Slashdot Log In
Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Dec 06, 2007 06:34 PM
from the so-it's-only-standard-for-them dept.
from the so-it's-only-standard-for-them dept.
640 Comments Are Enough for Anyone writes "Microsoft is going back on one of their promises concerning OOXML. While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over OOXML with the ECMA. This is significant because the ECMA is the group that originally rubber-stamped OOXML. It seems unlikely that they will force changes to correct problems with the standard. In Microsoft's new plan, the ISO would only be allowed to publish lists of errata and would be unable to make OOXML compatible with existing ISO standards, while the ECMA would be the one to control any new versions of the standard."
Related Stories
Submission: Microsoft Revokes an OOXML Promise by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Technology: Microsoft's Influence On Upcoming ISO Vote 79 comments
christian.einfeldt writes "Microsoft has experienced some criticism for its handling of its bid to have OOXML accepted as an ISO standard, including the use of financial incentives to affect the Swedish national vote, which resulted in Sweden reversing its pro-Microsoft position; and failing to honor a promise to relinquish control of the OOXML specification if it gained ISO status. A few days ago Groklaw published an article that raises questions about Microsoft's influence on the upcoming February vote, citing concerns with the limitation of discussions of patent issues, public accountability of the process, and even irregularities with choosing the size of the room so as to limit the delegates opposed to OOXML ISO status, as had been done in the past."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Isn't it 'ECMA'? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We want you...
We want you...
We want you...Locked into VISTA and Office too
Everyone surprised by this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's news for you, and Rob, and everyone else. *NO FAST TRACK ISO STANDARD IS OWNED BY ISO*. Fast tracking, by it's very design, puts the onus on standards maintenance and evolution on the standards body that submits it.
Rob knows this, but he's being deliberately disingenuous.
By the way, the same is true for ODF. OASIS is the steward for current ODF maintenance and improvement.
It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises (Score:5, Informative)
He does? I didn't see any "surprise" in there. I saw him saying that Microsoft promised that the ISO would get this control and then went back on its promise. You'll forgive me if I don't find that surprising.
From what Rob Weir wrote, as quoted on Groklaw (which, BTW, is what the Slashdot submission actually links to, just so you know):
So much for the promises. What makes this story worthy of a blog post is that we now know that, as these promises were be made to NB's, at that same time Ecma was planning something that contradicted their public assurances.
> Here's news for you, and Rob, and everyone else. *NO FAST TRACK ISO STANDARD IS OWNED BY ISO*. Fast tracking, by it's very design, puts the onus on standards maintenance and evolution on the standards body that submits it.
So... Microsoft promised something it knew it wouldn't deliver? Nope. Still not surprised. That doesn't make this any better, and I'm kinda disappointed in anyone who voted for OOXML because of that empty promise, but I'm definitely not surprised. How many people have been burned for trusting Microsoft? Or maybe I should ask, can anyone name a Microsoft "partner" that wasn't left out to dry when things became inconvenient or unprofitable for Microsoft? Yes, yes, even "partners" should expect that. I know that I sure as hell would. But that's why I try to avoid having anything to do with them if possible. I know they'll shaft me for a nickel.
> Rob knows this, but he's being deliberately disingenuous.
More or less disingenuous than someone with a track record of defending Microsoft claiming that Rob shouldn't be "surprised" by this when he's not, but merely calling on Microsoft to fulfill its promise? Disappointed, maybe, but I just don't see the "surprise" because this isn't the first time Microsoft has done something like this by any means.
> By the way, the same is true for ODF. OASIS is the steward for current ODF maintenance and improvement.
Can you point to anywhere where OASIS promised the ISO this control? No? Then then the two issues aren't really comparable, are then? I mean, OASIS can't break a promise they never made. I mean, even if Rob had been surprised by this, do you really think that complaining that someone was surprised that Microsoft lied because they should've somehow expected this is a good thing?
I mean, honestly, what the hell kind of supporters does Microsoft have these days?
Parent
WARNING: Unsafe Link (Score:3, Informative)
Link is just another shocksite redirect similar to other articles.
Re:Better Idea (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I long for the day when... (Score:4, Funny)
"Microsoft?? Are they *still* in business?"
Oh well. One can dream.
Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to go, Microsoft! Another shot to the foot. Keep shooting and maybe we can take out a knee next, eh?
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the proper name that every knowledgeable should use for it is "Microsoft Office XML (MSOXML)", because this is exactly what it is.
As for Microsoft shooting itself in the foot, I don't think it matters. I predict that MSOXML will be approved at the next ISO meeting because ISO is a fundamentally corrupt organization. It is fundamentally corrupt because it allows every country in the world to have the same voting weight, and the majority of countries in the world are fundamentally corrupt (and easily bribed by Microsoft). Voting must be weighted in some counter-bullshit-country way to avoid this problem. I think a good way to accomplish this is to weigh the votes by country GDP.
Parent
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask anyone who is NOT knowledgeable and what do they call it? "Microsoft Office 2007 format". And what does it work with? "Microsoft Office 2007". THAT is what it is. Even the Blow Joe's of with world know it's Microsoft propitiatory Office 2007 format and nothing more.
Parent
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are so correct. Which is why, Alan Bell's suggested name change in one of the 600-odd resolutions becomes very meaningful. He suggests renaming the standard as "Legacy Data Formats Represented in XML". I would add a 'partially' or 'confusingly' before Represented to make things even more clear to the Average Joe.
****
"US - 270
Naming DIS 29500: The current name of DIS 29500, Office Open XML is seriously misleading in several respects. First, it is not a document format based on XML but rather an XML representation of a legacy document format with particular processing semantics. Second, reference should not be made to commercial products and clearly "Office" in the title of this proposal is meant as a reference to Microsoft Office. Lastly, the proposal is no more or less open than any other ISO proposal and so "Open" is meaningless in this context.
It is suggested that a new name be chosen for the proposal that reflects its goal of representing and continuing a legacy document format as represented in XML. Such a name should not carry an implied reference to a Microsoft product nor should it use the term "open." One possible name would be: Legacy Document Formats Represented in XML. The principles developed from this effort might well prove effective for other legacy document formats that should be represented in XML.
DIS 29500"
****
Parent
No credit for me please (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Standards bodies have been set up by businesses for businesses, with no democratic ideals involved, except where it doesn't matter. There is a tiny wi
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's not really an open standard" is going to be a pretty poor legal position if they've got the ISO stamp of approval.
Parent
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't XML either.
Parent
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
FFS (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm tired of this Microsoft monopoly crap. Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Interesting)
They do, but Microsoft either a) ignores the ruling and throws money and lawyers at the courts to get an appeal and/or b) doesn't pay the fines/make the required changes. So until someone gets the balls to arrest the board of directors and throw them in jail for contempt, it's business as usual.
Parent
Standard? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
OO = Open Office
OOXML =! Open Office XML
Parent
Re:Standard? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Zonk, you moron (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Evil (Score:2)
Why do acronyms ending in A suck these days? (Score:2, Funny)
Well that last one's allright if you're drunk enough.
Canadian? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you mean in CA... (yeah, yeah: "eh?")
ugh I say, as an Ecma member (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member (Score:5, Interesting)
What is this excellent work? ECMA's Wikipedia page is just a laundry list of rubber-stamped Microsoft products.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ecma == MS (Score:2, Interesting)
Is any rational person surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Guys, let's wait for Microsoft's SilverLight platform. I can guarantee that there will be more controversy on that front, and again, some members of the OSS community will quickly join the band wagon.
Expecting more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Answering my own question somewhat: I understand that for the large contracts, MS's products need to be transparent and open to some level. However, if they simply offered an ability to :
In total, why fight a file format war when lock-in is based on features, not format? MS wins the office because it crams 80% of bloat into its Office products (along with the 20% of true usability), not because people "cant get away from doc,xls and ppt".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, how many people do you know that would use OpenOffice even if it couldn't open
Chair of the working group just quit in disgust (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything Microsoft puts out is a moving target when it comes to being compatible or interoperable. Samba may be an exception, but only because Samba was relentless in keeping up with the changes and Microsoft seems to have run out of wriggle room in messing around with the standard while maintaining compatibility with their own software.
OOXML is simply unworthy. Microsoft is simply untrustworthy. Microsoft's behavior is quite consistent in this respect. Story after story is available illustrating "partnerships" formed only to have Microsoft turn on these partners when it suits them. They are more than a business. They are predatory, dishonest and untrustworthy. They epitomize everything that's wrong with contemporary business.
Parent
Re:And why not? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:And why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me, you're confusing OOXML and Microsoft Word as being one and the same. That could be the only reason you would think backward compatibility would be an issue in defining a standard.
But you know, there's more wrong with the proposed OOXML standard than vague references to other programs' behaviors. There's the fact that many format guidelines go against existing ISO standards as well. They aren't supposed to conflict. Think of it this way: The world had been using the "/" character since the beginning in file path lists. Microsoft for some inexplicable reason decided to use "\". WHY?!
And let's also look at Microsoft's approach to existing standards. They accept it and then change it. Why?! It's a standard. They have done this countless times and persist in doing so. It's not that they "can't" get it right. It's that they won't. I'm assuming you know what I refer to, but in case you need a more popular list: HTML & CSS, Kerberos, Java... pretty much everyone knows about these, but there are more.
Parent
Was that supposed to be an excuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an American. That doesn't make me fat, lazy, and stupid, and it doesn't mean I support Bush.
There are businesses which are not corrupt, and which would not insist on keeping control of a "standard" once it became a standard. And that's the way it should be, and when did so many people become so fucking complacent about corporate corruption?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a question that I am not entirely sure about. Suppose Microsoft's open XML format does not get passed by the ISO as it very obviously should not. What effect with this have?
Seeing as Microsoft have been pushing hard for ISO to make OOXML an official standard, even going so far as to outright bribe people, I'd say they have a reason. I think that reason is because people are starting to wake up to the fact that open standards are very good for them, and are wanting to switch. Microsoft now desperately want ISO approval so they can point to OOXML and say "You want a open standard? There it is! Now you don't need to switch!". Of course they don't actually want it to be open, bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a lot easier for them when a lot of these deals were fought in the back rooms (old boy politics), but with open standards as well as community efforts improving quality and open communication they really can't be considered as much of 'the standard' as they were thought to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your argument is extremely flawed. OASIS is much more than just Sun/OO.o. IBM, Novell, and Adobe are also on the ODF TC. This is a multi-vendor standardization group, with a real interest in cross-vendor interoperability.
There's also a huge difference between OASIS and Microsoft. Microsoft has tried to game the system to force ratification of their proposal. Microsoft has not proposed a standard that is fully implementable by any