Slashdot Mirror


Study Says OOXML Unsuitable For Norwegian Government

angry tapir writes "Microsoft's XML-based office document format, OOXML, does not meet the requirements for governmental use, according to a new report published by the Norwegian Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (DIFI). The agency wants to start a debate over the report as part of its work on standards in the Norwegian government. (As we discussed a week ago, Denmark has already decided to choose ODF over OOXML.)"

26 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Re:And? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Microsoft can get enough lock-in, even a small market can end up making them a lot of money with long term support and maintenance.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  2. Fredonia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The government of Fredonia chooses .txt, ASCII, with \n line endings.

  3. has a larger backstory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The OOXML-standardization backstory is pretty convoluted, so I'm not sure I can give an accurate summary, but as far as I can tell this is basically another round in the ongoing fight that seems to have, for some reason, been more active in Norway than elsewhere. The article mentions that the main author of this report was involved in the controversy at the ISO, and there was also a related controversy in one of Norway's national standards bodies.

    1. Re:has a larger backstory by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Government and industrial institutions, once they reach a certain size, are notoriously risk-adverse. If there's a change in the weather, they'd prefer someone else to be the weathervane. Things that happen in Norway can have a disproportionate amount of influence across the world.

      It's not a phenomenon limited to the office software industry, either; in the electricity distribution industry, for example, many very large organisations are watching what's happening in Portugal and Spain and have stated they want to incorporate that experience before they launch their own programmes of change.

      Why? Simply because they're doing it first. I guess it's because they're smaller and a bit more agile, I don't know. But it's much cheaper to watch someone else make mistakes and follow blind alleys rather than take the risk on yourself. Risk is expensive.

      So, the electricity world watches Iberia. The bureaucracies of the world will be watching Norway, make no mistake.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  4. What's in a name by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

    DIFI's[1] report was written by Hypatia, a Norwegian consultancy specializing in standardization and software accessibility.

    Strange, that the name of the consultancy is Hypatia. She, after all, was a mathematician-philosopher who ascribed to Plotinus's ideal... that empirical research is inherently flawed, and only logic and mathematics can achieve truth.

    I mean, there's a clear relationship here that I find very amusing. Microsoft's OOXML, while sure to be empirically more interoperable with most users due to the pervasity of Microsoft Office, is not logically more interoperable due to the nature of what MS has done to the "open" standard.

    Delicious allegory.

    [1] DIFI is the Norwegian Agency responsible for the decision.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:What's in a name by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft's OOXML, while sure to be empirically more interoperable with most users due to the pervasity of Microsoft Office,

      Doesn't interoperability mean ability to work with diverse systems?

      If users of MS Office share documents, that's not interoperability since they all use the same software family. You have to look at users who transfer documents back and forth between diverse software systems, eg MS Office, Open Office, Lotus Symphony, AppleWorks, etc.

      Interoperability is about making faithful conversions easy.

    2. Re:What's in a name by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To summarize; Microsoft sabotaged the standards body with their own people to solidify OOXML as t h e standard. Despite their boldness in daylight to buy a standards body, the irony is; of all groups of people, governments are recognizing Microsoft to be nothing more than a Mobster/racketeer in shrink wrap.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    3. Re:What's in a name by willabr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Norway, hm..... How about Open Object Foundation Document Architecture (OOFDA)

    4. Re:What's in a name by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      If users of MS Office share documents, that's not interoperability since they all use the same software family.

      Sure, OOXML works with both Country and Western!

    5. Re:What's in a name by Arker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft's OOXML, while sure to be empirically more interoperable with most users due to the pervasity of Microsoft Office

      Actually that is not correct. Most Microsoft Office implementations found "in the wild" are *less* interoperable with the new MS Office than with Open Office.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:What's in a name by Arker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read both specs. Given two independent developers who have to implement entirely from the spec, they are for more likely to produce interoperable implementations if they use OOXML than if they use ODF.

      Incorrect. Section after section of the OOXML spec give insufficient information for implementation.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:What's in a name by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Informative

      To cut a long story short http://news.cnet.com/Office-2007-fails-OOXML-conformance-test/2100-7344_3-6237855.html, M$ Office fails it's own standards test, so as regards the monopoly office application the standard is obviously not standard to anything, even within it's own purpose designed program suite. I suppose for that you have to buy the next upgrade or even perhaps the one after that etc. etc..

      For M$ to adhere to ODF is simply a choice, for others to adhere to OOXML represents high risk of patent infringement, licence fees, of the standard saying one thing whilst their program does another, ensuring all competitors will never end up being totally compatible and remain a bit buggy.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:What's in a name by AntiDragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check out http://noooxml.wdfiles.com/local--files/arguments/TheCaseAgainstOOXML.pdf for an interesting breakdown of the problems with MS OOXML.

      For example one setting is defined as "useWord97LineBreakRules"

      The standard defines implementing this thusly:

      “To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that
      application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into
      narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior,
      they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.”

      I'll leave describing why this makes fully implementing the "standard" as an excercise to the reader!

      --
      "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
  5. Re:And? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because software costs money to make; but virtually no money to reproduce.

    The Norwegian government likely spends somewhere between some hundreds of thousands and some millions on software that must interpret their chosen document format(ie. actual copies of an office suite, server-side components that generate documents in response to web input, data archive widgetry that needs to be able to read inside the files it stores, etc.) Those who must exchange documents with the Norwegian government presumably spend some millions more.

    If that money is being spent on ODF-supporting software, the cost of ODF-supporting software goes down for everybody(or, more precisely, if they chose to build on OSS foundations, the cost for everybody stays the same, and the amount and quality available rises. If they end up going with something commercial, that commercial offering now has more customers across the same roughly fixed cost of development).

    It isn't so much that Norway is a vital source of Microsoft revenue, as they likely aren't. It's that their future software demand is going to subsidize improvements to Microsoft's competitors, rather than being high-margin purchases of licences to code that Microsoft has already developed.

  6. Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OOXML.. I'm a regular user of Openoffice. I'm pretty interested in it succeeding, and was pretty aware of the OOXML v. ODF issues a year ago. And still, when I saw the title of this article, my first thought for 10 seconds was... oh shit.. they're ditching Openoffice in Scandanavia! Almost like someone deliberately named OOXML to create a little confusion, isn't it?

    1. Re:Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm 90% certain that OOXML/Open Office confusion is the basis for the name. I mean seriously, Office Open XML? Why not Word Open XML (WOX)? Microsoft Open XML Interchange (MOXI)? There's a million more marketable names than OOXML, that wouldn't cause any confusion with Open Office.

      But then on the other hand, this is the company that brought us Bing.

    2. Re:Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that, but it combines "OO" and "XML", two of the most powerful buzzwords the computing industry has ever seen.

      I'm not trying to be funny, either. You wouldn't believe the number of managers I've had to deal with who see those terms, and go apeshit crazy about how good something is. Tell them your technology is "object-oriented", and they're sold. Then tell them it involves "XML", and they absolutely can't resist it.

      Mind you, these people tend to not know a thing about the technical aspects of software development. They don't know any programming languages, but are convinced that "object-oriented" is the ONLY way. They haven't got a clue what an XML document even looks like, but insist that it can do anything.

      The only thing managers these days slurp up more than "OO" and "XML" are "Web Services". If Microsoft had named it OOXMLWebServices instead of just OOXML, ODF would've been destroyed years ago.

    3. Re:Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by rattaroaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BOOBS also combines OO and BBS. Whats your point?

      BOOBS are more popular that ODF and OOXML. That was the GP's point.

  7. Re:And? by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When trying to debunk an obvious lie (such as "OOXML is a standard"), one reasonably visible dis-believer might be enough. All governments and organizations believing, or pretending to believe, that OOXML is a standard now know they're fools, and/or not fooling anyone.

    Plus hopefully the Norwegian government has produced a document explaining their position, that will be quotable for reference.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  8. Remove one and unanimity is impossible by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does this matter so much? Once one (now two) countries reject OOXML, it means it cannot become *the* international/European document standard for the public sector.

    1. Re:Remove one and unanimity is impossible by janrinok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He didn't say the EU - he said Europe. Norway remains a part of Europe regardless of whether it decides to join the EU or not.

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  9. Re:And? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are many parts of the OOXML 'standard' which refer to documents not available to the public, or which say something along the lines of 'do this the way office 97 does it'. A standard must contain all the information necessary to implement it, or else it is incomplete and thus not a standard.

  10. Don't forget, MS is not locked out by steveha · · Score: 3, Informative

    MS is just as free to implement the OpenDocument format as anyone else; and they have in fact implemented ODF support.[1] So, if ODF is chosen as the standard in Norway, the Norwegian government is still free to buy copies of Microsoft Office, as long as it can do a good job of reading and writing ODF files.

    Of course, Microsoft will still view this as some kind of defeat, because they would prefer their own standard be adopted; OOXML will be just as much of a lockin trap as the older binary Microsoft formats. If OOXML is adopted, everyone has to buy Microsoft Office; if ODF is adopted, everyone can choose from among many alternatives, several of which are completely free.

    It is obvious why Microsoft would prefer OOXML adoption for government (and everywhere else). It is less obvious why government should adopt OOXML instead of ODF.

    [1] Microsoft resisted the inclusion of ODF import/export filters for some time, but finally decided to include them:
    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050930181153972
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_software

    steveha

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  11. Re:And? by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Informative

    Were you not around when Microsoft bribed and stacked the ISO meetings when voting for OOXML as a "standard"? Not only that, but it doesn't pass any kind of rigorous review as a standard... it is all but an XML representation of the original .doc format, just re-jiggered around, and is so convoluted that nobody but Microsoft has a hope of actually interoperating with it properly. And by the time someone might do so, they've got the next version out.

    Seriously, just google around a bit:

    http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/10/norwegian-standards-body-implodes-over-ooxml-controversy.ars
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML

  12. Re:And? by omglolbah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amusing little story:

    "Norwegian" is split into two languages. "Bokmål" and "Nynorsk". Directly translated one is Book-language and New Norwegian.

    Bokmål is based on danish with norwegian pronunciation (overly simplified of course).
    Nynorsk is based on a multitude of dialects from a large area of Norway.

    Microsoft used to only support office for Bokmål. They were told as long as it wasnt available as Nynorsk it could not be used in the public sector. They quickly produced a localized version in Nynorsk.

    So the market has to be of -some- importance.

  13. Re:And? by JohnBailey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And the Norweigan government matters, why? They're probably a drop in the bucket for Microsoft's revenue.

    Then why do Microsoft pursue any dissent in their corporate customers so strongly? And no.. I'm not going to cite examples. We have all heard of the crack sales teams descending on companies and governments who dare to leave the MS embrace, armed with the authority to practically give the MS products away rather than lose an influential customer. You are absolutely correct. A government switching away from Office is trivial. But only if you are counting licenses. If you count influence, then MS are in for a decidedly nasty future. And another government rejecting MS file formats is a bad thing for MS. Even a city local government is enough to make MS bring in the heavy negotiators. If the file format goes from essential to optional, then so does Office. Right.. Said my piece. Astroturf away.

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.