|
|
| 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Update: It's 20 |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 09:29 PM EST
|
Andy Updegrove does the math:Last week I reported that the United States body reviewing OOXML had decided to take a conservative approach to defining what "contradiction" should mean under the ISO/IEC process. Since then, a few stories have appeared indicating that Great Britain and Malaysia would each identify at least one contradiction in their response. The actual results would only become known after the deadline had passed on February 5.
In that first blog entry, I concluded that Microsoft had won the first point in the contest to have its document format become a global standard. With the deadline past, who would be found to have won the next?
Well the results are in, and an unprecedented nineteen countries have responded during the contradictions phase - most or all lodging formal contradictions with Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC), the ISO/IEC body that is managing the Fast Track process under which OOXML (now Ecma 476) has been submitted. This may not only be the largest number of countries submitting contradictions ever, but outnumbers the total number of national bodies that often bother to vote at all on a proposed standard.... In some cases, the contradictions submitted are brief, while in others they are substantial. If you go to his site, you'll see the list. He goes on to explain what happens next: normally the contradictions would be posted. This time, a different system will be followed: Ordinarily, contradictions would be posted at the JTC1 site relatively quickly. However, in this case I am told, Ecma will be given the opportunity to prepare responses before the contradictions will be posted, with a deadline of February 28. On or before that date, Ecma will respond with its proposed "resolution" for each contradiction. Once this has been received, JTC 1 will publish the response, accompanied by the text of the contradictions themselves, as submitted by the national bodies. At that point, a decision can be made on the next step. But is there a process to respond to the "resolutions"? Or will they be accepted at face value? Update: There was a miscount. It's 20, not 19.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: josmith42 on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 09:38 PM EST |
For PJ... ---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard
layout. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 09:40 PM EST |
Clickable links are really cool.
---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Am I to understand with this most recent article... - Authored by: josmith42 on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 09:57 PM EST
- Off topic here - Authored by: jhanely on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 10:23 PM EST
- Yay Dvorak! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 10:50 PM EST
- "Symantec: Microsoft conflict of interest is damaging internet" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 11:10 PM EST
- Updegrove on the Texas and Minnesota ODF adoption - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Off topic here - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:03 AM EST
- "Translator is FUBAR!" - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Ballmerman and Microsoftshill Boy - Authored by: jeevesbond on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:06 AM EST
- CIO Magazine how-to article on open source development in a corporate setting. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:52 AM EST
- Anti-MS Vista - a drive-by shooting - Authored by: talldad on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:41 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 09:53 PM EST |
Doesn't anyone at ECMA realize how damaging it is to their reputation to keep
making exceptions to their own rules for one company that has been convicted
(multiple times in multiple countries) as a monopolist?
---
MDT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 10:07 PM EST |
Ah, some more excitement. ECMA's response should make interesting reading.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 10:39 PM EST |
Note how the U.S. is glaringly absent.
M$ bought our silence -- as usual.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- shame of U.S. - Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 11:42 PM EST
- shame of U.S. - Authored by: W^L+ on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:57 AM EST
- Idiots, all? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:23 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 10:45 PM EST |
ecma and the u.s. should be ashamed.
we all know whose pockets their hands are in.
ecma is a joke.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The US tried; - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 12:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 11:20 PM EST |
Finland and Netherlands responded. I recall reading some Groklaw posters saying
they have received mail from these national standard organisations stating that
they would not respond. They appear to have changed their mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Power in volumes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:15 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: mrcreosote on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 11:53 PM EST |
"It will be interesting to see how Microsoft deals with this slap in the
face......Another might be to withdraw the specification and prepare a less
controversial submission, that is responsive to the many early objections
offered, even before the opportunity has been offered to submit technical
objections, as compared to contradictions with existing ISO/IEC standards and
rules."
BWAAHHAAHHAA!!!
I don't know how he keeps a straight face writing this stuff....
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Altair_IV on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:12 AM EST |
Just why does ECMA/MS get almost a month to prepare responses to the
contradictions, when everyone else gets their dirty laundry aired to the world
right away?? How did they manage to arrange this preferential state of
affairs?
Inquiring minds want to know.
---
Monsters from the id!!
m(_ _)m[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:56 AM EST |
I think I dare to hope that Microsoft's OOXML as an ISO standard is now dead.
Real nitpicking standards people are now getting involved, and the MS proposal
contains stuff that has zero change of getting past them, like appealing to the
behaviour of some proprietary application without even specifying said
behaviour. Hooray!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Authored by: Weeble on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:40 AM EST
- 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Authored by: larsmjoh on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:10 AM EST
- re:buried - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:53 PM EST
- Optimism! - Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:11 AM EST
- Optimism! - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:33 AM EST
- Optimism! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 05:40 AM EST
- Old School - Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:35 AM EST
- Old School - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:51 AM EST
- Optimism! - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:55 PM EST
- 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Authored by: bmcmahon on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:18 AM EST
- I'll second that - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:03 AM EST
- 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 08:31 AM EST
- 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:15 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:04 AM EST |
Now is the time to search out more problems in EOOXML.
If ECMA files a response next month, they can immediately be asked what to do
with all the other problems found in the meantime.
Personally, I expect all kind of weasel words and empty promises. Anything that
does not require MS to change MS Offcie2007.
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 02:16 AM EST |
I was wondering why China is absent from the list of Andu Updegrove?
They just developed their own document format that will be made compatible with
ODF. So I would have expected them to get involved.
Are they boycotting ISO because of the WiFI spat?
Rob
---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 03:58 AM EST |
Does it represent the interests of computer users in the US? Does it
represent an objective technical assessment of what makes a "good" standard,
independent of anybody's interests?
Or does it represent
Microsoft?
I have a little experience of ANSI standards committees, and
the way they function. Members do not get paid for their work, so usually most
committee members work for companies which have some interest in the material
being standardized. Sometimes this does not really matter. For example, a lot of
companies were interested in the C and C++ standards (there were at least a
dozen companies who had implemented C compilers), so no one company was able to
exert undue influence, and technical considerations (largely) determined the
outcome.
But when there are no commercial competitors to a company in
the relevant area (word processors)...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 06:49 AM EST |
They need Microsoft's help to craft the resolutions, since they won't be able to
come up with the spin themselves. This will result in, leaving all the MS specs
untouched.
Just call me a cynic.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 10:47 AM EST |
Isn't Microsoft simply going to argue that OOXML is an international standard
(Europe is still a number of countries, not just one country), and just leave it
at that. Do any of the states in the US mention requiring ISO/IEC endorsement
of the standard? The stuff on Andy Updegrove's site just seems to say open
standard - and won't MS argue that Ecma is open enough?
It'll be a lot less work for them that way.
Here's hoping I'm wrong!
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 11:55 AM EST |
|
Plexnet
OpenDocument
Foundation
OpenDocument Foundation's MS Office ODF plug-in completely
destroys Microsoft's basis for submitting OOXML as an ISO standard. It
completely destroys Microsoft's claim that OOXML's functionality cannot be
incorporated into ODF and actually proves that it is easier to incorporate into
ODF than OOXML.
OpenDocument Foundations da Vinci class of ODF plugins for
Microsoft Office (for versions 97, 2000 and 2003) provide 100% perfect
functionality for all the above MS Office, while Microsoft is still having
trying to get it's OOXML implementation working.
You can load and save to
ODF from MS Office with perfect fidelity for all content that can be thrown at
it, proving beyond doubt that OOXML is an unnecessary (and inferior) duplication
of the existing ISO standard ODF. The only problem is of course that for
proprietary binary formats embedded into the MS Office document, only MS Office
can handle it - which is exactly what OOXML does by design - OOXML doesn't
specify how to handle Microsoft's proprietary formats, which only Microsoft
software will be able to handle.
Here is undisputable proof that there is
absolutely no justification for having OOXML which does nothing that ODF does
not already do, including handling MS Office functionality. It should hopefully
kill off OOXML as an ISO standard for good if JTC (unlike ANSI) acts according
to it's rules and mandate.
Now what we need is a strict ODF filter version
that does not save proprietary MS Office content format or saves it under a
*.MSLOCKIN extension by default, and that can be made available to all MS Office
users so that they can read and write strict ODF as a standard format, and beat
the MS forced upgrade cycle.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:04 PM EST |
I don't really see how OOXML will ever be able to correct the contradictions -
most seem like they exist at the core of the standard.
It seems certain that at the minimum the process will be extended - it also
seems likely that the current contradictions' list will be expanded, and, just
because you have a proposed resolution doesn't mean it would be accepted -
hasn't MS already shown a tendency to attempt to redefine the rules instead of
working within the existing framework?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, February 07 2007 @ 01:32 PM EST |
The whole issue for content-to-speech conversion is getting hold of the content
in a file. In ODF that is a simple matter of working through the spec and
grabbing the relevantly tagged data, in the MS "alternative" it means
a journey into reverse engineering and interconnected dependencies that will be
a convoluted nightmare, even for MS itself (it would actually be fun to get MS
to implement their spec to the letter as they'll never be able to do it right).
This means that with ODF it is easy to write code that will extract the relevant
data, without requiring a license and without prescribing a particular platform,
operating system or programming language - nicely leaving competition intact.
Creating a dependency on a 3rd standard in ODF is IMHO counterproductive - the
format is flexible enough to interoperate, which is the whole idea..
---
= P =
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
