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."
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?
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.
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 processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further
Typical desk jockey jargon with no content whatsoever... "Vote was counted and records are signed, that is the end of it, just shut up, we do not care if a company bought out some (most) of the votes or not..."
"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"
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.
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.