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."
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Even MSFT gave up on trying to use the thing as a standard (for now)... but at least ISO's actions show us just how worthless and suspect (and probably corrupt) an ISO standard can get nowadays.
Guess I should've seen it coming back in the 1990's, when companies were plastering "ISO (insert number) Certified!1!1!!11!" across every marketing material surface that would hold ink.
Ah well... back to the good ol' RFC's, methinks.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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
I think we need to teach these cocksuckers a lesson. Let's boycott ISO and all ISO standards. Hopefully, it will be as successful as our amazon boycott!!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
The way I see it is that they have exactly two options:
1) Clean up their process and make resilient against amoral scum like Microsoft, that have a lot of power and absolutely no restraints on using it.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
Seems to me that ISO is bound to beceome irrelevant unless they chose 1). This would be detrimental to the whole world and a real pity. Can they just admit that their process has been successfully hacked and take a stand and poclaim that they will not tolerate it? Obviously not. Pathetic.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is explains why this decision mattered, because the ISO has discredited itself. Its other standards are now called into question. It is a shame, a real shame.
Did anyone expect them to say "It's a fair cop gov, you caught us red-handed"?
Because of legislation that requires governments to use only "standards compliant" formats. If OOXML is an ISO standard, then those governments can continue to use MS Office formats that no other software can use.
http://www.mhall119.com
Realistically, clown shoes should be measured in qubits. Thus, any attempt by a clown to actually measure his shoe would necessarily alter the shoe, thus changing it's size, and that would be funny. It would also allow clown shoe entanglement, thus changing every other clown's shoe size when any one clown measures his own. Quantum theory can then explain why so many clowns can fit inside of a very small vehicle.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
At this point, it isn't about OOXML specifically anymore. It is how the ISO was manipulated and bought so completely right in front of the world. It is ISO under scrutiny now, not OOXML.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
The corruption is so obvious that the ISO's reputation has been harmed. This is a bigger win for M$ than the coo-coo standard they never intended to follow. It is as if RJR got the AMA to approve a cigarette through bribery and a truncated "fast track" process. OOXML is against everything the ISO stood for and that contradiction is the forest that should be seen through all the clear cut trees. Commercial standards are now obviously compromised.
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
ISO need not have a monopoly on games. Sure, it's going to take some work to replace it. So the question is, "is it worthwhile doing?"
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"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."
MSOffice will support MSOOXML*
* but not the ISO standard implementation of MSOOXML **
** written in VERY small print. On a disused paper. In the basement. Without a light (lost) or stairs (lost) behind a closed door saying "Beware of the leopard"
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.
MS didn't lose. Sure the version of OOXML that was standardized was never implemented. But that doesn't mean that they can't say OOXML was ratified with ISO. And Microsoft Office Implements OOXML. They will conveniently forget that the two versions of OOXML are not the same. And for a typical end user, they will not think that critically. They will just say MS implements OOXML which is an ISO standard and that is that. This is a win for MS.
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)
Standards keep your car from flying apart, jets from dropping out of the sky and bridges from collapsing.
Yes industry standards matter. Screwing around with them as real world consequences. This is about more than just software.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Did you understand that? Not even Microsoft has any product which implements the standard.
You seem to have the quaint notion that any debate by a government department of contractor over whether .docx is an ISO standard will be based on accurate information and rational argument by open-minded people who understand the technical issues.
Welcome to our planet, stranger!
The reality is that the ISO has handed Microsoft advocates a massive FUD weapon. Before, ODF was ISO certified, .doc wasn't. End of story. Now, the salesman can tell your pointy-haired boss (who's genes tell him that nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft anyway) that MS's ISO-certified OOXML format will leverage support for legacy documents without the potential loss of fidelity* associated with ODF without telling an actionable lie.
(* 'cos half of OOXML seems to boil down to "render this blob exactly like Office 97, right down to the leap-year bugs" - and MS are really going to pull out all the stops to ensure that their ODF implementation is absolutely rock-solid, right?)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Reminded saying heard long time ago. [ Probably native speaker can give original saying for my memory is bad with such things. ]
When process is against you - argue facts
When facts against you - argue procedure.
Facts are against ISO. So they are pushing the procedure thing. After all procedure was so to say followed and voting on the so called standard so to say have happened. Or probably "had been happened" is more appropriate wording in the context??
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Have you ever heard of the term "rule of law"? If not, look it up.
The idea is, opinions do not matter in rule of law (other than legal opinions). If you don't follow the rule of law, then laws become meaningless.
The same is true for organziations like ISO, and while their rules aren't law, they may as well be for them. If they don't follow them and allow public opinion to sway their actions, then the rules are meaningless. If you don't like the rules, you have to work to get them changed, not cry foul for having followed the rules.
Most people against the ISO decisions don't seem to understand this. They think that if they just stand up and yell loud enough, then the ISO will (or should) violate it's own rules to side with them. That would be an even worse situation for the ISO and would make them even more worthless if they can be swayed to violate their own rules by public opinion.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here