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

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 ( $$$$$$$$$ )

Frequently Asked Questions indeed

[JeanBaptiste]

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

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

[$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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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?

[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?

[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?

[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:FAQ. I meant FAQ.

[Anonymous Coward]

brennanw (5761)

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

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.

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: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.

The market speaks!

[toriver]

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

ODF Wins!

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.

Slashdot define ISO as

[ady1]

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