Promise of OOXML Oversight By ISO Falls Through 216
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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."
EMCA? (Score:1, Insightful)
Everyone surprised by this (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
This is a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
FFS (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm tired of this Microsoft monopoly crap. Why the hell doesn't anyone stop this crap from happening.
Re:And why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Better Idea (Score:2, Insightful)
-Peter
Re:Isn't it 'ECMA'? (Score:0, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
OO = Open Office
OOXML =! Open Office XML
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:What effect will the ISO actually have? (Score:3, Insightful)
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, but they want ISO approval so they use it to convince other people that it is.
A few people. [wikipedia.org]
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.
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.
Re:Lemme get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't XML either.
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?
Re:It'd be naive to think Microsoft keeps promises (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether or not MS made comments that could be interpreted as "promises" is irrelevant. Rob knew all along that ISO would not control a Fast Tracked standard, and if he had problems with MS statements, he should have called them on those statements at the time they were made, not waiting until he could pull a strawman out of his ass.
I don't interpret any of the statements that Rob (taken out of context, of course) offers as promises of an ISO control, but rather that ISO "locks in" a given set of documentation as a standard. ISO can then control whether changes that are submitted later continue to be part of the standard or not.
What Rob wants to FUD by insinuation (knowing full well that this isn't the case) is that Microsoft will somehow, miraculously be able to change the standard at their whim after it's been ratified. That's simply not the case. Even though Microsoft will be responsible for any maintenance or evolution of the format, ISO still controls what is called an ISO standard or not. If ISO says "no" to a change, it doesn't make it into a later version of the standard. That's all there is to it.
Re:MS's ability to redirect FOSS efforts (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 be a few years back.
Their size is finally catching up with them, MS now turns wide corners on innovation as they follow the others with their white boards - trying to match feature with feature, but either can't compete with the FOSS outside talent, are too encumbered by their back-room partnerships (RIAA, MPAA, etc), or are still too set on the old ways of 'embrace and extinguish'. Not to mention the waving the flag of an OS rapidly gaining the perception as overly expensive, continuously buggy and a security liability.
Re:Standard? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thus, none of OOo's trademarks are being even remotely infringed by this.
- RG>
Re:And why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.