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 The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month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

Re:Option #1.

[Bert64]

Because of the fast track process being misused, and then forced through by corruption.
The normal process is designed to develop a reasonable standard from something that's not already suitable, hence why it takes longer.

OOXML Ceasefire???

[RobBebop]

If they really want an OOXML "Ceasefire", then they should offer a compromise with the opponents of OOXML.

Namely: revoke the standard and allow it to continue to be reworked.

I doubt anti-OOXML activists would take issue with letting OOXML be re-evaluated a year or two fromnow. We would even let the ISO get away with NOT re-evaluating its processes that allowed brand-spanking new member countries to vote with as much power as long standing members.

In the meantime, Microsoft (and whoever else is interested) can address the technical issues with OOXML and revise the specification so that it meets the communities requirements for openness.

At the same time, I think it is accurate to say that there are "features" that customers require in OOXML that are not in any approved ISO standards (for instance, I believe OOXML has collaboration features, whereas ODF does not). Thus, the anti-OOXML community might attempt to code an "Open" standard which addresses those features. Call it the "ODF Extension" and empower it to combined with the original ODF standard to give an identical set of features as are specified in OOXML. If this were achieved and OOXML truly would not bring any added value to the Office/Productivity software standard, then it could officially be flushed down the toilet.

That said, there cannot be a "Ceasefire" as long as OOXML is still recognized as a Standard...

Re:OOXML Ceasefire???

[RobBebop]

(note: I fully support ODF... and to date I have not found any features that ODF/OpenOffice lacks which Microsoft Office provides)

That said, I think it is naive to assume that OOXML and ODF each specify an overlapping set of features, and I think it would benefit the overall quality of Office Productivity software to itemize the features in OOXML that are lacking in ODF and do an evaluation on whether they would provide a benefit if they were added.

Similarly, an evaluation of the features in ODF that are duplicated in OOXML would be good, so that they can be stricken from OOXML and reduce the chances of having "competing standards" or unnecessary duplication.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[kocsonya]

> The reason some open source enthusiasts are opposed to OOXML is because they would like to create a market for
> ODF through legislation rather than through competition. While others, such as myself, would be glad to have
> a document file format that is described well enough to be considered a standard which can be implemented by
> anyone regardless of the standard's author.

You got that completely wrong. Those "some open source enthusiasts" are opposed to OOXML because it actually wants to kill ODF by killing competition.

ODF causes problems to Microsoft because:
- It *is* a real standard
- Large entities like standard compliant products
- Large entities have lots of IT budget
- Microsoft wants most of that budget
- Anyone can implement ODF, possibly better than Microsoft
- There is that damned C-word again, competition!

So, what Microsoft decided was to create a so-called standard, namely OOXML, that while formally a standard (and thus the decision makers of above mentioned large entities will like it), in practice nobody can implement it but Microsoft. This guarantees the continuation of the monopoly position for Microsoft while pleases the governemnts and corporate management. If it costs money, so be it. If it costs the reputation of ISO, who cares. Microsoft is not a charity organisation (although, if a little charity buys good PR, then they might even spend some money on that), they a business and they don't give a damn about standards - standards mean interoperability, competition and a possible revelation of their technical inferiority. No, they do NOT want a real document standard *especially* because it would open up competition.

The geeks are the one who want interoperability and competition - hence ODF is a real standard. Microsoft is the one that wants to avoid both with religious zeal, hence their refusal of implementing ODF (an open standard) and caming up with OOXML, a "standard" specifically designed to be unimplementable and then rammed through ISO using loopholes, bribes and everything else that was needed.