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.

Comments

Does ISO still matter??

[rodrigoandrade]

Really, I really mean this question.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I agree that you are describing reality, but this is exactly why ISO has now lost credibility in the technical community.

If a standards body acts only as a known library where you know you can go to look up useful information — a channel for communication between interested parties, if you like — then it is useful for compatibility, avoiding reinventing the wheel, and similar laudable goals. But if being an "ISO standard" confers some sort of status, making some sort of statement about the value or relevance of the standardised item, then there are standards (in the ethical sense) that must be upheld for the ISO standards to mean anything. One of those needs to be independent, peer-reviewed audit, and that clearly hasn't happened here.

Most CEOs are not stupid, but most of them probably are naive on technical matters, because that's not what they do. If CEOs cannot trust the technical merit of ISO standards then ISO is a liability, because it gives a false sense of security.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[morgan_greywolf]

Standardized formats play a big role in this game. Those formats may be bad, dated, horribly insecure and a vendor lock-in, but they are standardized and thus compatible with the companies you deal with.

But standardized formats are meaningless when they cannot be implemented, not even by the company who bought and paid for the format to become a standard.

They are going to say that OOXML is an ISO standard, but their own products don't follow the ISO standard.

So OOXML is not compatible. Not even with Microsoft's own products.

Since ISO just approved an incompatible, useless standard, what does that make them?

You got it.

Useless.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[v1]

ISO doesn't, the ISO standards do.

How can the ISO standard matter anymore if you can just pay someone off to get your own?

ISO used to be a known quantity, if it was ISO then it was sensible, fair, interoperable, open, etc. Now that ooxml has stormed the gates, as they say, "one bad apple will spoil the barrel". The approval of ooxml has turned ISO from "these are all good standards" to "most of these are good standards", and that's forever. ISO standards are no longer unquestioned..

We used to ask "so is that an ISO standard?" But now we will start asking "so is that a GOOD ISO standard?" The first time you sell out is the greatest damage to your reputation. It knocks you off the pedestal and tosses you down among the riff-raff.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[ShieldW0lf]

Translation: We don't want to do this. It's a bunch of headache. We liked being able to rely on ISO/IEC, it made our life easier. But we've seen things recently that make us wonder if we have any choice but to find alternatives. Needless to say, we're not going to make any rash statements before we know our options, but honestly, if this wasn't a really big deal, we never would have got off our asses enough to make a statement about this issue in the first place. ISO matters in that we miss them, and we're pissed off that they let us down, but not in the sense that we feel secure enough to continue using their standards, because we don't.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

ISO may have lost credibility in the vast part of the pseudo-technical community who doesn't know what standards-setting organizations do.

Ah, yes, those of us objecting are all stupid and/or ignorant.

It offers one (or more) standards that individuals or organizations can adopt in its processes/products, such that other individuals or organizations can rely on a basic level of documentation, interoperability or performance being present in the standards-marked processes/products, should they choose to follow the standard.

Exactly. And in the case of OOXML, other individuals or organizations can't adopt it or rely on a basic level of interoperability. AIUI, Microsoft themselves don't actually implement the variation of OOXML that has been recognised by ISO. Given how ill-specified parts of that OOXML "standard" are, no-one else has any chance at all.

And while in theory you would be right about what standards bodies are for, there is no point sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that endorsement by a major standards body such as ISO doesn't have other implications. Many governments require that their work is consistent with standards, for example, and any contractor who doesn't use the appropriate "standardised" software may find themselves out of luck when seeking any future government-funded work.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[jimicus]

They should have sat down and created a new ISO Document XML format with input from MS, Open Office, Apple, IBM, or any other relevant parties.

What a good idea. They could call it something like Open Document Format.

Except I doubt Microsoft would be prepared to be involved in such a discussion.

Re:Does ISO still matter??

[NickFortune]

In this regard, nothing which has happened with OOXML has changed the fundamental nature of standards bodies in their lack of prescriptive abilities.

I might buy that if the MSOOXML spec was for for purpose. If three vendors make screws for one purpose, they all want their size and pitch to be the standard chosen, if only to avoid retooling costs. But whoever wins, everyone can use the standard thereafter. Everyone gets what they want.

This does not appear to be the case with the MSOOXML spec, where the final version remains unpublished, and where a large number of objections have never been discussed, let alone resolved, where the control of the standard remains in the control of the major playing in the field, and where a conforming reference implementation does not exist and likely never will. Under such circumstances, it's hard to see how this could ever serve the purpose of interoperability in the field of office documents. The spec is simply and blatantly unfit for its stated purpose.

But the problem here is not so much that ISO favoured Microsoft. The problem is that, using your example, they did indeed force through a gravel based flotation device. And while no one is compelled to adopt the standard, a major that reason ISO standards have been followed in the past is that people trust their flotation devices to at least float. If they force through one that sinks, and then have the effrontery claim that nothing is the matter, then it would be surprising if this didn't damage confidence in other standards they may produce.

This is a bigger issue than Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Commision Response:

[FriendlyLurker]

> "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.

Re:stop complaining ask a flawed mind

[Framboise]

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.

Re:The answer is simple

[FST777]

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.

Re:stop complaining ask a flawed mind

[Bert64]

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.

Re:step in the wrong direction..

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:The answer is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now possible for Microsoft to monopolize the office market further by waving the ISO flag at them.

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.

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.

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.

Politics

[Tom]

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.

What's new there, though?

[Moraelin]

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.