Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through

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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."

Isn't it 'ECMA'?

[!ramirez]

...not EMCA?

Standard?

[MeNeXT]

OOXML is not standard anything. It's a proprietary format owned by Microsoft. Why do people refer to this as standard?

Zonk, you moron

[jjohnson]

It's ECMA, not EMCA. Christ, do you even read the summaries before you hit 'approve'?

Re:Just ask Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-oh! Looks like someone just got their very first goatse!

(p.s. it's probably not his anus, but the anus of someone else)

ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[terraformer]

...but unfortunately not a voting member this kills me. There is a good deal of excellent work done there but this will be a blight that will be a long time in removing.

WARNING: Unsafe Link

[sethstorm]

Link is just another shocksite redirect similar to other articles.

Re:ugh I say, as an Ecma member

[terraformer]

Yeah, and a wiki is the authoritative end all-be all of information. See here http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html [ecma-international.org]

Re:Just ask Google

[Gideon Fubar]

Welcome to the intarnets.. if things are likely to offend you, ever, you should remember to use the status bar on your browser to confirm the link before you click on it.

Also, feeding trolls is considered bad form. The general rule is ignore them or they have won.

Re:Lemme get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

RYOFA.

"As an American citizen he cannot use the title "Sir" but will be entitled to put the letters KBE after his name."

It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises

[Xenographic]

> Nobody should be surprised by this, much less Rob Weir. He feigns surprise and acts like this is a shocking development.

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? :]

Re:And why not?

[blind biker]

I know what you meant, but I need to say this to protect the innocent: Samba is NOT a Microsoft product. Samba is an open-source implementation of some Microsoft file sharing and authentication ... "protocols" (my fingers can't even type that). As far as I know, most of what the Samba team did had to be reverse-engineered. That is, Samba exists _in spite_ of Microsoft, not thanks to it.

Re:Expecting more?

[seandiggity]

Locking people into the file format is important, even if you only consider what's called "branding" these days ("Could you e-mail me that DOC?", "Now class, I want you to create a PowerPoint", "Is that an Acrobat file?").

Also, how many people do you know that would use OpenOffice even if it couldn't open .doc, .xls, and .ppt? Most of the .docs I get look the same in OpenOffice as MS Office because they haven't been altered by these "features" you mention (they just have some bold, italics, might contain a mix of fonts, maybe hyperlinks). But, every once in a while, I get something that doesn't look right in OpenOffice because it was saved in an MS Office format.

That kind of problem wouldn't occur if the files MS Office spit out were saved in a truly open format. Few people would care if they used OpenOffice or MS Office 2003, people might start preferring OpenOffice, and I doubt my university would be paying for MS Office licenses.

And you better believe a lot of businesses would love to move to OpenOffice if it had 100% compatibility with the Office 2003 formats (it's much easier to move John Q. User from MS Office 2003 --> OpenOffice than from MS Office 2003 --> MS Office 2007). They also wouldn't have to worry about Microsoft dropping an incompatible new format on them at some unknown date that only some people could open. I've already seen many cases of, "I can't open this attachment. What's a .*x file?" If a Microsoft lackey were in the room, his solution would be: "Upgrade to Office 2007!" And file formats don't keep users locked in?

Chair of the working group just quit in disgust

[dominux]

well to be fair, it was the end of his three year term, but his departing report is stinging. via http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/ [theopensourcerer.com]

The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting "standardization by corporation", something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible. I wish my colleagues every success for their future efforts, which I sincerely hope will not prove to be as wasted as I fear they could be.

No credit for me please

[dominux]

I am Alan Bell, (the secret is out) and I put together dis29500.org (with the help of The Open Sourcerer [theopensourcerer.com]) but the content and suggestions were not written by us, although we do agree with many of them. The comments were written by the National Bodies. I believe the US gets credit for this one http://dis29500.org/us-0270 [dis29500.org]

Re:FUD via willful ignorance

[Tony]

ODF is an ISO standard, but ISO doesn't control ODF, Sun/OO.o does thru OASIS.

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 other vendor. Microsoft has shown itself resistant to cooperation.

Microsoft has not indicated they are willing to seek a true standard. They will remain solely in control. They will not provide full, free license to implement the standard. They will not promise to adhere to the standard themselves, or to refrain from introducing proprietary extensions of modifications.

That is, Microsoft appears to desire an ISO rubber stamp on their own document lock-in, rather than to pursue an open standard implementable by any other vendor.

Essentially, Microsoft has betrayed its trust. *This* is what Microsoft apologists ignore, to score political points.

Re:Maintenance

[Palestrina]

And Ecma does have dedicated staff that works on standards maintenance? That is news to me. I think if the maintenance were done in SC34,it would still rely heavily on subject matter experts from Microsoft and other participants in TC45, including GNOME. Or do you think that Microsoft or the others have some aversion to working within JTC1 and would refuse to do maintenance within the very organization whose approval they now seek? In any case, Brian is incorrect regarding ODF maintenance. The maintenance agreement between OASIS and JTC1 was agreed to before the ODF ballot in ISO even started. That is how it works for PAS submissions. Fast Track submissions on the other hand default to JTC1-maintenance, though other terms can be negotiated. Since Novell is an OASIS member, and an ODF TC member, you could have easily checked these facts for yourself rather than merely repeating Microsoft's misinformed statements. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that you did not make this minimal effort.