Microsoft Promises To Fully Support OOXML ... Later

Raul654 writes "OOXML is the Word document format that Microsoft rammed through the ISO last year. Last week, we discussed a blog post by Alex Brown, who was instrumental in getting OOXML approved by the ISO. Brown criticized Microsoft for reneging on its promise to support OOXML in the upcoming release of Office 2010, and for its lackadaisical approach to fixing the many bugs which still remain in the specification. Now, Doug Mahugh has responded to Brown's post, promising that Microsoft will support OOXML 'no later than the initial release of Office 15.'"

Comments

No it's not.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

OOXML is the word document format that Microsoft

No it's not. It's the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.

Yeah, OK, we all know what he's talking about. But still... is it really that hard to get the basics right in a summary?

Re:No it's not.

[dwiget001]

And, no, it's not the document format for representing all supported document types within the Office suite.

If it was, then it would have already been implemented *and supported* in Microsoft Office.

Microsoft just wanted to get OOXML an ISO stamp of approval, so it could say that it's products conformed to international standards when quotes for potential purchases required such a thing. Of course, in hind sight, it was all a lie, Microsoft never did support the ISO approved OOXML standard, and never intended to. And that's a realted but slightly different story.

Re:No it's not.

[cheesybagel]

You have to realize the biggest client for Microsoft is the government. Governments like standards compliance, even if the standards themselves do not mean a damn.

Re:No it's not.

[marcosdumay]

Ok, that old story... ODF does have ISO approval, and governemnts around the world were trying to require open office (lower case "o" here) suites by requiring ISO approval of their document format. Then, MS got into a delay and destroy tatic that consisted on making a lot of confusion about what does or does not have ISO approval, and on the sideline continuing their usual way of gaining governement bids (that is composed of bribes, lock-in and blackmail). Now, their task is done, but everything would start again if they just recognized that they'll never support OOXML, so they must keep the fuzz alive.

As the old saying goes.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I will gladly support your standards on Tuesday for the 'standards compliant' checkbox I need to continue my lucrative market dominance today...

They promised to support OS2 too

[demigod]

And Microsoft promised to support OS/2 after it sold 2 million copies.

Never happened.

Re:Another Battle Lost Because MS Has No Mojo

[jollyreaper]

Wow. I can't believe that MS wasted three years and $millions on this. MS really needs to take a look at what is going on and do something about it:

* MS Tablet PCs fail
* Windows Mobile fails
* MS ISO Standard file format fails
* Windows Live fails
* Zune fails

The bodies are getting stacked deep, there MS. Time to get back to what made you great and become hacker friendly again... and not in the sense that your OS and software have lots of security holes.

Nobody looks forward to using Microsoft products. They use them because they have to. Even if you think that all the hype around Apple products is just advertising brainwashing and the fans are just drooling zombies, here's a thought: Microsoft has even more money to spend on branding and they can't even manage to inspire lukewarm enthusiasm.

It's their own format......

[GreatDrok]

They're responsible for this abortion of a standard and yet even they can't implement the thing. So much for eating your own dog food. They should be *MADE* to use it or the ISO should simply kill the standard since clearly it can't work.

Re:Office...15?

[marcosdumay]

Ok, then. They'll support it on the next version, just what they promissed by 2007.

Battle was lost when they named it...

[dpbsmith]

Nobody but boring technogeeks are going to understand the importance of the distinction between "strict OOXML" and "transitional OOXML." It's all very well for Alex Brown to say transitional OOXML was "not the format 'approved by ISO/IEC', it is the format that was rejected," but it sure doesn't _sound_ that way.

It wouldn't even take much dishonesty for a salesperson to say "supports OOXML," and the top-level managers who make the purchasing decisions will nod and smile. What are the chances they will know the importance of asking the question "is that transitional OOXML or strict OOXML?" And any top-level manager, approached by some intense young technogeek, is going to wonder if it's really all that important, and whether transitional OOXML isn't really good enough.

Within Microsoft, how many high-level managers are going to think it is urgently important for Office to support "strict OOXML" rather than "transitional OOXML?"

The battle was probably lost when they allowed those names to be used. Now nobody can ever mention the matter to any lay outsider without prefixing it with a couple of minutes of exposition.