to write letters and refuse to accept it as a "standard", which implies we can't trust ISO -- which means we're just about out of standards organizations to trust. And a world without official standards is a world of defacto standards, which means Microsoft will win every future battle.

      Think of it this way: If we couldn't trust the w3c, or the Acid2/3 tests, the standard for websites would likely fall back to "Works Best with Internet Explorer 8." That's effectively what's about to happen to everything ISO.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:Nice Sentiment by initialE · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hardly see it as a lost cause, it's that kind of attitude that allows corruption to win. If ISO is compromised to that extent then it is important that people are informed about it. Keep up the pressure, provide evidence that is not anecdotal, discredit ISO in the eyes of governmental and business interests as a last resort.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    5. Re:Nice Sentiment by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All that will happen, in the long run, is that ISO will become untrusted, marginalized and obsolete.

      With Microsoft's Office monopoly becoming further entrenched as a side effect. Haha, side effect? More like the point of the whole operation.

      Here's the deal as it stands right now (or rather shortly before this farce began):
      - ISO was well respected.
      - Open Document Format was accepted by ISO as a standard.

      These two things combined give Open Office (and any suite that implements ODF, since its an ACTUAL open standard so you can do that) a lot of built-in approval, and makes them look very good to governments/organizations who are starting to mandate open formats for documentation. This is bad for MS, half of their business being the Office monopoly (which supports and is supported by the Windows monopoly).

      So what's their strategy here? Well one (or both) of two things happen:
      - Their BS non-open "open standard" is accepted, so they can claim their format meets the needs of governments who mandate open standards.
      - ISO is no longer respected as a standards organization, so their approval of ODF no longer means as much.

      Whichever happens, their little problem with ODF being a standard goes away and MS Office remains the only "standard" (de-facto or ISO-approved) that matters. They don't really care which. Oh no, their manipulation of the process is exposed! Guess that means you can't trust ISO any more! Frankly I give even odds to both happening. But even if ISO ends up rejecting OOXML, it's going to take a hell of a lot to stop the second from happening.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Nice Sentiment by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Of course. ISO has tons of standards that we don't all use all the time. In the same way that the ISO C standard doesn't require everyone to program in C, an OOXML standard won't force anyone to use OOXML. What matters is whether or not a large number of people stand behind a standard and request that others follow it.

      It also matters when governments start imposing standards-compliance on themselves. For a brief moment, we had hoped that we'd be able to get government documents in a reasonably standard format (ODF) -- that is, I think, why this is actually a big deal.

      Usually there's an existing implementation that gets to call most of the shots...

      I'd argue that's actually a good thing, if and only if said implementation is at least as free/open as the standard itself. No spec can capture every single quirk of a real live piece of software, and in case we discover two alternate implementations which both fit the spec, it would be nice to be able to say which is correct.

      That's not originally my idea, but I can't remember where I heard it first.

      But for large parts of the spec to basically say "Whatever MS Office does" -- or, actually, "Whatever a particular piece of extinct proprietary software does" -- that seems pretty unacceptable in a spec which is meant to define the now and future standard, rather than simply document (partially) what a particular implementation is going to do anyway.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  4. HardeeHarHar!!! by OldFish · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sounds like Europe is getting a taste of how the election process works in the U S of A.

    1. Re:HardeeHarHar!!! by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is probably why we're even AWARE of a scandal in the first place.

      Had Norway been corrupter, it might have been silent corruption.

  5. In related news today. . by Iowan41 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The International Standards Organization has rebranded itself as MS.ISO, and is making itself available for vote tabulation in the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Broward County.

  6. Quality base-level of ISO very LOW by omz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want to see how bad was this process handled, see one of its awfuls deliverables.

    Open the document "Response_DE-0028_dates_v9.doc" in this zip

    http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0989_reference_docs.zip

    This is one of the changes frenetically accepted in BRM, regarding treatments of dates in OOXML. See the salad of colors trying to explain the modifications. And this is a fix ( BRM ) of a fix ( one of ECMA 1027 proposed fixes ) of a NB comment of a draft text ( original ECMA submission ).

    And this document contradicts this another BRM document: http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0989.pdf because the first says that the .DOC file replaces ECMA responses 18 and 43 but the "Response_DE-0028_dates_v9.doc" document says that it replaces ECMA responses 18, 43, 76 and 690 !

    ECMA and Microsoft have not provided a final text with all this changes applied. In the BRM they frenetically changed Scope, Conformance , Schemas , and lot of normative text. Microsoft is now rushing to get a final text in less than one month, to comply with ISO normative.

    This is how ISO delivers IT international standards, mandating fundamental changes to drafts, leaving national bodies with the only alternative to cast a political vote leaving aside the technical content of the specification.

    Congratulations to the countries that had *balls* and didn't agree with this way of deliver standards to people:

    • New Zealand ( dissaproved )
    • Brasil ( dissaproved )
    • India ( dissaproved )
    • China ( dissaproved )
    • South Africa ( dissaproved )
    • Canada ( dissaproved )
    • Venezuela ( dissaproved )
    • Ecuador ( dissaproved )
    • Iran ( dissaproved )
    • Italy ( abstained )
    • Spain ( abstained )
    • Belgium ( abstained )
    • Netherlands ( abstained but only Microsoft opposed the disapproval )
    • France ( abstained due to heavy Microsoft pressure )
    • Malaysia ( abstained due to heavy Microsoft pressure )
    • Australia ( abstained due to heavy Microsoft pressure, government opposed OOXML )
    • Kenya ( abstained )

    And congratulations Microsoft, your friendly little countries supposedly experts in XML document description languages ;-) ( now ISO P-members ), who joined ISO JTC1 just to cast an unconditional-yes-votes payed off:

    • Jamaica
    • Cyprus
    • Malta
    • Kazakhstan
    • Lebanon
    • Azerbaijan
    • Cote-d'Ivore
    • Pakistan
  7. There's an important lesson here by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't win, simply get the rules of the game changed. Lawyers and politicians understand this. Nerds don't.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  8. Re:Norway corrupt too? by ookabooka · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Be glad, at least someone blew the whistle. How many votes from other nations do you think could be somehow influenced and nothing done about it? Yeah yeah I'll grab my tinfoil hat :-p

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  9. Re:Microsoft is in for a PR nightmare... by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People will still choose MS Office because they like it, not because it does or does not save documents in a government mandated open specification. Microsoft could simply add a new "Save As" filter following the Open Specification.

    There are certain government regulations about acceptable file specifications. This is to preserve interoperability, facilitate competition between vendors, and to guarantee accessibility in one or two hundred years.

    By getting this sham declared a "standard," they can continue to sell to certain government agencies, who can continue to produce docs that are only readable on proprietary Microsoft software and platforms.

    Microsoft could most definitely offer a valid save-as file filter to create ODF documents. But it is in their best financial interest to retain user lock-in as much as possible. Ironically, this is exactly the sort of thing that standards bodies like the ISO are supposed to prevent. If this goes through, one must seriously reconsider the weight attached to an ISO certification.

  10. Send in the Lost Vikings by Torodung · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it's all down to Scandinavia again. Send in Eric the Swift, Olaf the Stout and Baleog the fierce. They should be able to sort this puzzle out.

    I think Linus should go over there and kick some ass, too. ;^)

    --
    Toro

  11. Use the Judo Argument by dpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK, So Microsoft has most likely gotten OOXML passed as an ISO standard. Unfortunate, but probably true.

    Further, it appears that the real reason they did this is so that they can put that all-important checkmark in the box that says, "Interoperates with ISO standard file formats" when trying to sell MS Office into accounts.

    OK, great.

    Now PROVE IT!

    Prove that MS Office is OOXML compliant. Last I heard, OOXML was like Office 2007, but not really there. Last I heard, OOXML was an incomplete spec with no full implementation.

    If Microsoft is going to to for that "ISO standard file format" checkbox, for that matter if anyone is going for an ISO standard checkbox, isn't it necessary that there be compliance testing? And long as we're compliance testing, the certification of compliance should NEVER be given until the appropriate committee evaluates the product against the spec and decides that that the product unambiguously implements the spec.

    No full, unambiguous compliance, no check in the little box.

    No matter how long the evaluation takes.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  12. Re:How about a nice technical discussion? by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interesting, you're attempting to censor twitter? While I agree with the end, I'm going to play devil's advocate and point out that he, like you, has the right to free speech. Absolutely twitter and all his sock puppets have the right to free speech.

    But, with all due respect, I think that your perception of free speech isn't entirely right either. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism! Nor does free speech mean--as you say--that others have to listen to you.

    Free speech means exactly what it says--say what you want to say! It doesn't ensure that anyone has to listen to you, has to agree, or has to care.

    "Your duty is to assist others" ... "duty...earns you the corresponding right." etc. No, absolutely not! You're talking about slavery, or at least something akin to the fascist system in Heinlein's starship troopers (where normal citizens aren't allowed to vote). Rights are rights, freedoms are freedoms. Your system of obligation and duty isn't freedom in my book.
  13. And Reuters can't comprehend. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSL3019918720080331]

    This Reuters article is, technically speaking, utter rubbish.

    Microsoft has pushed hard for international certification of Open Office XML (OOXML)

    It's Office Open, stupid. (Albeit not open).

    Open Document Format (ODF), developed by Sun Microsystems

    Only by Sun Microsystems ...?

    The ODF technology allows users to save documents in a variety of formats, including Microsoft's.

    Whattt? ODF is an accepted ISO standard for office documents. To convert it to utter rubbish, you need a converter (like OpenOffice.org), stupid.

    While OOXML originally did not allow saving text and spreadsheet documents as ODF files, Microsoft later made it possible to do so.

    First, you need a converter here, too. Second, Microsoft does not support ODF up to now, therefore I'm wondering when MS Office "made it possible to do so" ... Perhaps later? No, never, if OOXML gets accepted by ISO.