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 While they originally made assurances that the ISO would take control of the standard if it were approved, Microsoft is now reversing that position and keeping near-full control over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."
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.
Re:Zonk, you moron (Score:3, Interesting)
Ecma == MS (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:Everyone surprised by this (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.
MS's ability to redirect FOSS efforts (Score:2, Interesting)
The more articles I read about FOSS vs. MS, the more I start to realise what MS's war tactics: to redirect the enemy's effort so that MS wins time.
I mean, that's the only possible explanation for:
It all seems so absurd, but most people tend to think that MS's end objectives are to win those battles (the ISO standard, Windows in schools, or to sue RH for patents).
In fact, I think that they realised that their software cannot compete in quality with FOSS, even more now after Vista, that they gave up on improving their software quality, and decided to try to make lots of random absurd statements that will enrage FOSS community, and have them (us) all engaging in forums, political discussion, standards organizations...
Eventually, they'll get the last of us to stop coding to engage on the war against them.
And who will lose? The users, of course.
The saddest part is that their tactics are working. The hope is that, so far, I think FOSS is showing that it's stronger that MS not only in coding ability and software quality, but in politics as well.
Re:What effect will the ISO actually have? (Score:1, Interesting)
I predict that this will do nothing but destroy ISO. Look, everyone that knows what a "standard" is knows what this whole fiasco is about. It may fool a few politicians (who aren't really chosen on the basis of any IQ test) and some PHB's (who really only coast on the backs of the techies who work under them) but they will all fail eventually when no one can read the
Is
Not only is it not an "ISO standard", it isn't a "standard" at all really. Standard implies that there are rules that can be followed, that someone understands the rules and can create new software that follows those rules. Microsoft has never seen fit to publish any comprehensive summary of the rules, leaving them as the only ones capable of understanding
Assuming that Microsoft does not add support in its office suite for the current ISO standard ODF. How many people will actually use ODF if the majority have software that cannot read odf files out of the box? Who will use odf? Who does now?
Let me answer all of these at once with an anecdote. I worked for a company that produced products that were built on propietary microcontroller hardware and firmware. They maintained a library of several hundred different manuals in Word97
So, to answer your question:
Anyone who desires to continue to work with documents they have created and doesn't desire to rework documents they have created every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office can use odf files as an alternative. There are other formats, but I have been with Open Office since version 1.0 and I have yet to see the kind of screwup that I described above. I have my own products that are hardware/firmware based and all my manuals are written in Open Office. Right now I work with the files in Open Office, translate into
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"
****