Slashdot Mirror


UK Agency Files OOXML Complaint, EU Demurs

Christopher Blanc writes to let us know that although BECTA, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, has filed a complaint with EU regulators about Microsoft's business practices, the European Commission won't be doing anything particular about it. BECTA claimed that the OOXML format discourages competition. BECTA lodged a similar complaint with the UK Office of Fair Trading last October. A Commission press officer said, "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already and we are not treating it as a formal complaint to us."

132 comments

  1. Pay off. by sigterm9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wonder what its going to take in order to make it a "formal" complaint. Maybe attach a tazer to that complaint to get some attention from someone there. Or the Microsoft way, just pay the person to make it formal right?

    1. Re:Pay off. by flnca · · Score: 5, Informative
      Just read the last sentence of the article:

      "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already..." Microsoft is currently facing another EUR 899 million fine for not following EU antitrust regulations ( BBC article ). Recently, I read an article that mentioned explicitly that OOXML is already being investigated as yet another cause of concern. They're looking into it!
    2. Re:Pay off. by flnca · · Score: 1

      BTW, have a look at this publication of the European Court. It is the ruling of September 17, 2007 in the antitrust case.

    3. Re:Pay off. by exley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hit the nail right on the head. To me this article is pure flamebait. This is already being investigated, it was mentioned right in the summary, and the article was even said as being "from the we-know-we-know-already dept." for fuck's sake! All that is filtered out by Slashdot groupthink, though, so that we can launch into the latest edition of the Two Minutes Hate.

      I've started tagging most MS articles with "twominuteshate" because most of them are just like this one -- they add nothing new to the discussion and are just an excuse for people to get off on an anti-MS rant. Who the hell is running this site, twitter?

      Look, I'm no MS apologist but Slashdot has become like the boy who cried wolf -- even when a valid point is raised (instead of just being a flamebait article), I just can't get enthused because I'm tired of the nonsense.

    4. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look, I'm no MS apologist

      Yes you are.

    5. Re:Pay off. by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually /. started off anti-MS because we used to be a collection of IT-type people who actually had to work with their products and deal with their employees. MS has improved a bit over the years but is now, in the minds of a lot of people, simply a known bad actor.

      Basically, what you call "two minutes hate" is just recollection. I'm not sure why so many fans of the company cannot see that a lot of us are simply "once burned, twice shy".

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the article is FUD. Becta never asked that it's complaint be
      treated as a new complaint. It asked that it be added to the already
      existing complaint regarding OOXML. It has been.

      Here is what Becta said in its statement announcing it had sent its
      complaint already filed with the UK antitrust regulator to the EU
      Commission:

      "Following discussions with the OFT, Becta has now referred its interoperability complaint and related evidence to the European Commission in support of the Commission's wider investigation."

      Someone decided to write an article as if Becta had been denied its
      complaint as being redundant. That isn't accurate. It was added to
      the other complaint about OOXML, which is *exactly what Becta asked for*.
      Somehow it gets turned around and described as some kind of Microsoft
      victory.

      Disgusted you say? Ditto.

    7. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I'm no MS apologist
      Yes you are. And you're a dumbass.
    8. Re:Pay off. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is the new IBM. It took IBM forever to get rid of the "evil empire" image and some still consider it to apply.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    9. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he's right.

    10. Re:Pay off. by apt-get+moo · · Score: 1

      So, you honestly think that Microsoft will someday turn into something like the present-day IBM? And who do you think will follow them as the new 'Evil Empire'?

      --
      ...."Have you mooed today?"...
    11. Re:Pay off. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely unlikely. What we are seeing today might ery well be the first signs of Microsoft collapsing under their own weight. When that happens they will have to change the way they do business or perish. Microsoft is too big to just disappear, so I think they will shed some of their side businesses and find some niche to fill.

      As to who will succeed them as the Evil Empire... Google is a possibility. They don't have to, but it's not unthinkable. And they are the next big superstar in IT.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    12. Re:Pay off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who do you think will follow them as the new 'Evil Empire'?

      Good questiOn. I dOn't have a Great deaL of Expertise in this area though, so I'm not going to hazard a guess.

  2. Trasform teaching? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft insisted that it is "deeply committed" to education and interoperability. More schools are upgrading to Windows Vista and Office 2007 as they recognize the benefit of "embracing technology to transform teaching and learning," I'm not sure I want teaching to get transformed like this. It doesn't sound pleasant.
    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    1. Re:Trasform teaching? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft insisted that it is "deeply committed" to education and interoperability. More schools are upgrading to Windows Vista and Office 2007 as they recognize the benefit of "embracing technology to transform teaching and learning," I'm not sure I want teaching to get transformed like this. It doesn't sound pleasant.

      Even worse, it doesn't sound useful.
      To anyone but Microsoft, that is.

      There is nothing in either Vista od Office 2007 that I am aware of that can "transform teaching and learning" in any significant way. Not for the better, in any case.
      For one, I really don't see what makes Office 2007 better than any other office suite; it's not that high-school kids need all the functions provided in it.

      I strongly object to schools becoming training grounds where certain software packages will be taught. Schools should be about teaching basic concepts, not specific programs.
      (I wouldn't be ranting that much if Office 2007 didn't break compatibility both in file format and UI.)

      Computers can be used in class. In certain cases, they may even be extremely useful.
      There is much more to it, however, than Vista and Office.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Trasform teaching? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not sure I want teaching to get transformed like this. It doesn't sound pleasant.

      Actually, it's a time-honoured approach to teaching. In ancient Greece it was widespread for teachers to bugger their young students.

    3. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm not sure I want teaching to get transformed like this. It doesn't sound pleasant.

      Time to change Bill Gates' icon from Borg to Decepticon.

    4. Re:Trasform teaching? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is much more to it, however, than Vista and Office.

      Indeed, it would be best if every assignment required them to shift down to the next PC in a heterogeneous lab... a mix of Vista, 2k, XP, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and OSX units, with a mix of MS Office XP, 2007, Mac Edition, OpenOffice 2, iWork...

      Teach kids to learn what a spreadsheet, presentation, document is, and what can be done with them, and they'll figure out how to make it do what they need on each platform.

      But such a perfect world would be too much to ask... and not nearly as efficient as 200 stations that all boot from a single disk image on a server... whatever the platform is chosen. I'd prefer it not be windows though... I know my kids will get plenty of exposure to that one regardless. So a bias to a minority platform makes sense in a teaching environment.

    5. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, it would be best if every assignment required them to shift down to the next PC in a heterogeneous lab No, that is quite wrong.

      If the goal of the assignment is to learn computers in general, then this carries weight. There is a learning experience there.

      99% of "every assignment" is not learning to use the computer. It is learning to express thoughts in writing, learning how to better understand math without being slowed by punching too many things into a calculator, its learning how to find information without walking through stacks and hoping someone else isn't currently finding the same information you need.

      Yes, its nice for the minority view to be represented, but not when it is at the detriment of what is actually supposed to be learned. The engine should be interesting; the wrench should be a given -- unless you happen to be specifically interested in teaching about wrenches.
    6. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gator30y is twitter. Positive mods will just enable his future trolling.

    7. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And expressing your thoughts in writing should be possible in any word processor available without any significant amount of learning.

      The basic functions of any spreadsheet are essentially the same, and switching between Excel and Open Office or Numbers does not take much time

    8. Re:Trasform teaching? by Repton · · Score: 2, Funny

      [student raises his hand] "Miss! I'm requesting permission to go to the toilet. Cancel or allow?"

      [teacher sighs] "Allow ... but be quick!"

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    9. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, and you are correct. The actual tool used is meaningless, so long it serves it's purpose. MSOffice, OpenOffice, VisiCalc or whatever. The subject is more important.

      That is, if the student's success is the goal.

      The truth is different, other goals define the process. MS's goal is maximum return for it's shareholders, especially the big controlling ones, as every public corporation's goals must legally be (Sarbanes-oxley, etc...).

      The goals of open source advocates are different.

      They would like you to believe that they want to make the world a better place, and to advance technology faster than it would under the yoke of artificial economic/linguistic constructs such as "proprietary".

      In truth, most of them want to be famous, or make money, or just to feel they made a difference in the world. Their personal motives override the process just as much as the corporate wall of forbidden code.

      Which is worse, I don't know.

      But either way, it's not in the kids best personal interests.

    10. Re:Trasform teaching? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, but the reality is that schools are pressured by business / government to use IT to "train" kids for "the world of work" rather than generally educate them. For those who go into a desk job straight from school, it's basically required that they know the basics of MS Office specifically ... of course this is unfortunately reinforcing MS' monopoly with taxpayer's money, but that's what employers are demanding.

      Another problem with the heterogeneous ideal setup you describe is that, in the UK at least, most school IT teachers have the position as a secondary role and know less than some of the kids. (E.g. ours thought you still had to CD C:\ before shutting down to park the disk heads, spelt program "programme" and didn't know DD floppies held less than HD.) They can manage to take the class through an exercise on the same familiar desktop by rote, but not a lot more than that.

      That said, BECTA have become somewhat friendly towards F/OSS of late which is encouraging. There might be room for dual-booting Ubuntu occasionally, and perhaps a couple of Macs running [insert multimedia app here]. Ultimately though, at this level the focus is going to remain very much on MS.

    11. Re:Trasform teaching? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      [Student] Ooops, General Failure !

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  3. BECTA by Xest · · Score: 4, Informative

    For those that don't know Becta is a UK organisation that acts to advice the nations schools on their IT strategies.

    It doesn't have any formal powers from what I understand in forcing schools to or not to use certain technologies however it does produce a list of Becta authorised providers which some schools will choose only to work with.

    That said it has a lot of power in the UK educational arena and has always been quite pro-open source on many occasions, it's still recommending against Office 2007 in schools and as such has been quite successful in warding many schools off switching to Office 2007.

    It's not the most powerful organisation there is and it doesn't really have any power over standards, but it's very influental in UK education and if Microsoft pisses them off enough I could very well imagine them making an ever stronger drive towards open source to the point they will likely put together resources that make it easy for schools to make the switch.

    Some areas of local goverment, schools and in some cases, university policy is largely based around what Becta recommends in the UK.

  4. Re:some standards are more equal than others by genican1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    One doc standard, ODF, is cool; another, OOXML is somehow evil. A truly bizzare thought process. One of them is actually open.
  5. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No need to flame, the french like their small independent booksellers and they moved to protect them.
    I don't think anyone really believes that any document standard is evil, it was the process of getting everyone to agree on one or the other that bothered me. It looked to me like MS just bought the commission so it could continue its monopoly.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
  6. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you ever had to write a parser for OOXML, you'd understand.

  7. OOXML is sabotaged. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Open Office may implement OOXML, in fact it will in version 3.0 out of sheer necessity. But. MS Will implement OOXML incorrectly deliberately. OOXML will have cryptic format parameters like IndentLikeWord95. Only MS will know what that means. So, OO.org will have an OOXML implementation that half works on other platforms, but screws up stuff and OO.org will be playing "Lets see what strange modifcation we have to fix now."

    If ODF had become the accepted standard, MS would have had no choice but to start using ODF as well, or Governments would start leaving eventually. By Ram-rodding the Standards process they create a psuedo-standard they control and can break for other platforms. The whole election was a total sham. So there you have it, at least five more years of OO.org playing formate and feature catch up to MS.

    1. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by MRiGnS · · Score: 1

      ODF actually IS a standard and was already recognised as such. OOXML just got recognised too, meh.

    2. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by prockcore · · Score: 1, Informative

      OOXML will have cryptic format parameters like IndentLikeWord95.


      That is incorrect. Those parameters are fully documented in the appendix. They're also deprecated, only to be used when converting an old doc.

      Get some new FUD.
    3. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell me, when has MS ever "opened up" technology except to get people hooked and then change it? Or to destroy a competitor? I can name you many ways in which they did, IE for Unix/Mac which they abandoned as soon as Netscape was dead. On a similar note, ActiveX which in some ways forces people to use Windows and IE because the technology was (incorrectly) added into bank websites and similar. MS never, ever adheres to standards except for a way of making money and as soon as they have enough marketshare they extend and extinguish it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by tuxgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If ODF had become the accepted standard
      I'm sorry, I thought ODF already was an accepted standard. It had passed ISO and became a stable and solid format before it was ever implemented in office applications such as K-Office, OOo and Star Office.

      Monkey-Boy-Balmer couldn't stand the thought of an even playing field and interoperability between platforms and just had to muck everything up.

      But I believe Microshaft have shot themselves in the foot here, this will become apparent with time, as many members of the EU are calling foul over the ISO approval of OOXML. ODF offers file compatibility year after year whereas OOXML will be changed with every software upgrade and future versions will not be able to open and read older versions, and vise versa.

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    5. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Really?

      You mean to say that YOU have seen the final version of the OOXML format, when nobody else has and ISO is late in publishing it?

      http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/release-ooxml-final-dis-text-now.html#links

      Wow, you must be magic. Or Alex.

    6. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      WHY make support for it because you "have to"? Then there are no reason for people to not use it. I do understand people are desperate for users for whatever reason (why give a shit if the software are free anyway?)

      But as long as open office supports say doc many people will save in doc, and same in ooxml aswell. Just ignore the format. The less support it have from others the better if you want it to die as a standard. By supporting the format you make it MORE of a standard.

    7. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one in the ISO has actually seen the final OOXML specification. They were all voting on promises to fix. So OpenOffice.org isn't implementing OOXML, they're implementing Microsoft Office 2007s file format.

    8. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by firefly4f4 · · Score: 1

      Can you please provide a link to that appendix. Thanks!

    9. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by Walles · · Score: 1
      What about this scenario?

      1. Governments demand standardized file formats.
      2. MS standardizes OOXML and implements it badly.
      3. OOo implements OOXML according to the standard.
      4. Governments can only use OOo, since OOo is the only software implementing the standard.

      Then MS would be back to the same problem of having to compete on equal terms. The cost for OOo would be that they had to implement yet another document format (but that's being done anyway).

      --
      Installed the Bubblemon yet?
    10. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

      It rarely ever works that way. MS Software is so Homogenous that it always "Works right" and "Just works" because everyone else has to inconvenience themselves for them. Just look at Vista. Vista's trash but we are having it jammed down our throat anyway.

    11. Re:OOXML is sabotaged. by richlv · · Score: 1

      right. when converting an old document. but converting to what ? to the new format, i guess.
      so WHY, oh why does this new format need such nosense ATA ALL ?
      that complicates the spec, and i can really see only one reason - to ease life for microsoft office developers, who don't have to properly express the formatting (with indentaion, spacing and other parameters). which is how it should be done. and this has been repeated a lot of times. such things should have never ever went into the specification itself.
      oh, i haven't been following too closely, did they get rid of those pages where they explicitly listed pictures to be used for page borders ?

      --
      Rich
  8. So let me get this right by TheRealSlimShady · · Score: 0, Troll

    So now making a document format a standard is anticompetitive? I'm confused. Wasn't it anticompetitive when the document format was closed?

    1. Re:So let me get this right by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The complaint is that the format is a standard in name only (i.e., it is vague and difficult to implement).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:So let me get this right by WiglyWorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One of the biggest problems with this "standard" is that it specifically allows proprietary add-ons. That's no standard at all. Programs like Ooo.org will still not be able to properly open a Office document because A) you can bet your ass that Microsoft Office will be using any number of proprietary add-ons to the format, thereby screwing up Ooo.org's ability to render it correctly. And B), Microsoft will do like what they ddi with the internet and intentionally render it incorrectly. Since they have the lion's share of the market, this "not to standard" rendering will of course be the standard, and competitors will be forced to guess at how microsoft intentionally broke the standard in order to display Microsoft Office generated OOXML files, or just not display them correctly at all.

      When Microsoft was doing this with the web, web developers had to create all kidns of hacks to get their page to display properly in IE, often times breaking the page in Mozilla. The non-techie types, of course, don't blame this on IE, they say that it must be Firefox that doesn't work correctly. It will happen exactly the same way with Ooo.org. It won't be Office that's doing it wrong, it will be blamed by the ignorant on Ooo.org.

      I've gone on the record supporting Microsoft before, but OOXML is not one of the times I'll be doing that. This whole thing stinks.

    3. Re:So let me get this right by prockcore · · Score: 0, Troll

      One of the biggest problems with this "standard" is that it specifically allows proprietary add-ons.


      So why isn't this one of the biggest problems with ODF? ODF allows binary blobs.. it's right there in the standard.
    4. Re:So let me get this right by Danse · · Score: 5, Informative

      The complaint is that the format is a standard in name only (i.e., it is vague and difficult to implement). Actually, it's more than difficult, it's currently impossible for anyone but Microsoft to implement it, and even they can't seem to do it.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    5. Re:So let me get this right by WiglyWorm · · Score: 1

      I've never heard that mentioned in the standard. Also, you know that the term "binary blobs" has a very specific meaning, right? given that meaning... I'm not sure why someone would need to insert something into the kernal to add functionality to ODF... are you sure we're talking about the same thing?

    6. Re:So let me get this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is incorrect. Those parameters are fully documented in the appendix. They're also deprecated, only to be used when converting an old doc.

      Get some new FUD.

      So why isn't this one of the biggest problems with ODF? ODF allows binary blobs.. it's right there in the standard. Seems that you're working at Microsoft, don't you ?
    7. Re:So let me get this right by prockcore · · Score: 1

      No.. seems I'm sick of the hypocritical and ignorant slamming that's prevalent here on slashdot.

      Very few of the complaints about the format are technical in nature, and those that are can also be leveled at ODF.

      Personally I don't even use an office suite... and any office files I receive get opened in google docs.

    8. Re:So let me get this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I'm sick of the hypocritical and ignorant slamming that's prevalent here on slashdot.

      Just a thought, but have you considered looking for some other forum more to your liking? Perhaps this isn't the right place for you.

    9. Re:So let me get this right by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      ...I'm sick of the hypocritical and ignorant slamming that's prevalent here on slashdot.
      Just a thought, but have you considered looking for some other forum more to your liking? Perhaps this isn't the right place for you. Yeah, that way this place can turn into even more of an echo chamber. Great idea.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:So let me get this right by jiushao · · Score: 1

      Both OOo and KWord insert their own tags in ODF files written. Notably of the form '' and such. Faulting the standard for oddities in high-profile implementations is not really useful, there are almost invariably extensions to any good standard, and they tend to remain useful anyway.

    11. Re:So let me get this right by dkf · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest problems with this "standard" is that it specifically allows proprietary add-ons. A way of handling proprietary add-ons is pretty common for standards in the computing space (especially when they're based on XML). As long as those add-ons are used in a judicious way, they're not a big problem. (The "formatLikeWord95" stuff could be done in such a way, for example. Most people don't actually care to replicate such bugs in the formatting engine, just so long as they can read the text in the first place.) The problem comes when there are vendors who require these extensions to make sense of a document at all, and who won't produce documents without them.

      Now, if you really want to complain about OOXML, what about the lack of a compliance test suite? Is there a way for an independent third-party to definitively determine whether an implementation meets the specification, and hence whether it is able to claim to be OOXML-compliant? That would do a lot towards ensuring that it is a real standard. Whether or not you actually like it or the method by which the spec was produced are a separate and lesser matter.
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    12. Re:So let me get this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's more than difficult, it's currently impossible for anyone but Microsoft to implement it, and even they can't seem to do it. Actually, it's even worse. Not only do they appear unable to do it, they themselves have gone on record saying that they won't even try. The version of OOXML they forced through the joke of an ISO process we all have had to witness is a version they have explicitly said they have no intention of ever implementing.

      Truly fascinating stuff.

      Why anyone trusts anything from that company is seriously strange.
    13. Re:So let me get this right by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Now, if you really want to complain about OOXML, what about the lack of a compliance test suite? There's a set of RELAX NG XML Schemas for the Transitional and Strict OOXML specs that are trivial enough to use with something like jing; what more do you want?
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    14. Re:So let me get this right by fritsd · · Score: 1
      Do you mean this:

      17.1 Introduction

      As XML has no native support for binary objects such as images, [OLE] objects, or other media types, and because uncompressed XML files can get very large, OpenDocument uses a package file to store the XML content of a document together with its associated binary data, and to optionally compress the XML content. This package is a standard Zip file, whose structure is discussed below. Information about the files contained in the package is stored in an XML file called the manifest file. The manifest file is always stored at the pathname META-INF/manifest.xml. The main pieces of information stored in the manifest are as follows:

      • A list of all of the files in the package.
      • The media type of each file in the package.
      • If a file stored in the package is encrypted, the information required to decrypt the file is stored in the manifest.

      Try unzip a .odp file for example.

      The manifest entries (<manifest:file-entry>) have an attribute manifest:media-type which contains the MIME-type of the blob (e.g. a picture of a cute kitten) and its location (usually in the Pictures directory).

      So, as long as only open-standard MIME-types are used, I don't see why this is a problem for interoperability. Anyone can implement JPEG, GIF and PNG, for example. Maybe not in the USA but that will hopefully soon be harmonized with the more enlightened EU patent model, now that they saw the light, if I understand TEC plan (pdf) correctly ;-) (hint: I probably don't ;-))

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    15. Re:So let me get this right by steelfood · · Score: 1

      B), Microsoft will do like what they ddi with the internet and intentionally render it incorrectly. Since they have the lion's share of the market, this "not to standard" rendering will of course be the standard, and competitors will be forced to guess at how microsoft intentionally broke the standard in order to display Microsoft Office generated OOXML files, or just not display them correctly at all. This is an argument against OOXML that gets trotted out every time an OOXML story makes /. headlines. The thing is, it doesn't really make a lot of sense.

      By the same token, Microsoft can just as easily break ODF. They did it to HTML, didn't they, and that was pretty open. Sure, Office 2010's ODF export is not standards-compliant. But what can anyone else do about it other than point fingers and cry foul? Pretty much everybody's been doing that since Microsoft began as a company, and look where Microsoft is, and where SGI, Lotus, DEC, Corel, etc. are, not to mention Sun, IBM, Novell, and even Apple... Is there anything the industry can do to prevent Microsoft from breaking ODF if they so wanted? Until Microsoft loses their market dominance, I very much doubt it.

      The one and only reason Microsoft pushed OOXML out as a standard is because numerous national and local governments were suddenly mandating that their document software save to standardized file formats. To be able to sell to these government agencies, Microsoft Office would have to be standards compliant. However, they would be able to break ODF and follow the "standards compliant" rule at the same time, so they effectively created their own where they could remain anti-competitive while being standards compliant.

      All that those arguing against OOXML being a standard only need to and should point out is that it fails as a standard in and of itself, either by being too vague and hence not a standard at all but perhaps an outline of one, or by not encompassing the full domain that a document standard should cover, in which case it is incomplete.

      The argument that Microsoft breaks file formats unfortunately holds no water, and only makes the other arguments weaker (guilt by association).
      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  9. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One doc standard, ODF, is cool; another, OOXML is somehow evil. A truly bizzare thought process. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Is it bizarre to say that one standard is better than another? To the contrary, I think it would be bizarre to assume that all standards are equally good.
  10. Note the wording by ymenager · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Note that the EC commission said: "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint"

    Reading between the lines, and doing some extrapolation based on previous event, I am guessing that what is going in the their minds is something like that:

    "Microsoft think they are above our laws and disrespect our authority by ignoring our rulings. That complaint is redundant because we are already investigating the OOXML mess, since it's going to be great ammunition when we need to bash them on the head AGAIN for continuing to break the rules"

    1. Re:Note the wording by ianare · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Exactly. The commission is already on it, so they modded BECTA's complaint -1 redundant. I think that they may call on BECTA when this goes to court, as I'm certain it will.

      Also, BECTA's timing on this is impeccable!

      BECTA's complaint arrived at the offices of the Commission's competition department just after Microsoft decided to appeal against the 899 million euro (US$1.3 billion) fine it received earlier this year for failing to honor the Commission's 2004 antitrust ruling against it.
    2. Re:Note the wording by Tom · · Score: 1

      Note that this is from 2004.

      We have 2008.

      Interest alone on that sum is somewhere around 200 million Euros.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:Note the wording by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      Note to Microsoft: Never try to out-stubborn a cat... or the EU.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  11. Re:some standards are more equal than others by mrsmiggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The actual complaint is not in relation to OOXML but the interoperability of Office 2007 with Open Office et al. BECTA can not recommend Office 2007 because it does not currently support ODF a format widely used by it's cheaper rivals. BECTA's concern here is that they kids (well their parents) on the edge of poverty will have to shell out for Office 2007 and Windows or face being unable to work on their documents at home. If Office 2007 without addons is deployed in a school it is an active barrier to learning and Microsoft should be ashamed for allowing parents to even have to think about the question 'Office 2007 or food?' when they go shopping.

  12. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Is it bizarre to say that one standard is better than another? To the contrary, I think it would be bizarre to assume that all standards are equally good. You should read this.
  13. Yes, Prime Minister by jd · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Two memorable quotes that seem highly relevent to this discussion from a series that satirises politics so well that it is now part of the training program for British civil servants.

    "Britain should always be on the side of law and justice, so long as we don't allow it to affect our foreign policy."

    "It is well known that in the Foreign Office an order from the Prime Minister becomes a request from the Foreign Secretary, then a recommendation from the Minister of State, finally just a suggestion from the Ambassador. If it ever gets that far."

    (Read the first as an EU guide to business policy, and the second as to why a demand from a British agency can never be a formal request.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Yes, Prime Minister by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Funny

      A tourist is wandering down Whitehall and seems to be looking for something. He asks a policeman, "Excuse me, which side is the Foreign Office on?"

      The policeman looks confused. "Er, ours I think."

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  14. I'll settle for cheap and free. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here I was thinking that a spreadsheet was just a tool for redundant and boring business accounting and that kids should be taught something more fundamental like ... math.

    Either way you look at it, a free spreadsheet will teach the same lesson as the non free one, so the schools might as well save their money and teach kids the benefits of free software. When you know how to use one sheet, you know them all so there's no case for a school to waste money on Office. Businesses should learn this lesson too and most of them are.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:I'll settle for cheap and free. by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      The GP post was much more insightful than yours. All you're advocating there is a shift from teaching kids to rely on Office to understand how to do a task to teaching kids to rely on OpenOffice to do a task. There's no benefit to that, while teaching the ways to achieve it in multiple systems could well teach the underlying principles.

      Then again, it's one step closer to making Microsoft products illegal, and that's your ultimate goal isn't it?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  15. Re:Translation by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Actually, they are receiving lots of money from MS. Last time I checked, they'd received some 900 million Euros so far in the form of fines from MS for not following EU antitrust regulations, this OOXML bit being part of that.

    They ARE looking into it.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  16. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No need to flame, the french like their small independent booksellers and they moved to protect them.

    If the French really like small independent booksellers, why would they need a law to protect them?
    Wouldn't most French people patronize the small bookstores thereby driving amazon out of business?

    Of course, if it turns out that most people prefer amazon's low prices, then your statement that "the french like their small independent booksellers" would be proven false.

  17. Power, Position and Authority. by Odder · · Score: 2, Informative

    BECTA may not have any formal power but they are an authority. They are independent and know what they are talking about. It's not about Microsoft pissing them off, it's about Microsoft offering a bad deal.

    There is near unanimity in the technical world that OOXML is not a worthwhile or well written standard. It is not complete or consistent. There is not even a working reference and it is also patent encumbered. That it passed is a textbook example of how position and power can be abused. The ISO is taking steps to fix this.

    1. Re:Power, Position and Authority. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISO is taking steps to fix this.
      Really?? Last I heard, the ISO has yet to admit it's broken!
  18. troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll much?

  19. Re:some standards are more equal than others by holloway · · Score: 4, Informative

    OOXML isn't open due to the poor quality of the specification. Where the specification is vague or completely undefined it means that defacto standards will step in and that's how Microsoft Office maintains its monopoly. Here's my list of example remaining problems in OOXML that will result in the ISO promoting a defacto commercial application, Microsoft Office.

  20. Better school funding by Bullfish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    would probably allow for more choice in platform. Since the 80's, both MS and Apple have donated and plowed money and software into schools. Both are proprietary and that's why they did it. To create future market. MS had deeper pockets and over time outspent Apple. That was the 80's. By the 90's, business by then was solidly MS DOS/early Windows and had a flock of people entering the workforce who were MS familiar. This is continuing today. Schools have come to depend on donations of software and computers and if MS wants to pony up vista machines with OOXML Office 2007 packages, they'll take it.

    I can't fault a school for taking such a deal (provided they are true donations). MS is just taking advantage of the fact that schools in a lot of jurisdictions are underfunded. For that to change, the electorate has to kick up a stink. In the meantime, if I'm running a school and need money for a new boiler etc, and MS gives me free software and computers, I'm taking it. That's an expense I don't have to worry about. At least the developing world got OLPCs.

    1. Re:Better school funding by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      I'm not in the UK, but some of the other posters are... would you use someRandomFreewareWebBrowser (other than MSIE) that the school board hates and told you not to use (not like they're going to be doing audits or anything...) ? It is free, after all...

      --
      $ make available
    2. Re:Better school funding by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Just a note, the apple II was as open as could possibly be, but not free of course, as the software in rom that ran it was not able to be copied freely etc.

      But the documentation on it was excellent, the manual even included schematics on how it was built. only with the macintosh and later were things restricted and closed.

      One of the many reasons I'm still trying to find an apple II, the monitor program built into it is a prime example of a good way to get people to learn simple assembly programming.

  21. One sock per thread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn it, Twitter. One sock per thread. How hard is that to understand?

    If you start with Gat0r3oy, they stick with it, at least for this story.

  22. Mod parent up by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

    because microsoft (et al.) will not die simply because we flame them, they'll die for various reasons (in this case because OSS is going to whip microsoft's @$$)

    --
    $ make available
    1. Re:Mod parent up by Photo_Nut · · Score: 1

      I just have to say that I've used OOo and Office 2007. I challenge you to make a good looking diagram in OOo. I can make better looking diagrams in Office 95 or even Paint.

      I don't get what all the fuss is about. The stated goal of OOXML is to make an XML based file format compatible with all the proprietary binary bits of Office. Why on earth would anyone outside of Microsoft need to implement the whole thing? Microsoft Office is huge and everywhere. So there are some bits in there that aren't fully documented. Well, maybe you'd have to go dumpster diving in millions of lines of Microsoft source code to figure out how those bits actually work. The line spacing like Word 95 example everyone is fond of mentioning is probably quite complex and outdated. Well, I hate to break it to you, but some of my coworkers are working with ODF files, and some are working with OOXML, and OOo doesn't conform to ODF moreso than Office not conforming to OOXML. Both use extensions to convey information. The difference is that OOo uses extensions to convey information that should be specified and OOXML uses extensions to convey information about things that are rarely used (from what my coworkers talk about). Apple and OOo don't seem to have much trouble implementing something with the OOXML standard, and my coworkers don't seem to have much trouble with either standard, even with extensions. They might not be perfect standards, but we're all human. ODF and OOXML are both free to download, and are being maintained by lots of people.

      How can this be a bad thing? Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it a bad thing.

    2. Re:Mod parent up by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The stated goal of OOXML is to make an XML based file format compatible with all the proprietary binary bits of Office


      And that's fine but why would you then want to also claim it should be an international standard ? This is where the disagreement arises because why should anyone else in the world be concerned about solutions to problems which only arise in one outdated set of Office Suites, what benefit does this bring to the international community ? I would say none at all and such things have no place in any international standard.

      It's more accurate to say that on the one hand the purpose of OOXML is to make an XML based file format compatible with all the proprietary binary bits of Office and on the other hand the purpose is create an international standard controlled by Microsoft to help them lock customers in to soley Microsoft products.

      If you can think of any good reason why an international standard should facilitate reliance on one company as its main goal then please do reply with your arguments.

  23. Re:some standards are more equal than others by m0rph3us0 · · Score: 1

    Everyone has to make a decision between X and food. Goods and services are scarce resources that people need to economize. I'd be willing to bet that most of the parents you are talking about also smoke, buy lottery tickets, and alcohol.

    The same parents will also have to make the choice between a computer and food.

    It would be interesting to see how many families are rich enough to be able to afford a computer, yet cannot afford Windows 98 and Office 97. Which would enable them to inter-operate with a computer at school running Windows Vista and Office 2007.

    I just looked at craigslist and found a computer with a Windows 2000 and Office 2000 for $45. Office 2007 will save documents in Office 97 format.

  24. OOXML is bad and here's why... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hear a lot of people defending OOXML or oblivious as to why it is really a problem. Let me spell it in no uncertain terms.

    Microsoft has illegally used its monopoly position to eliminate competition. This is a fact as found in a court of law.

    One of the methods of illegally maintaining their monopoly has been the upgrade treadmill. With regards to MS Office document formats, it works like this: version 'N' of the office software can not read documents created by version 'O.' This forces users of version 'N' to upgrade to version 'O.' -- Profit for Microsoft.

    3rd party ISVs are in a similar situation, once they finally figure out how to support the document version in version 'N,' they have to continue development to support vesion 'O.'

    This means that 3rd party ISVs and users have a continuing problem maintaining their environment and interoperability without risking incompatibility or continually expending capital.

    "Standards" are generally used to stop this exploitation and create a more level marketplace allowing innovation above the standardized foundation, eliminating the constant capital expenditure of keeping up.

    The OOXML is a sham. It is nothing more than a continuation of Microsoft's monopoly defacto bullshit standard. OOXML is nothing more than a way to game the system and do nothing more than they already do. Upon release of a new MS office version, they submit their changes to ISO, and move on from there.

    It gives users and ISVs no relief. It creates no usable standard. It does nothing to level the market place. It does nothing to help the consumer. It does nothing to help the industry.

    1. Re:OOXML is bad and here's why... by tokul · · Score: 2, Informative

      This forces users of version 'N' to upgrade to version 'O.' -- Profit for Microsoft.
      And Microsoft does not sell Office upgrades. Try upgrading, if your SA is expired or you have outdated OEM version. "Upgrade" costs same amount of money as full retail version.
  25. Let me just remind everybody... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

    the European Commission won't be doing anything particular about it... A Commission press officer said, "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already and we are not treating it as a formal complaint to us." Remember, these are the same guys who tried to push through software patents in violation of EU law. The European Commission is distinct from the European Parliament. The commission is not particularly democratic, or apparently even particularly law abiding judging from the software patent affair. It should come as no surprise that the Commission would wish to look the other way in the OOXML affair.
    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    1. Re:Let me just remind everybody... by lordholm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, with democratic, if you mean not directly elected, then you are right.

      The commission is appointed my the state governments of the EU and scrutinised by the European parliament (and since the last time it is clear that they can kick out single members that they don't like).

      Now, compare this with how the state cabinets are elected in a parliamentarian system (as is the case in all of EU), the parliament is elected and they appoint a government. The exact contents of this government is typically arranged by who will be the prime-minister.

      My point is that there is not anything more undemocratic with the commission than with the national cabinets.

      The commission do not have legislative power, they did try to push through software patents, yes, but the attempt was stopped by the elected european parliament.

      There is however democratic issues with the EU, but these are mostly laid out at the council. They are an unelected body (well indirectly elected) that have legislative power. The council severe issues with its legitimacy. They were for example attempting to approve the software patents directive in the wrong forum (agricultural and fishery council IIRC).

      The council is made out of the state governments and cannot be discharged if they behave badly, as this would mean discharging all the state governments. It would be more prudent to have a senate appointed by the states (or elections in the states), that could be kicked out in its whole, but this is another discussion.

      The commission did lay down proposals for patents, but it was their right to make proposals for new laws. The parliament discharged the patent directive with something like 600 votes against 50.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
  26. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be interesting to see how many families are rich enough to be able to afford a computer, yet cannot afford Windows 98 and Office 97. Which would enable them to inter-operate with a computer at school running Windows Vista and Office 2007.


    Since MS considers any of their software to merely be "licensed" and discourage you selling it (not to mention the difficulty in wiping personal information before selling if you DON'T wipe a hard-drive), and the fact that you haven't been able to buy a new copy of Win98 or Office97 for quite a few years, and I'm left with the feeling that this is a stupid argument.
  27. Re:some standards are more equal than others by powerlord · · Score: 1

    The actual complaint is not in relation to OOXML but the interoperability of Office 2007 with Open Office et al. BECTA can not recommend Office 2007 because it does not currently support ODF a format widely used by it's cheaper rivals. BECTA's concern here is that they kids (well their parents) on the edge of poverty will have to shell out for Office 2007 and Windows or face being unable to work on their documents at home. If Office 2007 without addons is deployed in a school it is an active barrier to learning and Microsoft should be ashamed for allowing parents to even have to think about the question 'Office 2007 or food?' when they go shopping.

    Oooo I like it!

    "Stand up to MS not implementing ODF! Won't SOMEONE please think of the poor children?"
    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  28. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Drgnkght · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so maybe this is just another Eurocrat implementing a "bash America" strategy. You're mistaken. (I'm being generous.) There are plenty of us U.S. citizens who think it's crap as well. Don't drag misguided patriotism into this.
  29. Re:some standards are more equal than others by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Just curious: Do you happen to know if they still have "render like Office 97" in the spec? I knew any kind of "open" standard when it comes from "the king of the funky formats" would be an impossible to follow pile of gibberish that even their own engineers wouldn't be able to make a functioning model out of, but when I read the line "render like Office 97" in the highlights of the first spec I nearly choked laughing! Like there is anyone at Microsoft that can even remember what the legacy voodoo code from back then even does. But it doesn't really matter to me, as I've finally switched from my old friend Office 2K to Open Office 3 as the latter has a nicer interface and seems to manage memory better. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  30. Re:some standards are more equal than others by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

    thanks for the list - i think i got another topic for you: iirc ooxml REQUIRES apps to have the same year 1900 bug (I'll google that)

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  31. Re:some standards are more equal than others by holloway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi,

    They've either documented or removed those 'behaveLikeWW8' style flags. As engineering criteria however the documentation hasn't been reviewed to see whether it accurately describes Microsoft Office, and it was added late in the process (early 2008, I think).

    What remains however are Microsoft OLE references without documentation or patent coverage, accessibility problems, and huge areas of OOXML entirely without documentation that mean that ISO OOXML promotes defacto standards.

    Read my blog for a few posts on how no one voting on OOXML saw a final specification.

  32. Re:some standards are more equal than others by holloway · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thanks but I'm not really maintaining a list, those are only examples and I made that document as part of New Zealands ISO process. New Zealand and Canada voted No.

  33. ok, i found something about that by AlgorithMan · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ok, I found something about that issue:
    the year 1900 bug has been "resolved" by declaring it non-mandatory...
    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/101224
    (german)

    --
    The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:ok, i found something about that by holloway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...which isn't a good fix at all. By adding complexity rather than removing it they're increasing the barrier to market entry. There are hundreds of these so-called fixes that just add more complexity and variation and so you need to implement a lot more code than is necessary.

  34. Making OOXML incompatible by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    So MS bought a compatibility ruling to allow its 8000 page specification to become a "standard". With very suspicious actions on the part of Norway, Denmark and Germany...

    So all MS has to do in the future is to make MS Office just slightly incompatible with the specification so that Open Office and others can't always correctly read MS documents and voila, the incompatibility remains. We are just where we were before with proprietary formats. MS will insist they are compatible and the it's the others who have not implemented their version correctly.

    In fact, I recently read a report that office 2007 does not correctly follow the OOXML specification.

    1. Re:Making OOXML incompatible by flnca · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's because Microsoft has always been unable to provide upwards compatible specifications. Let's look at the Microsoft-related standards that have been issued by the ECMA (European Computer Manufacturer's Association), they're all free downloads:

      OOXML, 1st ed., Dec. 2006
      CLI, 4th ed., Jun. 2006; see also TR/84, TR/89
      Managed C++, 1st ed., Dec. 2005
      C#, 4th ed., Jun. 2006
      Windows API, Dec. 1995 (Windows 3.1 API)

      Let's note that in those areas, in which Microsoft wished for stronger support by the industry, there are standards. The .NET standards might also be a result of the first ruling of the EU court in the antitrust case (2004).

      Note that the Windows API standard was never updated.

      The first edition of OOXML is already one and a half years old, and typical development by Microsoft probably introduced new elements that deviate from the standard. What they need to do now, is to update the OOXML standard to a second edition that is compatible with Office 2007.

      Every standard is behind current developments if standards are not being followed.

      If you look at the C and C++ standards, you'll see how long it took until they were adopted by the software industry (some compilers still aren't fully compliant, like Microsoft Visual C++: in VC++ 2008, "stdint.h" and "stdbool.h" are missing, for example).

    2. Re:Making OOXML incompatible by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the references. I did notice, for example, that the Windows API reference is for 3.1.

      I don't trust MS to make a full attempt to be compatible. It is in their interest to maintain incompatibility between Office and competitors. Every manager will make a decision based on being compatible with what Office produces. And it doesn't matter whose fault it is, if it isn't compatible, managers will err on the side of caution and go with the MS product.

    3. Re:Making OOXML incompatible by flnca · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft was serious about standards, they would base Windows on a UN*X kernel (like the BSDs or Linux perhaps), which would save them a lot of money (just like it did for Apple), and concentrate on an open-source effort to make the .NET platform and framework open-source and merge with the Mono project. Then, the .NET platform and libraries should be standardized. After that, Microsoft should port whatever necessary to the OpenOffice platform and make it open-source. This would save Microsoft a lot of money in the future. Instead of concentrating on leeching the blood out of customers, they should sell a new, open-source Windows and Office platform for a cheap distro price and offer free downloads. In the end, they might make more money than before, because they would get more customers, especially in India and China and other highly populated, but low-salary countries. Plus, open-source efforts would not be wasted on the Windows platform. It would just be another UN*X-like platform to choose from.

  35. Re:some standards are more equal than others by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

    The French like their small independent booksellers but the average citizen will use the cheapest service (as per the free market!), so they need to protect them as a government. This is similar to how all governments are moving to reduce emissions but only a minority of citizens are taking their own steps.

  36. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    One standard was sorely needed at the time, and was peer reviewed and developed by a multitude of parties.
    A second standard wasn't needed at all, and came late to the party while being inferior in many ways to the first, and was also developed by only one party with no input from anyone else.

    When a standard already exists, what's the point in creating a new incompatible and inferior one?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  37. Re:some standards are more equal than others by janrinok · · Score: 3, Informative

    Slightly off-topic but I couldn't let it pass unchallenged....

    a "bash America" strategy.

    The complaint regarding free shipping was levelled at Amazon.fr. This company is trading in France and France has the right to make sure that all companies that operate within its borders comply with the relevant laws to ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Now, how do you make that US bashing?

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  38. Re:Translation by joelstobart · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 900 million euros was for manipulating the server operating system market to disenfranchise competitors. Microsoft refused to change and got fined for the refusal. The matter is over (bar the appeal of the amount).

    Microsoft is currently being investigated:

    • - for not using standard html/css in its web browsers forcing every other browser maker to produce a quirks mode so that MS-HTML oriented websites are visible. Complaint made by Opera - Quite right as far as I'm concerned.

    • - for manipulating its monopoly in the Office arena. Refusing to implement international standards (ODF, MathML, SVG, HTML (properly) into there product so that no-one can compete on features. At the same time patenting the proprietary features so that no-one can re-implement them. They also use some unusual tactics* to get OOXML through so that government's can pass using Microsoft Office as in there due-diligence for procurement.

    * There a huge list.. but my personal favourite was sending regional MS employees as delegates for war-torn African nations, all in order to pass the vote.

  39. Googledocs uses ODF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops.

  40. Two Ronnies by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    "A hole was discovered today on the M1. Police are looking into it."

    Whaddya mean offtopic?!

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  41. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Tom · · Score: 1

    Now there's a load of assumptions between the lines there.

    One, you assume it's customers who decide which shops stay and which shops go. It isn't. A large enough company can sell for less than the small shop next door, while at the same time making more profit due to scale, better deals with suppliers, etc.

    You assume that "like" is the same as "buy from". It doesn't have to be.

    You assume that money is the only currency that matters, but on the scale of society, there are a whole lot of other things that matter, too. Otherwise we wouldn't have art, education, friendship or anything else that makes up culture.

    You assume that low prices was what the small shops could not cope with, but do you have evidence? I don't know what exactly it was, but knowing the business a little bit I can imagine a whole lot of other reasons, such as the convenience of online shopping, the amount of books you have available right now (many potential customers do not come back if you don't have a book today, but can have it tomorrow), or simply the size of your store (there's more browsing going on in a bookstore than in virtually any other shop).
    And some of those factors may very well fall on the "like" side, while they fail on the "money" side.

    Finally, you assume that the government does something for no reason. I haven't heard of protests, maybe the government did exactly what the people wanted?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  42. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course microsoft would say that the copies of windows and office are not transferable with the computer. So if you bought it you are legally obliged to reformat it with linux and openoffice, or pay $$$ to buy new copies of windows/office.

  43. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 1

    The French like their small independent booksellers but the average citizen

    I thought the average citizen in France was French.

  44. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 1

    One, you assume it's customers who decide which shops stay and which shops go. It isn't.

    You are correct and I was wrong. Apparently, it is the government which decides who stays and who goes. Not the customers.
    I was thinking of a world where a business has to keep the customers happy to survive.

    You assume that "like" is the same as "buy from". It doesn't have to be.

    So what you're saying is that even though people *say* they want something, when it is time to put their money where their collective mouths were, they don't?
    Then isn't what they really wanted lower prices, despite what they said?

    You assume that low prices was what the small shops could not cope with, but do you have evidence? ... such as the convenience of online shopping, the amount of books you have available right now (many potential customers do not come back if you don't have a book today, but can have it tomorrow)...

    So the bigger stores not only provide lower prices, but also other things that benefit the customer? Oh the horror! Kick them out.

    Finally, you assume that the government does something for no reason. I haven't heard of protests, maybe the government did exactly what the people wanted?

    Maybe. Maybe not. There is one way to find out though.
    Let everyone compete and the people spending their money, time and effort will tell you *exactly* what they prefer. No need to guess. No need to see if anyone protests.

  45. Re:some standards are more equal than others by hairyfeet · · Score: 1
    That is just sad. I thought the WHOLE POINT of an open standard was that one could build a functional model from the spec, or design ones products to inter-operate with the standard by looking at the specs. But I'm really not surprised. MSFT has always been tight lipped when it comes to how their specs actually operate. Why do you think my favorite distro Xandros had to sign that stupid "covenant not to sue" with MSFT? Because that was the only way they could get access to the Exchange and Active Directory protocols which they had to have to allow their desktop and server products interface with an Active Directory forest and Exchange server. And with out the ability to work with existing Windows networks they would have been dead in the water.


    I just hope that the EU smacks them hard enough over this and other asshatery that they are forced to fully open their specs on Office and server. I personally would love it if I was assured that every distro would play nice with AD networks and Exchange servers like my Xandros Business 4 laptop does, and anything that makes it easier to choose a network topology based on needs instead of being trapped by former network administrators proprietary choices would be a good thing. Of course this is while MSFT will hang onto those specs for as long as humanly possible,because lock-in has always been a core strategy of their business. But that is my 02c,YMMV.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  46. Re:some standards are more equal than others by guruevi · · Score: 1

    There is a lot of protectionism going around. Both in Europe and the US, small farmers get subsidies because they can't compete with the cheaper products from bigger farmers elsewhere (not necessarily China but usually out-of-state farmers). This in turn makes it that they don't make any effort to expand to match or exceed the possibilities of the other farmers since they get the money for free anyway.

    In this world, you'll have to match your bigger competitors somehow. Whether it's usability, customer service or quality, it can be done since all the little businesses aren't dead yet and every year there are new businesses opened but giving money because they're small just makes them more complacent in general.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  47. The map is not the territory. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.

    And just being able to reproduce the format doesn't say anything about the behaviour of your application either. A schema cannot verify that you are implementing the behaviour for indentLikeWord97 (or whatever they search/replaced it with), so you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it.

    Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself. And repeat this ad-infinitum for all 6,000 pages of the spec. Which is clearly not a viable option ; not even for Microsoft, who rather obviously produced this "standard" by serializing their internal binary formats and then nailing a schema on top and filling in the annotation tags.

    Even MS don't know how to indentLikeWord97, but the fusty old indent routine languishing in the back of the Office source tree does. The only way to implement the "standard" with reasonable alacrity is therefore to have that source code ; which of course, is never going be allowed by MS ; not that anyone wants it anyway.

    1. Re:The map is not the territory. by SEMW · · Score: 1

      There's a set of RELAX NG XML Schemas for the Transitional and Strict OOXML specs that are trivial enough to use with something like jing [thaiopensource.com]; what more do you want?

      I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.

      The page you're looking for is this one. Certainly, that's what the Slashdot story (and most of the pages that come up in the Google search) used as a source.

      Oh, and look, he states how he got his results: "...a set of the RELAX NG schemas for the (post-BRM) revision of OOXML ... use[ing] jing (or similar)...".

      Now doesn't that look familiar? Yup, it's exactly what I said in my post. Know why? Because that was the source I used for my post.

      indentLikeWord97 ... you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it. Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself...

      I assume you're thinking of AutoSpaceLikeWord95, there's no tag "indentlikeword97" (or at least if there is, googling for it gives no results).

      And yeah, you could painstakingly reverse-engineer Word 95, work out how that implemented autospacing, and copy that.

      Or you could, I dunno, read the spec . Or, at least, any version of the spec since about a year ago, when the ECMA released the relevent appendix with the deprecated tag documentation. But, hey, I guess it's easier to parrot other Slashdot posters who haven't read the spec and are themselves quoting yet older posts, until you get to a year ago and someone who has read the spec and was posting about their concerns which, back then, were perfectly valid.

      For your edification:

      2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Incorrectly Adjust Text Spacing for Specific Unicode Ranges)

      This element specifies adjustments (detailed below) which should be applied to the spacing between adjoining regions of non-ideographic and ideographic text when the autoSpaceDE (Â2.3.1.2) and autoSpaceDN (Â2.3.13) elements have a value of true (or equivalent). This algorithm typically results in the following:

      • An increase in the inter-character spacing added between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain full-width characters
      • No inter-character spacing between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain half-width characters

      Typically, applications apply additional spacing between ideographic and non-ideographic characters/numeric characters when the autoSpaceDE / autoSpaceDN properties are applied. This element, when present with a val attribute value of true (or equivalent), specifies that applications shall apply the following adjustments to this logic:

      Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as ideographic, even though those characters are full-width forms of non-ideographic text: U+FF10-U+FF19, U+FF21-U+FF3A, and U+FF41-U+FF5A. [Note: This results in the unnecessary addition of space. end note]

      Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as non-ideographic, even though those characters are ideographic: U+FF66-U+FF9F. [Note: This results in the omission of the intended additional space. end note]


      [Example: Consider a WordprocessingML document with two paragraphs containing a mix of East Asian and Latin characters:
      ab cd ab cd
      The first paragraph contains characters with Unicode value U+FF66 (). The second paragraph contains characters with Unicode

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:The map is not the territory. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      The page you're looking for is this one [griffinbrown.co.uk] No it isn't. I found that page very early on ; since it was so easy find it doesn't meet my description of being difficult to find. It also makes the opposite point ; I said documents that were valid according to the schema that Office (Excel in particular) wouldn't load. This pages discusses how the output of Office isn't compliant (which is bad enough) ; I was referring to the phenomenon where you take an existing document, edit the XML with a text editor in a way that is compliant with the specification, and it then refuses to load in Excel.

      A little more hunting reveals this.

      Office formats defective

      The author tries to edit the value of single cell of an Excel workbook using a text editor, and Excel point-blank refuses to load the document afterwards.

      Entering simple numeric values in the XML? They get rounded. So you have to understand the rounding going both ways.

      I'd go on, but read the linked page instead, the author makes the point very well that to interoperate (never mind implementing a competing spreadsheet product just to interoperate) with the Excel MOOXML format, you need to have implemented Excel.
  48. Read the payload by stefaanh · · Score: 1
    Hasn't anyone noticed that the article is only there to carry the payload in the largest paragraph?

    Microsoft insisted that it is "deeply committed" to education ...

    The rest is utterly redundant and sugar for us flies.

    Bad free publicity is free publicity.

    Clean the windshield.

    --
    --------
    * Sigh *
  49. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Tom · · Score: 1

    You completely ignored my point on the first argument, that's not an honest way to have a discussion.

    You are right on the second point, people don't alway put their money on what they value. If that was news to you, I feel sorry for you.

    And I very much challenge your assumption that money is the better democracy. It isn't. The idea that markets can solve everything and a market mechanic always provides the best answer to everything has been refuted decades ago. If it were true, we would buy our friends, instead of making them, for example.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  50. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 1

    You are right on the second point, people don't alway put their money on what they value. If that was news to you, I feel sorry for you.

    So that is how we have an honest discussion!

    So, people say they want A, but pay for B. And not only that, they wouldn't put up with a little inconvenience and cost to support A either.
    And in your view, A is what they want? Isn't that your point? My argument is that they really want B.
    Now that I've really simplified and cleared that up, I hope you address that and not make any patronising comments.

    And I very much challenge your assumption that money is the better democracy
    You are confusing money with freedom.
    Money is a medium of storing value. Money has as much to do with free markets as ink has to do with literature.

    If it were true, we would buy our friends, instead of making them, for example.

    Yes. And you are *free* to make your own friends. That is the essence of the free market argument - that you are the person who knows what you want.

    The argument you are making is that each individual is not the best person to pick their friends and the government should do it for them.

  51. Silly FOSSies, tech is for adults! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BECTA claimed that the OOXML format discourages competition.

    Those silly FOSSies! There isn't even a released product using OOXML yet!

    IMO, the problem is simply that OpenOffice's programmers aren't good enough to program in support for a different standard, which is why they were virtually forced into trying to shove their format down the world's throat.

    Fortunately, the IEEE decided not to leave the world at the mercy of poor programmers working on third tier also-ran projects.
  52. Re:some standards are more equal than others by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    You can get older (obsolete) computers for free, they won't be capable of running the latest versions of windows/office and may or may not come with an old version.
    Office 2007 doesn't save in the 97 format by default.
    But you can get a free obsolete computer and put linux and openoffice on it easily, schools should really do this using computers thrown out by businesses (they would have to pay for disposal otherwise).

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  53. Re:some standards are more equal than others by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

    Yes, but "The French" is not the average citizen, it is the government. That is, the long view.

  54. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 1

    So a majority of the individual French people want A, but the government that represents these individuals, wants B. And that is good because the government is smarter than the average citizen and is taking the long view.

    Hmmm...so maybe the Patriot act, the war on terror, no bid contracts to Halliburton, etc are all good because, even though the general US public does not want it, the Bush administration - the government - is smarter and is taking the "long view"?

  55. Re:some standards are more equal than others by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

    I didn't say that. Things must be taken on a case-by-base basis. Why do you think the founders of America (assuming you are American) made the country a republic and not a direct democracy? Precisely because of the long view.

  56. Re:some standards are more equal than others by homer_s · · Score: 1

    You didn't say that, but the principle you are advocating - that the govt. knows better, takes the long view and is generally wiser than the individuals whom it governs, etc - leads one to that conclusion.

    It seems that you only believe your own priciples only when you believe that the cause is just (eg. the French ban). And you abandon your principle when you do not agree with the actions (like the Patriot act).

    If one isn't consistent in his principles that means he has convenient principles.

    My principle in both case - the French ban and the Bush shenanigans - is that the individual is the person who knows what is best for him, in the short and long term. No all-knowing, omnipotent superhumans are needed to assist him in buying a book.