Slashdot Mirror
ISO Relevance Questioned After OOXML Appeals Fail
Cowards Anonymous passes along an Australian PCWorld piece that begins "Countries whose appeals were dismissed regarding the ISO/IEC's approval of Microsoft's OOXML as an international standard are questioning the judgment and relevance of the ISO/IEC and the standards they approve. In a statement made at the Congresso Internacional Sociedade e Governo Electronico (CONSEGI) 2008 conference, representatives from three of the four countries that appealed against an April 1 vote to approve OOXML as a standard said they are 'no longer confident' in the ability of both the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission to be vendor-neutral and open when it comes to setting technology standards." Here is the statement signed by South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Cuba. The countries won't pursue further opposition to OOXML.
Really, I really mean this question.
It is unacceptable for any organisation to buy a standard that provides it with a competitave advantage.
ISO has produced the OOXML situation and has ridden roughshod over its own rules to do it. So the relevance of ISO is now highly questionable.
ISO can no longer be considered independent for Technology standards.
> "questioning the judgment and relevance of the ISO/IEC and the standards they approve... said they are 'no longer confident' in the ability of..."
Judgment: Bought
Relevance: Irrelevant
Your Confidence in ISO: Of no concern to us now that we have nice fat OOXML consulting paychecks flowing in.
On technical matters lies and corruption do not work. These countries show they bother about technical standards being built on rational and consensual decisions, not being bought just for helping Microsoft control document formats.
These countries appear closer to integrity than Western wealthy countries, interesting.
No, it's not simple. A lot of governments and businesses have rules implemented that say that they have to work with standards as much as possible. It is now possible for Microsoft to monopolize the office market further by waving the ISO flag at them.
This means that there is less incentive to move towards open and broadly implemented standards for both governments and big businesses. In turn, that means that Microsoft Office will remain something everyone expects you just have on your PC. Think about schools that give kids assignments in MS Word and Excel. Think about bosses that send schedules to employees in those formats. Think about governments that makes documents available for download in those formats. Then tell those people you don't own a license for MS Office, and look at their response.
ISO has put Microsoft in an ideal position to further conquer the market for office suits, the market for operating systems and the emerging market for online office service. I care about that.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
Part of the advantage MS gets from this is that they can now sell their software to organizations that require open document format specs. So even if you don't want to use OOXML, you local government might (and likely will - it's not like they'll stop buying office licenses, particularly if they can get around the open format law in this way).
Of course, I've you've ever seen an ISO-9001:2000 certified process, you probably already know how completely meaningless the specs and certifications are in practical terms.
You miss the main point. The "standard" is incomplete and cannot be implemented without access to source code within Microsoft's office suite. On this basis alone, it should have been rejected until the documentation is complete. I wonder why you defend them so much when it's obvious this "standard" is utter shit and totally unusable?
These countries appear closer to integrity than Western wealthy countries, interesting.
Because these countries have nothing to gain from supporting the entrenched suppliers, thus they are able to view the situation more objectively.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
ISO did not have to go along with MS's scam. ISO could have done the right thing. MS did not hurt ISO, ISO did it to themselves.
I'd think it's quite obvious this is not about ISO approving a standard some of us don't like; it's about how this standard was approved.
ISO has demonstrated that anyone can get anything approved, if they are willing to spend a whole lot of money in the process.
An organization like ISO should at the very least appear to be objective. Instead, the sold out, it's as simple as that.
The fact that OOXML was approved, and the process leading up to that verdict, proves two things: 1) Microsoft is a scummy as it has always been, if not worse, and 2) ISO is corrupt to it's core, and can no longer be trusted to be fair about anything, period.
MS has already stripped ISO of legitimate credibility, by proving that it can be bought.
I don't see why undermining them as a standards organisation means Microsoft win. There are other bodies that can serve the same purpose, either recognised with some sense of official standing in a community, or simply producing de facto standards that people follow by mutual consent or from practical necessity.
For example, while there actually is an ISO standardised version of HTML4, most of the "web standards" are not ISO recognised at all. And yet, here you are, reading this, and it probably looks pretty much how I and the Slashdot admins intended on your screen just as it does on mine. The W3C itself uses the term "recommendations" rather than claiming to define "standards", which I think is good form on their part, but almost everyone who makes browsers except for Microsoft treats the W3C as a standards-defining body in practice, and even MS acknowledge the W3C's existence.
Other effective standards have come about because of sheer industry power, with Microsoft's own, IE6-compatible flavours of HTML and CSS probably the most common example in the WWW area.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
No, not at all.
Firstly, Microsoft's Office 2007 product does not implement the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (OOXML) standard.
Secondly, ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument, or ODF) is also a standard that the office market can wave right back a Microsoft.
No, Microsoft is not in such a position at all. Microsoft has no product to market that implements either of these competing standards.
OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Google Docs, NeoOffice, Zoho, IBM Lotus Symphony and Corel WordPerfect Office X4 are all competing products in the Office market right now that implement the ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument or ODF) standard. Take your pick.
That's how politics come to a close about an issue. Those who lost complain, publicly, loudly, and with no effect whatsoever on the process itself. Then everyone goes back to business.
You can love it or hate it, but if you watch enough politics closely enough, you see this pattern repeat over and over and over again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The whole point of a standard is that it's a document you can point at and say "We want your product to do this".
The whole point of ISO is that they're a respected international organisation which publishes these standards so there's no confusion when you say "We want your product to follow ISO standard 1234567890" - and you can be reasonably confident that even if the standard isn't fantastic, it's at least something you can all agree on.
Once ISO start publishing "standards" which for whatever reason you can't usefully point to and say "We want your product to do this", the point in their existence evaporates.
A lot of people act as if ISO was
A) some kind of guarantee that it'll be implemented 100% accurately and compatibly by everyone, and there is absolutely no room for wiggling in incompatible details, and
B) it's the first time this happens.
Hello? Both are false.
As a trivial example, C is an ISO standard. ISO/IEC 9899, to be precise. When was the last one you saw two C compiler implementations, from two different vendors and preferrably on different architectures, that were 100% compatible with each other or the standard? It's trivial to produce code that produces wildly different results, and offten incorrect results, based on unspecified details like endianness or word size.
Or take paper sizes. The ISO 216 defines paper sizes like A4, and multiples. Has that stopped anyone from selling "letter" sized paper instead? Or it's trivial to produce paper which is technically A4, but will jam your printer anyway, e.g., because it's much thicker than normal and the standard says nothing about that third dimension.
Most of the ISO standards are just guidelines, nothing more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
ISO did not have to go along with MS's scam. ISO could have done the right thing. MS did not hurt ISO, ISO did it to themselves.
True, though Microsoft did have the brilliant idea of sabotaging the preeminent open standards organization and getting itself big government contracts all with a handful of payoffs. That's some evil judo they've got there.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)