ISO Releases OOXML FAQ

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?'"

Comments

The Fax is just a test run...

[brennanw]

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

Re:The Fax is just a test run...

[Anonymous Coward]

that has to spend time doing PR and not defining standards. That is the sign of a great standards organization. I think it is more telling of the pile of poop they have stepped into.

Q: what the hell were you thinking?

[Chris Burke]

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

Re:Q: what the hell were you thinking?

[dreamchaser]

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

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

Re:Q: what the hell were you thinking?

[Narpak]

On a related note. "To Be Decided By The Market" sounds suspiciously like "the party with the most money decides". As in; "pay us and we'll agree".

FAQ. I meant FAQ.

[brennanw]

*shakes fist at lack of edit button*

Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ.

[Anonymous Coward]

brennanw (5761)

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

Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ.

[smittyoneeach]

shaking the fist?

Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ.

[clickety6]

brennanw (5761)

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

Especially as his first name is Brendan ;-)

Frequently Asked Questions indeed

[JeanBaptiste]

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

Re:Frequently Asked Questions indeed

[Damocles the Elder]

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

Re:Frequently Asked Questions indeed

[bh_doc]

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...

Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[elrous0]

...to have a STANDARD?

Maybe they should rename themselves the "International Organization for Vague and Undefined Standardization, To Be Decided By The Market"

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[corsec67]

How about M$ISO for short?

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

"International Organization for Vague and Undefined Standardization, To Be Decided By whoever throws the most money at us or the market"

Fixed that for you

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[$RANDOMLUSER]

How about M$ISO for short?

I$O Standard?

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

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

ISOldout

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[erroneus]

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)

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you and most people at Slashdot, most of whom seem fairly well informed on a good variety of subjects, are forgetting that there is more that one definition to the word "standard".

    You're talking about the concept of THE standard, which would mean that there's one way to do things and that's it. I'll not delve into the curious double standard of decrying a monopolistic company while at the same time wishing one single format enforced on the whole industry. Suffice it to say that ISO is not in the business of defining THE standard for anything.

    ISO is in the business of ratifying standards for various technologies. Just like RCA cables have a standard, Component cables have a standard, and Coax and HDMI cables have a standard even though they're all intended to allow you to pipe video to your TV. OOXML and ODF are differing standards to accomplish the same end of storing the information for a document. OOXML becoming a standard isn't about it becoming THE standard. It's been the de facto standard for quite some time already, challenged recently by newcomers to the field. It's about standardizing the format used by Office for storing files from now on into the future.

    OOXML becoming a standard is a very good thing for anybody trying to make a program to edit documents with the intent of competing with Microsoft in the Office software space. Sure it's got stuff like "Format this like we did back in the Office '98 days" but that's just to cover the backwards compatability for old documents. I would imagine -- not having looked at the spec myself -- that there are very few complaints with the way current behavior is described. The standardizing of OOXML means that there will be a standard way to interpret the data. That makes it a whole lot easier to properly convert OOXML documents to ODF, should you so desire, without screwing up the document.

    Depending on how you look at it, OOXML becoming a standard is one big giant step towards competing products being able to edge in on Office. It removes the lock-in for all MS Office documents going forward, cause now everybody knows how they're supposed to be rendered. Imagine Open Office and all your favorite editors of choice being able to properly render the .docx filefrom this point forward. Suddenly everybody is comparing on merit alone instead of on some predetermined lock-in point.

    I personally like MS products and the level of ease-of-use versus nitty-gritty options available in them. Macs are way too user friendly for my taste and Linux distros a bit too hands-on for my preference, but I'm fine with accepting that other people may lean more towards one side or the other. I'd just ask that those of you interpreting this as Microsoft's big play to become THE standard stop selling yourselves short. In general you're all much smarter than to legitimately be up in arms over something that fosters the very thing that you want due to a misunderstanding in semantics.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[erroneus]

...or how about:

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

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[erroneus]

You're making one huge mistaken assumption after another.

Second: Microsoft undoubtedly has dozens of "patents" on the OOXML standard effectively preventing anyone from implementing the standard in the near future.

First: Microsoft hasn't implemented this "standard" in their own products. Their .DOCX is similar to OOXML, but doesn't match the standard not withstanding the vagueness and inaccuracies in the standard as defined.

Third: If someone were to somehow make a faithful implementation of OOXML that wasn't Microsoft, people would assume it's broken or non-standards compliant because it won't open and display properly under Microsoft word since Word doesn't presently implement OOXML properly as defined. (Other examples of this broken standards behavior can be seen in Internet Explorer where the perception is that if it works in MSIE but doesn't work with Firefox, Opera or Safari, then it's a problem with Firefox, Opera or Safari and not MSIE since it works there.) This mistaken perception will enable Microsoft to establish a standard that, even if faithfully implemented, will be perceived as broken.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[TheRealSlimShady]

How was Microsoft supposed to implement this standard in their own products before it was a standard? Once it went into the standards committee a bunch of changes were made - how could those changes have been anticipated.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[KDR_11k]

OOXML isn't much of a de-facto standard, .doc is and OOXML is not .doc. OOXML is more like docx which isn't used much as nothing but Office 2007 can open it OOTB. Almost noone has Office 2007 and the people who do will use .doc files so other people can use them.

It's been pointed out quite often that OOXML does not match docx exactly and that the specification is incomplete so it will not allow you to open Office 2007 files without further reverse engineering.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[jsebrech]

How was Microsoft supposed to implement this standard in their own products before it was a standard? Once it went into the standards committee a bunch of changes were made - how could those changes have been anticipated.

The intial version they submitted already wasn't compatible with what office implements.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[MightyMartian]

DocX is out in the wild now. My organization is receiving them at an ever-increasing frequency. Last year we might see one or two a month, but we're up to at least that many a week.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Perl ISO... "there's more than one way to do it"

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[absurdist]

OOISO would seem apropos...

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[erroneus]

A standard, properly defined and implemented, does not need "fixing" the way OOXML needs even now.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Maxo-Texas]

No.
Mass and other governments caught on to the fact they were losing ability to read data LESS than a decade old.

They passed laws saying data must be an "open standard" so they could read the data in the future even if they had to rewrite a reading application for Windows 2100 ultimate based on 85 year old spec docs.

Microsoft wrote a patent encumbered XML file spec that even they can't code and payed $$$$$ to have a bunch of people vote that it was to be labeled an "open standard" satisfying the legal requirement... but it STILL won't be readable in another 10 years leaving the fundamental problem unresolved.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Mathinker]

OOXML becoming a standard isn't about it becoming THE standard. It's been the de facto standard for quite some time already, challenged recently by newcomers to the field. Compare:

• The first official ODF-TC meeting to discuss the standard was December 16, 2002; OASIS approved OpenDocument as an OASIS Standard on May 1, 2005.
• Microsoft Office 2007 ... Formerly known as Office 12 in the initial stages of its beta cycle, it was released to volume license customers on November 30, 2006

Let's see: you know how to write nice prose, no spelling or grammar mistakes, nicely formatted into paragraphs, and you blithely spew pro-Microsoft propaganda. Hmmm, why did my corporate shill meter just jump?

OOXML becoming a standard is a very good thing for anybody trying to make a program to edit documents with the intent of competing with Microsoft in the Office software space. That would be true except that Office 2007 doesn't actually write files in OOXML format. Don't you remember that there were thousands of comments on Microsoft's initial proposed standard and at least some of the comments were accepted? Unfortunately, Office 2007 hasn't been patched to conform, and Microsoft has not promised to make it conform to the updated standard.

I would imagine -- not having looked at the spec myself -- that there are very few complaints with the way current behavior is described. Guess again? Stephane Rodriguez: What is being shown is that in addition to missing documentation, the binary documentations sometimes conflict with the ECMA 376 documentation, itself not a full documentation of the new XML-based formats anyway.

The standardizing of OOXML means that there will be a standard way ... I love the way you repeat "standard", "standard", "standard", in all its forms to the point it becomes a hypnotic mantra in the mind of all who read your comment. Really a jewel of corporate market-speak!

I personally like MS products ... I'd just ask that those of you interpreting this as Microsoft's big play to become THE standard stop selling yourselves short. In general you're all much smarter than to legitimately be up in arms over something that fosters the very thing that you want due to a misunderstanding in semantics. Wow, I think you slipped! If I'm not mistaken, "due to a misunderstanding in semantics" actually modifies the nearest previous target, which would be the "something", so your last convoluted sentence actually means "You're too smart to oppose OOXML --- OOXML does what you want because there is a misunderstanding in semantics". But anyway, let me simplify reality for you: we're all much smarter than to swallow your bullshit.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, it's me again. Second post, maybe I should make an account.

    Anyway, the gist of my comment earlier wasn't about the quality of the standard, but rather focused on the fact that OOXML becoming a standard doesn't make it THE standard and is in fact good for the health and competitiveness of the Office category of products.

    Standards do in fact change and undergo revisions. HDMI, for example, HTML, and the IP protocol are all standards that have undergone revisions as time has gone by to correct faults or address new needs. Similarly, ODF will need to be revised (has it already? I'm only following these things in passing so don't jump on me if I'm wrong on specifics) if it is to support a full suite of office products. The possibility of OOXML being fixed or added on shouldn't detract from the fact that it's a very good thing to have the MS Office file format made into a standard.

    Now MS has to conform to the standard in future versions if it wants to claim support of the format. Going forward, all other products that choose to support the OOXML format will be able to open the .docx files without issue, increasing their traction in the market. People can make tools to convert (with some loss to an extent, as I understand MS' desire to stick with OOXML over ODF was partly because it doesn't support everything they use in their office suite) OOXML files to ODF files and back again to promote interoperability with word processors, etc., that choose not to support OOXML.

    The boon to the industry is that this standard is available to all and means that people will not be locked into MS Office anymore. MS will conform to the new updated/fixed standard in their future Office versions (why would they go through the trouble to get it standardized if they didn't plan to use it? Seems like quite the hoop to jump through to play a trick on everyone) and then people can use whatever editor they like best to view and edit files saved in the format. Other programs can actually compete with Office on their relative merits, rather than which file format happens to be dominant.

    That's what the OOXML standard brings to the table. It opens things up from here forward to anyone who cares to implement the standard, or at least the relevant non-depricated portions, and even makes things easier for those who don't, by way of having an available definition which can be used for facilitating conversions.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[mpeskett]

nothing but Office 2007 can open it

There is a "compatibility pack" for Office '03. Haven't had the opportunity to test whether it works with all the features but it does allow you to open .docx without Office '07

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah, calm down. You remind me of this http://www.xkcd.com/406/.

    Please note that the whole time I never said that MS was the way to go. The only time I promoted anything MS over anything else was in saying it's my personal preference.

    All I was saying, in brief, was that it seems silly to me that people should be up in arms over OOXML becoming a standard, particularly slashdotters who generally seem to be a few steps above the average joe in understanding of technical matters. Say all you want about its faults, that's fine with me. But I bet you'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason why it being a standard is a bad thing for anybody. If it sucks, don't use it. My point was that regardless of how bad it may or may not be, turning it into a standard is a good thing for everyone who wants to compete in Office's world.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

(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.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this moron 'interesting'?

Perhaps it is an interesting case of a shill? Or an interested example of a misinformed person?

I for one would say that this guy is Miguel De Icaza

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

The undisclosed areas of OOXML are so numerous that to fill in the undisclosed areas of OOXML you end up reverse engineering Microsoft Office. We're little further along than we were before this so-called standardisation. Only now OOXML gets to pretend to be documented despite the numerous problems that remain in OOXML. There is a world of difference in the scope of problems here... a distinction between what can be solved in maintenance and what are problems that are so numerous and mean the standard is unfit for any implementation. Read Tim Bray's new comments on OOXML

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the campatible version (ECMA) was shoot down and it was now "designed by comitee" (tm) in order to be passed?

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

It all hinges on the quality of the text and whether that describes Microsoft Office's file format. As OOXML doesn't describe Microsoft Offfice then all of your points a moot.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawd, you just don't get it, do you? You certainly haven't addressed any of the main rebuttals.

This "standard" is completely irrelevant as a standard. No one, absolutely no one, is going to implement it. Not even Microsoft.

No company is going to be allowed to implement it and become a competitive threat to Microsoft. Microsoft will shut them down with Patent Violations.

Microsoft isn't even going to implement this. They don't have to. And the ISO isn't going to threaten to pull it out as a standard, because Microsoft will just buy out the ISO as they did before.

The ONLY reason why Microsoft wanted this passed was so that they could bid on Government Contracts. It's not a Standard, it's a Marketing Tool. And the ISO has come completely useless as a Standards Body.

You honestly sound like an ISO shill.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea what you're actually talking about? Office 2007 is fully compliant to the Office Open XML standard that Microsoft employees spent around 6 years working on, the standard has been fully open since before Office 2007 was released, and there aren't any draconian patents governing it. OOXML really is open (it's basically just standard XML with a few extras); they want people to be able to implement and do shit with it as that makes Office 2007 an even more valuable product (see: several channel 9 interviews on the subject). Take your head out of Lunix's ass for a second and realise that having a non-binary, fully open, and easy to use STANDARD in the world's most popular productivity suite is a VERY GOOD THING.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Mathinker]

All I was saying, in brief, was that it seems silly to me that people should be up in arms over OOXML becoming a standard We're not; as you astutely figured out, we'd be overjoyed if it would become a standard, or if Microsoft would make full disclosure of the Office 2007 file formats and other information necessary for interoperability. We're up in arms because ISO/IEC 29500 isn't even close to that. It's a partial disclosure masquerading as a standard. I'll bet you that the EU will look at this so-called "standard" and anyway require Microsoft to disclose additional information about its Office 2007 formats in the name of making real interoperability possible (to those who shell out the $$).

But I bet you'd be hard pressed to come up with a reason why it being a standard is a bad thing for anybody. The money of taxpayers around the world, in countries with laws requiring that governments only procure software which will producing "standard file formats", will now be spent on software which doesn't do what the public wanted. Good enough reason?

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[rtb61]

What is funny about the whole thing. They both won and lost at the same time. Everybody knows the OOXML standard is bull shit and best to be ignored. No government can possibly stand up and say that is acceptable to store those documents under that standard. Most of all M$ demonstrated to the world at large, to industry and to governments, exactly what kind of people their executive team really are.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

OOXML is not documented enough to be interoperable. As it's not documented then your claims of benefits are without merit.

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[scruffy]

iSoldout! Oops, wrong company!

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Froqen]

> This "standard" is completely irrelevant as a standard. No one, absolutely no one, is going to implement it. Not even Microsoft.

BS: Microsoft has pledged to support it in public. So assuming that the OpenOffice implementation of OOXML continues, it will support it too.

> No company is going to be allowed to implement it and become a competitive threat to Microsoft. Microsoft will shut them down with Patent Violations.

Again BS: The OSP pretty much crushes that arguement. Even the main point in the SFLC anaylsis about future versions has been addressed.

Your core arguements seem to be strictly Proof by Assertion

Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you mentioned specifically states there are thousands of pages of documentation, but you don't even really need all that (most of it is really specific stuff; reference material should you need it). It is just XML with a few add ons; if you've ever used XML, you can use OOXML.

What the hell were they thinking?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

From the FAQ:

The ICT industry has a long history of developing multiple standards providing similar functionalities. After a period of co-existence, it is basically the market that decides which survives. A past example within ISO concerned the SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) and ODA (Office Document Architecture).

In this particular case, some claim that the Open Document Format (ODF), which is also an ISO/IEC standard (ISO/IEC 26300) and ISO/IEC 29500 are competing solutions to the same problem, while others claim that ISO/IEC 29500 provides additional functionalities, particularly with regard to legacy documents.

The ability to have both as International Standards was something that needed to be decided by the market place. ISO and IEC and their national members provided the JTC 1 infrastructure that facilitated such a decision by the market players.

What they were thinking was that someone offered a specification for standard and they saw the necessity of having a standard specification and they went ahead and approved it. Whatever PJ thinks is hardly relevant here. What any individual thinks about the new standard is irrelevant except to the extent that he needs to use it. Since OOXML is not the only specification out there, it behoves anyone with contrary feelings to promote their favorite standard rather than try to bring down OOXML.

Just because the metric system exists, it does not mean that the Imperial system should cease to exist. The practical applications of the "inferior" standard still exist, so it makes no sense to bitch and moan about it.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Jason Levine]

If the Imperial system consisted of definitions like "Measure this like King George III would have", I'm sure people would argue against that being a standard also.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Until their heads were chopped off, in any case.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Chandon Seldon]

BadAnalogyGuy said: Just because the metric system exists, it does not mean that the Imperial system should cease to exist.

Living up to your name, I see.

Two absolutely key requirements for a standard are that it be well specified and possible to usefully implement. The OOXML processes wasn't even long enough for someone to *read* the standard, and all the criticisms that were submitted by standards bodies were ignored in bulk - hence there is *no way* that the ISO could have known that OOXML met those requirements.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

So what you are saying is that ISO is a corrupt standards body. Does that negate the value of ISO standards?

Should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater? And if not, then why only in this one case are you so willing to claim fraud? Surely if fraud was acceptable in this one case, there are other standards which have been similarly fraudulently accepted. And if that is the case, how can any of ISO's standards be acceptable?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[SendBot]

Just because the metric system exists, it does not mean that the Imperial system should cease to exist. The practical applications of the "inferior" standard still exist, so it makes no sense to bitch and moan about it. I realize that the Imperial system of units is so entrenched that it's not going away any time soon. What I don't get is why mass is quantified in pounds and not slugs. And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons?

For a real head-spin, check out the wikipedia article on pound mass. Here's a quote: "Historically, in different parts of the world, at different points in time, and for different applications, the pound (or its translation) has referred to broadly similar but not identical standards of mass or weight."

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the baby and which is the bathwater?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[zippthorne]

What I don't get is why mass is quantified in pounds and not slugs [wikipedia.org].

Pounds-mass predates slugs. Of course it helps that the concept of "pounds" also predates the concept of a distinction between weight and mass.

And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons?

Because people don't measure their weight. They measure their mass. How much that mass happens to weigh at sea level or somesuch is unimportant, since it's the total quantity of matter that composes you that is the health concern.

But what is curious is that metric-users do use the idea of "kgs force" for things that are force measurements, when a perfectly acceptable newton already exists.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons? Because a fat chick in space is still a fat chick!

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[DaveV1.0]

Please show where there is a similar clause in the OOXML standard.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[zappepcs]

HUH?

What they were thinking was that someone offered a specification for standard and they saw the necessity of having a standard specification and they went ahead and approved it. I believe they are supposed to evaluate that 'standard' to ensure that it meets the specific and general requirements of such a standard before accepting it as a standard. Paying off the mortgage on the summer house is not one of the requirements, BTW.

Whatever PJ thinks is hardly relevant here. What any individual thinks about the new standard is irrelevant except to the extent that he needs to use it. Did you ever take any of those logic tests? Do well, did you?

What people think of the 'standard' is totally relevant. Simply blindly accepting something as the golden rule is ignorant, and this will (probably) lower the esteem of this standards body for a very long time. That is damaging to the purpose of standards, and part of the reason that there are not 47 international standards bodies.

Since OOXML is not the only specification out there, it behoves anyone with contrary feelings to promote their favorite standard rather than try to bring down OOXML. Okay, back to your logic problems. How do you promote your own favorite standard without verbally bashing this one that is trying to supplant the good value of your favorite standard?

Yes, I know that sounds like being negative, but you must remember that using OOXML as a design example of what standards SHOULD NOT BE is a valid method to promote the standard of your choice.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[91degrees]

George III never had his head chopped off! He was the one that chatted to trees.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[jx100]

why only in this one case are you so willing to claim fraud

We've seen blatant, ample evidence that this was a bought vote. We've seen MS bribe normally uninterested countries into voting their way. We've seen them manage to fast-track a standard when it is obviously due more scrutiny (if nothing else, due to its larger size compared to the earlier ODF standard). And we've seen *blatant* vote tampering with Norway, which voted yes despite a majority of its technical advisors voting no.

The ISO's complicity in all this cheating is plain and obvious to anyone who cares to look. Their attitude of blaming the observers is, frankly, insulting to the morals and intelligence of anyone who is speaking the truth.

Yes, this does bring suspicion on the validity of the other standards. However, the other standards do not have the blatant, obvious process tampering that this one did, nor (to my knowledge) the enormous, unscrupulous corporation with an interest in seeing the standard passed.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Chandon Seldon]

And if not, then why only in this one case are you so willing to claim fraud?

I don't know much about the ISO process or about previous ISO standards, but it's entirely possible that this is the first time that an ISO standards process has been gamed so thoroughly.

There is evidence that multiple new countries signed up as ISO members *specifically* to vote in OOXML. If so, that's an extremely large scale procedural attack. If this is the first time that a procedural attack on that scale has been attempted, then the whole situation only implies that the ISO wasn't prepared to withstand an attack of that magnitude (and now are trying to cover their asses in response).

Now, if that is what occurred and the ISO goes on refusing to admit to the problem rather than trying to fix it then the ISO name will no longer be worth trusting - but the ISO still has a month or so to make a procedural catch on this issue, fix the problem, and save their reputation.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Tom]

Excellent analogy, Chandon.

Yes, ISO was essentially owned by a 0-day. That's bad enough. But much worse is the part where they pretend nothing happened, no damage was done, everything is alright - instead of fixing the hole and undoing the damage.

I know what I'd think about a sysadmin who acts that way with his system. I tend to think the same about ISO now: Incompetence, corruption and stupidity.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[hedwards]

I believe they are supposed to evaluate that 'standard' to ensure that it meets the specific and general requirements of such a standard before accepting it as a standard. Paying off the mortgage on the summer house is not one of the requirements, BTW. Precisely, that sort of thinking is what made web development such a nightmare. Compared to the relatively straightforward task that it should have been, there's a bunch of proprietary gunk that various browsers use and even relatively trivial tasks often times require far more hackery than is fair to expect. Even then it may or may not work. I see no reason why ISO needs to encourage that sort of MS v., Netscape misbehavior. In the long run everybody lost as a result of that selfish behavior.

Yes, I know that sounds like being negative, but you must remember that using OOXML as a design example of what standards SHOULD NOT BE is a valid method to promote the standard of your choice. Ideally the standard should be as simple as possible, while still clearing up all of the important issues. The length of the OOXML spec along with the large number of issues which were never addressed is a good reason to be concerned about the standard being co-opted.

At present it doesn't seem that the end users, developers or really anybody other than MS is going to benefit from having an additional standard to use. Especially one that's as complicated as the OOXML spec apparently is. In some respects it's somewhat unfortunate that this isn't Apple, because iSO would be such a good tag.

I'm just waiting to hear what happens with the Norwegian complaints. I don't think that the deadline for them challenging their vote has expired yet.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[zkiwi34]

That memory makes me wonder if these ISO buffoons have the same King George tendency for conversations with the flora, or perhaps if you're more cynical they were looking at trees wondering how many benjamins could be made out of them.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Akita24]

As is a bigoted, insensitive, shallow asshole.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[TheRealSlimShady]

There's also evidence that multiple new people signed up *specifically* to vote against OOXML - it cuts both ways.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone finally did see the idiocy of that system and got around to actually fixing it. Probably somewhere around 300 years ago.

I'm guessing here, but Imperial measurements have probably been in use for 1000 years.

So in 700 years, OOXML will be a real standard, but with lots of cruft and heavy penalties in maintaining anything that uses it, especially if you have to convert to ODF.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a joke. Why are you on Slashdot? Don't you have some fem-nazi rally to attend or shouldn't you be bragging to your hippie friends how you have a negative carbon foot print?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[jsebrech]

Yes, this does bring suspicion on the validity of the other standards.

I don't think ISO realizes how much damage they've done to themselves here. ISO certification is supposed to guarantee that no matter what, your process is sound. ISO's own process has failed here, and everybody knows it. If ISO themselves can't even adhere to an ISO process, what value is their certification? What value is any ISO standard?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[jimicus]

If the Imperial system consisted of definitions like "Measure this like King George III would have", I'm sure people would argue against that being a standard also. The Imperial system did consist of such definitions. From the Wikipedia article about the foot:

Some believe that the original measurement of the English foot was from King Henry I, who had a foot 12 inches long; he wished to standardise the unit of measurement in England. However this is unlikely, because there are records of the word being used approximately 70 years before his birth (Laws Ãthelstan). This of course does not exclude the possibility that this old standard was redefined ("calibrated") according to the ruler's foot. In fact, there is evidence that this sort of process was common at least in earlier ages. In other words, a new important ruler could try to impose a new standard for an existent unit, but it is unlikely that any king's foot was ever as long as the modern unit of measurement. (emphasis mine)

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Jason Levine]

I was referring to clauses in OOXML such as "FormatLikeWord95".

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

That stuff isn't in OOXML any more, it was removed during the standardization process (because people complained that it didn't belong in the spec).

Now it lives in a technical annex to the document that describes all the legacy behavior.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Chandon Seldon]

If that's true, it just makes the credibility of the voting results even worse.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

you're doing it wrong. first you need to compare your mass to a reference using a balance scale, THEN you use a spring scale to measure the weight force (in newtons) your body produces. with the two values at hand, you divide your weight by your mass, and the result should be 9.8

using only a spring scale in your bathroom simply won't tell you anything, unless you calibrate it everyday with copy of the international prototype kilogram (IPK).

man, this is the second time in less than a week that i post something absolutelly pedantic... should i start to worry ?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[edalytical]

I'm not going to pretend I know that much about this, but that is my fear too...if ISO continues to defend this decision they are risking a loss of good faith, or perhaps a loss of confidence. The publicly known irregularities should be enough for ISO to admit they made a mistake and restart the standardization process. I think anything "fast-tracked" should be considered suspicious.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Mathinker]

He's trying to make an analogy to the tags similar in nature to "DoSomeFormattingLikeWord5" which exist (although deprecated) in OOXML.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better analogy: some rich guy pays a dog walker to have a Saint Bernard shit in your yard.

You don't take the turd inside and call it your baby.

OOXML is a bought-and-paid-for turd. ISOldout indeed.

(Appropriately, the captcha is "shovel". Too damn bad there isn't one big enough in the entire universe to shovel the OOXML turd out of existence...)

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also evidence that multiple new people signed up *specifically* to vote against OOXML - it cuts both ways.

I've looked but have been unable to find such evidence. From what I've read, the countries that joined the p-member group at the last minute and haven't voted since the OOXML vote, all voted FOR OOXML with the exception of one abstain. Can you give me any specifics to point me in the right direction?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[JSG]

I've just been through the ISO9001:2000 mill and I think that is an excellent standard.

I don't know much about the ISO process or about previous ISO standards, but it's entirely possible that this is the first time that an ISO standards process has been gamed so thoroughly. One of the things close to the /. home that I could personally find fault with in the ISO standards is "GB" as the ISO 3166 code for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (blah blah blah). I'm aware that the little islands that I call home have a bit of a grand name. Most people I know will refer to the UK or talk about "Britain" but rarely use GB as an abbreviation.

I believe that they were used as the TLDs for countries. However most people will look for .uk on the end of our domains and not .gb.
Mind you the United States of America is not abbreviated to "" in common parlance or by the standard. Few people I know of use .co.us and .uk.com etc aren't too popular either. Is that gaming or an example of a standard being out of step with usage?

I can't remember hearing much beating of breasts over that recently.

As is often said: "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from" (1)

So there are "good" ISO standards and there are "bad" ones.

Oh, and is it ISO or OSI - what's the standard here: should Francophones be forced to use ISO or Anglophones OSI? I wouldn't dream of comparing French and English to ODF and OOXML but if someone were to do so, then which would match up with which?

----
(1) Many people, probably including Anon.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[JSG]

Nope. Never used Kilos for force.

Kilos for mass and Newtons for force. End of chat!

I do also use "Rule of Thumb" and "Imperial" mensuration systems as well though ...

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[firefly4f4]

There's evidence -- circumstantial though it may be -- that entire COUNTRIES signed up their standards committees as P members to vote for the proposed OOXML standard. There's a difference between that and individual companies joining a national committee to vote one way or the other.

Now, with respect to those individual companies, I would never dream of saying that Google is not 100% capable of reviewing the proposed standard independently and deciding it's of poor enough quality that they must to join the committee in order to vote against it.

I similarly cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not the other companies who joined those same committees and happened to have contracts with Microsoft and who voted for the proposed standard were capable of and did independently review the proposed standard before voting.

FYI: In the interest of fairness, I will state that I do work for IBM, but these are my own opinions.

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that fat chicks in space are bigoted, insensitive, shallow assholes?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[firefly4f4]

Even if it's legacy behaviour, it still needs to be described. My understanding is that it was moved to the "deprecated" section, meaning older documents conforming to an earlier version of the specification -- but still the standard -- may have this behaviour (although new ones will not). Thus, anyone wanted to process those will need to implement it needs to know how to do it... and it's still not described in terms that don't reference a Microsoft product?

In addition, how can a standard that hasn't been implemented have a section on legacy behaviour?

Re:What the hell were they thinking?

[complete loony]

Or cubit's "Measure this like Noah would have". Historically most forms of measurement were based on how someone else would have measured it. Most forms of measurement are based on body proportions or walking speed.

This one's good.

[Jason Levine]

About investigating charges of corruption of the voting process:

We reviewed the process before it started, all the while during its course and afterwards as well. While the voting on ISO/IEC 29500 has attracted exceptional publicity, it needs to be put in context. ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards respectively, these being revised and added to every month. This suggests that the standards development process is credible, works well and is delivering the standards needed, and widely implemented, by the market. Because continual improvement is an underlying aim of standardization, ISO and IEC will certainly be continuing to review and improve its standards development procedures.

So they're basically saying: "Since we've done a lot of successful standards before, there can't possibly be anything wrong with how this one was carried out."

Re:This one's good.

[DoofusOfDeath]

So they're basically saying: "Since we've done a lot of successful standards before, there can't possibly be anything wrong with how this one was carried out."

No, no, no. They're saying: "This was approved with the same process as all our other standards. So imagine how many other ISO standards are complete BS!"

Re:This one's good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we've done a lot of successful standards before, there can't possibly be anything wrong with how this one was carried out.

Yeah, it is a nice misdirection they pulled. I have always considered the study of logic to be akin to studying mental self-defense (or, perhaps "brain-fu").

I would classify their fallacy as "ignoratio elenchi," or "ignorance of refutation." Their evidence did demonstrate something, but not what they set out to demonstrate. Stating "ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards" could be used to defend statements like "we have produced standards," "we produce standards," "we have produced LOTS of standards," etc. This statement, however, does NOT suggest that "the standards development process is credible."

Credibility must be established by evidence other than volume. And we already have plenty of evidence suggestive of a lack of credibility.

Re:This one's good.

[rhsanborn]

Agreed. Their defense doesn't support their assertion. That said, I've read lots of mentions of corruption, but does anyone have some links to stories with specific cases of corruption, etc.

Oh, and for the love of all things, please stop confusing standard with free to implement. There are plenty of standards that aren't freely available for anyoen to implement. I understand that Microsoft intentionally confused the issue by calling it 'open'. But standards don't obligate anyone to allow others free access to implement the idea.

Re:This one's good.

[amchugh]

Actually I suspect what they are saying is:

"Hey, we've been in the business of standardization a long time, we know we got gamed, and we're going to clean it up as discreetly as we can manage now that the harsh light of public attention is on us."

However, I could be wrong on that.

Re:This one's good.

[kocsonya]

More akin to "Since this bank has been transferring billions of dollars a year for many years now, there is no reason to accuse us with financial mismanagement or malicie of any sort just because this one single account somehow became short by a couple of measly millions and in the same time, completely accidentally and coincidentally, the private accounts of our head accountant, a cashier and the CEO has received donations from and undisclosed source in the vicinity of a couple of millions."

Re:This one's good.

[Bryansix]

Great Post. I love it when people point out logical fallacies. Now if only I didn't use up all my mod points on that comcast article.

It's funny. I think we can put their argument into perspective by comparing them to the Patent office of the US. The Patent office grants thousands of patents. That makes their credibility go down; not up.

Re:This one's good.

[Schnoodledorfer]

Actually, the ability to create many standards in the past doesn't even mean they can generate so many standards (of any quality) now or in the future. It also doesn't mean that there isn't a specific problem in SC34, the subcommittee that handles Document Description and Processing Languages. Apparently its work "ground to a halt". The additional of new NBs to the list of P-members apparently for the purpose of voting to approve OOXML apparently resulted in the inability of SC34 to function normally. One would think ISO and IEC would be very concerned about that. No mention of that in the FAQ, though.

Re:This one's good.

[seebs]

These accusations of murder are ridiculous. I can point to THOUSANDS of people who are clearly still alive, proving that my client has virtually never murdered anyone!

Re:This one's good.

[clickety6]

Since I pulled the trigger five times and didn't get shot in the head, then I should be safe when I pull the trigger for the sixth time...

Re:This one's good.

[samj]

The security of the I$O standards process simply hasn't been subjected to this kind of sustained and distributed attack before, and is too slow to do anything about it mid-flight.

By the time the catch up to what's happened it could well be too late, unless someone convinces a national standards body to appeal within the next month or so.

So clear to me now

[Anonymous Coward]

So Basically OOXML has been fast tracked as a standard because a P-member of the JTC1 proposed to fast-track ISO/IEC 2950 to be adopted as an ISO/IEC standard by the joint technical committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, and this all moved very fast.

Got it.

No reason to read anything.

[david@ecsd.com]

The car analogy's already been done for me.

loophole

[ianare]

If, after publication of the standard, it is determined that licenses to all required patents are not so available, one option would be to withdraw the International Standard. Hopefully Microsoft will be stupid enough to do this, like maybe going after Sun or IBM for using it in OpenOffice ...

Well I can dream can't I ?!?

Re:loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

one option would be to withdraw the International Standard

That also comes across as a warning to Microsoft not to take the piss any further.

" ISO Releases OOXML FAQ" is equivalent to

[blind biker]

"We are incompetent, irrelevant and corrupted, and we have a deep attachment to all that."

summary

[thermian]

Microsoft wanted an ISO standard so they could still sell to governments who now require open standards (and the many who will do so in the future).

They used money and pressure on companies to get them to vote, and tied up the obviously inadequate procedures of ISO organisation until it agreed to do what they wanted.

So, they win, we lose, this decision will never be reversed, because to do so would destroy ISO's credibility in the wider world (not just this one issue, which many ISO using organisations still likely don't know about).

Now, ISO are trying to save face. This will work, because too many people have a vested interest in ISO not being discredited for it to fail. If failure is announced by the techie press, they will simply ignore it and carry on.

Re:summary

[MightyMartian]

Well, let's hope the EU makes Microsoft pay dearly for this stunt.

Re:summary

[Znork]

to do so would destroy ISO's credibility in the wider world

And to not do so would destroy ISO's credibility in the wider world, as well.

Many ISO standards have had flaws before; now adding corruption and outright blatant incompetence at their primary purpose to the list of sins will impact ISO relevance. Perhaps that was partially Microsofts intention; the end result is more likely to be a migration to a standards building process with more integrity.

This will work

No it wont. This isn't 1990 where people communicate through mass media or read books and encyclopedias to get information. Anyone using the internet to look up ISO will come across references to the corruption in question.

Re:summary

[xOneca]

You said: governments now require open standards.

OOXML seems to be open, but it isn't.

Re:summary

[thermian]

OOXML seems to be open, but it isn't.

You seem to have missed that there has been a recent change to the meaning of open.

It now means, 'whoever has the most money gets to be declared the most open'.

Re:summary

[erayd]

An 'open-wallet' standard...

Incompetence

[Tom]

Will ISO and IEC review how ISO/IEC 29500 was adopted?

We reviewed the process before it started, all the while during its course and afterwards as well. 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.

Re:Incompetence

[g4b]

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

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Incompetence

[jsebrech]

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.

Re:Incompetence

[Anonymous Coward]

I have doubts now not only about the ISO's reliability and competence, but actually their purpose.

If everything is all left up to the marketplace to decide ... then what is it the ISO does, again?

What was it that they were adding to the market's process?

I wonder...

[jd]

...if ISO was paid in euros or dollars. You'd probably want to fast-track to this degree if your bribe goes down in value the longer you take.

Re:I wonder...

[smittyoneeach]

The value of the bribe plummets with the standard to which it is attached.
Which victory is more pyrrhic: submitting OOXML or shipping Vista?

Re:I wonder...

[droopycom]

ISO is normally paid in CHF.

Look for ISO 4217 if you dont know what CHF is....

Just a small detail

[uffe_nordholm]

The FAQ addresses the issue of contradictions with other ISO and IEC Standards. Part of the answer given is as follows:

"A number of such claimed contradictions were identified...//...It is possible that others may still remain, but these can be taken care of during the maintenance of the standard."

Am I to interpret this as meaning that when they find problems with the standrad, they will change the standard to 'fix' it?

If my interpretation is correct, I wonder where this leads us. I could end up having bought a number of licences for some software that conforms to the standard, only to find, a month or two later, that they have altered the standard.

Since there is a great deal of movement in the EU to accept only standardised file formats, where would this leave me and my umpteen licences? When I bought the software it followed the standard, but does not later. Can I expect the manufacturer to provide me a free upgrade/patch, or is my software to be considered still standards-compliant, or will I simply have to fork out more money for the latest, currently compliant, version?

And the situation gets more interesting when you reverse it: suppose I get the absolutely latest version of some compliant software, and save a file that I send to someone with an older, now not compliant, version of the same software. How should this older version handle my file? should it spit out an error message: "I cannot open this standards compliant file, because the standard has been updated too much"? Or should it open the file and do the best it can? Or should it notify the user that this particular file is newer than the software and might not render correctly?

I can't help but think that a lot of potential problems would have been avoided if the work around this particular standard had been allowed to take it's time, so that a technically sound standard was accepted.

Re:Just a small detail

[clodney]

Lots of standards have revisions. I presume that before we had 802.11 a/b/g/n we simply had 802.11.

Just hours ago I was reading the TWAIN 1.9a specification. 1.9a being a big tip-off that the spec has changed over time.

My TV and DVD player are connected with HDMI 1.3 compliant cables.

So yes, if there are problems with the standard they will change the standard. That is standard behavior if you will.

Re:Just a small detail

[Salsaman]

Since there is a great deal of movement in the EU to accept only standardised file formats, where would this leave me and my umpteen licences? When I bought the software it followed the standard, but does not later. Can I expect the manufacturer to provide me a free upgrade/patch, or is my software to be considered still standards-compliant, or will I simply have to fork out more money for the latest, currently compliant, version?

That is irrelevant to Microsoft. They will stick an "ISO compliant" label on Office, and they will be able to sell it to governments. That is all that matters to them.

Re:Just a small detail

[harlows_monkeys]

Those are all interesting questions. And they would have just as interesting months ago, when ODF was being standardized, as EXACTLY THE SAME THING happened there. A large number of technical issues raised about ODF were "resolved" by "OASIS will fix that in a later revision of the standard".

A very large number of the criticism of OOXML is about things where OOXML was treated exactly the same as most prior standards, including ODF. For God's sake, ODF got away with pushing spreadsheet formulas off to a later version--how can you have a viable office document format when spreadsheet formulas aren't specified? (This is addressed in ODF 1.2).

Re:Just a small detail

[bersl2]

For God's sake, ODF got away with pushing spreadsheet formulas off to a later version IIRC, this didn't come out at least until MS announced OOXML. It wasn't realized that a formula API needed to be standardized. Sure, that was an oversight, but we are engaging in hindsight.

The kind of errors that are in OOXML are not omissions but commissions.

Re:Just a small detail

[clickety6]

But these were revisions to improve the standard or to fix problems that weren't seen beforehand, not to patch over gaping holes that were seen before the first specification was approved.

I have visions of the OOXML Titanic sinking and Captain ISO trying to vainly plug the inrushing water with a few pieces of sticky tape whilst declaring to the passengers that everything will be all right.

The FAQ is missing questions

[Ben Justice]

Standards should be allowing open markets to flourish and they can't do this if the depend solely on a given operating system, environment or application. They can't do this when they allow proprietary extensions willy nilly. Where's this mentioned in the FAQ? The "market place" didn't decide diddley squat. ISO had a opportunity to give the âoemarket placeâ a chance but instead decided to assist a proven abusive and monopolistic company in it's bid to remain to moving target when it comes to being interoperable and compatible. How the hell does ISO get it's funding anyway? I sure hope it ain't public. The funding should be cut off. Anyways, I'm sure Microsoft will be more than willing to take up the slack.

Re:The FAQ is missing questions

[Bill_the_Engineer]

ISO had a opportunity to give the Ãoemarket placeà a chance but instead decided to assist a proven abusive and monopolistic company in it's bid to remain to moving target when it comes to being interoperable and compatible.

You *may* be putting too much value in ISO standards and its ability to stop a moving target and promoting interoperability. There is a difference between having a standard and having that standard enforced.

Just look at ISO-15445 for example...

I thank you fo6r your time

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirming the for election, I so there are people It's bes7 to try for a moment and

Losers with opinions!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes! Someone else who understands that this is in complete opposition to the way other standards are worked on, such as IEE 802.11a. And b. And g. And n.

Oh wait... that's a bad example, isn't it?

Well, then how about Teh Lunix? That's only had one version. It was born prefect, and remains perfect. No revisions needed.

Woohoo! We hate MS, and now we hate the ISO too!

Re:Losers with opinions!

[andymadigan]

Cite an example where there was a question over the voting practices in on of the IEEE 802.11x standards.

Linux is not a standard, just like Windows NT is not a standard, it's software.

Re:Losers with opinions!

[ewanm89]

It uses standards, notable POSIX, but it itself is not a standard.

The ISO's "patent policy"

[skymt]

It's among the vaguest documents I've ever read. All it ensures is "licences with other parties on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions." IANAL, but it seems like the word "reasonable" leaves far too much room for interpretation.

They're not idiots

[mathimus1863]

Let's end the whole those-ISO-guys-are-idiots. Every person who is impartial and technical has completely denounced the OOXML-trainwreck as a standard, and unfortunately, these are not the people who are in control to release documents like this. Clearly MS has more of a foot-in-the-door than we'd like (after all, OOXML passed), and it's these same threads they're pulling to get news releases like the BS "ISO OOXML FAQ", and "ISO Calls for Ceasefire of Personal Attacks."

MS has ISO exactly where they want it. They have the right people in their pocket, and the people who aren't in their pocket get fed up and leave, thus making the overall MS-influenced-members-to-impartial-members ratio just that much higher. But the point is, the people releasing the documents like this FAQ are not idiots. They know exactly what's going on (there's no way they couldn't know) and everything is carefully planned out. (yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it's tough not to be in this case)

The real question is how to bring ethics and order back to an organization which is flooded with bad members. A lot of rules or exceptions that could be used to help the impartial minority take back over, will also help the bad guys trigger false alarms and disrupt the process when they are in the minority. Honestly, I haven't come up with a solution to this conflict, yet. At least not without a higher-level government intervention which forces a reorganization, or a law is passed somewhere to ban members who have a conflict-of-interest.

Re:They're not idiots

[prockcore]

yes, I'm a conspiracy theorist, but it's tough not to be in this case

You're looking at the wrong conspiracy then. Look at how much FUD IBM has been responsible for. Look at the total nonsense that IBM has ordered PJ to spout out.

IBM is waging a war against OOXML and winning with outright lies because everyone on slashdot already hates microsoft.

Re:They're not idiots

[Bigon]

Right, they are not idiots, they're corrupted...

Re:They're not idiots

[jsebrech]

I've seen many articles that discredit OOXML that have raised specific verifiable issues. What verifiable evidence of your claims do you offer?

Re:They're not idiots

[prockcore]

http://blogs.technet.com/gray_knowlton/archive/2008/02/04/got-fud-here-s-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.aspx

There's a good summary.

Re:They're not idiots

[Gideon Fubar]

a pissy little business contest between two groups of suits is of less interest to this community than the membership of an international standards body. If the technically capable people leave, the whole point of ISO is lost.

It's true that ISO have dealt with non-implementable standards before (OSI anyone?) but at least there they have previously had working groups who attempted to hammer out the bugs without someone with only political interests watching over their collective shoulders.

Re:They're not idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, Gray Knowlton, you mean the Microsoft employee and liar who claims ODF has no accessibility support

I know what they were thinking..

[mweather]

They were thinking they could buy off the ISO. Were they wrong?

OH, how standards fly

[mugnyte]

Lets face it, standard or not the OOXML purpose of going through all this was to win contracts otherwise off-limits to MS. If Office can support OOXML, agreed with some slight "interpretations", they are now able to sell more. I believe other vendors better wake up to this and leverage this standard as fast as possible to keep up.

  This is also a way to limit IBM's influx of ODF usage in the same circles. MS recognizes that IBM's services on Linux/Websphere is slowly making inroads for some SOA platforms. Either OOXML or ODF could be the standard for human-generated content throughout that platform. ODF itself has issues of interpretation, but of course nowhere near as high as OOXML - at the moment. Simply put, its just a bit further along on the process of hammering out the bumps. In the end though, I expect platforms to need support for either format.

  Remember kids, this is just one a series of salvos that land on a marketeer's bullet point slide. There are many more, like support, pools for technical resources, openness, etc. If a government office decides that OOXML is fine as a format for document exchange, then they should still be able to pick and choose the components that run the services. Short version: One has to support both of these formats, and a whole lot of other technology "standards" to really be an enterprise-ready product.

  Don't confuse the battles for the war.

Re:OH, how standards fly

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be implementing DOCX (or MOOXML) rather than OOXML. Only the foolish would attempt to implement the incomplete subset that is OOXML while expecting any interoperability or share of the market. Occasionally the documentation might be useful but most believe that we're now back to reverse engineering Microsoft Office.

The market speaks!

[toriver]

ODF: 5+ applications can write the format.
OOXML: Zero applications can write the format.

ODF Wins!

Re:The market speaks!

[jsebrech]

Yes, but that's a bit like how no browser in the world correctly implement HTML and CSS, but most claim to.

MS will claim office implements OOXML, and that this makes it the most widespread standard, and enough people will buy into it to make the lie turn true.

Re:The market speaks!

[toriver]

As far as I have seen they have been "refreshingly" open about Office 2007 supporting "MSOOXML" which is not the same as the ECMA/ISO spec.

Re:The market speaks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, by that logic (that an app such as Office that doesn't fully implement the standard doesn't count) there are zero applications that can write ODF as well (so far, everything has an "almost" rating - nothing has it 100%)

Re:The market speaks!

[xOneca]

ODF: 5+ applications can write the format.
OOXML: Zero applications can write the format. And M$ Office can't read/write ODF nor OOXML (maybe can read this?)!

Re:The market speaks!

[jesterzog]

ODF will win in my eyes when MS Office will read and write it (correctly) without requiring a third party plugin. If it's a standard that 95% of users are unable to use (without conscious effort) then it's of limited usefulness.

That aside, I use ODF for my own things and I'd like it a lot if I could actually give my ODF docs to lots of other people and expect them to be able to open them.

Old news.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the ISO have FAQed up the issue of OOXML. This is old news, surely.

They won't fix it

[symbolset]

The FAQ is all about not fixing it. They're rationalizing about how they have great process and how they have to accept the result of that process. The fix is in.

And Microsoft? Now that they've built this grand machine for subverting ISO do you expect them to use it once and then throw it away? Not likely. Their duty to their shareholders and all that...

You can stick a fork in the ISO. They're done.

Re:They won't fix it

[KDR_11k]

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

Re:They won't fix it

[Akaihiryuu]

Yes, ISO is completely finished as a reputable standards body. They *may* continue to have some degree of relevance in other fields (as they have always handled much more than computer-related standards)...however, their credibility may be called into question even in these other areas (at least I'm hoping so). But as far as computer-related standards, they are completely finished. No reputable organization will pay any attention to "ISO" in the name of any computer-related standard. In fact, in this area, they are being replaced. The replacement has not officially launched yet, but it is coming soon: http://www.certifiedopen.com/ I'm all for coming up for new names for things like ISO9660 so that noone has to refer to "ISO" again.

Re:They won't fix it

[Darinbob]

Because the biggest fault was with Ecma approving the standard and asking for fast-track approval. Nothing else within ISO itself was really wrong or unusual according to the rules previously set up for other standards. It was Ecma that said "this is a mature standard, appropriate for fast-tracking." So why does ISO get the blame instead of Ecma?

Once a "real" standards body has presented something to ISO, then it's down to the business as usual of rubber stamping it. After all, the technical work should have been done already, all that's left is the politics. Which involves the individual voting members. Why does ISO get more blame here than the individual voters?

The only thing unusual going on is the level of publicity here. There are lots of other standards that are shoddy, which the market place generally ignores. Political issues trump technical ones, just like the majority of standards out there. What's different is that Microsoft is involved, which has caused a lot of people to look more closely at an international organization that they would normally have ignored.

ISO is not like IETF

[grandpa-geek]

IETF requires demonstrated interoperability using prototype reference implementations before they will adopt a standard.

ISO generally first adopts standards, then waits for people to prototype implementations and discover the bugs in the standard (unless someone walks in with existing technology and asks for it to be standardized). When people start reporting that aspects of the standard can't be implemented, ISO works on fixing it.

After ISO adopted the Open System Interconnection (OSI) standards, they had to set up "implementers' workshops" to figure out how to make their newly adopted standards workable. (The OSI standards are the 7-layer reference model and related protocol suite that were pushed aside by the Internet protocol suite, a.k.a TCP/IP. Many OSI protocols were never fully implemented or never made to work.)

The workshops met (one was sponsored by NIST) and produced a lot of documents on things that needed to be done to make OSI work. When the Clinton/Gore administration came into office, they killed US government support for the OSI protocols and told its agencies to use the Internet protocols.

Re:ISO is not like IETF

[rhizome]

So what do you think, should (or could) ODF submit to become an IETF standard? It would seem to raise the bar on quality to some degree that OOXML would not be able to match. Does IETF even /do/ file formats?

I don't trust ISO anymore...

[walter_f]

... and anybody else shouldn't, either.

Unless they cancel the Standardization of OOXML immediately and furthermore establish a reasonable code of conduct for itself and for all the national bodies that are entitled to vote.

Re:I don't trust ISO anymore...

[xOneca]

Me too...

I'm with you, and probably more people.

Does no one understand?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do any of the mouth breathers here complaining understand what standards are? So it is a standard, so what. You aren't required to follow it simply because it is a standard. It just means that the thing is documented and agreed upon. IF you claim to use it, you have a clearly documented standard. Good, bad, or otherwise it is documented. Like Betamax and VHS or HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. All are "standards" (granted these may have patent components). This is really a non-issue. MS applied for a standard, follow procedure and got their standard. People seem to think it somehow invalidates all other document formats and forces them to comply solely with ooxml.

Re:Does no one understand?

[MightyMartian]

A standard, by definition should be fully implementable by any party. You do not have to have secret knowledge to make a video cassette or a VHS videotape player. You do not have to reverse engineer the pinout on a DB25 RS232C interface to get data-in and data-out. These standards are open and documented to be implementable, to create common interfaces for various vendors to assure basic cross-compatibility.

Whatever the ISOs procedures, what Microsoft has got certified is a standard that, at best, can only be partially implemented without inside knowledge as to certain formats that remain proprietary. The standard is so hard to implement that Microsoft hasn't even produced a full-blown implementation yet.

Not a criterion

[Dan Posluns]

FTFA:

How could a 6 000-page document be fast-tracked? ... As stipulated in the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives under the section relating to the fast-track process, the criteria for proposing an existing industry standard for the fast-track procedure are a matter for each proposer to decide. In the case of ISO/IEC 29500, Ecma International considered that the fast-track procedure was appropriate. The number of pages of a document is not a criterion cited in the JTC 1 Directives for refusal. It should be noted that it is not unusual for IT standards to run to several hundred, or even several thousand pages. So basically, it was fast-tracked because we considered it "appropriate", and page length is not a criterion.

I would be interested to know how many pages the next-longest standard ran that was approved for fast-tracking.

Dan.

Cue Marly:

[smittyoneeach]

"IShOt the standard, but I did not shoot A-N-S-I"

Slashdot define ISO as

[ady1]

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

Compliance

[Toonol]

Part of the reason for ISO standards is so a product can be deemed standards compliant. Is it ISO itself that determines whether an individual product complies to the standard?

I'm curious, because I've heard that no product, including Microsoft's, currently follows the OOXML standard... and I wonder if there's a chance they never will? I suspect it may not be possible.

Or are Microsoft products going to be rubberstamped for the approval process as well, even if their implementation is buggy?

Re:Compliance

[Gideon Fubar]

Compliance is a matter of implementation. It's immediately obvious when an implementation of a standard isn't complete, because it's not 100% compatible with existing examples of the spec. In my understanding, no one person or group stamps a product as compliant to a standard.

Re: Microsoft's own implementation.. If a clear distinction is made between .docx and OOXML, those groups which require open, standard formats will not be able to use .docx/Office due to lack of standards compliance.

How that actually plays out is another thing entirely...

You'd think so!

[brennanw]

... but it gets me every time. :)

Re:You'd think so!

[ewanm89]

Maybe it's something to suggest to the slashcode devs?

this Fp for GNAA!

[Anonymous Coward]

the pro3lems one 3ommon goal -

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd mod you up, but I want to comment elsewhere in the thread. AC cause this is willfully offtopic...

I believe the lack is intentional...

[brennanw]

... to prevent people from altering their posts in ways that will make the rest of a thread impossible to understand. There is a particularly clever kind of trolling where someone creates a rabidly inflammatory post, waits until a horde of people have responded to the over-the-top comments in that post, and then re-edits the original so that the criticism is a lot more even-tempered... which makes it appear that the people who are responding to the post in its original form have gone off the deep end. Not being able to edit your posts pretty much makes that impossible.

Re:I believe the lack is intentional...

[Jurily]

What we need is an append-only mode, with timestamps.

(Or maybe a preview button.)

Re:I believe the lack is intentional...

[complete loony]

Or the reverse, which can be worse. Where you write a well researched post that gets positively moderated, only to be edited into a goatse link.

Re:I believe the lack is intentional...

[ewanm89]

There is a preview on the new javascript post form.

Re:I believe the lack is intentional...

[Jurily]

Umm... duh?

The preview button has been there for as long as I can remember. It was sarcasm.

ooXML Indian Giving Style

[Anonymous Coward]

I am terified of the ooXML ruling
a. ISO has publicly stated that it will revoke ISO clasification if Microsoft does anything not abiding by their rules.

However if my company invests 1-2 years and thousands of dollars into supporting and maintaining documents in ooXML

We would be locked to the ISO ooXML format now however is MS does start suing software developers implementing ooXML

Sure ISO will strip MS stature but MS will have already created a large ooXML user base with high investment.
and due to patent suits MS Office will be without competitors again.

ECMA is at fault also

[symbolset]

But that does not excuse ISO. On receipt of this monster ISO could have laughed, refused it, and revoked their recognition of ECMA as a standard setting body for cause. They could have used a less harsh method of censure amounting to "get away from me kid, I've got work to do."

ISO didn't do that. Instead it went through the drama in three acts that was the validation of this garbage. Now in this FAQ they tell us they monitored the process quite closely all the way through. That means they observed all of the shenanigans in real time and allowed them complicitly. At the end they tell us how proud they are of their process. Since the whole way through the rules changed at every step dynamically to force the approval and silence dissent they imply that was their intent and the result is the one they desired: approval at any cost.

The price of "approve at any cost" appears to be their credibility. Now they've no credibility left and ECMA has none to lend them.

The status of international standards body of record is a prestigious one. With it comes a hefty responsibility. You don't get to blame the other guy. The other guy is not ISO.

They're toast.

What about ISO safety standards ?

[Aussie]

What about ISO safety standards ? Should I be concerned that some of the safety standards may be purely motivated by company profits rather than actual safety ? Is my ISO certified bicycle helmet actually safe or is it "safe" for some companies profit ? Maybe we need a new standards org for safety standards as it seems ISO can no longer be trusted.

Dr. ISO

[Anonymous Coward]

it needs to be put in context. ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards respectively, these being revised and added to every month. This suggests that the standards development process is credible, works well and is delivering the standards needed, and widely implemented, by the market

Dr. ISO: Sorry Mrs. XYZ, But I must disagree to your statement that your husband has died when I operated on him. I have conducted 17000 operations till date. And no patient has died before. So based on this very statistics, even if my patient, who is your husband, does not breathe, does not respond to electric shocks, does not produce signals on the ECG monitor, has already been pronounced dead by my junior, has been burried following a grand funeral, I still pronounce him alive.

ISO is an emoticon

[VeteranNoob]

Doesn't it look like a stick-figure playing air-guitar? Sans font

Coincidentally, it goes with the theme.

If competing standards...

[brandonY]

If competing standard need to be decided by the marketplace, then what the hell do we have an ISO for?!

MOD PARENT UP

[LingNoi]

EXACTLY WHAT I WAS THINKING!

Legacy documents...

[LaurensVH]

From TFA: >> while others claim that ISO/IEC 29500 provides additional functionalities, particularly with regard to legacy documents. Yeah. Legacy documents in a standardized format, that render the same on every platform and with every implementation, right? Most Office2k3 and OfficeXP/2k documents I've seen do *not* work in the other version (not even from the old version to 2k3).

OO

[remmelt]

Don't you know what those O's stand for? Open Open XML! See? Double open! It must be very open! Way more open than ODF, which only has one O (and what's a DF anyway?)

More of a QWWPWFA than a FAQ

[Joce640k]

That's: "Questions We Wish People Were Frequently Asking".

Time to take ISO on that last, sad trip to the vet

[hyades1]

I hadn't thought shooting oneself in the foot was fatal. In the case of the ISO and its manifestly dishonest dealings with respect to OOXML, I may be mistaken.

Why Is Everyone Picking on the ISO??

[rarkm]

Here at RarkCO Enterprises International, we are PROUD to have been ISO 9000 certified. After a lengthy, disruptive and expensive ISO 9000 audit, all of our processes are documented in detail and our ISO 9000 audit demonstrates that we are a leader in our industry in JIT process, financial controls and market transparency. Furthermore, our risk management controls are top tier and our customers and shareholders value our rigid adherence to the highest standards of quality and honesty... --- HEY! WTF??

(THUD!!! CRASH!!! (sounds of secretaries screaming))

** HANDS UP! FREEZE! THIS IS THE FBI! **

(sounds of handcuffs being locked)

um...gotta go...

I have a good question

[soybean]

Where the hell can I get some of that awesome crack you've been smoking!?

Appeal for National Standards Body Appeals!

[samj]

If we're to have any chance of restoring order then we need to convince a national standards body to appeal. And if you can't convince them, convince the local authorities to make them, in the name of competition.

No point sitting here complaining - do something about it!

This is real.

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

System report: Everything is fine. Nothing is ruined.

The OOXML Blueprint (abridged)

[Anonymous Coward]

The ISO recently released FAQs on ISO/IEC 29500 (Apr 2008; www.iso.org) in defense of their approval of the contentious Microsoft OOXML. Their core rationale has been included:

1) How could a 6 000-page document be fast-tracked?
'Ecma International considered that the fast-track procedure was appropriate... The number of pages of a document is not a criterion cited in the JTC 1 Directives...'

2) Why would ISO and IEC allow two standards for the same subject?
'After a period of co-existence, it is basically the market that decides which survives.'

3) What about hidden patent issues?
'...patent policy requires that licenses be available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms...and that all identified patent owners make a declaration to that effect.'

4) What about contradictions with other ISO and IEC Standards?
'...the final decision on whether there are contradictions and how to resolve them rests with the national members of ISO and IEC.'

5) How are national votes formed?
'ISO and IEC national members... are fully responsible for the way national votes are formed...'

6) What was the post-BRM voting on ISO/IEC 29500?
'There was no post-BRM voting, but only the possibility of changing a previously submitted vote.'

7) Will ISO and IEC review how ISO/IEC 29500 was adopted?
'We reviewed the process before it started, all the while during its course and afterwards as well... ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards respectively...'

Conclusion
The ISO would like to assure the public they followed protocol. Unwittingly, ISO presents a blueprint of how a powerful entity has raped and sodomized their process. Inferred are MS tactics of overwhelming with excessive and convoluted documentation and fast tracking; sidestepping patent issues and the previous established standard; and aggressive lobbying and stacking national votes 'all the while' being under review. We feel for you ISO; MS has been stickin' it to all of us for a long time. This is why ODF was originally brought before you.

ISO reputation has been tarnished to the extent they need reminding from the public:
a) ISO has certified the very antithesis of a definitive 'standard'; they have sanctioned monopolistic control
b) 'No fault' is not the same as 'accountability', which requires addressing the politicking and tactics used to undermine fair processes
c) Failure to enact procedural changes ensures repeated abuse and continued repudiation

The ISO might begin by reviewing their own mission statements which includes:
i) 'ISO is derived from the Greek isos, meaning 'equal''
ii) 'Create 'a level playing field' for all competitors on those markets'
iii) 'Safeguard consumers, and users in general, of products and services'

We hope ISO can rise to the occasion and salvage their reputation, and address the international need for a truly open and free standard in electronic documentation.

Further news

[evilninjax]

In further news, Microsoft Word is now being adopted as the standard wordprocessor.