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 The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month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

Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[mrchaotica]

We the undersigned wish to make it clear that the ISO fucked up and should never have made OOXML a standard, and that we will continue to attack ISO until it is revoked. Furthermore, we believe that this is for the ISO's own good, because allowing this result of obvious corruption to remain can only harm ISO's credibility as a standards organization. We also wish to remind the ISO that these so-called "personal attacks" have only become necessary in the first place because our technical objections have been entirely ignored. Finally, we note that the resolution to create working groups to maintain OOXML and "harmonize" it with ODF was stupid, because neither group would be necessary in the first place if the redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed OOXML hadn't been approved in the first place!

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Maxo-Texas]

Withdrawing OOOXML is not the only option... In theory, OOOXML could be turned into a reasonable standard so that is the other option. In theory.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[bersl2]

OOXML is no longer the primary problem. I say that for the time being, it should stand.

The greater concern for me is having ECMA stripped of its ability to push a standard through the fast-track process (Class A Liaison status, IIRC) and changing the fast-track process to be substantially less able to be abused, even if this means taking some or all of the "fast" out of "fast track".

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[mrchaotica]

No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one. Moreover, the fact that the current version of OOXML is ISO-approved means that Microsoft can claim compliance with this version regardless of what happen to the next one, which is bad because then governments and such would continue to use the current, flawed, unimplmentable-by-third-parties version and we would have no recourse.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[wizkid]

"Withdrawing OOOXML is not the only option... In theory, OOOXML could be turned into a reasonable standard so that is the other option. In theory."

Yes, but the problem is that the 6000+ page OOXML is so riddled with problems that it would take years to clean it up. Also, Standards are supposed to be open. OOXML is dependent on proprietary technology. So anyone that tries to implement anything from this standard can be sued by $M. If you trust $M, then you deserve to be sued.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Akita24]

Exactly. Dear ISO, if you hadn't become a corrupt, greedy bunch of bought-and-paid-for assclowns nobody would be making personal attacks. Act like an asshole get treated like one. For what M$ paid you you should just STFU and go live on a tropical beach somewhere. You want the money AND your reputation back? I don't f'ing think so.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[hey!]

Oh, I don't think there is any rule that you can't have more standards than you need, although maybe that'd be a good rule to have, if you could make it stick.

But a standard is meaningless unless it is possible to determine whether you've complied with it or not. And for something like this, it should be possible to define a compliance test suite that everybody who wants to claim compliance has to pass. Sorry, "our product is the only compliant one because we're the only ones who knows what compliance means" doesn't cut the mustard.

If a neutral third party could not examine a product and determine that it is compliant, what you have isn't a standard, it's a brand dressing up like a standard.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Haeleth]

In theory, OOOXML could be turned into a reasonable standard so that is the other option. In theory.

In theory, evolutionary pressures could drive pigs to develop wings. In theory.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Elektroschock]

It was the meeting of SC34 and a text from SC34, not ISO.
SC34 is totally controlled by Microsoft. And it invited ECMA to the group!
SC34 will play a role in the maintenance regime for OOXML and they announced to corrupt ODF.
Outside the SC34, the Norwegian committee took the streets.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh come on... by the time OOOXML is a usable standard, all the patents will have expired.

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:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[cp.tar]

In theory, OOOXML could be turned into a reasonable standard so that is the other option. In theory.

In theory, evolutionary pressures could drive pigs to develop wings. In theory.

Please, don't go there.
People nowadays get fat from vast amounts of chicken wings. Can you even begin to fathom how fat people would get from pig wings?

Some things were not meant to be. Or even meant to be thought of.
Now if you would excuse me, I have to go and blind my mind's eye.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Bill_the_Engineer]

No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one.

The job of the ISO is not to approve the one -and-only-one standard for a given task. Its job is to be a repository of standards that can be followed by all those whose wish to comply with said standard.

Ideally the bulk of the ISO's work should be to only accept standards that CAN be followed by others outside of the original submitter.

There is nothing wrong with the market leader of that application (ie. Microsoft and its Word) setting the standard. As long as that standard can be followed by those OUTSIDE of Microsoft.

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. We (well at least I) oppose OOXML solely on the merits of its documentation and the method that Microsoft has used to push the inadequate documentation through the standards process. Once OOXML gets its documentation up to shape, I see no reason for it not being accepted by the ISO.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[dvice_null]

How about making a new version of ODF that supports it? We have a standard. If it needs to be improved, it can be improved.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[mysticgoat]

The job of the ISO is not to approve the one -and-only-one standard for a given task. Its job is to be a repository of standards that can be followed by all those whose wish to comply with said standard.

Well said!

There is no reason at all why we shouldn't have 5 different standards for 10mm fine thread nuts and bolts. The more the better!

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.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[Froboz23]

The analogy is perfectly appropriate. We're definitely getting screwed by OOXML.

Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity

[HiThere]

OOXML is *not* a standard, I don't care what the ISO says. I deny that *ANYBODY* can implement it, and I include Microsoft. There's no compliance test, so they can claim to implement it, when it's convenient, but they don't. They don't even come reasonably close.

Additionally, due to patent issues, and the extremely limited nature of the MS patent pledge, nobody but MS who cares for their corporate existence would even *try* to implement it. Remember that the MS patent pledge was good for only one version of the OOXML specifications, and only for complete implementations of the specifications. Which nobody, including MS, has yet done.

I'll accept the description of OOXML as specifications, not as standard. At that I feel I'm being generous. If the OOXML is specifications, then so is "Build me a barn like the one I lived near when I was 9 years old."

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.

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?

[Rogerborg]

That is the major effect though. I think that most unbiased observers would conclude that Microsoft's main goal in having OOXML rushed through is to allow .govs to tick the box that allows them to keep purchasing Microsoft Office. I have no faith that Microsoft will adhere to OOXML in letter or spirit, and in fact that having it 'controlled' by ISO makes this even less likely. Microsoft will not approach ISO to have new features included, they'll just binary-blob them in.

I say this as someone whose job it is to implement editors for previous (binary) versions of Office formats. The (new) guys working on our OOXML version are super stoked because (they say) it's much clearer. Sure, I tell them, but wait until Office >=2009 starts saving out documents with big embedded proprietary binary blobs. They'll still be OOXML 'compliant', for all the good that'll do us.

Re:Way forward on ODF?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

I think that most unbiased observers would conclude that Microsoft's main goal in having OOXML rushed through is to allow .govs to tick the box that allows them to keep purchasing Microsoft Office.

That was quite obviously their goal. I think the next move, then, ought to be for the free world to very clearly document exactly where and how Microsoft Office 2007 is not a compliant implementation of ISO OOXML and therefore must be disqualified from any bids that specify its use.

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?

[huckamania]

Exactly. Governments would do better by their citizens requiring everything to be in HTML format then either ODF or OOXML. Neither ODF nor OOXML has any current market share (unless you want to admit that word is OOXML compliant), where as everyone has a browser, if not more then one.

And HTML is the most widely used XML schema so really it's a twofer.

Re:Way forward on ODF?

[calebt3]

ISO certification means that Microsoft Word is just as open as ODF or ASCII for purposes of government and business contracts. Hmm. Can they require OOXML or simply "an ISO standard document"? If they can only require that you give them something ISO-approved, just give them ODF.

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.

ISO f$cked up, and can't stand the heat ...

[trolltalk.com]

In response to the continued attacks on Microsoft's OOXML standard, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has called for a ceasefire.

They deserve to be taken to the woodshed for a good spanking.

The ONLY ones who will benefit from a "cease-fire" are the ones who have the criticism coming to them. Let them admit they screwed up, that the processes behind their handling of MSOOXML are fatally flawed, and that a redo is necessary to preserve^Wrestore the integrity of ISO.

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."

What's the ISO standard for Irony?

[giafly]

We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree.

How exactly does fast-tracking a 6,000 page standard, then allowing less than a week to debate 1,100 different comments show respect for all parties?

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

Um no it won't stop

[peragrin]

the ISO is corrupted. MSFT fscked up the ISO and it is permanently damaged. Germany, Norway, Poland, and several other countries are looking into voting irregularities in the OOXML vote. For that fact alone the OOXML should have failed to pass pending the outcome of those investigations.

right now there are several MSFT P member countries that will no longer vote on anything because they are no longer being paid by MSFT to work with the ISO. These countries are deadlocking other standards and forcing them to fail because they refuse to vote on anything not OOXML. Those countries should have their votes discarded until they start attended and voting on things other than OOXML.

So why should the attacks stop? Has the corruption stopped yet?

Re:Um no it won't stop

[Anonymous Coward]

> Those countries should have their votes discarded until they start attended and voting on things other than OOXML.

On online gaming servers cheaters get kicked and IP-banned. Why should the ISO be any different?

Revoke their membership and never let them join again. That's the answer.

Re:Um no it won't stop

[Miseph]

No, revoke their memberships and place them on some sort of probation should they decide to rejoin. No country should be locked out of the ISO forever simply because a previous regime decided to sell out.

Location, Location, Location

[techpawn]

The plenary session was marked by protests outside, largely carried out by delegates from a nearby open-source conference.

Timing + location = success in anything right?

Re:An easier route is this one

[wizardforce]

an easier way to counter this Microsoft OOXML standard is to urge respective governments to avoid it

this nonsense should have been stopped at the vote, the fact we even need to convince governments that this "standard" is nothing of the sort is troubling. Not the least of which because the same corruption likely exists in goverments themselves.

Appeals

[firefly4f4]

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.

Does this mean that Norway and Great Britain haven't submitted their appeals yet? I believe both technical committees stated they would appeal. Does anyone know the status of them?

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: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.

Re:An easier route is this one

[wonkavader]

Yes, it is, however it won't work. The fact that it got the title "standard" will be used by Microsoft as a battering ram, and there won't always be someone with any sense around. Just look at voting machines. People in governments keep buying them, even from manufacturers who had been completely discredited. There now has to be a black mark on this thing so huge that Microsoft won't risk bringing it up.

Re:I don't see a problem here.

[denis-The-menace]

The problem here is that if the MS-OOXML standard is kept, it confirms that the ISO is no longer relevant.

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.

Re:I suspect that...

[the_B0fh]

Something insanely witty and funny that makes everyone think I'm smart.

No, what you just wrote does not make you seem witty, funny or smart. People are seriously concerned about OOXML, and someone here just takes potty shots? If you don't know what the issues are about, go find out before shooting off your keyboard.

Re:If they throw out the standard

[denis-The-menace]

The bribees did what they were paid for: vote for MS'OOXML.

So... NO!

Re:I don't see a problem here.

[the_B0fh]

Why in hell do you think Microsoft went to the expense of trying to get OOXML approved? Because it is now a checkbox they can tick off. It is "an open standard".

Your HO does not reflect reality.

Re:I suspect that...

[gstoddart]

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.

Sadly, I think you underestimate the apathy of the public over this stuff.

Joe user will hear the words "ISO Standard", "voting" and decide they neither know nor care WTF this is all about. The mainstream news will know this, and won't both reporting it.

Us in tech will find yet another reason to loathe Microsoft and their business practices, but to the average user, they simply will not care about this. You can't easily make this an issue people will understand why they should care about. It's so far off their radar as to be non-existent.

Cheers

Re:Guerrilla warfare

[Foobar of Borg]

Why is there a call for a cease-fire, anyway? Are Microsoft employees strapping dynamite on themselves and blowing up people at ISO meetings? I can just see a MS code monkey shouting "Ballmer is Great!" before blowing himself and twenty others to smithereens.

Re:Cart before the Horse

[MightyMartian]

This is as close to tacit admission that the ISO was undermined as we're ever going to get. To my mind, the simplest way to fix this in the future, at least for formats and protocols, is to require a minimum of two completely independent and cross-compatible implementations before it ever goes to a vote. If that was the case, OOXML would never have made it, because there's not even one (Office 2007 OOXML is not a full implementation of 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

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, IMO it is much, much easier to add whatever is missing than having to fix an existing specification, for the simple fact that changing things means either
1) completely drop support for any document created before or
2) add a special case each time you change something, making an even more complete mess out of things.

Admittedly, since ODF is already in use it might have this problem a bit too, but not in the massive degree as OOXML seems to.

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:Formulas in spreadsheets

[Anonymous Coward]

One format passed without specifying a feature that may be useful, while the other passed with ambiguous, unimplementable or outright secret specifications. There is nothing strange about having a standardized format that doesn't specify everything you might want it to, what is strange is having a format which specifies things in an ambiguous, broken, and unimplementable manner.

To use a bad car analogy, if I made a spec for a car without specifying the color, that wouldn't be the end of the world. If, on the other hand, my spec said "The car should have this particular color, but I won't tell you what it looks like nor how to make it, but it has to be identical to this paint sample I have in my basement, and which present law prohibits you from reverse engineering" then the spec has a rather serious problem. OOXMl effectively does the latter.

Re:Formulas in spreadsheets

[Rhapsody Scarlet]

ODF passed without a spec for basic spreadsheet formulas. OOXML has one, albeit flawed in some respects.

In OpenDocument's defence, the OpenDocument committee stated that "A comment was submitted concerning the (inclusion) of a grammar for spreadsheet formulas which conforming implementations should support. While we think that having interoperability on that level would be of great benefit to users, we do not believe [sic] that this is in the scope of the current specification".

I disagree with the above excuse, but OpenFormula is being worked on, and will fix the problem. Approving a totally different and incompatible standard just makes the problem worse.

Re:Formulas in spreadsheets

[eof]

Exactly. No standard is complete at its inception. If Microsoft were truly interested in office software interoperability, it would have worked towards helping improve ODF rather than introducing a competing standard. I respect the fact that Microsoft is a for-profit organization and that its first responsibility is to its shareholders. However, they are doing everyone, including those shareholders, harm in the long run by their actions.

Option #1.

[khasim]

No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one.

Why wasn't it a "reasonable standard" when it was SUBMITTED?

WTF is ISO playing at when they take something that CANNOT be said to be a "reasonable standard" and still APPROVE it as an ISO Standard?

Fuck that! ISO is supposed to approve STANDARDS. Not approve crap and then try to turn it into a "reasonable standard".

ISO sold out and is now trying to play the victim in this.

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.

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.

"Personal Attacks?"

[mlwmohawk]

The ISO process to fast track and/or approve OOXML has been fought hard by technical people on the basis of technical deficiencies.

OOXML is *NOT* worthy of ISO approval. Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document.

How this got approved is clearly worth a corruption investigation. It calls into question the integrity of the people and organization that approved it.

It is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the ability to share documents without paying Microsoft and maintain Microsoft's monopoly. The very thing the ISO standard is supposed to fight. It is criminal that these bastards have subverted the standards process as they did.

Calling for the end of "Personal attacks" is nothing more than saying "fuck you." Public statements questioning the motives and integrity of these people is the only ration course of action given what they have done. They deserve every last bit of it. Jailtime if we can find a law to fit the crime.

Re:"Personal Attacks?"

[mlwmohawk]

The same could be said of ODF. It is even more vague, with multiple developers coming out and saying that the spec isn't well defined and that they have to use OpenOffice's sourcecode as a definitive source.

While I doubt this assertion, assuming it is "true" within some M$ favorable scenario, at least OpenOffice source code is available. How would one go about getting MS Office source code to use as a definitive source?

See the problem? Proprietary software and from a monopoly at that *MUST* be held at a tougher standard.

"signed"

[Rogerborg]

ISO got gamed, ganked and pwned. At this point, Microsoft are teabagging their corpse.

What ISO need to do right now is to grow a pair and admit that they're gagging on sweaty Ballmer-balls, rather than putting their fingers in their ears and going "La la la, the process is perfect, la la la, there's nothing wrong."

I doubt you'd find any unbiased informed observer that believes them, although I'm sure you'd find a few who would happily say that in return for a free upgrade of their corporate Office installs. The emperor has no clothes, no matter how many procedural boxes they tick off to try to hide their ding-a-ling dangling in the wind.

Re:This seems pretty backwards

[mlwmohawk]

It is a "personal attack" to question someone's integrity, in this case, however, they deserve what they get.

If they don't want to be called a microsoft lackey or corrupt, then they should have thought about that before hand.

Sorry, they can't whine just because people are exposing their corruption. Sucks to be them, but they brought it on themselves.

Re:Guerrilla warfare

[S.O.B.]

Are Microsoft employees strapping dynamite on themselves and blowing up people at ISO meetings? I can just see a MS code monkey shouting "Ballmer is Great!" before blowing himself and twenty others to smithereens.

Fortunately they are able to apprehend them before the bombs go off because of the popup on their Windows Vista powered detonators, "Blow yourself up in a useless display of Microsoft loyalty, allow or deny?"

OOXML Ceasefire? Not really...

[walter_f]

In the contrary. It's no longer about just OOXML.

In addition to targeting OOXML, we ought to start targeting the ISO as a whole.

This organization, theoretically being in charge for the Standardization of a thousand matters, has knowingly let its own standards drop to an abysmal low level.

It is time now to question the qualification of the ISO as such severely and, possibly, get rid of it, replacing it by an impartial and responsible institution.

I agree. Refrain from personal attacks

[91degrees]

So, what personal attacks are there? Can someone point to an example? Certainly, many think that the ISO is broken, Microsoft is corrupt, and suspect that there was some serious fraud happening at some level but none of these are personal attacks. They're legitimate complaints about major organisations. So who is this person being attacked?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to save an INK file, you need to place it into a OOXML container?
If ODF were to add INK support, would they need to repeat all the related specification from OOXML? (assuming it's not patent-encumbered)
Instead of approving a flawed "standard", why not open the INK format, so it can be used everywhere?

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

[abigor]

ISO does a lot more than deal with software standards. Since apparently they have lost all credibility worldwide in every industry thanks to their approval of a half-baked word processing format, I guess your goofy website will also deal with things such as the following:

"ISO has just launched the new ISO Standards collection on CD-ROM â" Materials for the production of primary aluminium. It contains the full collection of 108 ISO standards for materials used in the production of primary aluminium, including standards for alumina, pitch, coke, electrodes, ramming paste and fluorides."

Since of course aluminum smelters the world over will be abandoning the ISO en masse for Certified Open Dot Com.

By the way, openness != standardisation.

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)

From the ISO website...

[SendBot]

I posted this comment on an earlier story. I looked at the iso website here and found this little gem:

Standards ensure desirable characteristics of products and services such as quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, efficiency and interchangeability - and at an economical cost.

When products and services meet our expectations, we tend to take this for granted and be unaware of the role of standards. However, when standards are absent, we soon notice. We soon care when products turn out to be of poor quality, do not fit, are incompatible with equipment that we already have, are unreliable or dangerous.

When products, systems, machinery and devices work well and safely, it is often because they meet standards. And the organization responsible for many thousands of the standards which benefit the world is ISO.

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

[mlwmohawk]

Microsoft "INK" is funny as it is a decedent from "Pen Windows" which was inferior to "Go Computing" at the time. Microsoft's monopoly allowed them to threaten OEMS and have them abandon support for Go's platform.

Past crimes have a way of repeating themselves over and over again.

"INK" is all nice and everything, but it is hardly something that will, how did you put it, "cripple the medical industry at the very least."

I laugh at this. There is no reason why Microsoft can't support ODF and propose additions to the standard to support emerging technologies. Let these emerging technologies be developed and perfected in public.

If, however, they want their own proprietary system, no one is stopping them, but using the ISO standardization to promote their PROPRIETARY software is bogus.

Re:what is a one-sided cease fire?

[v1]

Sounds like when a country invades and takes over, ousts the government and replaces it with their own, and then wants a cease-fire with the citizens?
They don't want to end hostilities. They've already committed all the atrocities and they are trying to escape retribution.

That's like someone shooting you and then trying to declare an armistice as you reach for YOUR revolver.

Ya right.

We'll take the cease-fire after the standard is struck down, thank you.

Re:I don't see a problem here.

[Grishnakh]

There's nothing insane about the US Government selecting that standard, or doing many of the other questionable things it does. You just have to follow the money, and it all makes sense.

Your mistake is in assuming the US Government is acting (or tries to act) in the best interest of the US population as a whole.

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:thank you M$

[Shados]

I know it was a joke, but encoding != document format :)

Anyway, if you ever had to deal with ISO standards before, you'd realise that what Microsoft did is the least of your worries. ISO, W3C, OASIS, ECMA... they all suck. They're all organisations that make "standards" by comittee, and while that sounds great in theory, in practice its more like:

Member A: "I want our next standard to have feature X"
Member B: "No way, that would only further YOUR agenda and will destroy interop and/or makes its harder to implement for nothing! Instead, we should have feature Y, much better"
Member A: "Nooo! That would only further YOUR agenda. Its even worse than X!"
Member B: "Ok, what about this: you can have X, I can have Y, everyone's happy"
Member C: "Wh...what? X and Y are mutually -exclusive-, you'll make it hell for -everyone- if we have both"
Member A + B: "Two vs 1, we win, go to hell".

A lot of "standards", from all the stuff ISO has, to XHTML/XML/SOAP, stopping in between for things that are not so standards such as all of the accessibility acts and hell, the -law-, is made like this. And thats why it all sucks, and its all out of wack.

Compared to a lot of things that didn't cause so much of a stir, OOXML is a blessing... and thats not saying much. Point is, its nothing new, ISO, and most of the other standard bodies have always done this... this time it was just more visible because it was Microsoft... but anyone who tried to make a company ISO certified to various degree knows: you're better off going to IKEA for clear, sensible instructions.

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

[Atzanteol]

One of the complaints about OOXML was that it *did* include specs for things like INK which is what makes it 6,000 pages long.

INK has no business being part of a document format. It's an image format. It should exist as a separate standard on its own. The document format need not know INK specifically but rather provide for a way of including 'images' which both OOXML and ODF do. Then their specs can say "We allow the use of ISO XXXX (aka INK)."

MS doesn't get it. You don't get it. ISO doesn't even seem to get it anymore. It's hysterical that a format that represents exactly 1 commercial interest and has no implementations is published as a "standard." ODF has its failings, but it's already being used as a standard (multiple parties implement it) and it is being evolved with multiple parties in mind. Like a standard or something.

Re:An easier route is this one

[Belial6]

I have not read the OOXML document, but as I understand it, they don't even need to do that. As I understand it, the OOXML 'standard' allows for binary blobs. If that is the case, the 'standard' is simply whatever the hell MS wants wrapped in a readable wrapper. It is simply a standard way to use a non-standard file format.

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

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.

I bought the Red Car so that I could dismantle it

[katz]

Because the next step is to decommission ODF. Read the writing on the wall; you have two standards that overlap, and one company that is willing to push any amount of money to get their way. We might yet see Microsoft "agreeing" with its detractors that one standard is better than two--and then you can logically extrapolate from that what their next move will be.

Another version reads: "Two standards good, One standard better!"
Or perhaps summed up clearest: "Embrace, extend, extinguish."

- Roey

Just more proof...

[zogger]

...that ISO has a history of being mostly stupid then -> "MPEG is a standard and yet is extremely heavily encumbered with patents."..they should never approve any standard that has patents like that in it. Just because. Unless the patents are then put into the public domain free and clear and unencumbered. Anything else is just kowtowing to some corporation/cartel and their attempts at vendor lockin as a "standard".

I say it is time to just abandon ISO, no longer useful. OOXML is just so glaringly and obviously lame that it stands out now, and they fully deserve all the criticism they are getting. They make US "blackbox voting" look scrupulously fair and honest.

do you think...

[toby]

You could cram any more genitalia references into your post?

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