Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISO Releases OOXML FAQ

Posted by Zonk on from the frequently-aggressive-queries dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The ISO has put out a FAQ concerning OOXML, but it may raise more questions than it answers. For one, it promises to address problems if they arise in the future. PJ of Groklaw said that's akin to 'selling you a car with four different sizes of tires and assuring that that if you see it's a problem, you can always bring it in for maintenance.' It also handwaves the OSP discriminatory patent promise issues, when asked about contradictions states that some 'may still remain', and asserts that duplicate standards are 'something that need[s] to be decided by the market place.' Notably, the FAQ does not answer the question, 'what the hell were you thinking?'"

20 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. The Fax is just a test run... by brennanw · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... for their NEW international standard, "how to act like a complete jackass when deciding to adopt an international standard."

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  2. Q: what the hell were you thinking? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

    A: Sorry, but we can't hear you over the sound of us thumbing through all these big stacks of cash.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Q: what the hell were you thinking? by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Funny

      You beat me to it, but I was going to distill it into a thought ballon:

      ISO . o O ( $$$$$$$$$ )

  3. Frequently Asked Questions indeed by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Funny

    I cannot count the times people have asked me "What was the post-BRM voting on ISO/IEC 29500?"

    1. Re:Frequently Asked Questions indeed by Damocles+the+Elder · · Score: 2, Funny

      Neither can I. Imaginary numbers and fingers don't go well together. :(

    2. Re:Frequently Asked Questions indeed by bh_doc · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not too difficult, really, you just have to recognize that the imaginary numbers are orthogonal to real numbers.

      The tricky part is making a clean break, and stopping any bleeding...

  4. Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about M$ISO for short?

    I$O Standard?
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  5. Re:What the hell were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Which is the baby and which is the bathwater?

  6. Re:What the hell were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons? Because a fat chick in space is still a fat chick!
  7. Re:What the hell were they thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    it is also quite a health concern what force is acting on my quantity of matter. That's why I use the scale every morning to check if the earth's gravitation is still within healthy limits

  8. Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    brennanw (5761)

    One would think you'd be used to it by now.

  9. Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If renaming is an option, I'm partial to:

    ISOldout

  10. Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    IOVUSTBSBTM? Doesn't work for me... How about:

    International Standards Under Corporate Kontrol?

    (If you use KDE, you probably didn't notice the inappropriate use of K, but if you use GNOME, it's probably tearing at your brain that I did that just so I could spell a word)

  11. Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard by erroneus · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...or how about:

    "[I]nternational [S]tandards [W]ith [A]llegiance to [L]imited [L]iability [O]rganizations [W]hatever"

  12. Re:Incompetence by g4b · · Score: 2, Funny

    You created me, Microsoft
    So I guess you're to blame
    For the "love" that I feel
    Just from hearing your name
    You're as open as future
    And warm as pastell

    *windows dings*

    I wuv my OOXML

  13. Re:Incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In other words: "Our review process sucks so much that we can't even spot the most blatant and obvious abuse in our entire history right while it's going on under our noses." Thanks, ISO. That removes my final doubts regarding your reliability and competence. Only leaves me to wonder how you're getting anything done right at all. Are you saying that ISO is not ISO-9001 certified?
  14. Re:They won't fix it by KDR_11k · · Score: 3, Funny

    That sounds like Microsoft error handling is an ISO standard now, too!

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  15. Re:Incompetence by jsebrech · · Score: 2, Funny

    Only leaves me to wonder how you're getting anything done right at all. Are you saying that ISO is not ISO-9001 certified? No, he's saying that because ISO is 9001 certified, the only way for them to get anything done is to ignore the process.
  16. Slashdot define ISO as by ady1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes

  17. Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    (If you use KDE, you probably didn't notice the inappropriate use of K, but if you use GNOME, it's probably tearing at your brain that I did that just so I could spell a word) I hardly gnoticed it.