Slashdot Mirror
ISO Recommends Denying OOXML Appeals
An anonymous reader passes along word that ISO has responded to the four appeals filed against the approval of OOXML as a standard. To no one's surprise, ISO says that there was nothing wrong with the process. Groklaw's coverage is (as usual) the most comprehensive. Andy Updegrove summarizes ISO's position this way: "1. All judgments made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable Directives. 2. The fact that the BRM voted on all proposed resolutions in some fashion satisfies the requirements of the Directives. 3. The fact that a sufficient percentage of National Bodies (NBs) ultimately voted to approve DIS 29500 ratifies the process and any flaws in that process. 4. Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process."
No, it really doesn't matter now, cause it already had the necessary impact. Microsoft has already realized that OOXML is unimplementable and is in the process of moving its own products into compliance with a specification that is actually implementable: ODF.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Noooope. Word does not (currently) implement OOXML.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Merit != relevancy.
While the assertion that your name was misspelt on page 32 of the verdict and that it generally contained a lot of typos might be meritful, it probably won't be relevant in appealing a criminal sentence.
"No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists."
Did you understand that? Not even Microsoft has any product which implements the standard. docx, pptx, xlsx - none are compatible with OOXML as approved by ISO.
Even Microsoft has admitted that it will implement ODF before OOXML.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Who are the losers here?
You forgot, taxpayers, who will end up paying for purchases of MS Office because of government regulations requiring use of specific ISO standards, like OOXML, for particular uses. It will basically be used as a way to lock out everyone but MS for certain contracts and we'll be paying the bills.
ISO 9000/9001 certification (which is what you are talking about) is a somewhat vague standard that says, in simple terms, that any process or actions your company performs must have a written description of the process, instructions, checksheets, etc. It is intended to try to improve quality and consistency. It doesn't mean that in all cases (or even most) that quality and consistency are improved.
Its a fairly meaningless certfication, since the company can still be turning out crap. But at least with ISO9000 they should have a record of what was done to make the crap.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
That's not exactly 100% accurate. Microsoft has somehow "promised" they'll implement "interoperability" with ODF, while at the same time requesting OASIS to let them have a shot at maintaining the ODF standard, or at least this is what I gather from their latest letters on the argument. I don't know why, but this worries me a bit. Not that I'd ever suspect Microsoft of any foul play, like for example trying to embed their proprietary and patent encumbered technologies in the ODF standard. After all their past behaviour is a clear example of integrity! (this post features sarcasm tags for easier interpretation by the humor impaired)
As for most things IT, there is a body of standards, fully documented and with free, accessible and royalty-free reference implementations. I am using such an embodiment right now to write this e-mail.
ISO is useful for connectors, naming conventions and mechanical parts specifications. Its role in defining open data-exchange standards is obsolete.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
This is not that unusual.
I have been a C++ programmer for many years, long before the standard for C++ was passed. When it was passed there was no complete implementation of it, and it was many years before there were implementations that came close.
I still have trouble forgetting the effort it took to get 'standard' code to build on AIX, Sun, and Windows.
A standard doesn't say there is an implementation, it says this is what we expect/want to be implemented.