superglaze writes "Halfway through the two-month window of opportunity during which OOXML's ISO standardization can be derailed by a formal objection from a national standards body, the UK Unix Users Group is trying to force the British Standards Institution to do just that. According to the Unix Users Group, the BSI used a flawed decision-making process when they chose to approve OOXML in the ISO vote. 'The UKUUG is also folding in many other complaints about Office Open XML (OOXML), such as unresolved patent issues and a lack of completion in the specification's documentation, and is calling for the High Court of Justice to force a judicial review of the BSI's decision.' This is not the first time a country's ISO vote has been challenged."
Not really give a shit about OOXML? I mean just reading the wikipedia page makes me sleepy. Countries are actually arguing over this? This has to be last on my list of things that need sorted out.
Not really give a shit about OOXML? I mean just reading the wikipedia page makes me sleepy. Countries are actually arguing over this? This has to be last on my list of things that need sorted out.
That's nice, dear. Why don't you go look at some nice kittens [cuteoverload.com]?
Now if you don't mind, those of us who do give a shit would like to discuss this latest development.
You also left out the single most important issue because of the importance of international standards in providing standards by which the quality of goods and services can be measured and quantified to ensure reasonable quality and safe use.
The blatant visible corruption of the international standards will only lead to substantially increased costs to validate goods and services across international borders as ISO would have to be abandoned due to the fear that any nonsense standard to be used as B$ mark
Serious question: Do you think MS-Office's essential world domination will go away if OOXML takes it in the pants?
Ah, but this is not all about Microsoft. It's about having standards that are actually fit for purpose, and about not having the international standardisation process corrupted to serve the short term purposes of a single corporate entity at the expense of everyone else.
Microsoft like to frame the argument as a plot to destroy the Redmond giant because then they can
go telling everyone how
I've got some karma to burn, so here's something blatantly off-topic. Where are the mods? I've hardly seen any comments above a 2 for the last several stories. Is nobody moderating anymore? Do I have my preferences set wrong? Feel free to reply as AC so you don't lose karma answering me. I'm just curious here.
I usually get mod points about once a week or two and haven't seen any come my way in about the past three weeks. It's kind of weird, but it didn't occur to me that the same might be happening to other people until you mentioned the relatively low level of moderation lately.
If the people over at the ISO have any level of logic left within their collective, they would have some respect for ODF and the people who worked on it and drop it. It is impossible for ODF to exist favorably in the face of of MS-OOXML for several, non-technical reasons
Microsoft will not be able to stand much longer for a few reasons. One is that they have to alway's be on the defensive and eventualy they have to cave in. Another reason why they wont is that there too anti-competitive. They have already lost 4 antitrust lawsuits to the EU and a fith one is still pending. Also there is that the opposition to microsoft is soo strong and vast that they can't keep on doing what they are doing. Again there is the fact that there competing with the ultimite OS, Linux, and windows dosn't have the power in anything to be able to surpress in any way shape or form.
1. Being on the defensive isn't a problem when you basically have de facto control over the entire industry. 2. So far, it seems like Microsoft has only been getting slaps on the wrist. Nothing has yet threated to actually end their monopoly. 3. There are plenty of people who still love Microsoft and practically worship Bill Gates, and a much larger percentage of people (everyone else) who could care less.
OOXML is such a foul, repugnant anti-standard, and it will be pushed so hard, that if it's accepted it will severely damage the whole idea of interoperability standards.
ODF implementations have been written for countless office apps. Getting that out is not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
It's called teamwork. While one group is building the tools you mention, others are putting themselves in the path of an 800 lb. gorilla. It's not just the heroes who save the day, but all of the little people in red shirts that buy them time.
> The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
You're damn right. But OOXML is not a standard. A standard has to be documented properly and (which is more important) completely. OOXML satisfies neither of these conditions. So it's not a standard.
> Standing around crying because Microsoft bought a standard...
I'm tired of people like you. Look buddy, we're crying not because "Microsoft bought a standard". We're crying because a half-baked specification got recognized as a stan
If you think it is ODF or RTF or HTML or any of the hundreds of file formats for document representation that should be the choice of governments, then get good, usable versions of software into the market.
That's being done, has been done. It was done before OOXML was even pretending to be a viable standard. It's the whole reason OOXML was pushed as a standard.
And it's not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
So you shoot yourself in the foot by appearing to want to go technologically backwards and like whiny bitches at the same time.
Wow, nice spin-doctoring.
The alternative is to say nothing, which would be seen as tacit acceptance -- and then we would actually be forced to implement this "standard". So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. At least this way, there's a chance we'll get the decision reversed.
Because I care a lot more about actually working with ODF (and not working with ODF) then looking good by cooperating with OOXML in any way.
Save the energy you want to spend on protests and lawsuits and direct it towards building a better product.
See, the problem is, we tried that, and it didn't work.
what you call whining other might call doing there job to protect there company or clients. The reason you see it as whining is because your on microsofts side so it appears to you as whining where as on our side its fighting the good fight.
The key problem here is that you should have to fight to have your standard approved. If you can not defend your standard. If you can not close the holes in your documentation to shoot down all the challenges then you dont deserve to have it pass standardization.
So because you can't win, you will complain until your technically superior solution is accepted?
Well, this is how we win.
Put another way: No, we can't win by throwing large sacks of cash around, the way Microsoft is. You found us out -- we simply cannot compete.
I, for one, would much rather win on technical merits. But technical merits can't buy people the way money can. The best we can do is take away their ability to simply throw large sacks of money around, by calling them on it.
Oh, and "suing" is not "whining" by a long shot. Suing is doing something about it.
The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
I thought the advantage of standards was to reduce divergence in systems. The more implementations of particular items, such as screws, conform to a standard, such as phillips head, the better it is for the people who use screws.
Instead of focusing energy on the ISO vote, focus on getting implementations of the standard that *you* think is reasonable into widespread usage. If you think it is ODF or RTF or HTML or any of the hundreds of file formats for document representation that should be the choice of governments, then get good, usable versions of software into the market.
Energy has/is being focused on implementations of another standard and there are already good implementations of the formats you mention from numerous sources including Microsoft.
The problem with OOXML is that it cannot be implemented by anyone other than a single vendor because the format as defined contains references to specific behavior without actually specifying said behavior.
Where a vote has been passed on an obviously incomplete specification and through such blatant corruption, it should be challenged. This is the duty of anyone who values freedom and democracy - and for people intelligent enough to appreciate the importance of the the rule of law. The fact that the format was pushed through by Microsoft in particular is irrelevant to this point.
Standing around crying because Microsoft bought a standard is only counterproductive and makes you come off looking like a bunch of whiners. On top of that, because the whining is explicitly anti-this new standard, it is implicitly perceived to be against progress. So you shoot yourself in the foot by appearing to want to go technologically backwards and like whiny bitches at the same time.
The UKUUG taking legal action over the corruption in the vote doesn't make them look like whiners. It makes them look like learned elders who are about to take a stick to a bunch of delinquents. And all power to them.
Protest against the standardization of OOXML doesn't appear technologically backwards when conducted in an appropriate forum and it portrays OOXML as the backwards step it truly is.
As the web makes it possible for more devices from more vendors to inter-operate seamlessly, along comes a format which is only really implementable by one vendor. If someone was to try this with heads or threads, they'd be totally screwed. Microsoft needed to pay to have this pass and by highlighting that at every step of the way, the more money they pour into this, the more corrupt they appear and the more they blacken their own name.
Save the energy you want to spend on protests and lawsuits and direct it towards building a better product.
Oh nonononono. Silly little monkey.
This is not about a product. This is about a format to be implemented by anyone who can read a specification
A reasonable open standard already exists.
Using the judiciary to defeat corruption wherever it exists is entirely correct. That is one of the reasons for it's existence.
The problem with OOXML is that it cannot be implemented by anyone other than a single vendor because the format as defined contains references to specific behavior without actually specifying said behavior.
I ask the following question not as a troll, but as someone curious about this whole thing. I've heard this statement several times, and I was wondering if you could point out a concrete example of it. (I'd like to have such an example to point out to those who ask the same question as a troll =) )
The problem with OOXML is that it cannot be implemented by anyone other than a single vendor because the format as defined contains references to specific behavior without actually specifying said behavior.
Standing around crying because Microsoft bought a standard is only counterproductive and makes you come off looking like a bunch of whiners.
This is the important bit, I think: M$ is trying damn hard to get people to believe that all this whining is simply because of *them* instead of their flawed standard or corrupt practices. And they are succeeding, unfortunately. "You are against OOXML? Oh, you are just another rabid Microsoft hater then" --> at that point you have already lost that discussion; no argument of yours will be listened to.
The only valid point against OOXML is that it contains unclear and/or unimplementable aspects, thus denying others from the ability to create supporting implementations. However, if this is the case, and MS is unwilling to create OOXML implementations for non-MS/Apple platforms, how successful do you really expect the standard to be?
Which in and of itself is a reason ISO should've rejected it in the first place, based on their own requirements... that a proposed open standard have a fully working implementation. No such thing exists for OOXML.
The UKUUG taking legal action over the corruption in the vote doesn't make them look like whiners. It makes them look like learned elders who are about to take a stick to a bunch of delinquents.
No, it looks like they are whining over a decision that didn't go their way.
No, it makes them look like they've looked at the ISO procedures, requirements, etc, and said, "Hey, this is completely out-of-the-ordinary!"
No, it just says to onlookers that Microsoft's standard is so advanced that even the best and brightest of the computing world can't implement the difficult parts of it.
OMFG, do you even believe what you're posting? Anything that's too advanced for anyone to implement has no business being in a standard. A standard sho
Instead of focusing energy on the ISO vote, focus on getting implementations of the standard that *you* think is reasonable into widespread usage. If you think it is ODF or RTF or HTML or any of the hundreds of file formats for document representation that should be the choice of governments, then get good, usable versions of software into the market.
I can think of at least two office suites (possibly three) off the top of my head which either use ODF as their primary document formats, or plan to in the n
The issue is that OOXML is an inferior "standard", which has been forced through the process using bribery, corruption and ignorance, and all while a superior standard for the same thing already exists. If microsoft were truly interested in standards and interoperability at all, they would have implemented the existing standard, and joined it's steering committee when they were first invited several years ago.
We don't want to be forced to use that inferior format, simply because microsoft bought and paid for enough people at standards boards, as this will hurt the industry as a whole. It's only microsoft who stands to benefit from OOXML, everyone else loses in one way or another.
what has Microsoft done wrong with this? What has the ISO body done wrong?
Frankly this is obvious to anyone who's read anything about this - I'm going to assume you're a troll if you're still asking the question.
Just in case you're not trolling; ISO standards should be independently implementable by anyone. OOXML cannot be independently implemented. Therefor MS should not have submitted & ISO body should not have approved.
Just in case you're not trolling; ISO standards should be independently implementable by anyone. OOXML cannot be independently implemented. Therefor MS should not have submitted & ISO body should not have approved.
Would you care to give an example of such an independent implementation? According to Alex Brown, the person who convened the Ballot Resolution Meeting for ISO/IEC, Microsoft's own current current implementation does not conform to the 'standard' [griffinbrown.co.uk]
Ah, NOW I see what you mean. Why, in fact, I've just implemented the standard myself right here: main(){exit(1);}
What do you mean my implementation doesn't conform? Neither does Microsoft's.
Very likely bribed various national delegations so that they'd approve OOXML. In fact, quite a few third-world countries joined the standards process specifically to vote for OOXML, and then do nothing else. Bribery is the only plausible explanation, because approving OOXML otherwise goes strongly against their own self interest (because OOXML is unimplementable by anyone other than (and perhaps even including) Microsoft, and therefore they would be tying themselves to a "standard" controlled by a foreign corporation with no free implementation.
What has the ISO body done wrong?
ISO let the bribery and committee-stuffing happen, fast-tracked the process when there was no good reason to do it and many good reasons not to, completely ignored its own processes and procedures during the approval process, gave woefully too little time for comments and debate, ratified the standard despite voting irregularities in several countries, and ignored the public when they pointed all this shit out!
OK, to understand why this is wrong, you need to accept some facts.
(1) Microsoft illegally maintains their monopoly on P.C. type commodity computers.
awe, fuck it. I can't write this one more time. Listen, if you have to ask the question it is most possible that the answer won't do you any good.
Secondly, if you have to ask the question, it is quite likely that you do not take responsibility for your opinions and treat the things you say with the same level of care that would be used by a parrot.
The real problem with ooXML is that its a bad standard. Its bad because it really fails to specify how to encode a document. It fails in essentially two major place. The first could be corrected, its simply that there are a number of ambiguities around the formating(display),percision(display), and storage(document) of non integer numeric values. A spread sheet should calculate and spit out the same results regardless of the software you open it in.
The second issue is ooXML allows large binary blobs of virtually any type to be encoded in the document. Binary in XML and in office documents is not all bad. Certainly for multi-media type things like pictures and sounds its appropriate. I would argue however that there should be limits on WHAT binary formats are allowed. Those should reference other standards. Being able to parse out the stucture of a document only to discover all the content is locked up in some binary format you have no idea what the stucture of is, is downright useless. The reason for standards is so that people can interoperate if you can't do that then the standard is broken.
Before people jump all over me about how being able to interoperate does not mean that you can display he document exactly as it is in Word or whatever let me say "I know that". The content should be accessible though. Rendering should be about how the user wants to display it. A blind person might want a text to speach enginge to read a document to them. The standard should allow them in all cases to dump out the text data from the document. It should be possible to run into the binary objects and have the software say "there is an image here" etc etc. That's usefull "Document, contains unkown data" is not.
Microsoft haters had hoped to get governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF based on its ISO status, and in so doing codify into law ODF's feature set, thus making it illegal to use features that ODF doesn't support. The result of this would be to codify OO.o's feature set into law and make it illegal to use MS Office features that OO.o lacks (because the exclusively mandated ODF lacks support for said features). This would put an end any and all competition on based on features (where MSO kicks OO.o's
Sure, that's part of it. But what bothers people is that they couldn't even be bothered to do it properly: write a decent standard, follow proper procedure. They had to go and write a crappy standard, one that is hard to implement, protected with patents, and isn't even followed by their own software, and they resorted to corruption and fraud to get it pushed through the various national standards bodies and ISO. This is not just about the 800 pound gorilla protecting his turf, it is doing it in a way that s
Spreadsheet formulas were apparently added with much effort in ODF 1.2 (OpenFormula, draft [oasis-open.org]).
I think I get what you mean with irregular tables.
Paragraph 8.1 says
Table rows may be empty, and different rows might contain a different number of table cells.
This is not an error, but applications might resolve this in different ways. Spreadsheet
applications typically operate on large tables that have a fixed application dependent row and
column number, but may have an unused area. Only the used area of the ta
There is plenty of documentation of voting irregularities, which at the very least should be investigated before OOXML can be ratified.
The fast track process is for existing "defacto standards" that are widely used and implemented, and only really need a rubber stamp. OOXML is not widely implemented nor widely used at this point, it should have gone through the normal process. Perhaps the recent standardisation of PDF as ISO32000 was through the fast track, and would have deserved being fast tracked.
According to ISO guidelines, standards should reuse existing standards, preferably ISO ones... OOXML does not, it does mostly the same thing as ODF but in a completely different way, it also stores dates in a way conflicting with existing ISO standards, stores country codes in a different way, stores measurements in a different way and more. Thus it is in violation of ISO guidelines and should not have been approved.
There are other more specific issues, plenty documented out on the web... But the 3 above show where they have violated ISO rules, which should at the very least be enough to kick ooxml off the fast track and into the regular process.
As for ignoring it, unfortunately microsoft are large enough that they can force their inferior format on the market, so it will be impossible to ignore. If the market were free, and people were able to choose products based on technical merit microsoft wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they are.
There are 3 things. 1: The entire coruption problem. Giving money and other benefits for people/companies so they vote for you is not ok.
2: The entire rush is a big problem. The right way for microsoft to design OOXML as a ISO standard for text documents, would have been to start the ISO standard work at the same time they started their work on the format. That way Microsoft could have incorporated changes in the standard in their word 2007. Right now what Microsoft word 2007 call OOXML is not really the exac
Because the standard is missing lots of information, There are large parts of the Office XML files that contain chunks of binary, which we do not understand, this should be in the specification somewhere - but it isn't
That is simply not true. If OOXML opponents had stuck to criticism that was actually true, instead of blatant lies like the binary chunk claim, they would have had a better chance of winning.
Standards are important.
My car is made by $COMPANY1.
I can buy tires for it made by $COMPANY2.
I can put them on wheels made by $COMPANY3.
I can tighten the weelnuts with a wrench from $COMPANY4.
You get the idea?
I'm sure that $COMPANY1 would just love to sell me everything to do with my car from the tires on up, but they can't because it's all STANDARD.
STANDARDS are good for consumers, Monopolies are not.
At least SOMEBODY is doing something! (Score:3, Insightful)
haha (Score:2)
hehe (Score:2)
Anyone else (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice, dear. Why don't you go look at some nice kittens [cuteoverload.com]?
Now if you don't mind, those of us who do give a shit would like to discuss this latest development.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anyone else (Score:5, Insightful)
Because those of us that have and are sent Word documents in email give a shit.
Because those of us that go to school and are told to type our papers in Word and to turn in .doc files give a shit.
Because those of us who take online classes and have to download Word documents give a shit.
Because those of us that work in governments and want to be able to exchange information with other agencies give a shit.
Because libraries that believe in open and easily accessible information give a shit.
Because those of us that don't want to use MS Word give a shit.
Because those of us that can't afford MS Word give a shit.
Because makers of other office suites give a shit.
Because those of use that use FOSS give a shit.
Because historians don't want to rely on a MS rosetta stone give a shit.
Because I give a shit.
Parent
first line correction (Score:2)
Forgot to type 'jobs' for the first sentence. It should be:
Because those of us that have jobs and are sent Word documents in email give a shit.
Forgive the reply to self...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The blatant visible corruption of the international standards will only lead to substantially increased costs to validate goods and services across international borders as ISO would have to be abandoned due to the fear that any nonsense standard to be used as B$ mark
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. It's got to die eventually, but I doubt this will have anything significant to do with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but this is not all about Microsoft. It's about having standards that are actually fit for purpose, and about not having the international standardisation process corrupted to serve the short term purposes of a single corporate entity at the expense of everyone else.
Microsoft like to frame the argument as a plot to destroy the Redmond giant because then they can go telling everyone how
on the flip side (Score:2)
Where are the mods? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The least ISO could do is drop ODF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft will not be able to stand much longer for a few reasons. One is that they have to alway's be on the defensive and eventualy they have to cave in. Another reason why they wont is that there too anti-competitive. They have already lost 4 antitrust lawsuits to the EU and a fith one is still pending. Also there is that the opposition to microsoft is soo strong and vast that they can't keep on doing what they are doing. Again there is the fact that there competing with the ultimite OS, Linux, and windows dosn't have the power in anything to be able to surpress in any way shape or form.
1. Being on the defensive isn't a problem when you basically have de facto control over the entire industry.
2. So far, it seems like Microsoft has only been getting slaps on the wrist. Nothing has yet threated to actually end their monopoly.
3. There are plenty of people who still love Microsoft and practically worship Bill Gates, and a much larger percentage of people (everyone else) who could care less.
*NIX on a differnt scale: Mostly Harmless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No way (Score:3, Insightful)
OOXML is such a foul, repugnant anti-standard, and it will be pushed so hard, that if it's accepted it will severely damage the whole idea of interoperability standards.
ODF implementations have been written for countless office apps. Getting that out is not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
Re:No way (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This molehill is gigantic! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called teamwork. While one group is building the tools you mention, others are putting themselves in the path of an 800 lb. gorilla. It's not just the heroes who save the day, but all of the little people in red shirts that buy them time.
Parent
Parent post is a troll. Mod it down (Score:3, Informative)
You're damn right. But OOXML is not a standard. A standard has to be documented properly and (which is more important) completely. OOXML satisfies neither of these conditions. So it's not a standard.
> Standing around crying because Microsoft bought a standard...
I'm tired of people like you. Look buddy, we're crying not because "Microsoft bought a standard". We're crying because a half-baked specification got recognized as a stan
Re:This molehill is gigantic! (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's not mutually exclusive with fighting OOXML.
The alternative is to say nothing, which would be seen as tacit acceptance -- and then we would actually be forced to implement this "standard". So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. At least this way, there's a chance we'll get the decision reversed.
Because I care a lot more about actually working with ODF (and not working with ODF) then looking good by cooperating with OOXML in any way.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason you see it as whining is because your on microsofts side so it appears to you as whining where as on our side its fighting the good fight.
The key problem here is that you should have to fight to have your standard approved. If you can not defend your standard. If you can not close the holes in your documentation to shoot down all the challenges then you dont deserve to have it pass standardization.
Also you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So because you can't win, you will complain until your technically superior solution is accepted?
Well, this is how we win.
Put another way: No, we can't win by throwing large sacks of cash around, the way Microsoft is. You found us out -- we simply cannot compete.
I, for one, would much rather win on technical merits. But technical merits can't buy people the way money can. The best we can do is take away their ability to simply throw large sacks of money around, by calling them on it.
Oh, and "suing" is not "whining" by a long shot. Suing is doing something about it.
Re:This molehill is gigantic! (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the advantage of standards was to reduce divergence in systems. The more implementations of particular items, such as screws, conform to a standard, such as phillips head, the better it is for the people who use screws.
Energy has/is being focused on implementations of another standard and there are already good implementations of the formats you mention from numerous sources including Microsoft.
The problem with OOXML is that it cannot be implemented by anyone other than a single vendor because the format as defined contains references to specific behavior without actually specifying said behavior.
Where a vote has been passed on an obviously incomplete specification and through such blatant corruption, it should be challenged. This is the duty of anyone who values freedom and democracy - and for people intelligent enough to appreciate the importance of the the rule of law. The fact that the format was pushed through by Microsoft in particular is irrelevant to this point.
The UKUUG taking legal action over the corruption in the vote doesn't make them look like whiners. It makes them look like learned elders who are about to take a stick to a bunch of delinquents. And all power to them.
Protest against the standardization of OOXML doesn't appear technologically backwards when conducted in an appropriate forum and it portrays OOXML as the backwards step it truly is.
As the web makes it possible for more devices from more vendors to inter-operate seamlessly, along comes a format which is only really implementable by one vendor. If someone was to try this with heads or threads, they'd be totally screwed. Microsoft needed to pay to have this pass and by highlighting that at every step of the way, the more money they pour into this, the more corrupt they appear and the more they blacken their own name.
Oh nonononono. Silly little monkey.
This is not about a product. This is about a format to be implemented by anyone who can read a specification
A reasonable open standard already exists.
Using the judiciary to defeat corruption wherever it exists is entirely correct. That is one of the reasons for it's existence.
Toss pot
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I ask the following question not as a troll, but as someone curious about this whole thing. I've heard this statement several times, and I was wondering if you could point out a concrete example of it. (I'd like to have such an example to point out to those who ask the same question as a troll =) )
Re: (Score:2)
Care to give an example?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Standing around crying because Microsoft bought a standard is only counterproductive and makes you come off looking like a bunch of whiners.
This is the important bit, I think: M$ is trying damn hard to get people to believe that all this whining is simply because of *them* instead of their flawed standard or corrupt practices. And they are succeeding, unfortunately. "You are against OOXML? Oh, you are just another rabid Microsoft hater then" --> at that point you have already lost that discussion; no argument of yours will be listened to.
The question is of course, how to counter this?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only valid point against OOXML is that it contains unclear and/or unimplementable aspects, thus denying others from the ability to create supporting implementations. However, if this is the case, and MS is unwilling to create OOXML implementations for non-MS/Apple platforms, how successful do you really expect the standard to be?
Which in and of itself is a reason ISO should've rejected it in the first place, based on their own requirements... that a proposed open standard have a fully working implementation. No such thing exists for OOXML.
No, it looks like they are whining over a decision that didn't go their way.
No, it makes them look like they've looked at the ISO procedures, requirements, etc, and said, "Hey, this is completely out-of-the-ordinary!"
No, it just says to onlookers that Microsoft's standard is so advanced that even the best and brightest of the computing world can't implement the difficult parts of it.
OMFG, do you even believe what you're posting? Anything that's too advanced for anyone to implement has no business being in a standard. A standard sho
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of at least two office suites (possibly three) off the top of my head which either use ODF as their primary document formats, or plan to in the n
Re:This molehill is gigantic! (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't want to be forced to use that inferior format, simply because microsoft bought and paid for enough people at standards boards, as this will hurt the industry as a whole. It's only microsoft who stands to benefit from OOXML, everyone else loses in one way or another.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly this is obvious to anyone who's read anything about this - I'm going to assume you're a troll if you're still asking the question.
Just in case you're not trolling; ISO standards should be independently implementable by anyone. OOXML cannot be independently implemented. Therefor MS should not have submitted & ISO body should not have approved.
Re: (Score:2)
OOXML can and has been independently implemented.
OOXML can and has been independently implemented. (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, NOW I see what you mean. Why, in fact, I've just implemented the standard myself right here:
main(){exit(1);}
What do you mean my implementation doesn't conform? Neither does Microsoft's.
Parent
Re:I am lost? (Score:5, Informative)
Very likely bribed various national delegations so that they'd approve OOXML. In fact, quite a few third-world countries joined the standards process specifically to vote for OOXML, and then do nothing else. Bribery is the only plausible explanation, because approving OOXML otherwise goes strongly against their own self interest (because OOXML is unimplementable by anyone other than (and perhaps even including) Microsoft, and therefore they would be tying themselves to a "standard" controlled by a foreign corporation with no free implementation.
ISO let the bribery and committee-stuffing happen, fast-tracked the process when there was no good reason to do it and many good reasons not to, completely ignored its own processes and procedures during the approval process, gave woefully too little time for comments and debate, ratified the standard despite voting irregularities in several countries, and ignored the public when they pointed all this shit out!
Any other silly questions?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Microsoft illegally maintains their monopoly on P.C. type commodity computers.
awe, fuck it. I can't write this one more time. Listen, if you have to ask the question it is most possible that the answer won't do you any good.
Secondly, if you have to ask the question, it is quite likely that you do not take responsibility for your opinions and treat the things you say with the same level of care that would be used by a parrot.
Re:I am lost? (Score:4, Interesting)
The second issue is ooXML allows large binary blobs of virtually any type to be encoded in the document. Binary in XML and in office documents is not all bad. Certainly for multi-media type things like pictures and sounds its appropriate. I would argue however that there should be limits on WHAT binary formats are allowed. Those should reference other standards. Being able to parse out the stucture of a document only to discover all the content is locked up in some binary format you have no idea what the stucture of is, is downright useless. The reason for standards is so that people can interoperate if you can't do that then the standard is broken.
Before people jump all over me about how being able to interoperate does not mean that you can display he document exactly as it is in Word or whatever let me say "I know that". The content should be accessible though. Rendering should be about how the user wants to display it. A blind person might want a text to speach enginge to read a document to them. The standard should allow them in all cases to dump out the text data from the document. It should be possible to run into the binary objects and have the software say "there is an image here" etc etc. That's usefull "Document, contains unkown data" is not.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not just about the 800 pound gorilla protecting his turf, it is doing it in a way that s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I get what you mean with irregular tables. Paragraph 8.1 says
Re:I am lost? (Score:5, Informative)
The fast track process is for existing "defacto standards" that are widely used and implemented, and only really need a rubber stamp. OOXML is not widely implemented nor widely used at this point, it should have gone through the normal process. Perhaps the recent standardisation of PDF as ISO32000 was through the fast track, and would have deserved being fast tracked.
According to ISO guidelines, standards should reuse existing standards, preferably ISO ones... OOXML does not, it does mostly the same thing as ODF but in a completely different way, it also stores dates in a way conflicting with existing ISO standards, stores country codes in a different way, stores measurements in a different way and more. Thus it is in violation of ISO guidelines and should not have been approved.
There are other more specific issues, plenty documented out on the web... But the 3 above show where they have violated ISO rules, which should at the very least be enough to kick ooxml off the fast track and into the regular process.
As for ignoring it, unfortunately microsoft are large enough that they can force their inferior format on the market, so it will be impossible to ignore. If the market were free, and people were able to choose products based on technical merit microsoft wouldn't be anywhere near as big as they are.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
--Joe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1: The entire coruption problem. Giving money and other benefits for people/companies so they vote for you is not ok.
2: The entire rush is a big problem. The right way for microsoft to design OOXML as a ISO standard for text documents, would have been to
start the ISO standard work at the same time they started their work on the format. That way Microsoft could have incorporated changes in the standard in their word 2007. Right now what Microsoft word 2007 call OOXML is not really the exac
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply not true. If OOXML opponents had stuck to criticism that was actually true, instead of blatant lies like the binary chunk claim, they would have had a better chance of winning.
Re:This is whiney nerd crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
My car is made by $COMPANY1.
I can buy tires for it made by $COMPANY2.
I can put them on wheels made by $COMPANY3.
I can tighten the weelnuts with a wrench from $COMPANY4.
You get the idea?
I'm sure that $COMPANY1 would just love to sell me everything to do with my car from the tires on up, but they can't because it's all STANDARD.
STANDARDS are good for consumers, Monopolies are not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)