Slashdot Mirror


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 The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month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."

12 of 312 comments (clear)

  1. Way forward on ODF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    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".

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Way forward on ODF? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  2. Re:what is a one-sided cease fire? by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  3. SC29 has been a villain for quite some time. by Compenguin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Formulas in spreadsheets by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Formulas in spreadsheets by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
  5. Replace them by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Informative

    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/

  6. Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed... by mspohr · · Score: 3, Informative
    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).

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  7. Re:Appeals by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

  8. Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity by Mithrandir · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    --
    Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
  9. Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  10. Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity by jhhdk · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.