UK Agency Files OOXML Complaint, EU Demurs 132
Christopher Blanc writes to let us know that although BECTA, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, has filed a complaint with EU regulators about Microsoft's business practices, the European Commission won't be doing anything particular about it. BECTA claimed that the OOXML format discourages competition. BECTA lodged a similar complaint with the UK Office of Fair Trading last October. A Commission press officer said, "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already and we are not treating it as a formal complaint to us."
Pay off. (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, Prime Minister (Score:5, Insightful)
"Britain should always be on the side of law and justice, so long as we don't allow it to affect our foreign policy."
"It is well known that in the Foreign Office an order from the Prime Minister becomes a request from the Foreign Secretary, then a recommendation from the Minister of State, finally just a suggestion from the Ambassador. If it ever gets that far."
(Read the first as an EU guide to business policy, and the second as to why a demand from a British agency can never be a formal request.)
Two Ronnies (Score:2)
Whaddya mean offtopic?!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The policeman looks confused. "Er, ours I think."
Re:Pay off. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Pay off. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've started tagging most MS articles with "twominuteshate" because most of them are just like this one -- they add nothing new to the discussion and are just an excuse for people to get off on an anti-MS rant. Who the hell is running this site, twitter?
Look, I'm no MS apologist but Slashdot has become like the boy who cried wolf -- even when a valid point is raised (instead of just being a flamebait article), I just can't get enthused because I'm tired of the nonsense.
Mod parent up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get what all the fuss is about. The stated goal of OOXML is to make an XML based file format compatible with all the proprietary binary bits of Office. Why on earth would anyone outside of Microsoft need to implement the whole thing? Microsoft Office is huge and everywhere. So there are some bits in there that aren't fully documen
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's fine but why would you then want to also claim it should be an international standard ? This is where the disagreement arises because why should anyone else in the world be concerned about solutions to problems which only arise in one outdated set of Office Suites, what benefit does this bring to the international community ? I would say none at all and such things have no place i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, what you call "two minutes hate" is just recollection. I'm not sure why so many fans of the company cannot see that a lot of us are simply "once burned, twice shy".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As to who will succeed them as the Evil Empire... Google is a possibility. They don't have to, but it's not unthinkable. And they are the next big superstar in IT.
Re:Pay off. (Score:4, Informative)
treated as a new complaint. It asked that it be added to the already
existing complaint regarding OOXML. It has been.
Here is what Becta said in its statement announcing it had sent its
complaint already filed with the UK antitrust regulator to the EU
Commission:
"Following discussions with the OFT, Becta has now referred its interoperability complaint and related evidence to the European Commission in support of the Commission's wider investigation."
Someone decided to write an article as if Becta had been denied its
complaint as being redundant. That isn't accurate. It was added to
the other complaint about OOXML, which is *exactly what Becta asked for*.
Somehow it gets turned around and described as some kind of Microsoft
victory.
Disgusted you say? Ditto.
Trasform teaching? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Trasform teaching? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse, it doesn't sound useful.
To anyone but Microsoft, that is.
There is nothing in either Vista od Office 2007 that I am aware of that can "transform teaching and learning" in any significant way. Not for the better, in any case.
For one, I really don't see what makes Office 2007 better than any other office suite; it's not that high-school kids need all the functions provided in it.
I strongly object to schools becoming training grounds where certain software packages will be taught. Schools should be about teaching basic concepts, not specific programs.
(I wouldn't be ranting that much if Office 2007 didn't break compatibility both in file format and UI.)
Computers can be used in class. In certain cases, they may even be extremely useful.
There is much more to it, however, than Vista and Office.
Re:Trasform teaching? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it would be best if every assignment required them to shift down to the next PC in a heterogeneous lab... a mix of Vista, 2k, XP, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and OSX units, with a mix of MS Office XP, 2007, Mac Edition, OpenOffice 2, iWork...
Teach kids to learn what a spreadsheet, presentation, document is, and what can be done with them, and they'll figure out how to make it do what they need on each platform.
But such a perfect world would be too much to ask... and not nearly as efficient as 200 stations that all boot from a single disk image on a server... whatever the platform is chosen. I'd prefer it not be windows though... I know my kids will get plenty of exposure to that one regardless. So a bias to a minority platform makes sense in a teaching environment.
I'll settle for cheap and free. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here I was thinking that a spreadsheet was just a tool for redundant and boring business accounting and that kids should be taught something more fundamental like ... math.
Either way you look at it, a free spreadsheet will teach the same lesson as the non free one, so the schools might as well save their money and teach kids the benefits of free software. When you know how to use one sheet, you know them all so there's no case for a school to waste money on Office. Businesses should learn this lesson too
Re: (Score:1)
Then again, it's one step closer to making Microsoft products illegal, and that's your ultimate goal isn't it?
Re:Trasform teaching? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, it's a time-honoured approach to teaching. In ancient Greece it was widespread for teachers to bugger their young students.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not sure I want teaching to get transformed like this. It doesn't sound pleasant.
Time to change Bill Gates' icon from Borg to Decepticon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
[student raises his hand] "Miss! I'm requesting permission to go to the toilet. Cancel or allow?"
[teacher sighs] "Allow ... but be quick!"
Re: (Score:2)
BECTA (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't have any formal powers from what I understand in forcing schools to or not to use certain technologies however it does produce a list of Becta authorised providers which some schools will choose only to work with.
That said it has a lot of power in the UK educational arena and has always been quite pro-open source on many occasions, it's still recommending against Office 2007 in schools and as such has been quite successful in warding many schools off switching to Office 2007.
It's not the most powerful organisation there is and it doesn't really have any power over standards, but it's very influental in UK education and if Microsoft pisses them off enough I could very well imagine them making an ever stronger drive towards open source to the point they will likely put together resources that make it easy for schools to make the switch.
Some areas of local goverment, schools and in some cases, university policy is largely based around what Becta recommends in the UK.
Power, Position and Authority. (Score:2, Informative)
BECTA may not have any formal power but they are an authority. They are independent and know what they are talking about. It's not about Microsoft pissing them off, it's about Microsoft offering a bad deal.
There is near unanimity in the technical world that OOXML is not a worthwhile or well written standard. It is not complete or consistent. There is not even a working reference and it is also patent encumbered. That it passed is a textbook example of how position and power can be abused. The ISO is ta
Note the wording (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading between the lines, and doing some extrapolation based on previous event, I am guessing that what is going in the their minds is something like that:
"Microsoft think they are above our laws and disrespect our authority by ignoring our rulings. That complaint is redundant because we are already investigating the OOXML mess, since it's going to be great ammunition when we need to bash them on the head AGAIN for continuing to break the rules"
Re:Note the wording (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, BECTA's timing on this is impeccable!
Re: (Score:2)
We have 2008.
Interest alone on that sum is somewhere around 200 million Euros.
Re: (Score:2)
Better school funding (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't fault a school for taking such a deal (provided they are true donations). MS is just taking advantage of the fact that schools in a lot of jurisdictions are underfunded. For that to change, the electorate has to kick up a stink. In the meantime, if I'm running a school and need money for a new boiler etc, and MS gives me free software and computers, I'm taking it. That's an expense I don't have to worry about. At least the developing world got OLPCs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Just a note, the apple II was as open as could possibly be, but not free of course, as the software in rom that ran it was not able to be copied freely etc.
But the documentation on it was excellent, the manual even included schematics on how it was built. only with the macintosh and later were things restricted and closed.
One of the many reasons I'm still trying to find an apple II, the monitor program built into it is a prime example of a good way to get people to learn simple assembly programming.
OOXML is bad and here's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has illegally used its monopoly position to eliminate competition. This is a fact as found in a court of law.
One of the methods of illegally maintaining their monopoly has been the upgrade treadmill. With regards to MS Office document formats, it works like this: version 'N' of the office software can not read documents created by version 'O.' This forces users of version 'N' to upgrade to version 'O.' -- Profit for Microsoft.
3rd party ISVs are in a similar situation, once they finally figure out how to support the document version in version 'N,' they have to continue development to support vesion 'O.'
This means that 3rd party ISVs and users have a continuing problem maintaining their environment and interoperability without risking incompatibility or continually expending capital.
"Standards" are generally used to stop this exploitation and create a more level marketplace allowing innovation above the standardized foundation, eliminating the constant capital expenditure of keeping up.
The OOXML is a sham. It is nothing more than a continuation of Microsoft's monopoly defacto bullshit standard. OOXML is nothing more than a way to game the system and do nothing more than they already do. Upon release of a new MS office version, they submit their changes to ISO, and move on from there.
It gives users and ISVs no relief. It creates no usable standard. It does nothing to level the market place. It does nothing to help the consumer. It does nothing to help the industry.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Let me just remind everybody... (Score:2)
the European Commission won't be doing anything particular about it... A Commission press officer said, "We are already looking into the issues raised in that complaint already and we are not treating it as a formal complaint to us."
Remember, these are the same guys [videolan.org] who tried to push through software patents in violation of EU law. The European Commission is distinct from the European Parliament. The commission is not particularly democratic, or apparently even particularly law abiding judging from the software patent affair. It should come as no surprise that the Commission would wish to look the other way in the OOXML affair.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The commission is appointed my the state governments of the EU and scrutinised by the European parliament (and since the last time it is clear that they can kick out single members that they don't like).
Now, compare this with how the state cabinets are elected in a parliamentarian system (as is the case in all of EU), the parliament is elected and they appoint a government. The exact contents of this government is typically arrange
Making OOXML incompatible (Score:1)
So all MS has to do in the future is to make MS Office just slightly incompatible with the specification so that Open Office and others can't always correctly read MS documents and voila, the incompatibility remains. We are just where we were before with proprietary formats. MS will insist they are compatible and the it's the others wh
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
OOXML [ecma-international.org], 1st ed., Dec. 2006
CLI [ecma-international.org], 4th ed., Jun. 2006; see also TR/84 [ecma-international.org], TR/89 [ecma-international.org]
Managed C++ [ecma-international.org], 1st ed., Dec. 2005
C# [ecma-international.org], 4th ed., Jun. 2006
Windows API [ecma-international.org], Dec. 1995 (Windows 3.1 API)
Let's note that in those areas, in which Microsoft wished for stronger support by the indus
Re: (Score:1)
I don't trust MS to make a full attempt to be compatible. It is in their interest to maintain incompatibility between Office and competitors. Every manager will make a decision based on being compatible with what Office produces. And it doesn't matter whose fault it is, if it isn't compatible, managers will err on the side of caution and go with the MS product.
Re: (Score:1)
Read the payload (Score:2)
The rest is utterly redundant and sugar for us flies.
Bad free publicity is free publicity.
Clean the windshield.
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Informative)
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Informative)
They've either documented or removed those 'behaveLikeWW8' style flags. As engineering criteria however the documentation hasn't been reviewed to see whether it accurately describes Microsoft Office, and it was added late in the process (early 2008, I think).
What remains however are Microsoft OLE references without documentation or patent coverage, accessibility problems, and huge areas of OOXML entirely without documentation [robweir.com] that mean that ISO OOXML promotes defacto standards.
Read my blog [holloway.co.nz] for a few posts on how no one voting on OOXML saw a final specification.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ok, i found something about that (Score:3, Informative)
the year 1900 bug has been "resolved" by declaring it non-mandatory...
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/101224 [heise.de]
(german)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anyone really believes that any document standard is evil, it was the process of getting everyone to agree on one or the other that bothered me. It looked to me like MS just bought the commission so it could continue its monopoly.
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:4, Insightful)
If the French really like small independent booksellers, why would they need a law to protect them?
Wouldn't most French people patronize the small bookstores thereby driving amazon out of business?
Of course, if it turns out that most people prefer amazon's low prices, then your statement that "the french like their small independent booksellers" would be proven false.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the average citizen in France was French.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...so maybe the Patriot act, the war on terror, no bid contracts to Halliburton, etc are all good because, even though the general US public does not want it, the Bush administration - the government - is smarter and is taking the "long view"?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that you only believe your own priciples only when you believe that the cause is just (eg. the French ban). And you abandon your principle when you do not agree with the actions (like the Patriot act).
If one isn't consistent in his principles that means he has convenient principles.
My pr
Re: (Score:2)
One, you assume it's customers who decide which shops stay and which shops go. It isn't. A large enough company can sell for less than the small shop next door, while at the same time making more profit due to scale, better deals with suppliers, etc.
You assume that "like" is the same as "buy from". It doesn't have to be.
You assume that money is the only currency that matters, but on the scale of society, there are a whole lot of other things that mat
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct and I was wrong. Apparently, it is the government which decides who stays and who goes. Not the customers.
I was thinking of a world where a business has to keep the customers happy to survive.
You assume that "like" is the same as "buy from". It doesn't have to be.
So what you're saying is that even though people *say* they want something, when it is time to put their money where their collec
Re: (Score:2)
You are right on the second point, people don't alway put their money on what they value. If that was news to you, I feel sorry for you.
And I very much challenge your assumption that money is the better democracy. It isn't. The idea that markets can solve everything and a market mechanic always provides the best answer to everything has been refuted decades ago. If it were true, we would buy our friends, ins
Re: (Score:2)
So that is how we have an honest discussion!
So, people say they want A, but pay for B. And not only that, they wouldn't put up with a little inconvenience and cost to support A either.
And in your view, A is what they want? Isn't that your point? My argument is that they really want B.
Now that I've really simplified and cleared that up, I hope you address that and
Re: (Score:2)
In this world, you'll have to match your bigger competitors somehow. Whether it's usability, customer servi
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML is sabotaged. (Score:5, Insightful)
If ODF had become the accepted standard, MS would have had no choice but to start using ODF as well, or Governments would start leaving eventually. By Ram-rodding the Standards process they create a psuedo-standard they control and can break for other platforms. The whole election was a total sham. So there you have it, at least five more years of OO.org playing formate and feature catch up to MS.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
That is incorrect. Those parameters are fully documented in the appendix. They're also deprecated, only to be used when converting an old doc.
Get some new FUD.
Re:OOXML is sabotaged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean to say that YOU have seen the final version of the OOXML format, when nobody else has and ISO is late in publishing it?
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/release-ooxml-final-dis-text-now.html#links [robweir.com]
Wow, you must be magic. Or Alex.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
so WHY, oh why does this new format need such nosense ATA ALL ?
that complicates the spec, and i can really see only one reason - to ease life for microsoft office developers, who don't have to properly express the formatting (with indentaion, spacing and other parameters). which is how it should be done. and this has been repeated a lot of times. such things should have never ever went into the specification itself.
o
Re:OOXML is sabotaged. (Score:5, Insightful)
Monkey-Boy-Balmer couldn't stand the thought of an even playing field and interoperability between platforms and just had to muck everything up.
But I believe Microshaft have shot themselves in the foot here, this will become apparent with time, as many members of the EU are calling foul over the ISO approval of OOXML. ODF offers file compatibility year after year whereas OOXML will be changed with every software upgrade and future versions will not be able to open and read older versions, and vise versa.
Re: (Score:2)
But as long as open office supports say doc many people will save in doc, and same in ooxml aswell. Just ignore the format. The less support it have from others the better if you want it to die as a standard. By supporting the format you make it MORE of a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Governments demand standardized file formats.
2. MS standardizes OOXML and implements it badly.
3. OOo implements OOXML according to the standard.
4. Governments can only use OOo, since OOo is the only software implementing the standard.
Then MS would be back to the same problem of having to compete on equal terms. The cost for OOo would be that they had to implement yet another document format (but that's being done anyway).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The same parents will also have to make the choice between a computer and food.
It would be interesting to see how many families are rich enough to be able to afford a computer, yet cannot afford Windows 98 and Office 97. Which would enable them to inter-operate with a comput
Re: (Score:2)
Office 2007 doesn't save in the 97 format by default.
But you can get a free obsolete computer and put linux and openoffice on it easily, schools should really do this using computers thrown out by businesses (they would have to pay for disposal otherwise).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A second standard wasn't needed at all, and came late to the party while being inferior in many ways to the first, and was also developed by only one party with no input from anyone else.
When a standard already exists, what's the point in creating a new incompatible and inferior one?
Re:some standards are more equal than others (Score:4, Informative)
Slightly off-topic but I couldn't let it pass unchallenged....
The complaint regarding free shipping was levelled at Amazon.fr. This company is trading in France and France has the right to make sure that all companies that operate within its borders comply with the relevant laws to ensure a level playing field for all businesses. Now, how do you make that US bashing?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So let me get this right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So let me get this right (Score:5, Interesting)
When Microsoft was doing this with the web, web developers had to create all kidns of hacks to get their page to display properly in IE, often times breaking the page in Mozilla. The non-techie types, of course, don't blame this on IE, they say that it must be Firefox that doesn't work correctly. It will happen exactly the same way with Ooo.org. It won't be Office that's doing it wrong, it will be blamed by the ignorant on Ooo.org.
I've gone on the record supporting Microsoft before, but OOXML is not one of the times I'll be doing that. This whole thing stinks.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
So why isn't this one of the biggest problems with ODF? ODF allows binary blobs.. it's right there in the standard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very few of the complaints about the format are technical in nature, and those that are can also be leveled at ODF.
Personally I don't even use an office suite... and any office files I receive get opened in google docs.
Re: (Score:1)
Just a thought, but have you considered looking for some other forum more to your liking? Perhaps this isn't the right place for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the biggest problems with this "standard" is that it specifically allows proprietary add-ons.
A way of handling proprietary add-ons is pretty common for standards in the computing space (especially when they're based on XML). As long as those add-ons are used in a judicious way, they're not a big problem. (The "formatLikeWord95" stuff could be done in such a way, for example. Most people don't actually care to replicate such bugs in the formatting engine, just so long as they can read the text in the first place.) The problem comes when there are vendors who require these extensions to make sense o
Re: (Score:2)
The map is not the territory. (Score:2)
And just being able to reproduce the format doesn't say anything about the behaviour of your application either. A schema cannot verify that you are implementing the behaviour for indentLikeWord97 (or whatever they search/replaced it with), so
Re: (Score:2)
There's a set of RELAX NG XML Schemas for the Transitional and Strict OOXML specs that are trivial enough to use with something like jing [thaiopensource.com]; what more do you want?
I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.
The page you're looking for is this one [griffinbrown.co.uk]. Certainly, that's what the Slashdot story (and most of the pages that come up in the Google search) used as a source.
... use[ing] jing (or similar)...".
Oh, and look, he states how he got his results: "...a set of the RELAX NG schemas for the (post-BRM) revision of OOXML
Now doesn't that look familiar? Yup, it's exactly what I said in my post. Know why? Because that was the source I used for my post.
indentLikeWord97 ... you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it. Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself...
I assume you're thinking of AutoSpaceLikeWord95, there
Re: (Score:2)
The page you're looking for is this one [griffinbrown.co.uk]
No it isn't. I found that page very early on ; since it was so easy find it doesn't meet my description of being difficult to find. It also makes the opposite point ; I said documents that were valid according to the schema that Office (Excel in particular) wouldn't load. This pages discusses how the output of Office isn't compliant (which is bad enough) ; I was referring to the phenomenon where you take an existing document, edit the XML with a text editor in a way that is compliant with the specification
Re: (Score:2)
B), Microsoft will do like what they ddi with the internet and intentionally render it incorrectly. Since they have the lion's share of the market, this "not to standard" rendering will of course be the standard, and competitors will be forced to guess at how microsoft intentionally broke the standard in order to display Microsoft Office generated OOXML files, or just not display them correctly at all.
This is an argument against OOXML that gets trotted out every time an OOXML story makes /. headlines. The thing is, it doesn't really make a lot of sense.
By the same token, Microsoft can just as easily break ODF. They did it to HTML, didn't they, and that was pretty open. Sure, Office 2010's ODF export is not standards-compliant. But what can anyone else do about it other than point fingers and cry foul? Pretty much everybody's been doing that since Microsoft began as a company, and look where Microsoft is
Re: (Score:2)
They ARE looking into it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 900 million euros was for manipulating the server operating system market to disenfranchise competitors. Microsoft refused to change and got fined for the refusal. The matter is over (bar the appeal of the amount).
Microsoft is currently being investigated: