Slashdot Mirror
Unix Group Takes UK Standards Body To Court Over OOXML
superglaze writes "Halfway through the two-month window of opportunity during which OOXML's ISO standardization can be derailed by a formal objection from a national standards body, the UK Unix Users Group is trying to force the British Standards Institution to do just that. According to the Unix Users Group, the BSI used a flawed decision-making process when they chose to approve OOXML in the ISO vote. 'The UKUUG is also folding in many other complaints about Office Open XML (OOXML), such as unresolved patent issues and a lack of completion in the specification's documentation, and is calling for the High Court of Justice to force a judicial review of the BSI's decision.' This is not the first time a country's ISO vote has been challenged."
Props UK, boo others.
OOXML is such a foul, repugnant anti-standard, and it will be pushed so hard, that if it's accepted it will severely damage the whole idea of interoperability standards.
ODF implementations have been written for countless office apps. Getting that out is not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
We can do both.
It's called teamwork. While one group is building the tools you mention, others are putting themselves in the path of an 800 lb. gorilla. It's not just the heroes who save the day, but all of the little people in red shirts that buy them time.
And it's not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML. So you shoot yourself in the foot by appearing to want to go technologically backwards and like whiny bitches at the same time. Wow, nice spin-doctoring.
The alternative is to say nothing, which would be seen as tacit acceptance -- and then we would actually be forced to implement this "standard". So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. At least this way, there's a chance we'll get the decision reversed.
Because I care a lot more about actually working with ODF (and not working with ODF) then looking good by cooperating with OOXML in any way. Save the energy you want to spend on protests and lawsuits and direct it towards building a better product. See, the problem is, we tried that, and it didn't work.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
what has Microsoft done wrong with this? What has the ISO body done wrong?
Frankly this is obvious to anyone who's read anything about this - I'm going to assume you're a troll if you're still asking the question.
Just in case you're not trolling; ISO standards should be independently implementable by anyone. OOXML cannot be independently implemented. Therefor MS should not have submitted & ISO body should not have approved.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I thought the advantage of standards was to reduce divergence in systems. The more implementations of particular items, such as screws, conform to a standard, such as phillips head, the better it is for the people who use screws.
Energy has/is being focused on implementations of another standard and there are already good implementations of the formats you mention from numerous sources including Microsoft.
The problem with OOXML is that it cannot be implemented by anyone other than a single vendor because the format as defined contains references to specific behavior without actually specifying said behavior.
Where a vote has been passed on an obviously incomplete specification and through such blatant corruption, it should be challenged. This is the duty of anyone who values freedom and democracy - and for people intelligent enough to appreciate the importance of the the rule of law. The fact that the format was pushed through by Microsoft in particular is irrelevant to this point.
The UKUUG taking legal action over the corruption in the vote doesn't make them look like whiners. It makes them look like learned elders who are about to take a stick to a bunch of delinquents. And all power to them.
Protest against the standardization of OOXML doesn't appear technologically backwards when conducted in an appropriate forum and it portrays OOXML as the backwards step it truly is.
As the web makes it possible for more devices from more vendors to inter-operate seamlessly, along comes a format which is only really implementable by one vendor. If someone was to try this with heads or threads, they'd be totally screwed. Microsoft needed to pay to have this pass and by highlighting that at every step of the way, the more money they pour into this, the more corrupt they appear and the more they blacken their own name.
Oh nonononono. Silly little monkey.
This is not about a product. This is about a format to be implemented by anyone who can read a specification
A reasonable open standard already exists.
Using the judiciary to defeat corruption wherever it exists is entirely correct. That is one of the reasons for it's existence.
Toss pot
I don't therefore I'm not.
what you call whining other might call doing there job to protect there company or clients.
The reason you see it as whining is because your on microsofts side so it appears to you as whining where as on our side its fighting the good fight.
The key problem here is that you should have to fight to have your standard approved. If you can not defend your standard. If you can not close the holes in your documentation to shoot down all the challenges then you dont deserve to have it pass standardization.
Also you say its a step backward however we move technology forward by challenging existing and upcoming technology.
Standards are important.
My car is made by $COMPANY1.
I can buy tires for it made by $COMPANY2.
I can put them on wheels made by $COMPANY3.
I can tighten the weelnuts with a wrench from $COMPANY4.
You get the idea?
I'm sure that $COMPANY1 would just love to sell me everything to do with my car from the tires on up, but they can't because it's all STANDARD.
STANDARDS are good for consumers, Monopolies are not.
Because those of us that have and are sent Word documents in email give a shit.
Because those of us that go to school and are told to type our papers in Word and to turn in .doc files give a shit.
Because those of us who take online classes and have to download Word documents give a shit.
Because those of us that work in governments and want to be able to exchange information with other agencies give a shit.
Because libraries that believe in open and easily accessible information give a shit.
Because those of us that don't want to use MS Word give a shit.
Because those of us that can't afford MS Word give a shit.
Because makers of other office suites give a shit.
Because those of use that use FOSS give a shit.
Because historians don't want to rely on a MS rosetta stone give a shit.
Because I give a shit.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
Put another way: No, we can't win by throwing large sacks of cash around, the way Microsoft is. You found us out -- we simply cannot compete.
I, for one, would much rather win on technical merits. But technical merits can't buy people the way money can. The best we can do is take away their ability to simply throw large sacks of money around, by calling them on it.
Oh, and "suing" is not "whining" by a long shot. Suing is doing something about it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
If the people over at the ISO have any level of logic left within their collective, they would have some respect for ODF and the people who worked on it and drop it. It is impossible for ODF to exist favorably in the face of of MS-OOXML for several, non-technical reasons
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
The question is of course, how to counter this?
Had MS come up with a truly better standard and had attempted to see it passed legitimately, I doubt we'd see the complaints we do now. I have seen no one with a specific problem over the VC-1 standard, despite the fact that it is based off of an MS-created codec. If they had truly been interested in actually furthering the state of the art and technical quality, I would personally defend them for actually doing a good job.
Would you care to give an example of such an independent implementation? According to Alex Brown, the person who convened the Ballot Resolution Meeting for ISO/IEC, Microsoft's own current current implementation does not conform to the 'standard'
Ah, NOW I see what you mean. Why, in fact, I've just implemented the standard myself right here:
main(){exit(1);}
What do you mean my implementation doesn't conform? Neither does Microsoft's.
The issue is that OOXML is an inferior "standard", which has been forced through the process using bribery, corruption and ignorance, and all while a superior standard for the same thing already exists. If microsoft were truly interested in standards and interoperability at all, they would have implemented the existing standard, and joined it's steering committee when they were first invited several years ago.
We don't want to be forced to use that inferior format, simply because microsoft bought and paid for enough people at standards boards, as this will hurt the industry as a whole. It's only microsoft who stands to benefit from OOXML, everyone else loses in one way or another.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nothing here has been worth modding up. All the first 49 posts have been moronic shill/troll posts asking what's wrong with OOXML, and a lot of people reposting old information which was here months ago.
OFC, this is off-toopic too, so it won't get modded up either.
I think I get what you mean with irregular tables. Paragraph 8.1 says
If this is insufficient to specify an "irregular table", e.g. to nicely layout its outer border, you'll have to be more specific..I don't know what you mean with ink.
Wow.. that's rich..Even if Sun played nasty in OASIS, which I can't comment on because I'm an outsider, don't you think that a lot of new companies suddenly could have joined the OASIS Office committee who all miraculously voted in favour of these Microsoft Office features? I'm sure a way would have been found, and it would have been cheaper than lobbying 87 nations. Without the approval vote of Kazakhstan, CÃte d'Ivoire, and Trinidad and Tobago OOXML wouldn't have passed :-(
BTW: why does it say "Status: deleted" (with an icon of a garbage can) on the ISO 29500 page? I must be hallucinating.
I don't understand this point: if it's a blob, all it needs is a descriptor (such as SMIL), and if it's not a blob, why isn't it in the standard, or referred to with its own international standard?ISO OOXML uses a single format for spreadsheet dates (the ISO standard), while ODF uses 3 different date formats.
Um.. from ECMA's disposition of comments, about OOXML's 1900- and 1904-based dates:
I think I'll stop answering your points now.. I'm tired.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?