ISO Approves OOXML 435
sTeF writes in, with the hope that this is an April Fools joke. Doesn't look like it though. An article up at Intellectual Property Watch claims they have obtained a document (PDF) enumerating the vote after Microsoft's OOXML won ISO standard status.
Support Needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsofts statement hailed the appearance of extremely broad support for the standard at the end of the ISO voting process.
Broad? I think they mispelled bold faced fraud.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Funny)
To: central@iso.org (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I know a lot of people would like to receive credibility because they met the ISO certifications. But I'm afraid that the ISO certifications doesn't really give you credibility like it used to.
A lot of people like the prestige that a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You need to review your process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
-They use the "ISO Standard" for the voting and selection procedures as implemented by the International Olympic Committee: http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&q=International+Olympic+Committee+corruption&btnG=Search [google.com]
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course if the serious nature of the announcement is approving OOXML, I'll be sending them some emails telling them what a disgrace the process has been.
It might not change anything, but I encourage anyone with the ability to send email to do something similar.
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Support Needed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Make sure you concisely explain why truly open document standards are important and what is wrong with Microsoft's offer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which in itself is an announcement. If they rejected OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? No. If they rubber-stamped OOXML, would anybody think it was a joke? Yes. So, by admitting there is a danger of it being construed as a joke, what is ISO telling everybody?
It's either that, or they aren't bothered about the joke aspect and are just using it as an excuse to stall while they figure stuff out.
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps their OOXML formatters have problems with boldface, and that's just how it rendered.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Problems? That's what digital restrictions are for!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Its true (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Support Needed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do they not know their own rules? (Score:5, Informative)
However, how valid are those votes? For example, the ISO/IEC JTC1 directives seem to pretty explicitly forbid changing the vote from "disapprove" to "abstain" like AFNOR (the French standardization organization) did [adaptux.com] (under the influence of heavy lobbying from Microsoft and HP [groklaw.net]).
Re:Do they not know their own rules? (Score:5, Funny)
I = I
S = Sold
O = Out
Abandon All Hope (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Abandon All Hope (Score:4, Insightful)
--------------
This shows your ignorance (and that of the general slashdot population). The "auto space like Word 95" issue has been addressed in the latest spec (the spec that's beeen approved). That "auto space like Word 95" behavior, and the others like it, are now marked as "deprecated" (i.e. should not use for new documents) AND are fully spec'ed [msdn.com].
There has also been a lot of interest in the Compatibility Settings that include the famous "AutoSpaceLikeWord95" or "truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6". Ecma worked to provide in this batch the full information necessary to implement all compatibility settings without any dependency on any product. This documentation is provided for the completeness of the spec, but these features should not be used when creating new documents. I'll discuss the compatibility settings in more detail in my next post
See, this is the problem: So many of you that are railing against OOXML and against the ISO process are completely ignorant of the facts on the ground. The technical issues that you claimed to be concerned with have been addressed. So there's no technical reason to reject OOXML (there may be *political* reasons, but such reasons should have no bearing on ISO).
For example, the Czech Republic voted NO in September, but switched to YES. Why? Because nearly every one of their issues have been addressed now.
http://xmlguru.cz/2008/01/ecma-response-to-czech-ooxml-comments [xmlguru.cz]
Do you really expect the Czech Republic to continue to oppose OOXML when nearly all of its objections to the original spec have been fixed? Why would they do that? The problems were fixed, so they switched to YES, and this was the case with many countries (those without a political agenda).
It's like you guys are impervious to the fact that the OOXML spec has been quite improved (and that you're ranting about some old issue like "auto space like Word 95", an issue that has been resolved, *proves* it). Maybe, just maybe, if you took some time to learn the facts, learn how the spec has been changed since Sept, you'd not be so against OOXML (unless, as I suspect, your opposition is due to *political* reasons, under the mere guise of technical reasons).
Re:Abandon All Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Try this one one for size:
"15 years ago we had a file format that stored text using EBCDIC encoding. While we no longer write any files using this encoding, we propose that the new standard file format include an EBCDIC mode. We realize that traditional arguments for "backward compatibility" don't apply -- obviously none of our 15-year-old products ever produced any output in the new file format being proposed -- and we concede that we could just convert to UTF-8 encoding when saving old documents into the new format. But such conversions would require more work on our part than simply adding another encoding mode to the new file format and reusing our existing code to render in that mode. We acknowledge that this formatting directive will only benefit our product, as no one else can read our 15-year-old, unpublished format, so we'll note that the EBCDIC mode is deprecated. In spite of that note however, we will generate new files using EBCDIC mode, and therefore competing implementations must implement it as well to be functionally compliant."
Re:Abandon All Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
But your language doesn't contest the validity of a particular comment -- even your most recent comment here accuses "most of [us]" of willful ignorance. And your prior comment likewise accuses the community at large of having only political objections to this new "standard". It's a bit hypocritical to make generalized accusations and then dismiss rebuttals as irrelevant because they didn't address the specific comment to which you general attack happens to be attached.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not about the deprecation. About its impact.
The impact of deprecation? ZERO.
Everyone still has to implement it, or they are not correctly implementing the standard for existing documents. Failure to implement that means failure to comply with the standard.
This is how we know OOXML is not a real standard. It's just a documentation of the state of MS software at a particular point. In a standard intended for actual use by more than one party, the historical things would not be a part of
Nice way to astoturf (Score:3, Interesting)
Were th
Here come Barbra... (Score:5, Interesting)
But witness that recent brand-awareness survey- As understanding of the computer world seeps into mainstream conciousness, MSFT's rotten practices are coming back to haunt them.
Let's hope that the mainstream media picks up on the insanely obvious corruption involved here, and the Streisand Effect kicks in.
I don't think this is the best outcome for open/free standards, but it should still be viewed as a win, long-term.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank God (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you MS!
Good Luck. (Score:5, Interesting)
You are right about the size of the market but wrong about how much money it will make you and what tools to use. Sun and IBM will give you PDF of ODF output and a handy database system to keep it all. So can anyone else with Open Office. Some people are going to be automating the process better than others but it's going to be a competitive market. That's the whole point of standards, to avoid the massive cost of reinventing what should be obvious and spend resources on things people actually want. MSXML is going nowhere in a market like that.
Good. Now at least we know where the filth is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, what they just did (Score:5, Interesting)
And yes, many at Microsoft do consider the whole standardization process to be a sham. (I know, because I work there.)
Re:Basically, what they just did (Score:4, Interesting)
"All MS-OOXML really is is a forwards-compatible XML serialization of the Microsoft Office 2003 formats."
In other words it's not an open document format due to all the legacy proprietary crap it embodies. Thanks, but we knew that already.
Actually, all MS did was make a joke out of the process of establishing standards. That's okay, the world can take a joke. But it holds grudges.
Re:Basically, what they just did (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, that's very common. There will be various competing versions of something, and they vie in the marketplace as much as before standards boards, and eventually one is chosen as the standard. Including using dirty tricks to influence the process, to gain the advantage of it being your version which all your products already use that becomes standard.
Here's what's different:
At the end of the day, after the politics ended, the intent and result of these proceedings was to standardize and thus increase interoperability. The standards themselves enabled that, allowing multiple implementations of the standard that would work together. Even if one company gains an advantage in the near term, that doesn't last long and then things just start working better together, and choice and opportunity are increased.
This is the exact opposite. The intent and result of this process is to damage interoperability by creating a standard that nobody can duplicate, that not even Microsoft themselves have implemented. It's only purpose is to derail acceptance of a true open standard like ODF. There will be no market around OOXML tools and products, because the only one that will ever use it is MS Office, and they aren't even obligated to follow the standard they created. That doesn't matter. All they want to be able to do is shout "We're an ISO standard!" when the government rep starts talking about how they require "open" documents. That's all.
ISO death bell (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps with only gnashing of teeth from the geek side, initially. After some time, say 3 or 4 product cycles, MS's formats, content and programs will have slipped into breaking changes - with various patches, pieces, conversion tools and sunsets. Then and only then, will the true colors of MS's saletroopers, who overrule the tech side, be shown. But you know this - why else would you be trawling the
In other news, the business of writing code to munge data from old MS formats into new MS formats is alive and well. Programmers rejoice! There is an endless market of chagrined middle managers who are willing to port old crap to new crap for good $/hour.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ISO was never accused of fraud by anyone relevant. The only time when "irregularities" were mentioned, it was related to Norway's own standard comitee, and not ISO's.
So...? Lots of international s
Weirdest April 1st Ever! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Weirdest April 1st Ever! (Score:5, Interesting)
Should be interesting to see the next moves from IBM and Sun though. Could there be some sort of challenge or appeal coming? I don't think we've seen the end of this.
Re:Weirdest April 1st Ever! (Score:5, Informative)
According to ISO press release [iso.org], "Subject to there being no formal appeals from ISO/IEC national bodies in the next two months, the International Standard will accordingly proceed to publication". So there's still 2 months for appeals from NB's.
pyhrric (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) if they lost the ISO process then they lost
(2) they won the ISO process then they lost as it forced a deep examination of the standard, and raised critical questions and caused them more problems then it solved.
(3) if nobody else implements this flawed standard then they lose as some Goverments are now also specifying cross platform implementation as well as open standard (perhaps in response to this mess)
(4) if (and this is real unlikely) there are other implementations of this standard (eg OO) then they lose as MS Office is no longer required to be ubiquitous on the desktop
This is NOT really a win for MS the way that I see it. They can spin this how they want and surely get away with it for a large amount of the population - but big business and govermental contracts (where the real money is) are already looking for an escape from propietry formats and have been for a while.
I'm really fucked off about the perversion of the ISO system, the bad practice, the lack of any "technology morals" in decisions that needed to be unbiased. But I am not that upset about OOXML being passed - I really do not think MS has won this one.
The important thing to watch now is how MS spins this and where the important money goes (big contracts, goverment).
Re:pyhrric (Score:5, Informative)
Here are two reports on OOXML that I recently released, one (PDF, 0.9MB) [iso-vote.com] and two (PDF, 0.8MB) [iso-vote.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't mean to sound like format correctness Nazi, but your PDFs could be much, much smaller.
You just need to substitute the Nimbus family of fonts (which are in Type 1 format) for some corresponding TTF fonts, like the FreeSans/FreeSerif families.
The problem is that OpenOffice PDF exported currently cannot do subsetting for Type 1 fonts, only for TTF fonts. So it embeds the full Type 1 fonts (Nimbus in your case) in the file. All the characters, including unused ones, like Japanese, Hindi and Chinese
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Agree - easy solution too (Score:5, Interesting)
(a) Require MS to be true to their own standard (or immediately fall foul of anti-monopoly rules - hello EU)
(b) Ensure every procurement decision in favour of MS because of this to REQUIRE to implement MSOOXML as well. No point using it for criteria otherwise.
That way I give it a month before reality hits. And less than that for the EU to collar the b*stards again, and this time it won't be a baby fine because that has proven not to have too much of an effect. A cute punishment would be making ODF compliance mandatory in the EU. Given that they haven't implemented a proper filter this may completely nuke the franchise. And without the Office franchise there isn't much left of MS because brute forcing people into an upgrade to something as bad as Vista hasn't exactly worked out too well. Couple that with sub prime problems and companies as well as end users may start to seek for more economic ways to spend their money.
This story is FAR from over.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sir! that really is a cute concept. And I think it will appeal to our very own guardian angel and wielder of the sword of justice Neelie Kroes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Agree - My Proposed Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
first set up a web site with a simplish name that's anonymously funded and transparently run, indeed I am an MCP at a Microsoft only shop, i'd be happy to run the site but my priorities lie with feeding my children.
It needs to be factual and neutral. Never yelling, or preaching. It needs to be the (webstandards.org) acid test of the document suite / format world.
It needs to show clearly where each of several major office suites stand in relation to compatibility to both f
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Open source developers will likely shoot themselves in the foot there. OOXML support is already under way for OO.org, and you can be sure that KOffice will likely follow, along with a number of other open source office apps. These will be similar to the efforts to get the Office 97-2003 formats working, seeing
Re:pyhrric (Score:4, Funny)
Microsoft has a legitimate business interest to be seen as the leader in office document formats, and this interest is best served by participating in the ISO/IEC processes for refining and improving OOXML in good faith and with an active desire to resolve the issues that are raised.
While I am highly critical of all national standardization organization officials who have contributed to allowing Microsoft push OOXML through via the "fast track" which IMO has proved to be clearly inappropriate, I'm really getting the impression that there is a tendency of seeing Microsoft primarily as an enemy which is getting in the way of our abvility to see reality as it is. I can personally testify that at the BRM and since then, Microsoft has shown every indication of willingness for the known technical shortcomings of OOXML to be corrected, and since I believe that it is in Microsoft's best interest to continue in this direction, I currently see no reason not to believe the Microsoft people that I have been communicating with when they indicate that it is Microsoft's intention to continue with this bona-fide cooperative stance regarding OOXML.
.doc attachments (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the tag part of the ISO approved spec?
ISO replacement (Score:2)
But if this is true, then no reputable organization will ever seek ISO approval for a standard
Why no April Fools Today. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why no April Fools Today. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why no April Fools Today. (Score:4, Funny)
From the box of Office 14 (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation:
* Whilst OOXML is an ISO standard now, we still own the patents and the right to sue anyone who implements it (even if we issued a covenant not to sue; covenants mean nothing to Microsoft, just to let you know). Lastly, OOXML is open however we are only ones who know how to read the blob (binary) parts of the standard perfectly and no one else can.
Internal document at Microsoft:
* Finally we have an ISO and ECMA standard, just so we can say to you that we care about the future of digital documents, when we really just want more money. Saying OOXML is an ISO standard is a great way to have businesses automatically approve of our standard. And now we can put ODF and its hopes and dreams in the dark.
---
I am very disappointed in ISO, OSI, and ECMA. I held them with high regard, until they started approving standards and licences of a company that has been holding back the PC industry all to make a little more money. I will ignore the three bodies for now, until they withdraw their positions on these Microsoft entities.
When will MIPS-based-CPU desktops running Linux at high speeds (much faster than any x86 at the same clocked speed) take over the home PC market? x86 and even x86-64 are dying faster than we can count in my opinion the way things are going.
---
(Written on Gentoo Linux 2.6.24.3 AMD64, Mozilla Firefox 2.0.13, KDE 3.5.8)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anybody else... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
but does anybody find it ironic that the comment links in the PDF are in DOC format?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel, like any other company, don't want motivation to progress. They want to continue selling old products for as long as possible at the highest price point they can, not be forced to develop something new and reduce prices in order to compete. Lucky for us consumers Intel don't have that ability, thanks to AMD... The problem is that Microsoft do have that ability, and they abuse it as much as they can. In a competitive marketplace, ODF would be prevalent (supported by a majority of vendors) and OOXML would die a death (supported by only one) and microsoft would have been forced to implement ODF like everyone else.
I must... (Score:2)
The only thing running through my mind is:
what.
the.
hell?
Possible Tags? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This just follows... (Score:2)
Tag: sadly!aprilfools (Score:2)
I hate it when Microsoft makes things its bitch. And I liked the ISO, too...
why a standard is needed (Score:2)
I bet this would not have happened if ISO had distributed the memorandum in an ISO-approved document format.
I don't like this idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I've decided to use LaTeX to make a final copy of my documents in PDF format after writing up the document w/o markup in Text or RTF document. I'm new to using it, but the markup for most of my purposes is as easy as HTML (I don't use tables or math very much). Its too bad others don't know how easy it is (esp. with templates you can download).
Some of my files are 10 years old and I've archived them all pretty well. But if I use a current version of Word to open it up, the formatting is all screwy. All the more reason to change.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, I hope TeX language is standardized. Its increasingly popular in academia - in many fields outside of math and science, and I think its c
I need enlightenment... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but every article I read about OOXML is about the voting and standardization irregularities, and nothing I've found reviews OOXML from the users standpoint, or implications of it being ISO-ed...
Re:I need enlightenment... (Score:5, Informative)
From user's point of view, this rushed standardisation means that the whole point of the standardisation has been defeated in OOXML's case. It also means that we now have two standards that solve the exact same problem, and thanks to the Marketing, the technically far worse format has a chance at winning: If OOXML becomes the dominant format, the promising future from OpenDocument may not be realised. It can be a major setback.
And what was the point of the standardisation? What was the golden promise of OpenDocument? Interoperability, plain and simple.
Simply put: In the current state of affairs, OpenDocument is implementable by third parties. OOXML is not. There can and will be many OpenDocument applications. If OOXML won't get fixed, there will be one and only one application with anywhere near compliant OOXML support.
With OpenDocument, you can edit the documents in any ODF-compliant application - or process them with any external tool, or generate them from scratch programmatically - and there's no problems because the standards is complete, well specified, and not hopelessly tied to one application. OOXML, in comparison, has nothing of this: There's a bunch of nasty features that make writing completely compliant applications difficult, if not impossible. The end result will be that there's one application that processes OOXML "perfectly" (MSOffice) and the rest work when they work (and since consumers expect perfect behaviour, it means they aren't used very much, no?)...
Sure, the interoperability dream is still very much there, because ODF is still out there. It's just that now we have a completely redundant standard that is a) technically inferior but b) Microsoft will make you either use it, or cry and use it.
Re:I need enlightenment... (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty much because:
a) the voting irregularities are IMMENSE
and
b) there is no review on OOXML from the user's standpoint, because there is NO implementation (ZIP, ZERO, NONE) of the ISO candidate version of OOXML to review. Not even from Microsoft, who are using a different version now, and (IIRC) have stated that they WILL NOT be using the ISO version in the future, if it is approved. AND it is likely that there will never be a complete 3rd party implementation of the ISO OOXML standard because it is so long, complex and dependent on patents and references to legacy closed source software. MS happens to own that source and those patents and aren't about to give them away. So basically it's a dead end mockery of the ISO process.
If that's not enough to answer your questions AND piss you off, do some more reading on the topic.
Try reading up on how and for what the Fast-track process has been used in the past: Mature, complete and currently implemented industry standards that are just being formalized; Not slap-dick, fly-by-night, throw-in-kitchen-sink 6000 page cluster-f*ks like OOXML.
Apparently money can buy everything (Score:2)
Fix the headline, please (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft buys ISO certification; World looks on with drool on its face
End of ISO? (Score:5, Interesting)
An article up at Intellectual Property Watch claims they have obtained a document (PDF)
See the article linked is "PDF"? Why? It is supported on everything down to Symbian S60 handsets and any open source software can support it. People can even race with vendors "reader" software making better ones. That is a real standard which won its place without dirty tricks.
I bet usual suspects like Novell and their mighty Mono/Silverlight innovator Icaza will come up with a thing that supports it to some extent, advertise it and MS will use it as a proof.
Last question: Did gnome people openly critised this decision? On their website?
April 1 could be the end of ISO. Once you lose credibility, you don't get it back. It is not a April 1 joke either. You can even feel that one of the biggest IT scandals is waiting and this time it is not poor open source geeks anymore, it is IBM/Sun and GNU/BSD and various World governments especially those very rich ones who can even say "no" to EU. Don't forget the militaries either.
Approval was not won... (Score:4, Informative)
Approval was not won, approval was purchased.
Nothing has changed (Score:3, Interesting)
We have the same situation today as we did yesterday.
(1) A "standard" which is only a standard because a monopoly uses it.
(2) A "standard" which is independently implemented by (n>1) vendors.
So, as long as *we* the technologically literate stay "on message" like the P.R. spinmasters, we can use this in our favor.
The "April fools document standard" AFDS for short, should be as well known as the "halloween documents." And when they ask why it is called the "april fools document standard," tell them.
Creditibility vs. Virginity (Score:3, Insightful)
Unlike Voltare, who regarded virginity as a corectable perversion, credibility is the coin of the technical trade. Lose it, and watch ALL your works fade away.
If the ISO doen't move to retract OOXML as a "standard", their other standards will only be seen as gross manipulation of the technical industry, and be discarded and ignored.
Pity. Aside from how much work has gone into other ISO standards, I can't quite see the the people who have loaned their reputation sticking by a body so obviously bribed, coorsed, and schivvied into "accepting" such a "standard" to continue to support it.
I'd think that within a very short time, those who regard their honor as something more than coin to be traded to the corporation most likely to bid high, twist arms to breaking, and cheat at every turn will start to distance themselves from the ISO because of this.
It would be one thing if the offered "standard" met some acceptable technical goal. In my estimation, what we're seeing isn't a technical goal, but a lock in to assure undeserved profit.
Post approval analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I have lost faith in ISO because it seems the worlds largest computer software manufacturer can just buy their own standards from this organisation.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Standards should be as brief, accurate and stable as possible, in order to be able to cost effectively apply them. This is just a sickening M$=B$ marketing exercise.
At least in Australia it looks like OOXML i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Use the standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there's the whole issue that nobody has implemented the standard the ISO passed, not even Microsoft. So we have no way of telling if it's even possible from them, let alone anyone who doesn't have access to the 18 or so patents they have covering OOXML.
Re:Stop crying, people. Start being HONEST. (Score:4, Informative)
around 1.5% of them have been adressed in the meantime
what non-bribed ISO member would say now "wow, they adressed so many complaints that I can go from a 'no' vote to a 'yes' vote"?
Re:Stop crying, people. Start being HONEST. (Score:4, Informative)
- The ISO members (the JTC1 committee) found 3522 defects in the OOXML standard
- The Ecma grouped these complaints and proposed 1027 changes on about 2300 pages
- Microsoft said they had adressed 662 of the proposals
- At the isos ballot resolution meeting (BRM) 900 of the 1027 proposals were not checked (they didn't check if MS had implemented the changes)
- Rob Weir used a random sampling technique to estimate how many proposals were actually implemented: about 1.5%
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065903&intsrc=news_list [computerworld.com]http://www.pro-linux.de/news/2008/12520.html [pro-linux.de] (german)
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/0310208 [slashdot.org]
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/how-many-defects-remain-in-ooxml.html [robweir.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop crying, people. Start being HONEST. (Score:5, Insightful)
You obviously have never had to implement anything that needed to conform to a defined, published standard. If you had, you would never in a million years defend a ragged mess which can't even deal with Julian dates without referencing a broken proprietary binary (Excel 97). And you wouldn't defend OOXML, in raving terms including liberal usage of boldface, all caps and ad hominem attacks, if you understood the difference between a properly written standard and one cobbled together in panic that large institutional customers would abandon a proprietary format over concerns of long-term data accessibility, bit rot and lock-in.
Enjoy your new spec.
You are lying. Msft can use ODF. (Score:4, Informative)
Absolute 100% pure unadulterated crap. Msft is entirely capable, and welcome, to use ODF. In fact, I think plug-ins already exist.
I am sick to death of this brazen lie being propagated on slashdot, and elsewhere. It is not true, and it makes no sense. You statement is based on the assumption that ODF locks msft out - and that assumption is simply not true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope the EU forces, under pains of billion dollar fines, Microsoft to put ODF support directly into future versions of Office, and continues to threaten them if they try to break it.
Re:Why is this bad? (Score:4, Informative)