Standards Expert — "Microsoft Fails the Standards Test"

levell writes "Alex Brown, Convenor of the Ballot Resolution Meeting on OOXML, has written a blog post saying that Microsoft is failing the standards test. Mr. Brown notes: 'In its pre-release form Office 2010 supports not the approved Strict variant of OOXML, but the very format the global community rejected in September 2007, and subsequently marked as not for use in new documents — the Transitional variant. Microsoft are behaving as if the JTC 1 standardisation process never happened, and using technologies (like VML) in a new product which even the text of the Standard itself describes as "deprecated" and "included... for legacy reasons only"...' He also says that defects are being fixed very slowly and that 'Looking at the text, I reckon it is more like 95% that remains to be done, as it is still lousy with defects.' It's an insightful look at what has happened with OOXML since ISO approved it from someone who was not opposed to its becoming a standard."

Comments

Alex Brown gets heart broken

[David Gerard]

"But Microsoft said it would respect me in the morning! And call me later!"

The best bit of this gushing fountain of schadenfreude is the comments. Rob Weir pointing out that they were entirely fucked over precisely as Tim Bray predicted, and Alex and Rick Jelliffe still insisting that Microsoft will love them really once it sees just how pure and worthy their love is.

Guys. You got fucked over. Ballmer had his sweaty way with you and got his ISO number. He deleted your number on his way back home. He is never going to light up your phone.

Re:Alex Brown gets heart broken

[levell]

I think that you have to give Alex Brown a lot of credit for this article. He effectively "sided" with Microsoft in the massive controversy that was the OOXML standardisation. In that position many people would convince themselves they had done the right thing and turn a blind eye to Microsoft's failings.

That he's prepared to publicly do what he has make me have a little more respect for him and people like him (Rick Jelliffe) for the part they played in the mess that was the initial standardisation.

and this is new news why?

[Sosetta]

Why is this news? Microsoft doesn't follow any standards, and never has. It's part of their strategy. Since they're bigger than everyone else, everyone has to adhere to their (non) standards, which means everyone else is always playing catchup, and can never get ahead. This way implementation is never judged on speed or size, but instead judged on "how Microsoft-like" it is. Microsoft always wins that comparison.

Re:and this is new news why?

[truthsearch]

It's news because governments are increasingly requiring computer data to be stored in standard formats. It's much easier to check that box if it's ISO approved. If, however, Office isn't using the ISO approved version of OOXML, there might be some governments who will never install Office 2010.

Microsoft may be shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:and this is new news why?

[Locutus]

Jane you ignorant slut, Microsoft created Microsoft Office Open XML because governments were starting to require an "open" standard for document storage. They created one they and millions of others knew could not be implemented. They then paid one standard organizations(ECMA) fees to get labeled a standard and then they hijacked a second standards organization(ISO) by flooding their committees with Microsoft partners in order to get it approved.

It is the idiots who keep thinking Microsoft is going to do any of the things they say they'll do when it's said to get their way who are shooting themselves in the foot. And the really moronic thing is that they keep lining up to do this without seeing how many have done the exact same thing year after year after year.

If this "news" gets any traction and Microsoft Office Open XML( notice how their product name is in the name of the standard ) gets bashed any more, they'll just pretend to do some work on it and the same idiots will think that something will come of it and they'll back off. 2, 3, or more years from now someone will cry that Microsoft isn't acting in good faith. Like I said, they're idiots. IMO

LoB

I just posted this comment on TFA:

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Many previous posts said it was unrealistic to expect microsoft to implement proper support in Office 2010. I think what is unrealistic is expecting microsoft to implement any kind of standards.

The only time they will implement anything that is standards compliant is when they have no choice. Think about IE. It took 15 years to get them to implement standards in IE (In IE9) and they only did so because Mozilla, Apple, Opera and Google forced them. Only after they lost significant marketshare against this companies that they implemented HTML5. And, remember, embrace, extend, extinguish. IE9 is only phase1 (Embrace). In a year or so, we'll see IE9 marketshare grow, and the proprietary extensions will start rolling. In a few years, It'll be 2001 all over again. IE15 will be as incompatible as IE6 was.

This is microsoft. That's what they do. They won't change. They are the most hostile company I've ever seen. They blatantly attack the rest of the industry, and as long as people put up with it and buy their products, they have no reason to change their tactics. They've worked well for them for almost 3 decades.

Purchasing failure - set the requirements, follow

[RichMan]

The requirements need to be set by purchasing and strictly followed.

Buy only Software that meets OOXML-Strict or OpenDocument. If no supplier is able to meet OOXML-Strict then no purchases will be made.

Talk about being tainted...

[Qubit]

The article says

Microsoft employs many eminent and standards-aware people of unimpeachable record – they also obviously “get it”

Actually, Microsoft employs many people who were previously of unimpeachable record. When these obviously intelligent and "eminent" persons get in bed with Microsoft and then don't cry foul at the first, second, third, or fourth time that Microsoft willfully and intentionally manipulates standards bodies, then how can we possibly consider their record anything but stained?

I know several people who work for Microsoft, and while I am happy that these friends still have work, especially in this time of massive layoffs, I wish that they had an opportunity to apply their skills at a company not so unbelievably hostile to standards groups.