Slashdot Mirror
French Government IT Directorate Supports ODF, Rejects OOXML
jrepin writes: The final draft version of the RGI (general interoperability framework), still awaiting final validation, maintains ODF as the recommended format for office documents within French administrations. This new version of the RGI provides substantiated criticism of the OOXML Microsoft format. April thanks the DISIC (French Inter-ministerial IT directorate) for not giving in to pressure and acting in the long-term interest of all French citizens and their administrations. As Wikpedia notes, OOXML (Office Open XML) is not to be confused with OpenOffice.org XML.
(Also on the open-source office-document format front, OpenSource.com has taken a look at five open alternatives to Google Docs.)
Calling OOXML a "standard" was always a bad joke.
Way too much crap of "must work like this proprietary project", and too many uses of other proprietary things.
How the hell ISO allowed it to ever be identified as a standard still perplexes me.
Which means it's good when people see OOXML for what it is -- a proprietary format, which is inadequately documented, and has things which limit other people from using it.
Even Microsoft doesn't adhere to any standard interpretation of OOXML, because there isn't one.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Mais, chose surprennante, ils ont pris le choix juste. Quele miracle!
Is it even possible to break Microsoft's stranglehold all these years after the illegal monopoly ruling?
The Monopoly ruling was about Windows, not Office. It also more specifically had to do with bundling Internet Explorer and punishing OEMs who bundled Netscape.
The ironic thing is that moving to the ODF format would require very little in way of workflow changes. Word already supports .ODT, Excel supports .ODS, not sure about Access/Base, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
Microsoft formats have more document tools available, but I'm sure they will appear for ODF if it starts gaining steam as a nationwide standard.
Different interpretation: Microsoft pulled out all the stops in corrupting the ISO process and they won. Greasing palms was Microsoft's modus operandi years after the ruling, probably still is. It's tough fighting for non-proprietary standards when there's an 800 lb gorilla doling out cash like it's candy.
To answer the AC's question, no, I don't think it's possible to break the stranglehold completely.
This is why I refer to it as MOO-XML, keeps it in mind that it belongs to Microsoft.
I'm working in a public research institute in France, and all ODF files that are mailed are blocked. Our mail provider is microsoft 365. The ports are blocked in order to force OWA protocols. A real nightmare for Linux users :-/
Having been to some ISO meetings recently, I can state without fear of being wrong, that ISO leaves itself wide open to corruption. There is a process, but it is nothing like a normal standards process with the usual mitigation to prevent domination by a single body and a convergent consensus process to get to an agreeable document in a reasonable time.
Participants don't even get access to the documents they are working on. They have to buy themselves copies in uneditable PDFs. The result is that people keep adding crap into specs that already exists in other specs, but no one knows to reference it. So these things become inconsistent over time.
You will find function specifications handled in one group and test & validation specifications for the same thing in a different group. So the function specification gets no consideration of testability requirements and the test & validation group don't get to specify that the thing be testable, only how it may be tested after it's been implemented to the spec that has no testability requirements in it.
ISO is not a competent organisation to write specs. Certainly not technical computer software and hardware specifications. Maybe they're OK at bridge loading specs, or non-stick coatings. I don't know.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.