ISO Calls For OOXML Ceasefire

In response to the continued attacks on Microsoft's OOXML standard, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has called for a ceasefire. "Last week the ISO committee in charge of document standards, SC 34, met in Oslo to discuss the way forward for OOXML and ODF. The plenary session was marked by protests outside, largely carried out by delegates from a nearby open-source conference. The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month or two."

Comments

Way forward on ODF?

[Chris Burke]

Why is that even an issue? ODF passed, it's a clear and well-defined standard that nobody has a problem with and nobody had to be bribed to support.

The only issue is that cluster-fuck of submarine proprietary technology posing as an open standard called OOXML.

Keep OOXML, or reject that POS like they should have to begin with, the only effect that has on ODF is in the purchasing decisions that may be swayed by MS also having a "standard".

Re:Way forward on ODF?

[Zeinfeld]

If you continue to have to submit resumes in "Microsoft Word Format," there is no way that anyone else can get a toehold in the market. There is also no way that in 30 years we're going to be able to read the documents that we generate today.

On the contrary, if resumes are required in OOXML format there will no longer be a requirement to reverse-engineer the Word format in order to achieve that. Since every word processor has to be compatible with Word in any case to be marketable the job of producing a compliant open source implementation has become rather easier.

As for ECMA, it has always been a joke. They were a joke when they accepted Netscape's original JavaScript proposal without any changes. Netscape chose ECMA because they wanted a forum they could just ram something through without any opportunity for comment from any other party. It only took another six years before usable implementations started to turn up in browsers. Early on the <object> tag was known as the 'crash my browser' tag. The specification was at least as baddly written as the code. But the modern Javascript specs are starting to look pretty good.

The reason that Google has been able to make so much out of AJAX and previous companies have not is not because nobody saw the potential before, its because the JavaScript implementations could not possibly have supported modern apps without crashing. Try connecting to GMail with an early version of Netscape and you will either see it turn off the JavaScript or crash.

People are completely missing the point of standards work here. You only get from a standards process what you achieve along the way. Its like a university degree, the certificate is probably the least useful output.

ODF and OOXML are both examples of an obsolete way of document preparation. They are both embedded in the internal data structures of ten to twenty year old systems. I would take an entirely different approach to producing a modern office suite. I would not cobble it together from components.

Neither format allows you to create an equation in math notation and use it in the spreadsheet.

This whole argument is like arguing whether gas or oil is better to fire a power station. They are both legacy technologies.

Re:Way forward on ODF?

[harlows_monkeys]

Why is that even an issue? ODF passed, it's a clear and well-defined standard that nobody has a problem with and nobody had to be bribed to support

You haven't talked to anyone who has actually tried to implement ODF from the spec, have you? It is not very well-defined. For example, do you know how it handles password hashing? It just says you should do it. No list of allowed hashes. No documented way to record what hash you've used.

Want another example? Calendars. There it at least lists the names of the allowed calendar system. But no reference to what those names mean.

The fact is that to implement ODF in a fairly complete fashion (no one has ever done a complete implementation), and have your implementation interoperate with other implementations, you have to base it off the OpenOffice source code, and that's what everyone has done (some indirectly, by basing theirs off code that is based off OpenOffice).

Compare to OOXML. It lists all the allowed hashes, and cites to the specification for each one. Same for calendars. It actually gives you enough information to implement, unlike ODF.

And the funny thing is, these are both areas OOXML was slammed on for being inadequate, even though it was vastly more well-defined than ODF in these areas, even on its very first submission. This nicely illustrates the hypocrisy of the anti-OOXML crowd. A good 90% of their objections to OOXML were either things like the hash handling, where OOXML was much better than ODF, or were flat out untruths.

Re:what is a one-sided cease fire?

[LBArrettAnderson]

Blame the /. editor. In the linked article the word "cease" is used once, and it isn't followed by "fire."

Re:I suspect that...

[denis-The-menace]

You are either woefully ignorant of MS' business history or you have a check in you back pocket with Bill's signature.

MS has done a few things for the greater good but this action is one that will destroy MS' reputation in Joe users' mind when it get out to mainstream news.

SC29 has been a villain for quite some time.

[Compenguin]

I know the Slashdot crowd didn't start caring about ISO until OOXML hit SC34 but I have other issues with ISO. SC29/WG11 (More commonly known as MPEG) is notoriously closed off. All their proposed work for consideration is closed off from public scrutiny until after it has been accepted and published. Reference software updates are only made available to committee members while the rest of us have to wait for a version to be signed off as a Corrigendum/Addendum and then sit for a year as all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed in the general body (why can't non controversial reference software bugfixes get fast-tracked the same way OOXML was?). When people come to MPEG industry forum technical list (Mp4-tech) for clarification they are often referred secret documents and reference software that they have no way of getting. Furthermore their document interchange format is .doc not ODF or OOXML.

Formulas in spreadsheets

[tepples]

ODF passed, it's a clear and well-defined standard ODF passed without a spec for basic spreadsheet formulas. OOXML has one, albeit flawed in some respects.

Re:Formulas in spreadsheets

[Richard Steiner]

ODF certainly has its flaws, but:

(1) ODF wasn't rammed through a "fast track" process against the wishes of many committee members, unlike OOXML, and

(2) ODF can actually be implemented by third parties as written. Good luck doing that with OOXML...

Re:I suspect that...

[poetmatt]

Lets see,

number of companies that can make a format that works with ODF (aka compete): infinite

number of companies that can make a format that works with OOXML (aka compete): 0.

Let alone global trade rules that having overlap in standards doesn't allow, this will not pass over smoothly or easily.

So how much does MS pay you? I admit I'd take the cash too but I'd openly admit that I am, if that were the case.

Re:An easier route is this one

[denis-The-menace]

Would not work.

It requires MS to follow a standard.
MS will not follow a standard that they do not control.(and change every 2 years)

Best case: they would ship a "ISO compliant" version of Office 2007 that would need patches to work. The patches would fix thins but make it write non-ISO OOXML files.

Replace them

[Akaihiryuu]

ISO is just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Any chance they had of redeeming themselves as a standards body was lost when the joke of OOXML was "approved". They are no longer a reputable standards body, they are just yet another bureaucratic bought and paid for rubber stamp. They will find that their "standards" no longer have any meaning in the real world...in fact they are being replaced as we speak. The official launch hasn't happened yet (but coming very soon): http://www.certifiedopen.com/

Re:Replace them

[olman]

Indeed. As an EE engineer all these cries about how ISO is irrelevant seem not a little hilarious.

Grow up dammit. ALL electrical gadgets you have (in europe at least) are manufactured according to ISO standards. How is that "irrelevant?"

Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed...

[frith01]

Absolutely sounds like a well paid Microsoft Info-mercial. ODF actually allows groups to submit their proposals for well defined extensions / additions. One standard for all document types is what is needed. (Not one wolf-in-standards clothing)

Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists and engineers will love having to go back to creating formulas and equations in non-natural formats or rasterize them in their documents. BRILLIANT, AYE? Actually scientists use LaTeX for formulas since it beats Office by far.

Re:What's the ISO standard for Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of missing the point of your posting:

ISO doesn't stand for anything - it isn't an acronym; it's the Greek word for "equal".

If it were an acronym it would doubtless be OSI because the French would insist on it.

Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed...

[mspohr]

I work in health care technology and I have never heard of the INK standard. (A quick search shows that Google has never heard of it either...).

I call shenanigans. This may exist as some proprietary obscure standard (and it probably deserves to die).

Re:Appeals

[Haeleth]

I don't know about Britain, but unfortunately Norway won't work out like you're hoping: while their technical committee has protested loudly and demanded that the decision be reversed, the technical committee is distinct from the standards body, and the standards body has sold its soul to Uncle Bill. That's kind of why it ignored the overwhelming technical opposition and voted to approve OOXML in the first place...

Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed...

[hey!]

Actually, this is why OOXML is such a bad "standard". The whole point of a standard is to allow vendors to provide alternatives to customers, and for the customers to take from those alternatives whatever meets their needs.

Making a huge, omnibus standard built around a single vendor's current technology profile is just a branding campaign with standards body collusion. You aren't going to get anybody else implementing everything in OOXML, so why fret over whether it is a "standard" or not? Why not simply continue contenting yourself with the "de facto" standard of whatever MS choose to release as "MS Office"?

And building standards this way kills innovation. Suppose something better than INK comes along. Well, it'll never go anywhere. If you had two standards, X (OOXML or ODF), Y (how to embed INK in X), then somebody could propose a standard Z (how to embed the better think in X).

Then you, as a customer, simply look for a vendor or vendors who give you X & Y today; if you decide to jump on the Z bandwagon, you look for X & Y (for backward compatiblity) & Z.

Claiming a product is compliant with a standard isn't some magic pixie dust that makes it a good product, it's just a means of determining if the product might meet your needs. Approving OOXML as a standard allows Microsoft to market its product as compliant with "standards", but without customers receiving any of the benefits of standardization.

Re:New P member countries deadlocking other standa

[rkhalloran]

see here for a piece at ConsortiumInfo on the matter...

----
Here is how the eleven countries that upgraded from O to P membership in the months (and often just days) before the OOXML voting period closed on OOXML, and also whether or not they voted in the more recent ballot (all data is from Rick's analysis of the voting record):

        Upgrades that voted to adopt OOXML and didn't vote later: 7
        (Cote dIvoire, Cyprus, Lebanon, Malta, Pakistan, Turkey, Venezuela)

        Upgrades that abstained on OOXML and didn't vote later: 1
        (Trinidad and Tobago)

        Upgrades that voted against OOXML and didn't vote later: 0

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Mithrandir]

Also, Standards are supposed to be open. On this point you are wrong. ISO is a standardisation body. It has no requirements for "openness". For example, MPEG is a standard and yet is extremely heavily encumbered with patents. Other standards are patent free, but you will find that the a large percentage of the ISO standards have patents on them (I believe it is a majority, but don't have numbers to back that up). All that ISO requires is that the terms of the usage of the standard is defined beforehand so that potential users of the standard know what they're in for.

Re:What's the ISO standard for Irony?

[johnw]

Really? Better tell that to Wikipedia. Yes, really. Try actually reading the Wikipedia article to which you linked - it confirms exactly what I said. Or look at ISO's own web site, where you'll find exactly the same information.

HTH

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, people are up in arms about it being accepted by ISO under the fast-track procedures. ISO's rules on fast tracking a standard specifically disallow doing so when an already-approved standard exists for substantially the same thing. So, no, this is not acceptable. And there are many other reasons. Just wanted to point out the biggest flaw in your analysis (something you have left out that can only be regarded as intentional).

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[jhhdk]

Check headline on ISO annual report from 2002, "One standard, One Test, accepted everywhere". Pretty sure the "One Standard" thingy was part of their slogan for ages.

Re:I bought the Red Car so that I could dismantle

[katz]

Clarification:

Red Car -> ISO body (Judge Doom utters this line in Roger Rabbitt)
Two standards good, one standard better -> reference to Animal Farm
Embrace, extending and extinguish -> Microsoft's handling of the ISO standards-making process

The common thread among all these quotes is how downright sinister they are behind a gentle and seemingly caring facade; they're all working within the system to bring it down from the inside.

- Roey