Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISO Puts OOXML On Hold

Posted by kdawson on from the system-is-working dept.

schliz alerts us that ISO, in response to the four appeals (Venezuela, India, Brazil, South Africa) filed in recent weeks, has put the OOXML standardization process on hold. Here is ISO's press release, which says that ISO/IEC DIS 29500 will not be published for at least "several months" while the appeals process goes forward.
Update: 06/11 10:13 GMT by KD : Reader Alsee points out that the fourth officially recognized appealing country is Venezuela, not Denmark as originally stated. The protests of Denmark and Norway are being disregarded, as they do not come from the administrative heads of their national organizations.

6 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. GREAT by anti-human+1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "On hold" is nice, but will there be an investigation or backlash regarding how it was passed in the first place? Or has the process of buying a standard just become a cost of doing business?

    1. Re:GREAT by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "On hold" is nice, but will there be an investigation or backlash regarding how it was passed in the first place? Or has the process of buying a standard just become a cost of doing business?

      I think it's safe to assume there will be no investigation or backlash. However if OOXML is ultimately rejected as a standard, then it would mean that the attempt to buy a standard failed, thanks to the pressure put on ISO by the states that participate, which ultimately stemmed from organizations in those states who saw what was happening and protested. It would mean that while the ISO process is vulnerable, it is possible to have oversight over its proceedings. No more just coasting and assuming anything that comes into ISO must be okay, but that's probably a good thing that should have been the case all along.

      I'm not saying this will completely save ISO, but it could certainly help.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:GREAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think you misunderstand -- It's still an international standard it's just not published and Ecma/Microsoft/ISO-secretariat have the only copy of the standard.

      This means that 1) ISO are giving Microsoft an unfair advantage over their competitors and 2) national bodies still can't comment on OOXML.

      3 nations appealed out of 88. This is not cause for celebration or a sign that the process is OK. The ISO process is broken and the people who forced this standard through are still in power.

  2. hurrah! by apodyopsis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a nasty thought that "on hold" is ISO speak for "waiting for the fuss to die down".

    But I really hope that there has been enough of a back lash from the knowledgeable and enough of a crammed education on why this matters that this is now too high a profile for it to be swept under the rug.

    Of course the downside of this whole fiasco is that there are now many, many more OOXML implementations out there and planned so this is hardly a complete bust for MS.

    Still here's hoping that common sense prevails, and a bug grateful thank you for all those people who fought it.

    1. Re:hurrah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The largest downside, in my opinion is the resignations from people who have become disenchanted with the ISO.

      These people are the ones we need now more than ever. There is a good Steve Jobs quote that seems appropriate:

      "John Sculley ruined Apple and he ruined it by bringing a set of values to the top of Apple which were corrupt and corrupted some of the top people who were there, drove out some of the ones who were not corruptible, and brought in more corrupt ones..."

  3. Minor correction. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're just doing what they have to.
    Not even that.

    This could all be another fake "evaluation" like the others were.

    Just because they appear to be going through the steps that they're required to ... doesn't mean that they're still not bought and paid for.

    Until ISO can PUBLICLY state the errors that were made and WHO made those "errors" AND take action against those individuals they can not be trusted. Not even to follow the procedures that their own rules require of them.

    They didn't follow them when they were fast-tracking this. There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.