ISO Rejects OOXML Protest Appeals

snydeq writes "ISO and IEC gave OOXML the greenlight after organization leaders rejected appeals from four countries to protest the vote that approved OOXML as a standard. According to an ISO press statement, appeals by the national bodies of Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela did not garner support from two-thirds of the members of the ISO Technical Management Board and IEC Standardization Management Board, which is required by ISO/IEC rules to keep the appeals process alive."

Comments

Better Articles

[GNUChop]

See NoOOXML, OpenDot, NoOOXML">Boycott Novell and Groklaw for better analysis. People are very angry about this and they should be.

Re:Better Articles

[Anonymous Coward]

People are very angry about this and they should be

No, people are very ignorant about this, and shouldn't be.

I followed the OOXML ISO process, and read nearly all the criticism on most of those sites. However, unlike most readers, whenever the criticism was of a technical nature, I went to the spec itself and checked.

Bottom line: those sites often lied about objective matters of fact. Given that, I see little reason to credit anything else they have to say about OOXML.

Re:Better Articles

[linhares]

Dont you throw any chairs at me, Ballmer!

Re:Better Articles

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting - do you have any examples to back this up?

Re:Better Articles

[jacquesm]

A microsoft paycheck ?

Re:Better Articles

[Anonymous Coward]

AC, you're making the claim, so the Burden of Proof is on you. Does anyone care to provide links to any lie in particular?

What you can do?

[Fri13]

What *we* can do when the goverments, corporations and organisations are corrupted and we cant turn to ask help from them, because those who has power, controls those who could help us....?

Re:What you can do?

[Kjella]

Keep using OpenOffiec? I know, it sounds drastic but if everyone did and didn't give a damn about what ISO does, wouldn't that be enough?

Re:What you can do?

[oyenstikker]

Historically, it always ends in fighting.

Armed revolution.

Foreign takeover.

Collapse into anarchy.

Breed like rabbits, vote against the current leaders, and get labeled undesirable and attacked.

Pick your poison.

Re:What you can do?

[Milyardo]

Thats how we got into this mess in the first place. Rather than accepting ISO decision to make ODF the international standard. Micrsoft decided everyone already uses office, so we'll use that instead. Microsoft doesn't really give a damn if OOXML passes or not. They just want to be able to say they are standards compliant(easy to do when you define what that standard is). ODF is still a standard as well though, although I don't know what good will come of there being two standards.

Re:What you can do?

[Culture20]

So, the ISO needs to allocate a defense budget now. Excellent; let's hope they use Excel to crunch the numbers.

Re:What you can do?

[clang_jangle]

It wouldn't be enough (though it's certainly better than nothing). I doubt that MS actually expects anyone to use OOXML, as it is pretty close to impossible to implement. But when they have to go before government agencies in various countries to answer for their monopolistic, unfair business practices they get to say, "we contributed an open document standard, and we're a big contributor to the Apache Foundation. Heck, we're all about open source and freedom!" And since government bureaucrats are not exactly the hardest people to trick when it comes to technology issues, that will carry a lot of weight. And "membership" has other benefits, which can be leveraged to poison the whole pot.

MS is simply buying its way in to "OSS", just as it has done with so many more traditional competitors before destroying them. This is very, very bad.

Re:What you can do?

[larry bagina]

What can you do? Pick one: soap box, ballot box, natalie portman's box, ammo box. Note that the first 2 have been ineffective, and the 3rd is overrated.

Re:What you can do?

[fictionpuss]

Keep using OpenOffice? I know, it sounds drastic but if everyone did and didn't give a damn about what ISO does, wouldn't that be enough?

Thing is, it OOXML were a good standard, or even a standard in the sense that it actually documented something which was implementable.. then there wouldn't be such an outcry.

ISO exists because of an information/communication bottleneck which no longer exists to quite the same extent today. The need to have a central repository of standards outweighed the requirement for fitness of those individual standards.

But, given the multiple documented abuses of process, ISO is actually propelling us rapidly towards a future where more standards are able to be created and maintained outside of the vast bureaucratic machine. I'd credit F/OSS before ISO, but the latter are accelerating the process.

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Breed like rabbits

I know which of those sounds more fun....

Re:What you can do?

[Enderandrew]

I wager that 95% of the members of Congress never heard about any of this. Write them. Tell them how you feel. Educate them on the issue. Maybe one of them will actually give a damn.

Re:What you can do?

[AuMatar]

Do we get to look at the women before deciding on the breeding like rabbits option?

Re:What you can do?

[kpainter]

100% of the members of Congress won't give a shit unless there is a huge check attached to the letter you are planning to write.

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Write to them.

Re:What you can do?

[niceone]

Breed like rabbits

That's not really a viable suggestion for slashdot. Breed like robots maybe.

Re:What you can do?

[Adaptux]

What *we* can do when the goverments, corporations and organisations are corrupted and we cant turn to ask help from them, because those who has power, controls those who could help us....?

Despite the name, ISO is not an international organization in the same sense as e.g. WTO or WIPO are international organizations with countries as members. ISO is simply a cartel of national "standardization organizations". Everyone has the right to start an organization to compete with them. I believe that ISO is so strongly committed to acting in the best interest of the dinosaurs that there is no real alternative anymore to doing this. If you agree, please join us at OpenISO.org.

Re:What you can do?

[Enderandrew]

You don't say "Call to them" do you? There are times that prepositions are optional. "Write them a letter" is acceptable grammatically, and so is "write them".

Re:What you can do?

[Tubal-Cain]

You are on Slashdot. I don't think seeing them first would be necessary.

Re:What you can do?

[AJWM]

Microsoft doesn't really give a damn if OOXML passes or not. They just want to be able to say they are standards compliant

Ironically, they are NOT compliant with the version of OOXML that ISO/IEC approved, which isn't the same as the version of OOXML that ECMA originally handed them. (It's not even clear that the ECMA OOXML spec conformed fully to what Microsoft Office does, but that's a moot point now.)

Re:What you can do?

[jimicus]

Microsoft doesn't really give a damn if OOXML passes or not. They just want to be able to say they are standards compliant

Ironically, they are NOT compliant with the version of OOXML that ISO/IEC approved, which isn't the same as the version of OOXML that ECMA originally handed them. (It's not even clear that the ECMA OOXML spec conformed fully to what Microsoft Office does, but that's a moot point now.)

I'm sure Microsoft are much happier with the idea of tweaking the XML output in a future service pack then they are with having to compete on a level playing field with OpenOffice.

Re:What you can do?

[Enderandrew]

Furthermore, Microsoft said they won't even attempt to get Office 2007 to support it via a Service Pack. Instead, they won't attempt to support that standard until the next version of Office at the earliest, and that could mean at any point in that product's life span.

Re:What you can do?

[Tubal-Cain]

Von Neumann machines?

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true; it would suck for Microsoft if Open Office was able to compete on a level playing field. Fortunately for Microsoft (for now anyway), Open Office can't complete on a level playing field. It's only when you sway the playing field with pre-requirements like "must be open source" or "must run on Linux" or even "must use a legitimate ISO standard for file storage" that Open Office competes and wins. It doesn't win on Windows machines because, quite frankly, Open Office is inferior to MS Office today. May not be true in 4 years (read that "where will Linux be in 4 years story yesterday), but it is for sure true now.

Does Open Office meet a lot of home users needs? Yes, no doubt - it does.

Is it better than MS Office? In some cases, yes. The right tool for the right job and all that. MS Office may be overkill in some scenarios and Open Office sure wins on the budget front.

But in the business world the cost of MS Office doesn't outweigh the fact that MS Office can do more, and do it more quickly still today than Open Office can.

Re:What you can do?

[Tanktalus]

But in the business world the cost of MS Office doesn't outweigh the fact that MS Office can do more, and do it more quickly still today than Open Office can.

Can do more isn't a benefit to most anyone who can afford continual licensing. That is, they realise who it is in their organisation that really needs "more" and who need nothing more than a glorified WordPad. There are other things that provide value to the business (same program their clients/vendors use = interoperability; everyone has it so everyone knows it; brand recognition; ease of finding training for those who don't know it; someone to yell at if something breaks, aka support), and we can debate on how much value should be placed on each, but I don't think "can do more" is generally of any value to most users.

Re:What you can do?

[TheRaven64]

It seems that the next step should be for the objecting nations' standards bodies to withdraw from ISO and refuse to rejoin until the current management has been replaced. If more than half of the members withdraw then they should simply create a replacement body.

Re:What you can do?

[mrchaotica]

That is, they realise who it is in their organisation that really needs "more" and who need nothing more than a glorified WordPad.

The sad thing is, all those people who "need nothing more than a glorified WordPad" don't even need that either. All they actually need is WordPad, or maybe even NotePad.

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that they're companies in each country do you really think they'd cut off their revenue over this? There is no alternative for them even if they don't like it. They'd need another whole organisation to migrate to.

Re:What you can do?

[squiggleslash]

Well, no, but you don't say "call down this message" or "the calling is on the wall" either. They're entirely different words used entirely differently.

"Write them" is lazy and wrong. It just is. It's from the same bunch that brought you "could care less" and "anyways".

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll pick breeding like rabbits.

Thanks.

Re:What you can do?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's write to them. Anyone who says 'write them' is a complete fucking imbecile, who needs to seek urgent psychiatric care.

Unfortunately, this probably includes my American wife. Damn.

Re:What you can do?

[budgenator]

They both suck, LaTeX rawks forever! WYSIWYG is for L0s3rs, Kiddies and Old People in Korea; real men edit their LaTeX source files in ED!

Re:What you can do?

[budgenator]

You sir have never watched rabbits breeding, they go like Michael Phelps for 20 seconds then fall over like they were pole-axed; doesn't look like fun to me, I think they died every time I see it.

Re:What you can do?

[makomk]

My personal suspicion is that they've dug themselves into a hole. There's at least one minor change required for compliance with the ISO OOXML standard (a change in the strings used for true/false values in one place) that will render the document unreadable to any application not aware of the change, and I suspect that includes current versions of Microsoft Office. If they released a service pack that broke interoperability like that, their customers would not be happy.

Basically, they needed to either not implement OOXML before it was standardised or to keep a closer control on the standardisation process, and they failed on both counts.

Re:What you can do?

[MarkKB]

Thing is, if OOXML were not from Microsoft, then there wouldn't be such an outcry.

Fixed your typo for ya.

But seriously, OOXML (i.e. ECMA 376) is implimentable, and has been implimented, both in mainstream and niche products. Since ISO/IEC 29500 hasn't even been published yet, it's hard to say if the same is true for that too, but seeing as the two are supposibly rather similar, it prolly is.

Re:What you can do?

[fictionpuss]

I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.

As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.

Re:What you can do?

[MarkKB]

I was under the impression that it was unimplementable as it referred to opaque things like "implement this feature like Word 95 does" -- but I haven't gone through the specs myself.

As to your other point - yes - some people will always love to hate Microsoft, but I don't think that is the sole reason for the outcry.

I guess the problem is the difference between "implimentable" and "fully implimentable". Tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95 were only meant to be for legacy compatability, and aren't really necessary. (IMHO, they could of just set autospacing to whatever Word 95 had it, but perhaps it gets too tricky in places to handle/clean up later.)

Of cause, as a result of the BRM, ISO/IEC 29500 apparently now documents what tags such as autoSpaceLikeWord95 actually entail. So, that's a Good Thing. Eh.

About The Other Thing, I think there were some legitimate issues, but they got drowned out by the rest of us, who get a little too passionate at times. Our tendacy to attack or defend sometimes gets the better of us. It's what we do.

MS

[Darkness404]

I don't get why MS really even *cares* about OOXML passing or failing. The .doc "standard" (and I use that term loosely) was still used even with it being very closed. If MS wants to use an open format then there is nothing wrong with using the more open (and vastly superior) Open Document Format. But I don't really see the motivation in trying to get OOXML to pass...

Re:MS

[corsec67]

Some governments are passing laws saying that documents must be stored in a format that is a documented standard.

This is just MS's way of checking that box without actually making their format open.

You are right in that they don't want to open their format, but they need to have the appearance of having one.

Re:MS

[UnknowingFool]

See the problem is that ODF makes life easier on you especially if you change applications in the future. OOXML makes it harder on you. But MS is not concerned about you being able to read any format as they are concerned in keeping you tied to their products. If you use OOXML, you can't change applications easily. That might be a bit pessimistic. As of this writing no application, not even MS Office can read and write OOXML reliably so maybe OOXML may never make it to wide adoption.

Re:MS

[Narpak]

Norway has decided that all official documents must be available through ODF, PDF or HTML; which ever is most suited to the information in question. Also schools and public offices must accept ODF as a valid format. This is because no policy should require citizens to purchase expensive software to use public services. Among other things.

Re:MS

[dedazo]

Because Sun, IBM and other people who are inherently hostile to Microsoft control ODF. If Microsoft had adopted it and then went to them with a change to support something specific to MS Office they'd get the cold shoulder. Whether people like to admit it or not, Office is much more than a word processor and a spreadsheet (see SharePoint, etc.), has a hell of a lot more features than OpenOffice and its release cycle is much more active. So Microsoft can't afford to be screwed by the people who control the standard. Eventually they'd be forced to come up with their own version of it, and 'round the bush we go again with "OMFG embrace, extend, etc".

Not that OOXML is better, or even particularly appealing. But Microsoft does have the de facto standard (by sheer installed base weight) and what is pretty much the reference platform for office suites. So there's no way in hell that they would have adopted ODF. And I don't think any of their customers would have wanted that at all.

Personally, given the fact that they've opened up the binary format now, I plan on using the normal .doc format in the near future. I'm not interested in XML formats, regardless of who where they come from.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, Microsoft is fighting desperately to remain relevant to today's market. For a while, there was a big fuss about open document formats for legitimate long-term archival purposes related to government entities. Technology-aware governmental bodies were considering a switch to PDF, ODF, or other openly documented file formats. Microsoft desperately wants to retain control of the office document space, so they were very concerned about having their own "open" document standard. The ".doc" standard is only useful as long as you have software to read and print the document files and Microsoft was, for a long time, the sole provider of such software. These entities don't really expect Microsoft to support the format for 25 years or more.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

>If Microsoft had adopted it and then went to them with a change to support something specific to MS Office they'd get the cold shoulder.

Unfortunately, Microsoft disagrees with you, and is supporting ODF instead of OOXML. Please keep up. You are using the old Microsoft marketing tools.

Re:MS

[argent]

Complying with standards where it makes sense (like text document formats) doesn't mean you have to have explicit support in the standard for everything you do (like Sharepoint). If anything, a bit more intelligence and general standards compliance in Sharepoint (have you tried using the Sharepoint Wiki interface in anything but Internet Explorer?) would go a long way, and using HTML instead of (say) COM objects for Sharepoint doesn't seem to have hurt them.

Re:MS

[_Sprocket_]

So there's no way in hell that they would have adopted ODF. And I don't think any of their customers would have wanted that at all.

I'm not so sure. Even those customers who are mandating ODF aren't omitting Word. I would think that, considering how prevalent the Office suite is (as you pointed out), at least some of Microsoft's customers would be plenty happy with Microsoft adopting ODF.

Re:MS

[dedazo]

I think Microsoft has to support ODF one way or another. But I think they're going to do that through plugins and whatnot.

But there's no way they would have adopted ODF as the interop format for Office. That would have been a Rob Weir blog post waiting to happen. And in reality, they don't have to, because formats are driven by the software that uses them, not the other way around. It's not like OO.org has 500 million installs. Who else is driving adoption of ODF?

Re:MS

[morgan_greywolf]

You're not even towing the party line, given that Microsoft Office 2007 is supporting ODF now.

Have you even read the spec for the binary formats? Get a clue. They're also not implementable. (Surprise!)

Re:MS

[Peter La Casse]

Some governments are passing laws saying that documents must be stored in a format that is a documented standard.

This is just MS's way of checking that box without actually making their format open.

What I don't understand is this: how can they check that box without supporting the format? My understanding is that it's an unimplementable hodgepodge that's not fully supported by any version of MS Office to date.

Re:MS

[Maxo-Texas]

They don't even need the appearance.
They just have to match the legal requirements.

It is like the word games redefining torture as not being torture.

It is like defining a rope with a hook as a "braking system".

If the law says torture is illegal, just make sure your actions are legally not torture.
If the law requires a braking system, just make sure a rope with a hook is defined as a braking system.

If the law requires and open standard, just make sure some government or standards body calls it an "open standard". It does not have to actually be open.

Re:MS

[hellwig]

The next office will support ODF (since so many people are already moving there) but not OOXML.

The problem here is the fact that there exists an OOXML specification and that MS effectively owns that spec. Therefore, they can simply say that Office uses OOXML, but underneath it uses a hacked, unsupported version. The future of OOXML will simply be whatever features of OOXML MS has decided to implement, and HOW MS has implemented them. ISO isn't a governing body, they can't punish MS for not following the spec and still calling it OOXML.

Look at CSS for webpages. If you have done any webpage development (even for simple personal web pages) you know that if you don't test how it looks in IE, there's a big chance IE is rendering something incorrectly. The same will go for OOXML if Microsoft releases Office and CLAIMS it supports OOXML. Someone will try to open an OOXML document created by OOo (if they decide to support it), and it won't look the same. People will blame OOo, surely Office is rendering the document correctly, because hell, MS did create the spec.

MS has consistently forced change across many standards over the years (WinSock, IE JavaScript, CSS, etc...) simply because they inject their product into so many areas and half-ass their support of the standard spec. MS certainly isn't going to bother getting their Office suite ISO-certified, because hell, it's still proprietary so it's no ones business but MS's in how they implement OOXML.

Re:MS

[GIL_Dude]

I agree that I'd like to see SharePoint work better (or even correctly) in say FireFox. However, I myself don't know how to do that without some plugins like COM objects (for talking to Communicator to show contacts and for the menus like check out etc. that interoperate with Office). I imagine these could be implemented as FireFox extensions, and it would be very cool if they would do that. But doing just HTML and AJAX wouldn't work - at least not to give you the full feature set that the product has.

Here's hoping they do some work to make SharePoint allow FireFox as a full-featured client.

Re:MS

[_Sprocket_]

And in reality, they don't have to, because formats are driven by the software that uses them, not the other way around. It's not like OO.org has 500 million installs. Who else is driving adoption of ODF?

By that line of thought, they don't have to get ISO accreditation for any format they wish to push. But they have. Why is that?

Re:MS

[harlows_monkeys]

See the problem is that ODF makes life easier on you especially if you change applications in the future. OOXML makes it harder on you.

Nope.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

What worries me is the claim about areas of OOXML being covered by Microsoft patents. That's where they're likely going to exercise strict controls over who can and can't safely implement it. Microsoft has no control at all over ODF and they are psychotically paranoid about the possibility of people flocking to anything they don't control.

Re:MS

[TheRaven64]

My experience with CSS is to develop to the standards, test in Safari and have it look right. Test in Opera and have it look technically right but somehow ugly (heavier weights in borders and so on). Test in FireFox and have a few features missing but overall correct[1]. Test in IE and get a complete WTF. Fortunately I'm not employed as a web developer, so I can just ignore IE. As long as the content's correct the layout doesn't matter, and if IE users get used to seeing broken web pages that look nice in other browsers then maybe they will begin to realise that their browser is broken and switch.

[1] Note that the Safari Vs FireFox results are the other way around if you use a different subset of CSS to me.

Re:MS

[argent]

Erm, my point is that Sharepoint *is* using HTML, which is a standard API, without problems. They rarely have to use extensions... and nobody would expect Sharepoint to use ODF.

And, frankly, I would rather they removed some of the "full features" in Sharepoint because they do not work very well even in IE... for example what they call a Wiki is horrible, I frequently have to edit the raw HTML for a page to get rid of the incorrect tags and attributes it throws in when you edit in IE.

Re:MS

[mrchaotica]

1. It's unimplementable to anyone else; Microsoft has the advantage that they mostly just documented what MS Office does anyway (including the bugs).
2. MS Office is the reference implementation -- there is no validation testing software -- and trying to check if MS Office is conforming by comparing it to itself is useless for obvious reasons.

Re:MS

[dedazo]

Because it legitimizes them in the way that everybody says they must be. Public opinion and all that, imagined and real. It helps.

Re:MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft...is supporting ODF instead of OOXML.

For now...

Re:MS

[_Sprocket_]

So what we have, in fact, is the software being driven by the format. Or at least - the perception of how a format should be.

Granted - what this is really about is Microsoft trying some classic bait-and-switch. They want the friendly perception AND control over the format too.

Re:MS

[Dr_Barnowl]

Part of the problem is the preferential rates that MS give to schools ; you can get Office for a song. I'm not sure what the encentives they offer to public offices are, but I know that you can get a full copy of the Office du jour on the home use program for £18.

I'm going to have a good crack at infiltrating Edubuntu into my daughters school when she starts there this year.

Re:MS

[budgenator]

I went to Basic Training in 1973 and 2/3's of the training would be considered torture by today's standards.

Re:MS

[Narpak]

Check out Skolelinux. Linux designed for Schools :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolelinux
http://www.skolelinux.org/

ISO is dead

[Ariastis]

RIP ISO 2008

Re:ISO is dead

[sltd]

Has Netcraft confirmed this?

Re:ISO is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

It's never alive at the first place, so it can't be dead. It loses relevance when it still ripping off people with outrageous standard fee, when it cost the organization nothing to post contents online.

Re:ISO is dead

[g2devi]

> RIP ISO 2008

Invalid disk: Corruption found

Re:ISO is dead

[jeanph01]

Maybe it's not RIP 2008 but your right saying that's the first Big bad public action that ISO did that gave them a large very bad public opinion. And since nobody had an opinion on ISO before it's probably a very bad start. It's clear now that any IT standard certified by ISO is meaningless and that an ISO certification does not mean a good bulletproof standard. So even ODF should be certified elsewhere because ISO certification mean not much now.

woops, missed the NoOOXML link.

[GNUChop]

Correct NoOOXML link. This was one of the first and best of the bunch.

ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[denis-The-menace]

Nice to see that the price for ISO members was high enough to prevent appeals from going through.

Standards for sale.
Act now before the prices go up.

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[MacDork]

Nice to see that the price for ISO members was high enough to prevent appeals from going through.

If you can't join 'em, beat 'em. It's the OSS way. Fork it, or start your own. It looks like you have enough pissed off people to make a go at it.

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[Anonymous Coward]

As bad as the situation is, this is just the beginning. ANY organization that still charges money for public standards in digital age are designed to make money, not to cater topublic interests, and will have the same problems as ISO. We should start giving new names to ISO, such as:

Infinitely Stupid Organization
Internally Screwed Orifice
Institutionalized Super Outrage
International Slavery Organization
Infernal Scummy Offering
Intellectual Sanity Overlooked

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[Verdatum]

Yes, good idea! I'm going to start my OWN standards organization. With hookers!...And blackjack!...In fact, forget the standards!

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[Anonymous Coward]

ISO rejects OOXML protest appeal. The ISO chief was heard saying "Sorry, we can't refund the money to Microsoft. All sales are final!" after which he turned around and asked his vice chief "How about them Ferraris, eh? They should match our mansions in the Bahamas."

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[jimicus]

Nice to see that the price for ISO members was high enough to prevent appeals from going through.

There wouldn't have been much point in accepting corruption if they allowed the appeal.

Lots of /.'ers have predicted this as "the beginning of the end for ISO", but really, who outside of /. either knows or cares about the issues at stake?

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[Enderandrew]

The standard drink for the new standards organization will be Grog. The standardized procedure for making Grog will be as follows.

1. Make a rum and water (like Word 95 did it)
2. Hold the water.
3. Add more rum.
4. Repeat if necessary.
5. Party with Ted Kennedy.
6. Dump the dead hooker in the lake.
???
8. Profit

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[TheRaven64]

National standards bodies? The ones currently lodging the appeals? They are the ones that give ISO its credibility, and if they withdraw their support from ISO and back a new international standards body then ISO is basically finished. I doubt this is an issue important enough for them to do this over, however.

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice to see that the price for ISO members was high enough to prevent appeals from going through.

Standards for sale.
Act now before the prices go up.

ISO... the best standards that money can buy.

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[mortonda]

Oh, the /. collective lost our standards around here a long time ago...

Re:ISO=I Sold Out (so F***en shut up)

[jimicus]

National standards bodies? The ones currently lodging the appeals? They are the ones that give ISO its credibility, and if they withdraw their support from ISO and back a new international standards body then ISO is basically finished. I doubt this is an issue important enough for them to do this over, however.

Particularly as standards bodies in the more industrialised countries have by and large remained remarkably quiet on the issue.

microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

daffynition: A dreaded male sexual dysfunction

In Other News

[Anonymous Coward]

The International Standards Organization today announced that it has been purchased by Microsoft for $2.5 billion. "Over the past year or so, Microsoft has paid me a shitload of money!" said the ISO's CEO while worlfing down a Microsoft-sponsored steak and lobster dinner on his lunch break. "So when Steve Balmer made the proposal to buy us, I couldn't resist!" The organization will be renamed Microsoft ISO and will focus on standardizing Microsoft's standards so that the marketing department can add standards support to feature lists.

Re:In Other News

[JoeCommodore]

... continuing, Microsoft ISO will be re-branding and release thier flagship ISO product line:

ISO Office
- The professional version includes ISO Access

ISO Works

ISO Internet Explorer

ISO OS (previously called ISO Windows, removed the Windows name to help avoid confusion so corporate consumers will know "ISO OS" is an official ISO product.)

After the new product roll out, MS plans to re-evaluate its current acquired portfolio of ISO standard offerings and "...cancel or re-vamp those that are not in MS customers' best interest; to better suit the Microsoft ecology." as stated by an MS marketing rep.

(just in case someone is reading this, seriously, It's a joke, dude! Really!)

standards are falling

[Smivs]

So inertia is going to dump more crap on the world, so it seems. How a 'respected' body like ISO can let this slip through, particularly in the face of all the wheeling and dealing (corruption?) that's gone on during the voting process is depressing.
The IE6 of office software is upon us.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

This is only in the spotlight because it matters to anti-MS geeks. International standards have ALWAYS been such a freagin mess. It has always been a fight of power and money. "Fine, we will let you have your feature in the standard, if our technology is part of the standard too, then we'll vote for your proposition, and you vote for our proposition tomorrow".

Its why many are so stupidly hard to implement, are political mess (XHTML2 anyone?), and why corporations eventually feel the need to make their own, to just bypass it all and be done with it.

It was -always- this way. ISO has -always- been a freagin joke, and most people who implemeneted their crap already know this (ISO9001, lol). This is just a whole lot of same old same old.

Re:standards are falling

[hedwards]

I'm not really surprised at this point. When they said that multiple competing standards were a good thing, I'd have thought any credibility would have been gone at that point.

Standards are only useful if they're used widely and claimed compliance is enforced. Having a history of multiple competing standards just undermines any credibility that ISO had.

Re:standards are falling

[Smivs]

What you say is certainly true, but my point is not anti-MS specifically, but is a much more general one. We all have to live by standards (that's why we have law) and if some do not comply it inevitably causes chaos. While the transgressors often benefit, others suffer. Normally one 'standard' wins the battle of public aceptance, but it's often not the best one, it's the one that's promoted by people who are prepared to do whatever is necesary to win! What's best for the majority is a side issue, and this can't be good.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

My point is that "respected" bodies like ISO aren't falling. They've hit the lowest ground years (and in some cases, decades) ago. This particular event is nothing new: its always how it has been, and why most of these standards suck ass, from ISO to the W3C and beyond. It didn't reach a new low or anything, it has done much, much worse.

The whole idea of "independant standard bodies" is about as flawed as the idea behind software patents. It simply cannot work, and I'm not sure what the alternative is.

Re:standards are falling

[Dracos]

political mess (XHTML2 anyone?)

XHTML2 may be a political mess, and while it flatlines, HTML5 (a technical mess) is being prepared to be forced down our throats... get ready to choke on a big mouthful of bloat, tag soup, and presentational tags.

At least the ISO has some authority (rotten as it is), but the W3C is impotent, and has been for years.

Re:standards are falling

[Old97]

Very true. Corporations, including many who loudly tout "open standards" are only in favor of "open standards" and "fair processes" when the alternative is something that gives someone else an advantage. Their mission is to maximize profits and return to shareholders and management, not to do good in the world. Politicians who survive and rise are concerned more about winning the next election than they are about doing good things. The best of them try to do both, but when push comes to shove, they do what it takes to get (re-)elected or they disappear.

Re:standards are falling

[Anonymous Coward]

ISO9001?

IT'S OVER 9000!!!!

Re:standards are falling

[NickFortune]

My point is that "respected" bodies like ISO aren't falling. They've hit the lowest ground years (and in some cases, decades) ago.

Then maybe it's time we started demanding standards that were truly fit for purpose. That could be the one true thing to come out of this mess. It it raises general in the technical community of how badly broken ISO is, then maybe we're seeing the first steps on the road to a workable standards process.

In any event, there's nothing to be gained by accepting the status quo, and everything to gain from making a fuss. Good standards are important. If ISO can't deliver them we need a standards body that can.

The whole idea of "independant standard bodies" is about as flawed as the idea behind software patents.

I think you're conflating two ideas there. Firstly, there's the notion of a standard is a technical specification that (I expect and demand) everyone can implement and conform to. Secondly, there's the notion of a sort of government monopoly - in the sense that if YoYoDyne Inc control Standard X and the govt mandates that all frobnitz conform to Standard X, then only YoYoDyne can practically market frobnitz.

The point I think you're missing is that if a standard is a standard in the first sense, then the abuse implicit in the second scenario is impossible. It's not that standards are inherently broken, it's that closed, proprietary standards are broken. And so the problem comes back to IP rather than standards, per se.

Re:standards are falling

[Bert64]

And it is largely microsoft that is responsible for making the w3c impotent.

Re:standards are falling

[sm62704]

We all have to live by standards (that's why we have law)

perhaps, but that's not why I think we SHOULD have law. IMO we should have law to protect me from you and you from me, not to make us think and act alike. No law should endeavor to protect me from myself; I should have the right to ruin my life any way I see fit.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

The W3C makes a lot more standards than just HTML/CSS, and its standards sucked long before Microsoft failed to implement them, and even those that are perfectly (or mostly so) implemented everywhere still also suck.

All it does is spit out standard specifications that are more bloated than Vista on a bad day, and virtually everything that falls under its wings go that way. Its just the same as ISO: its multiple bodies pushing for their ideas and goals and instead of filtering the good from the bad, they implement everything to keep everyone happy (SOAP). Or not enough to make a few key people happy in their own little world (CSS... even with CSS 3.0, if it was fully implementing, you'd still be missing a lot of stuff. "You shouldn't need to have vertical control in a document!!! Welcome to the real world, idealistic zealot").

They'd still be that way, Microsoft or not.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

While a bit off topic, I have to say that unfortunately, you need to protect people from themselves, because people who ruin their lives often ruin others (for example, school drop outs are much more likely to go toward crime).

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

In any event, there's nothing to be gained by accepting the status quo, and everything to gain from making a fuss. Good standards are important. If ISO can't deliver them we need a standards body that can.

I totally agree with you. My posts were to point out that if we make a fuss about the WRONG THING, the eventual fixes won't fix anything. Too many people here seem to think that ISO fell because an overly powerful evil corporation pushed it around. But it fell because EVERYONE have ALWAYS been pushing it around. Thats very important to understand, else the next standard body or whatever will fall the same way, just without the big buzz to notify us that it did, like this.

I think you're conflating two ideas there

I'm not... again, I was trying to show the real problem. OOXML is open in the sense that anyone can implement it. Its just totally hellish to do so because a big corporation's ideas were forced into it: like virtually ALL freagin standards, from OOXML to SOAP going by tons of IEEE stuff. Lots of them are extremely hard to implement, and seriously, if I had the choice between implementing OOXML and implementing HTML 5.0 and CSS 3.0, I'd sure as hell pick the former, its easier! There isn't even a perfect implementation of XHTML 1.0 and CSS 2.0 for christ' sake (or did FF3.0 and the latest webkit FINALLY did it? Because I have seen VAST difference in behavior between FF2.0, FF3.0, Safari and Opera, so its not just Microsoft having trouble. And I'm not talking about the defaults being different, since thats valid by the standards).

These are all open standards. But its damn near impossible to implement them. You can get 90-95% right with several years and big money behind it (ok, I don't think Opera has the founding of Microsoft/Apple/Mozilla Foundation, so thumbs up to them to be getting so close), but good lord!

Re:standards are falling

[sm62704]

Someone posted this link in one of my journals, and it has very compelling arguments against your stance. It's a complete book posted online.

Re:standards are falling

[porneL]

I agree that W3C's standards are often bent to appease their sponsors, but still you can't say that Microsoft didn't make things worse.

Even if CSS3 isn't perfect, that's still much much better than buggy CSS1-and-a-half that IE6-7 supports (notably lacking display:table-cell that at least gives basic vertical control).

Re:standards are falling

[TheRaven64]

Care to name any of those presentational tags in HTML 5? All of the ones I saw were semantic apart from the audio and video tags. Whether tag soup is allowed depends on whether you use the SGML or XML bindings (and even then you aren't allowed overlapping tags, just ones that aren't closed). As for bloat, they're not allowing anything into the spec that doesn't have two independent implementations, so at least two browser writers have to think it's a good idea - I've spent the last month running in to real-world problems that HTML 5 has proposed solutions to and wishing I was living a few years in the future and could use them instead of some horrible work-arounds.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

Correct, but what exactly does Microsoft have to do with it? They didn't stop the W3C from doing their job. They just ignored em. The W3C went ahead pulling standards out of their asses. Microsoft made things worse for EVERYONE ELSE, and possibly influenced the W3C into making CSS less complete (though seeing how much of CSS is ignored by Microsoft, it doesn't seem to slow down the W3C any).

Microsoft made things worse, sure. But they're not "largely responsible" for the W3C being so shitty: again, EVERYONE has troubles with that stupid spec.

Plus, CSS is far from the being the worse standard the W3C spit out, which again invalidate the fact that it sucks because of Microsoft. (Microsoft's stacks support SOAP just fine. Even supports the fancier parts, and non-W3C stuff on top of it such as WS-I! Doesn't change that SOAP blows.)

Re:standards are falling

[meist3r]

This is only in the spotlight because it matters to anti-MS geeks.

I feel addressed by this statement because I only became a Linux user because MSs business decisions became truly unbearable after decades of semi-assholy behavior.

At least we "anti-MS geeks" are a lobby group of some sorts. The regular "I don't know Jack and don't give a crap"-user doesn't have a lobby at all. No one drags their body bags into the light for them so apparently nobody cares.

What you should be complaining about is that this shit has been going on for years and nobody cared. What you are trying to make as a point here is that you feel underrepresented by your non-existant "I don't care"-lobby.

Screw you! Quite honestly, I am sick of people like you that are more likely to accept corruption and idiocy as a given fact than fight for a better future. And you even go a step further and try to DEFEND corruption against the arguments of people that think this should not happen. How low can one go just to save one's warped sense of reality?

Just because there has -always- been rape, murder and torture nobody would be so stupid to use that as an argument to accept it. And in fact that is what Evolution is about, just because something has -always- been a certain way it doesn't mean it's particularly good or desirable. Sometimes traditions are crap and one has to get rid of them. So is the ISO. And this time it's literally a fight for a better future of document standards and market regularity not just a figure of speech.

Re:standards are falling

[Shados]

Wow buddy. Accept corruption and idiocy? Haha, thats so much the opposite of what my point was, that I don't know where to start... I guess i'll try to keep it simple.

My actual point was simply that people should use this in a way to realise that the standard bodies have fallen long, long ago. It has nothing to do with MS. If you were to make a new standard body, and only make it resistant to the corruption of large scale "evil" corporations, it will fall -again-, since all the current ones fell without that (some without any corruption at all, as far as we know!).

Knowing that something sucks and need to be changed isn't enough to make things better. You need to understand WHY it happened. And its not because of MS in this case: they only abused things that everyone (who looked) knew was there. If people don't understand that, its just bound to happen again.

THIS, was my point. Not that its ok and we shouldn't do anything about it, jesus.

Re:standards are falling

[meist3r]

Then I do apologize for taking you for one of these people. Lately I had to defend obvious points of argument against these guys that no reasonable human being would have ever questioned. Your post definitely read like an apologetic message saying "It's always been like that, why are you so mad, just accept it, it will always be this way." Mea culpa, nevermind.

Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that the ISO just proved they are just another group of administrative people and have nothing to do with good reliable standards.

Re:Standards?

[TheGratefulNet]

I think that the ISO just proved they are just another group of administrative people and have nothing to do with good reliable standards.

ISO/OSI 7 layer model, anyone?

its a paper thing but almost never real running code. CMIP anyone? no? you prefer snmp which actually WORKS and is a real standard?

yes, ISO is a laughing stock. the wars between the IETF guys and the OSI guys were funny to watch some 20 yrs ago. IETF did real stuff and OSI just measurebated (yes, intentional misspelling).

nothing really new here.

Re:Standards?

[http]

ISO 9660 anyone?

ISO=International Slavery Organization

[Anonymous Coward]

As bad as the situation is, this is just the beginning. ANY organization that still charges money for public standards in digital age are designed to make money, not to cater topublic interests, and will have the same problems as ISO. We should start giving new names to ISO, such as Infinitely Stupid Organization, or Internally Screwed Orifice, or Institutionalized Super Outrage.

Re:ISO=International Slavery Organization

[dgatwood]

To stick with your theme: Income Siphoning Organization.

The ISO press statement continues

[gplus]

The ISO press statement continues:
"... We're corrupt, and we're proud!"

How long...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we get a wikileaks of the ISO members papertrail's?

US rejects bushwhacking by corepirate nazi gang

[Anonymous Coward]

fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real

Who cares?

[Renderer of Evil]

The damage to the standard has been done. There has been so much negative press swirling around OOXML that ISO approval at this point is largely symbolic and meaningless.

Microsoft shot itself in the foot by trying to bribe national ISO members instead of keeping it on the downlow and improving OOXML to appease those obsessive standard-freaks. But then again, this is Microsoft we're talking about.

I'm not a luddite and would gladly try new things (including Microsoft things), but my perception of OOXML is so low based on all the news stories I've read that I'd rather switch to papyrus than save a document in .docx

Re:Who cares?

[dgatwood]

The damage to the standard has been done, but by outright rejecting the protests, ISO is also irreparably damaging its reputation. That damage could have been mitigated. Instead, they covered their ears and screamed "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" like a petulant five-year-old child.

Today, they might as well have released a press release that said, "We are a standards body that represents the desires of the highest bidder. Screw you all." That's certainly the way the entire open source community is going to interpret this. The result can be nothing less than a large percentage of people who should care about ISO standards replying, "Screw you, too." No other outcome is possible at this point; they have effectively marginalized themselves in the eyes of the technical community---probably irrevocably so. In the eyes of the community, the ISO simply no longer matters, or more accurately, must be completely ignored for the good of standardization.

Or, in government terms, "One wrong turn deserves another."

Re:Who cares?

[jimicus]

ITYM "ISO have lost any respect they may have had within IT".

Seriously, the implications are being blown beyond any sense of proportion. Yes, they're a standards body which can be bribed by the highest bidder to approve a document but unless the whole world knows this and holds them in contempt as a result, it means nothing.

Re:Who cares?

[dgatwood]

If the people who would otherwise submit standards to ISO and follow standards set by ISO generally think they are irrelevant, they become de facto irrelevant. At least in this field, IMHO, they are remarkably close.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

What "bribes", you moron?
Provide names.
Provide the dollar amounts exchanged.
Or STFU, idiot.

Re:Who cares?

[jimicus]

If the people who would otherwise submit standards to ISO and follow standards set by ISO generally think they are irrelevant, they become de facto irrelevant. At least in this field, IMHO, they are remarkably close.

Whereas everything else to date in IT has ultimately become enshrined in an ISO standard, yesno?

I'm convinced.

[Anonymous Coward]

AC, your detailed technical analysis has convinced me to never trust Groklaws again. Thank you for such an insightful and objective assertion of opinion as, "unlike most readers, whenever the criticism was of a technical nature, I went to the spec itself and checked. ... those sites often lied about objective matters of fact." Such excellence is par for the course with AC comments. How can I ever thank you for saving me from "ignorance"?

Re:I'm convinced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to go back to the earlier slashdot discussions on this, where you will find the detailed technical analysis you crave. Be sure to set your settings to see comments that were moderated to negative infinity, because pointing out flaws in the party line is not politically correct around here.

Re:I'm convinced.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still unable to link to any arguments eh? Well, don't feel bad. We know you're trying.

Re:I'm convinced.

[Barsteward]

yes, very trying indeed

Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that this is over, can someone investigate IBM? I'd like to know why they had two paid staff members writing blogs, on company time, full of technical FUD about OOXML.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Hairy Heron]

Exactly what would there be to investigate? Is paying an employee to write on a blog against the law?

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[UnknowingFool]

Anyone who has been following this story knows that OOXML needs a lot of work. That's not to say OOXML couldn't be a good standard someday but as of today it has many issues with it. Such an immature and incomplete implementation should not be a standard until those issues were resolved and should have not been fast-tracked. But instead of acknowledging the flaws, you're trying to introduce a red herring by complaining about an two people complaining on their own blogs about OOXML. How is this in any way relevant to OOXML being a poor standard?

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Frosty Piss]

Is paying an employee to write on a blog against the law?

At Slashdot, only if it's Microsoft...

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[magus_melchior]

Correction:

Now that this is over, can someone investigate Microsoft? I'd like to know why they had several paid staff members writing blogs, on company time, full of glowing reviews about, and defense of, OOXML.

Is that you, Jason Matusow?

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Writing blog posts on company time when the company approves of it. Uh... yeah, good point?

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Elektroschock]

I would say the problem is the "design" of Open XML, not the details.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[HiThere]

Both. Also the procedures used to get this mess officially anointed as a Standard. ("Standard" has to be capitalized in that sentence, because the only sense in which it is a standard is a a part of the name of the ISO.)

A standard is supposed to be the appropriate way to do something. The ISO fails this totally. It's not just that it favors one company over everyone else, it's that the standard as voted on was never seen by those voting. It appears that this "standard" will be something that can't be implemented by anyone (except in the trivial sense that allows a claim the cp is an implementation). An organization that approves such a farce as a Standard is not deserving of any regard or respect.

Note that the standard is so broken that, in a trivial sense, nearly anything can claim to be standards compliant, and in a stronger sense it appears that nobody can implement it. But there are also no tests for compliance, so anyone can claim to be complaint without fear. As such it's totally worthless. Two standards compliant programs cannot be relied upon to read and write the same files, and perhaps not even their own.

N.B.: This is not an argument based upon the standard as adopted. That apparently hasn't been written yet.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Is paying an employee to write on a blog against the law?

At Slashdot, only if it's Microsoft...

Oh I get it -- your joke plays on the stereotype that Slashdot users think that Microsoft employees shouldn't write in blogs.

Oh wait, no one said that. Nice "joke", pal.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, fanboy. The funny thing is your asinine comment supports the parent. You're so much of a joke you can't even see it.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[budgenator]

isn't that what they call guerrilla marketing?

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Elektroschock]

I don't agree with Miguel's superbity claim but the spec is not that bad. The problem it the format's design and licensing conditions.

Re:Maybe now someone can investigate IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

The spec is very bad and these are all things that they will be unable to fix until maintenance.

Slashdot Effect

[Enderandrew]

Let us put it to good for once. Everyone reading this article should send at the very least one email to their elected government official. Google will tell you who to contact. We need to let our governments know how we feel about this ISO fiasco.

Re:Slashdot Effect

[morgan_greywolf]

CmdrTaco is a Twitter sock-puppet.

Maybe Twitter is a CmdrTaco sock-puppet. ;)

Re:Slashdot Effect

[Enderandrew]

Maybe Twitter is a CmdrTaco sock-puppet. ;)

Recursive insanity ensues.

Re:Slashdot Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

I will undertake to email Jake Knopfers, Canada's ISO representative. I have had dealings with him in the past.

1 country down, 185+ to go.

Duane

Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like "Because we hate Microsoft" isn't a compelling enough reason for the ISO.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[an.echte.trilingue]

Seems like "Because we hate Microsoft" isn't a compelling enough reason for the ISO.

True, but "unimplementable" should be.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Timosch]

It is not about "We head Microsoft", it is about the fact that something like WordWrapLikeWord95 should not exist in an ISO standard.
BTW: There was a very interesting graph in the German magazine c't. The essence was as follows:
XHTML: ~100 pages, ~400 days of standardization process
ODF: ~800 pages, ~900 days
SVG: ~600 pages. ~1050 days
SOAP: ~200 pages, ~950 days
...
OOXML: ~6500 pages, ~350 days.
You've no idea how incredible that looks in a graph...

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[The_Quinn]

I guess most of the countries' representatives ond't effectively govern as well as you could. Too bad you can't rule the world and bring us the Utopia in your head :)

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[an.echte.trilingue]

I guess most of the countries' representatives ond't effectively govern as well as you could. Too bad you can't rule the world and bring us the Utopia in your head :)

Who do you think that these wonderful leaders are? They put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and me. Most of the bureaucrats who prepare these decisions are no more educated than you or I. Governments, even authoritarian ones, are the people.

What's more, I live in a democratic republic, and in such a system, the people must participate or it fails. Questioning government positions is part of what you call a country's "political discourse," which is necessary for the society as a whole to come to a coherent decision that expresses itself in elections.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[HairyNevus]

Yes, but it's a good enough reason to mod people down on /. No news there, though.
Anyone else think that this whole "ISO OOXML corruption" story is just being exaggerated and carried on by the MS-hate machines out there (slashdot being one)?

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Enderandrew]

No, because I've been reading all the articles. You'll find that there is plenty there to be pissed off about.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[nschubach]

I tend to look at it like this...

If nobody speaks up, Microsoft has won. There are a lot of underhanded business practices that MS has "gotten away with" because nobody cared to speak up. If people just let it die off, it opens door for other companies to undermine the standards practices because "people will soon forget."

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Sloppy]

I think what the numbers mean is: the more impossible something is, the less time I want to spend reviewing it. SVG is worth getting right; OOXML is worth nothing.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

What's more, I live in a democratic republic

Welcome to Tbilisi my Friend!

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Tubal-Cain]

Most of the bureaucrats who prepare these decisions are no more educated than you or I.

And probably less so.

My brother wants to go into law, and is considering politics from there. While understanding of the law is great, I'd rather have a politician who could quit politics and immediately get employment in some form of skilled labor.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Chosen Reject]

Who do you think that these wonderful leaders are? They put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and me.

I so need to become a leader. I've been putting on my pants both legs at the same time just so that I can tell people that I'm not like them. I've also been working on a solution to put on both of my socks at the same time just in case it ever comes up.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[benwaggoner]

It is not about "We head Microsoft", it is about the fact that something like WordWrapLikeWord95 should not exist in an ISO standard.

Sure it is, if the goal of the standard is to offer forward compatibility of legacy documents.

Most of the objections around here seem to beg the question of the goals of OOXML, which are different from ODF.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[jd]

That is entirely true, which is why Plato argued that people should have superior education. Now, in the modern world, what constitutes superior eduction? Superior to what Plato knew of? Superior to what they have now? Or superior to the standard required to understand the basics of contemporary life, the technologies and societies within it, and the interactions between them? I would argue that that last option should define the minimum standard acceptable for anyone, that better should be encouraged but that since all people have some input to geopolitics, major business decisions, community policies that are likely to have a wider impact, and so on, we should never tolerate a standard of ignorance that perpetuates ignorance and harm.

Arguably, what I'm asking for is not going to be easy or cheap, but if you optimize the quality of the population, you must also optimize their ability to function together, their ability to make good decisions, and their ability to reduce unnecessary damage. At some point, the additional value brought will equal the additional cost to improve standards. That is the "ideal" point, as any more investment is burning money with no benefits and could be put elsewhere for better gain.

A "utopian" society is not a stress-free society by this standard, and there'll still be plenty of bigotry and abuse. Rather, a "utopian" society by this standard is the greatest ability and greatest freedom to choose a different path, with the least possible negative consequences for not being selfish and harmful, because people will have the understanding and tools to make genuine choices, not choices they have copied from someone else without really knowing why, or choices out of fear. To me, "utopia" isn't about perfection, it's about balance. Better understanding with no means of using that understanding isn't more "perfect" than a balance between the two. Nor is superior technology than our ability to understand what it does, why, and whether there are longer-term effects that need to be considered.

Technology should not be held back in fear, nor should understanding. By my definition of "utopia", if one is racing ahead, you should develop the counterpart until it catches up. (As a completely pointless exercise, I came up with six variables you'd need to push hard on, to keep them as close together as possible, to produce the most stable and most enlightened civilization that can be achieved at that time. I believe firmly that allowing any of those six variables to backslide will invariably destabilize society and corrupt understanding, and that all civilizations that have ever declined have done so with that being the core reason, the actual mechanics being a mere secondary effect resulting from this primary cause.)

I believe that the ignorance shown by the ISO board is a direct consequence of that board being unbalanced by my definition. It has poor understanding of the engineering and an even poorer understanding of the social consequences, simply so that it can play with shiny new toys. If there's such a thing as reincarnation, we now know what happens to cats when they die - they become board directors.

I fully accept that there'll be plenty of people who disagree with my notion of "utopia" being a state of optimized relative dynamic equilibrium, where the absolute states are always increasing, and it'd probably be a lot of people's idea of a dystopia, as it is inherently restless and requires active intervention rather than allowing the different markets to independently determine their relative pace. I also agree that a regulated balancing act of this kind may in fact not be achievable in practice, but I've yet to hear any convincing argument as to why not, only the usual stuff about big governments, which doesn't even apply to this.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[BubFranklin]

You've no idea how incredible that looks in graph...

You've now have an idea how incredible that looks in graph...

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[jejones]

If that's the goal of the standard, then it ought to actually define what "like Word 95" means, rather than effectively saying "how Word 95 word wraps is so convoluted that we can't define it here".

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Slashdotters continue to spout either ignorance or lies regarding OOXML.
You suggest that OOXML is "unimplementable"?
Then explain this study comparing cross-app compatibility of ODF and OOXML.
It gives numerical scores on the ODF and OOXML compatibility of various apps. I'll just list the "Weighed Percent" score for each app:

Results for ODF
OpenOffice 100%
StarOffice 97%
Sun plug-in for Word 96%
CleverAge/MS plug-in for Word 94%
WordPerfect 86%
KOffice 79%
Google Docs 76%
TextEdit 47%
AbiWord 55%

Results for OOXML
Office 2007 100%
Office 2003 100%
Office 2008 (Mac) 99%
OpenOffice 96%
Pages 95%
WordPerfect 84%
ThinkFree Office 83%
TextEdit 43%

The final implication stems from the surprisingly good results for OOXML implementations. Critics of OOXML have argued that it was too complex and difficult to implement. While OOXML is a long and complex standard, it is possible to offer good compatibility. In fact, our results suggest that implementations of OOXML work as well as implementations of ODF. At the level of basic word-processing that we examined, neither standard had a dominant advantage over the other in terms of compatibility scores. While ODF has had a head start that has lead to more implementations, there appears no reason why OOXML cannot catch up. After all, several developers have provided independent implementations of OOXML.

Doesn't appear that ODF is much more "implementable" than OOXML.

BTW, check out KOffice's ODF compatibility score. KOffice has been promoted around here and other places as the poster child of an ODF implementation independent of OO.o code. Well, KOffice's score isn't horrible, but isn't that great either, certainly not at the "poster child" level.

Caveat: I assume the OOXML that was tested was ECMA OOXML rather than the new ISO OOXML standard. But the ISO version actually is easier to implement than the ECMA standard, so OOXML cross-app compatibility will go up even more when ISO OOXML is implemented by the various apps.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[I'm Don Giovanni]

It is not about "We head Microsoft", it is about the fact that something like WordWrapLikeWord95 should not exist in an ISO standard.

Slashdotters are so ignorant on OOXML yet speak so authoritatively on the subject.

WordWrapLikeWord95 isn't in the ISO standard as an opaque concept like it was in the ECMA standard. WordWrapLikeWord95, et al, are fully detailed in the ISO standard as to exactly what you'd need to do to implement them, should you wish to do so. (Those settings have also been deprecated, only for use when reading the small percentage of old documents that originally used those settings; new documents should not use them, period.)
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2008/01/18/suppresstopspacingwp-compat-settings-1.aspx

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[TheRaven64]

I never understood this thing about putting your pants (we call them trousers over here) on one leg at a time. You sit on the edge of your bed, fold your legs up, and slide them simultaneously into both trouser legs. It's much easier than doing them sequentially - why would anyone do that?

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Ornedan]

And seeing as those legacy documents are stored in a format that is not, in fact, OOXML, how does WordWrapLikeWord95 help? A format conversion will be required anyway, so as long as the new target format has flexible enough word wrap specification, there is no need for something as specific as WordWrapLikeWord95.

The only case in which it makes any sense, and what probably is the case, is that OOXML is just a direct conversion of the old binary formats. The tag and attribute names actually often look like they were taken from the source code for old formats. Which makes it pretty easy for MS to implement the file format - they already had the code (with all the now standard-enforced bugs to boot). And about as hard for everyone else as the binary formats have been.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[TheRaven64]

These numbers are highly misleading. They are the result of saving a load of different documents in both formats in OpenOffice and MS Office and comparing their result. They don't include complete coverage of either spec. The numbers for Office 2003 and Office 2007 just show that the same code loads and saves the same file the same way (huge surprise). The result for Office 2008 Mac shows that, even with access to the source code for the 'reference implementation' (TFA's words, not mine) the Office Mac team couldn't read all of the documents this informal test produced.

They also don't show the results of going the other way - saving in one of the other apps and opening in the 'reference implementation.' They are not comparing any product's implementation of either spec. If MS Office produced something completely unrelated to OOXML then you would likely get the same results due to reverse-engineering attempts by the other products.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[holloway]

It's currently unimplementable because the ISO OOXML does not exist, no one has seen it, not even the National Bodies who -- as per the rules -- should have seen it in late February.

Further, there are mathematical differences between the spec and what Microsoft Office does. Now which do you think an implementor will implement? Your interoperability study is based on reverse engineering, not on following any OOXML specification.

Yet further, there are defects remaining in OOXML that were not addressed and that prevent interoperability. When you try to make a specification in such a short period of time this is to be expected.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

That's merely a popular example, read this for more How Many Defects Remain in OOXML

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[mrchaotica]

What you really need is a scatter plot. (Note: I'm deciphering the Google Chart API as I write this; check for a link in a reply to this post.)

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[mrchaotica]

And here's my best shot at it. I couldn't figure out how to label the points (or the axes, for that matter) but I think we can all figure out which one is OOXML.

Also, I wonder if it would be better with a logarithmic scale (which the API doesn't appear to support)?

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[mrchaotica]

(Those settings have also been deprecated, only for use when reading the small percentage of old documents that originally used those settings; new documents should not use them, period.)

They're still stupid, though. Why? Because there are no old documents that originally used them because all those old documents are written in formats other than OOXML! And if you're converting them, why don't you just go ahead and do those "fully detailed" things and skip the deprecated tag altogether?!

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[TheSeer2]

In regards to the "WordWrapLikeWord95" part, I believe all those kinds of things have been removed from the spec.

As far as I can tell... it's not even in the Wiki article any more (or someone's moved it e.t.c)

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[benwaggoner]

Good point. Of course, if an app only needs ODF level accuracy to the original, any app implementing OOXML can just ignore those more esoteric tags. And it certainly never would need to write them. Think x86 assembly; the ancient instructions are still supported for backwards compatibility (albeit slowly), but only a subset is used in practice by modern compliers.

Sure, it'd be very difficult for any third party to implement support for the legacy tags. But it's there if they can figure it out, and it at least gives a way forward to make legacy files XML structured for easier searching and maipulation.

If you assume the goal of OOXML is to make a documented XML format that supports the features of all existing Office files, it makes a whole lot of sense. And it's a handy thing have, compared to the binary formats.

Some people may think that's not a worthwhile goal, but it's important to recognize what something is designed to do before complaining it's designed badly for how a particular person imagines using it.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Buelldozer]

The idiom probably predates the common person owning an elevated bed. I've always assumed that it sprung from the fact that a manservant WOULD put their masters pants on both legs at once while their master was sitting on an elevated bed.

A commoner, having a flat pallet for a bed, would slide one leg of their breeches on and then the other as holding both legs off the ground at once is quite a challenge for most people.

What any of this has to do with ooxml I really have no idea.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[novakyu]

I think what the numbers mean is: the more impossible something is, the less time I want to spend reviewing it.

Then reject it. Approving it because you don't want to see it is almost like marrying someone because you hate him.

If rejected (through the longer process, rather than fast track), the ISO committee never has to see the spec again. If accepted, now they are responsible for maintaining it.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

You sit on the edge of your bed, fold your legs up, and slide them simultaneously into both trouser legs. It's much easier than doing them sequentially - why would anyone do that?

Real heterosexual men do it standing up.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a bed, you insensitive clod!

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[BubFranklin]

Yah, your chart may be technically accurate, but mine has more punch... I have a good friend that's a PhD brain that does statistical analysis for a living... he could fill in the blanks. The only issue is though it needs to show how sucky this situation is as well as be accurate... :P

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[mrchaotica]

To be honest, I was hoping it'd turn out a lot better than it did. I wanted there to be a nice diagonal line for the rest of the standards, with OOXML way off it. Unfortunately, the line was more vertical than diagonal, and it needs more data points. : (

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[howlingmadhowie]

i would say that people did speak up. even the members of the iso shouted about this and microsoft still won. speaking up just isn't enough when you're fighting a gorilla with 30 billion dollars profit each year.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Wraith, The]

ODF 1.0 has many defects as well and OASIS is only now trying to correct them several years after submitting the standard to ISO.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Wraith, The]

On the other hand: ODF was put trough ISO in 5,5 months OOXML took more than 15 months

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[budgenator]

Who do you think that these wonderful leaders are? They put their pants on one leg at a time just like you and me. Most of the bureaucrats who prepare these decisions are no more educated than you or I. Governments, even authoritarian ones, are the people..

not mine, in the People's Democratic Wprker's Paradise Republic of Elbonia, Microsoft provides us with 3 employess, on holders our Glorious Leaders pants open while the other two pick him up and slowly lower him into his pants!

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but there's a difference between fixing easily known problems (Eg, the table column limit in OOXML word processing documents) and the recently discovered problems in ODF 1.0 that weren't known at the time of standardisation.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[budgenator]

Microsoft submitted OOXML to the international standards body Ecma International in November 2005 as an attempt to fast-track it through the ISO. Despite protests and criticisms, that process eventually proved successful on April 1, when the ISO approved OOXML as a standard.

On Wednesday, Microsoft said it will not have support for the current ISO specific for OOXML until it releases the next version of Office, code-named Office 14. The company has not said when that software will be available. Update: Microsoft to support ODF, PDF in Office next year

I guess we'll see when they actually try to do it, we'll all laugh hysterically if it turns into another Vista disaster and they can't cut features because they are locked into an ISO standard!

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[budgenator]

it pretty effectively shows how little consideration time was put into each page of OOXML spec compared to other specifications

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[budgenator]

you must be new around here, the OOXM/ISOL brouhaha was pretty mild for Microsoft; usually they kill the men, rape the women and eat the children.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we'll see when they actually try to do it, we'll all laugh hysterically if it turns into another Vista disaster and they can't cut features because they are locked into an ISO standard!

Of course, when that doesn't happen, you won't have the guts to eat crow.
Also, OO.o cut features from their own ODF 1.0 implementation. Have a laugh about that, moron.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[budgenator]

The laughs on you, I edit LaTeX source with Emacs you insensitive clod

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

So OOXML shouldn't be standardized because it's unimplementable.
It's unimplementable because the standard doesn't yet exist.
And it shouldn't be standardized because it's unimplementable.
It's unimplementable because the standard doesn't yet exist.
etc..

Circular logic - the M.O. of a moron.

Oh, linking to Rob Weirdo might convince MS haters but does nothing for rational folk. Rob Weirdo is a proven liar.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did I say that OOXML shouldn't be standardised because it hasn't been released? No, what I did respond to was someone talking about OOXML interoperability and I merely clarified what that interoperability couldn't be referring to.

Your personal insults are based on a misunderstanding. It does however reveal how quickly you will resort to that, and that you do that rather than asking questions to better understand another person.

Re:Cooler heads prevailed

[makomk]

Ah, but OpenOffice explicitly doesn't support OOXML - it supports a reverse-engineered version of Microsoft Office's version of OOXML. Since they're creating the documents in MS Office, all that's saying is that a software that's put a lot of effort into being interoperable with Microsoft Office has managed to mostly achieve it. (Also, you'll notice that each list contains different software, and that where a piece of software is on both lists its compatibility scores for OOXML and ODF are very similar. It looks like the score depends more on the quality of the software than of the standard, which isn't surprising - it's probably mainly influenced by what features each piece of software supports, rather than by its support for the two document formats.)

What part of "rabbits" did you not understand?

[mkcmkc]

Is that a carrot in your pocket, or...

Paid for Fair and Square

[MikeV]

Is anyone surprised? Microsoft paid for that ISO fair and square. Bribed the right people, paid for the right votes. They got their money's worth. This proves that the world's way works. Corruption to some is just business to others.

But then, Slashdot is now a pro-Microsoft camp - so why all the belly-aching? I see so much praise heaped up on Microsoft here nowadays that I wonder if they'd forgotten OSS and *nix which was their original focus and forgotten the damage Microsoft has perpetuated on the computing industry as a whole. After all, it's not FAT32.com - it's Slashdot.com - but then who here even knows what that stands for anymore?

Re:Paid for Fair and Square

[TheOldSchooler]

Yea sure. Because everytime I see a story about Microsoft posted on Slashdot I think "oh man, another page full of knee-jerk pro-MS comments!"

Re:Paid for Fair and Square

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard this place is the root of all evil.

Re:Paid for Fair and Square

[CajunArson]

But then, Slashdot is now a pro-Microsoft camp - so why all the belly-aching? I see so much praise heaped up on Microsoft here nowadays that I wonder if they'd forgotten OSS and *nix which was their original focus and forgotten the damage Microsoft has perpetuated on the computing industry as a whole. After all, it's not FAT32.com - it's Slashdot.com - but then who here even knows what that stands for anymore?

    Uh... WTF? Is this just stuff added onto the end of your post to get extra modpoints because your point is just that Microsoft bribed people.... with 0 evidence that bribery took place? I'm not saying that MS is squeaky clean in all this, but you just made a nebulous accusation without backing it up with substance, and then spent the bulk of your post on psychological misdirection to pander to Slashdot's moderators.... Hey wait! All flash and no substance, you don't write speeches for politicians do you?

Re:Paid for Fair and Square

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey wait! All flash and no substance, you don't write speeches for politicians do you?

Nah, he writes web pages for Adobe.

Microsoft Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Microsoft be charged with fraud if they advertise that Office 2007 is OOXML compliant?

This is what you complain about?

[bigtallmofo]

Everyone reading this article should send at the very least one email to their elected government official

I see. You've already sent correspondence to your government officials in regard to global warming, the crisis in Darfur, Russia's invasion of Georgie, alternative energy adoption, and all the other really important things.

Good thing we solved all those problems - now it's time to complain about a standard being approved by ISO that nobody cares about.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Enderandrew]

Last year I was in a car accident. Someone rear-ended me and totaled my car. The insurance agent called me, and without seeing the car or knowing any facts, said I was 15% liable for being rear-ended. I didn't speed, I stayed in my lane, etc. I called a lawyer who said I was screwed. There wasn't enough money to justify fighting the case in court. The body shop guy said he saw it ever day in my state, that the insurance company wouldn't pay the full claim and just screwed people if the case was small enough to stay out of court. He saw someone parked on the street had their car totaled, and the insurance company said they were partially liable for being parked on the street legally. If the car wasn't on the road, it never would have been hit.

I was furious, so I called my state senator to talk about the partial liability law. We have term limits, so he wasn't up for reelection and wouldn't personally benefit, but he called me back several times to get info. He researched the law, and several cases like mine where we were ripped off. Then he went into legislation and fixed the law.

Sometimes there are a few decent people in office who want to do good. But if you never bring these things to their attention, nothing will ever be done.

Contacting your elected officials may not work, but it beats doing nothing.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[medeii]

Better yet, why don't you tell us the name of your (former?) insurance company, so that people know better than to do business with them?

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, already moderated in this discussion, so I have to do this anonymously, but I agree it's nice to hear about good stories like this. In fact, do you mind naming the senator so that people can know about it and those that are in the precinct have a chance of making a more informed choice?

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Enderandrew]

It wasn't my insurance company. The company insured the guy who hit me, and they were State Farm.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[ozzee]

Is there a small claims court kinda thing in your state and would that have worked?

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Elektroschock]

Maybe this is what you are looking for: the Hague Declaration for open standards.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Enderandrew]

http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/web/public/senators/bios/synowiecki

Re:This is what you complain about?

[Enderandrew]

Yes. I could have filed in small claims court. I'm not sure if I would have to go after State Farm or the agent individually. Honestly, I wasn't as concerned with the money (I bought a new car) as the principle. 15% of the claim didn't bankrupt me, but I didn't want to see this practice continue and affect others.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[jessedorland]

And I am replying to your post from Mars.

Re:This is what you complain about?

[adri]

Got a reference?

No standards compliant programs

[geopsychic]

The net result of this mess looks like no program can claim to be standards compliant. No one other than M$ will be able to support OOXML due to the incomplete specification and M$ has shown no interest in supporting ODF.

Re:No standards compliant programs

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't true. Microsoft has expressed interest in ODF. They are an official contributor to the OpenXML/ODF translators project. They also announced that Office 2007 SP2 will officially support reading and writing to ODF 1.1.

http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/21/microsoft_office_pdf_odf/

And, really, a lot of the complaints that people have about OpenXML aren't that valid. Sure, some of the tags in the initial draft were poor, such as referencing behaviors in previous versions of Word. Those tags are deprecated if not entirely removed. A lot of the problems with Office 2007 supporting the ISO version of OpenXML are minor as well, such as the use of an attribute value of "on" in place of "true". OpenOffice has the same kinds of implementation problems with ODF. Lastly, the complaints about the size of the spec are also largely unfounded. The OpenXML spec covers a lot more than the ODF spec. For example, OpenXML describes the functionality of every spreadsheet function, whereas ODF has no specification for any spreadsheet functions at all. Also, OpenXML's spec contains an absolute ton of sample XML. If you removed the sample XML from both the OpenXML and ODF specs their sizes become a lot more comparable.

Re:No standards compliant programs

[gbjbaanb]

The net result of this mess looks like no program can claim to be standards compliant.

Wouldn't it be funny if Word was rejected by government programs because it is not compliant?!

Re:No standards compliant programs

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenXML describes the functionality of every spreadsheet function,

No it doesn't.

whereas ODF has no specification for any spreadsheet functions at all.

Well the above link shows the quality of OOXML's formulas, and here's a real timeline of OOXML and ODF:

In 2005, Microsoft's Brian Jones noted that OpenDocument did not define spreadsheet formulas in detail.[6] However, at the time Microsoft's competing proprietary XML format also did not include this kind of detailed specification for formulas.[7] Microsoft continued to protest that OpenDocument could not be used because it did not define a format for spreadsheet formulas, yet its own specification continued to omit any specification about formulas through April 2006. Finally, in May 2006, Microsoft also began defining formulas in its XML format, fifteen months after the first version of OpenFormula and three months after OASIS posted its first official draft of its specification. -WikiP

By the way, "OpenXML" spelled perfectly every time.. hmm... XML is already Open, and the term OpenXML makes as much sense as OpenHTML. Only Microsoft and their vendors call it that because it's part of a googlebomb on a nonsensical term.

Non-Microsoft vendors just call it OOXML.

ISO is dead. Long live it's successor

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I consider ISO dead now. Just like congress, they can be bought.

So, what organization is going to take over as steward of international standards processes and to take ownership of the former ISO valid standards?

Right. Nobody gives a rat's rump what I think.

OOo and ODF compliance?

[Tubal-Cain]

I understand that OpenOffice does not absolutely conform to the ODF standard. If we can convince a beancounter that the letter of the law must be obeyed and that what MSOffice makes does not meet that requirement, MS will be able to point out that OOo doesn't fit the bill perfectly, either. So is there a plugin or something for OOo that allows creating 100% compliant ODF files?

Re:OOo and ODF compliance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that OpenOffice does not absolutely conform to the ODF standard.

And the source of this "understanding" is...?

Re:OOo and ODF compliance?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no REQUIREMENT to be 100% compliant

a) An Presentation package doesn't WANT to know about differential equations and how to solve them

b) Unlike MSOOXML, ODF doesn't have a patent that ONLY applies if you 100% comply with the necessary parts (and only the necessary parts) of the spec.

Re:OOo and ODF compliance?

[Tubal-Cain]

Here. 7,525 validation errors. He's the same guy that reported that MSOffice had about 122,000 OOXML errors.
Though I admit that I have some doubts about his methodology for the ODF test.

Re:OOo and ODF compliance?

[Elektroschock]

OpenOffice implements a later version that ISO, right? That is normal. Oh, Vista programs don't run with Win 3.1...

Re:OOo and ODF compliance?

[Repossessed]

Microsoft isn't currently claiming ooxml compliance though, it will be implemented only after ISO finishes making changes to it.

The bigger threat to openness is that the spec allows for proprietary extentions, so Microsoft can give office the ability to perfectly read an OOXML document, while writing documents that are completely unreadable using the spec, and still be considered in compliance.

Technical merit vs. mediocrity

[slashname3]

Good to see that technical merit is no match for dogged mediocrity. Or in this case Microsofts pocket book. Once they buy something it stays bought!

Changing viewpoint

[marco.antonio.costa]

I think we should look at this as a property rights issue. When someone sends you information in a Doc format, and you don't own Office, then Microsoft should be concerned as denying your right to the information encoded on that document.

They can code all proprietary apps they like, but when my data is concerned, the means to access it should be open and public. Otherwise it's holding property for ransom, plain and simple.

MOD PARENT UP

[Krishnoid]

Dang, just ran out of mod points. The idea of representatives being people who want to do the right thing is considered naive, but even if writing them once in a while would produce a result like this, it's worth it. Good for you!

The biggest problem is everyone uses Windows

[thetoadwarrior]

Most people don't care enough about learning how to use a computer and I think in general most people don't like learning anything. They know Windows and will stick by anything Microsoft does because Microsoft is familiar.

i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Non of that justifies cooperating with Microsoft in the way that Novel did.
Microsoft is a sworn enemy of software freedom. Their little deal with Novel
has no upside and lots of downsides. It creates the illusion of haves and
have nots within the free software world. It also creates a larger threat of
litigation about patents. You can jump up and down on IBM all you want,
the "revolt" against Novel was well deserved. That revolt, of course, is
another planned consequence of the deal. What better way to get rid of your
competitors than make them persona non gratta in their own market?

Re:i agree

[FishWithAHammer]

Microsoft is a sworn enemy of software freedom.

No. Microsoft is an enemy of the GPL, as I think pretty much everyone should be (because the GPL is unethical). They have their own OSI-approved licenses that they use for a great deal of code.

Re:i agree

[jx100]

..and why exactly is the GPL unethical?

Re:i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's something twitter posted somewhere else.

Yeah, that's his new sockpuppets.

I was just letting him know that we found it.

Re:i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

because he said so

Re:i agree

[alx5000]

That's what she said!

(Sorry, hadn't ever done it before...)

Re:i agree

[MacJedi]

That's what she said!

Re:i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

FishWithAHammerButWithoutAClue

Just ignore ISO

[dbc]

Seriously. ISO has no power of any kind over anyone. ISO only has any power or value as long as people belive ISO is worth listening to. If we all simply ignore ISO in every way we can, then they will dry up and blow away. Problem solved.

Re:Just ignore ISO

[magus_melchior]

Oh, so all we have to do is tell all the PHBs in the world that ISO standards are useless. Simplicity itself.

Or do you seriously think that the entire online community treating ISO as tainted and unclean will actually enact some sort of change?

Isn't this the same argument leveled against purchasing RIAA member label music, or Hollywood movies? "Don't buy them and they'll go away"? As long as the majority of people neither know nor care about the corporate world's evils, the corporations will rule the populace. The question is, how do we get them to know and/or care? Informing them is relatively easy, but getting them to get involved against corporations is another matter altogether.

Re:Just ignore ISO

[dbc]

Oh, so all we have to do is tell all the PHBs in the world that ISO standards are useless. Simplicity itself.

That's a comment on your own credibility with your on PHB, not the correctness of my assertion. You need to work on that problem first.

Or do you seriously think that the entire online community treating ISO as tainted and unclean will actually enact some sort of change?

No, the on line community is already doing that. I was talking about real people with real jobs in positions where they have influence. Not people still living in their parent's basement.

Isn't this the same argument leveled against purchasing RIAA member label music, or Hollywood movies?

In a word, no. We're not talking about a consumer end product. We are talking about an engineering standard read by informed decision makers. I'm talking about improving the level of informedness.

The scifi angle

[ClosedSource]

"That's true; it would suck for Microsoft if Open Office was able to compete on a level playing field."

Given that a level playing field would require history to change (i.e. a timeline in which most people didn't use MS Office), it might suck for a lot of people.

Care to be specific?

[walterbyrd]

1) why would that warrant an investigation?

2) be specific about this "FUD" what did IBM say that was untrue? if you can not be specific, then it's clear to me that you are just lying.

Misconception about HTML5

[porneL]

HTML5 is not presentational.

The "messy" tags and features are non-conforming (AKA deprecated). They are in the spec only because they have to be documented somewhere for browser creators. If you wrote browser that doesn't support <font> & co., even google.com wouldn't render properly (try gaining market share with such browser).

Re:Misconception about HTML5

[Ash-Fox]

even google.com wouldn't render properly (try gaining market share with such browser).

I disabled the font tag in the gecko engine and visited Google. Worked fine.

ISO morons. You dont decide standards in I.T.

[unity100]

software that is. the only people who decide what goes as standards are developers of software. if individual developers and software houses do not like OOXML and make their software accommodate it, it doesnt have a snowball's chance in hell, REGARDLESS of what you chant around. REGARDLESS of who microsoft or any other company bribes, regardless of which country mandates which standard, whichever standard wins the most support from programmers, developers, whomever creates software, will be the winner.

Re:ISO morons. You dont decide standards in I.T.

[magus_melchior]

Since when did developers, other than Microsoft, Apple, and a few other dominant players, dictate the requirements for their customers' software? Generally, software released with missing key features will induce a lawsuit for breach of contract.

Right, so developers can actually decide the fate of ISO software standards. All it takes is several companies' CEOs being convinced that OOXML is the way to go, and Microsoft has made CEO "convincing" into an art form. Then the CEOs will tell their IT or development houses, "Build me this". Trust me, there will be a deluge of fired developers before there is a revolt against OOXML in software development.

Why now?

[codemachine]

did not garner support from two-thirds of the members of the ISO Technical Management Board and IEC Standardization Management Board, which is required by ISO/IEC rules to keep the appeals process alive.

Oh sure, now they start following the rules!

ISO Wakes from 350-Day Drinking Binge

[orangesquid]

ISO Wakes from 350-Day Drinking Binge, Wonders What the Hell It Just Approved
(from the oh-man-what-a-hangover dept.)

ISO and IEC have just woken up from a 350-day drinking binge during which Microsoft footed the bill. ``It's great to be drinking with pals like ISO and IEC. Our bartenders told about 6,500 pages worth of stories, and they lapped up everything,'' stated a Microsoft spokesman. ISO and IEC simplied replied with, ``Wow, I've never seen such a liquor cabinet! Wait, did we approve something last night? Microsoft kept asking if we wanted another round of shots, and then if we wanted another round of word-wrapping styles. I can't remember what we were saying yes to... owww, my head...''

ISO and IEC lamented that there were ``these four dudes trying to crash the party'' who kept insisting that they stop drinking, sober up, and pay attention to that to which they were agreeing.

An anonymous Microsoft programmer wrote in: ``People have always just thought it was code and feature bloat, but the higher-ups have been strategizing about this for years. Nobody else can compete with a programming team of this size. Management always says more code is better... right?''

Re:ISO Wakes from 350-Day Drinking Binge

[budgenator]

(from the oh-man-what-a-hangover dept.)
nope that's the "Waking-up-next-to-a-fat-ugly chick-with-3 green-teeth-and-your-condom-is-still-in-your-wallet dept.".

Insane wild speculation...

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that MS actually expects anyone to use OOXML, as it is pretty close to impossible to implement.

http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/08/06/Are-document-formats-silver-bullets.aspx

Maybe stupid idiots like you cant code wont be able to. Others can, and will. Its amazing there are idiots still complaining about binary blobs. WTF ? Disassemble that shit and understand it. I don't see crackers and hackers around the world sitting and whining they don't have the source code. They get shit done without feeling the need to sit around and blame others. If you truly _need_ the source code to understand how a program works, turn in your geek card.

But when they have to go before government agencies in various countries to answer for their monopolistic, unfair business practices they get to say, "we contributed an open document standard, and we're a big contributor to the Apache Foundation. Heck, we're all about open source and freedom!"

FUD much?

MS is simply buying its way in to "OSS", just as it has done with so many more traditional competitors before destroying them. This is very, very bad.

What is bad is retards like you are allowed to have and voice and further group-think and dumb opinions here on /.

Re:Insane wild speculation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Balmer, you're such a fucking retard.

Hypocrisy much?

[TheSeer2]

We didn't mind HD-DVD and Blu-Ray battling it out but when it comes to a Microsoft format... ATTAAAACK.

Re:Hypocrisy much?

[holloway]

You mean some people talking about things they understand rather than things they don't. Yeah, that sure is hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrisy much?

[TheSeer2]

... strange definition of talking you're using.

Talking about disc formats: "talking".
Talking about something MS-related: "attaaack".

Double meaning ftw!

anybody who doesn't see SharePoint as pure lockin

[toby]

Deserves what they get.

To anyone even moderately clueful, even from 200 yards the whiff of SharePoint says: Run away! Do not walk, run! This is not going to help you or your business in any way! This is a tarpit from which you and your data will never escape. You will be tied into Windows and whatever other tortures arrive down the pike - if you don't Just Turn Around Now and RUN! Microsoft has PLANS for you and your money... Locking up your data forever is just a means to an end...

It's extortion. Theft. Deception. And it's time we stopped tolerating it, because we know better - the Open Web itself is proof of technology and ideals that are the civilised alternative to anything Microsoft ever plotted.

Bitchslap this guy please

[Anonymous Coward]

He is a Microsoft astroturfer.

Do you mean this image

[rdebath]

http://www.robweir.com/blog/images/rick.png

Next up...

[Strake]

The ISO standard format for computer office suite online help systems: a talking paperclip.

Was that ignorance or lies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters continue to spout either ignorance or lies regarding OOXML.

You're a Slashdotter. Are you spouting ignorance regarding OOXML? Or are you spouting lies regarding OOXML? Those are the only two choices right?

Re:Was that ignorance or lies?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"You're a Slashdotter. Are you spouting ignorance regarding OOXML? Or are you spouting lies regarding OOXML? Those are the only two choices right?"

As a matter of fact, no, those aren't the only two choices.
Let me spell it out for you:
In the sentence "Slashdotters continue to spout either ignorance or lies regarding OOXML", "Slashdotters" does not mean "All slashdotters", it means "Slashdotters, in general". Anyone with a gradeschool level reading comprehension would understand that (it's very sad that that doesn't include you).

We were used by Microsoft

[Eternal Annoyance]

Microsoft knows ISO/IEC is a big hurdle to get complete control over the software market, with this Microsoft has succeeded in corrupting ISO/IEC. Exactly the thing Microsoft wants to happen. Even worse, Microsoft managed to do this with a lot of attention from the community... which was exactly the plan of Microsoft.
The community conviniently went out of its way and made a *lot* of noise about this.

OOXML was intended to damage ISO/IEC, nothing more. And we took the bait, hook and sinker.

Questions remaining: who managed to manipulate the board into doing this? When is this corruption going to be investigated by some justice departments? What will Microsoft's next move be?

I think maybe MS actually WILL get screwed by this

[arete]

I was originally thinking along the lines you were - but now I'm not so sure. I think under the right conditions they could get bitten by this, and hard.

It certainly depends on how the laws and regulations regarding these standards are written. In the best places they'll have reviewed the standard and found it lacking, but obviously that's not most places. However, depending on the language, failure of the standard to REALLY be open may be a legally binding requirement on them - and that their software is actually compliant with the standards will almost certainly be.

Now, I'd be amazed if any govt org that was duped by OOXML in the first place would then later sue MS for breach of contract. But where they really might get screwed is that, I THINK, they wouldn't have to. Because the government per se isn't the only hurt party. Potentially a class of all citizens who pay taxes there are, if you get a zealous class action attorney.

But there ALSO is definite and direct harm to any competitor who was trying to peddle e.g. ODF, if an MS product wins a contract with an openness clause and you can demonstrate - which you can - that they didn't actually implement OOXML. Going up against MS isn't a lawsuit for the faint of heart, but for someone with a big enough pocketbook, the payoff could potentially be huge... OOXML could have precedent-setting bans against such use, which would leave a significant void for... *drumroll* a company who was peddling e.g. ODF - especially a company that just beat MS and presumably got press about it.

Bruce Dickinson:

[Descalzo]

Except, once my pants are on, I make gold records!