|
Answering Paul Thurrott on OOXML |
|
Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:37 AM EDT
|
Paul Thurott thinks OpenXML is A-OK. After noting that Massachusetts has deemed it an acceptable document format, he says this about the overwhelmingly negative comments the Commonwealth received about OOXML: Before arriving at this conclusion, the state reviewed almost 500 comments from individuals and organizations, most of whom complained about Massachusetts adopting the Microsoft formats....
It should be noted that while Microsoft originally developed the Open XML in-house, these file formats are now controlled by a standards community that answers to Ecma International. It's likely that most of those in Massachusetts who complained about Open XML adoption there were unaware of this relationship.
Actually, if you read the letters, you will see that they mostly show a very high level of factual information. The impression one gets is that they know perfectly well all about ECMA. They consider it a rubber stamp organization which has no such goal as control of OOXML. Even if it did have that goal, since it allows proprietary extensions in a "standard", the question becomes: will ECMA control those proprietary extensions? Obviously not. Therein lies the problem. I'd like to show you some excerpts from just some of the letters. Unfortunately, Massachusetts didn't publish them on the website openly and in full the way I remember it doing when ODF was being considered. That's despite saying on the website in its announcing press release "All comments received are posted on this web site."
Posted, eh? Let's see. If you follow the link provided, this time you find you must download a PDF of some 800+ pages, and they have it locked up so it isn't possible to copy and paste, even though the comments started as emails, so Massachusetts took that added step of making them harder to read and reproduce. Also, since many entities sent their comments as attachments to a brief email, those attachments are not made available at all. So I have had to hand type these excerpts for you, which is truly ironic in this context. There is nothing I can do for you about the attachments if Massachusetts isn't in an open mood.
By the way, the link to those comments about ODF back in 2005 no longer works. They make them available now only as a PDF also, as best I can make out, and I had quite a time even finding that. Here it is, for the record, and I've updated our permanent ODF page, which tells this whole, ugly Massachusetts story.
A brief word about ECMA, first, to show you why folks might not trust it or its fast tracking of standards. First, may I point out that ECMA stands for European Computer Manufacturers Association? In other words, it's not a standards group representing the public's interest. Here's what Ecma itself says [PDF] about its purpose: The goal of the Technical Committee is to produce a formal standard for office productivity applications within the Ecma International standards process which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats. So it was never about whether or not it qualified to be a standard. It saw its role as enablement. And in this paper, on page 22, Ecma describes its value to a vendor like Microsoft:
Offers industry a "fast track", to global standards bodies, through which standards are made available on time;
Balances Technical Quality and Business Value:
*Quality of a standard is pivotal, but the balance between timeliness and quality as well: Better a good standard today than a perfect one tomorrow!
* Offers a path which will minimise risk of changes to input specs
* A "safe haven" for IPR "Minimize risk of changes to input specs" sounds like a rubber stamp to me. They are forthright in presenting their value as value to the vendor, not the public, a vendor who wants a format fast tracked and approved pronto. At least that's how I read it, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So, the folks who wrote letters to Massachusetts do know about ECMA; they just don't trust it to require a truly open standard or to control Microsoft. Here are some excerpts from the public's comments, so you can judge for yourself: -
For this to be a truly open standard, the standards on which OOXML is based would have to be available in their entirety to everyone without the constraints of NDA's, covenants not to sue or anything else. All of its inner workings must be available without the need for any proprietary extensions or parts owned by any single company, so it will interoperate with all of the existing formats it purports to support and the way it does this will be open knowledge to all. As long as Microsoft controls any part of this and keeps it closed, it cannot be said to be an open standard.
- Please adopt the ODF Open Document Format so that future computer users will be able to use any program to open and read and work on files created in the coming years.
- It is time for the State of Massachusetts to establish a firm policy to say that "Open is Open" and anything else less than that is closed. OOXML, while partially and initially appears to be open, it's full implementation includes elements that are not open. Therefore, it is not a true open standard. ODF is fully open. ...Do you want legible information accessible to future generations, or do you want the information under the indirect control of a corporate entity?
- The point of an open standard is that everyone can use it, and twenty years from now we will still be able to read historically important records. Microsoft refuses to participate in a truly open standard (ODF) and they have yet to actually explain this refusal. They could implement ODF easily and still offer backwards compatibility with legacy file formats, since those file formats belong to Microsoft.
- We believe the inclusion of a second document format standard, with known interoperability issues with your existing standard is premature. ECMA 376 is only now undergoing an objective assessment of its ability to meet its stated goals of interoperability and enabling competitive implementations. Attached is a summary of SUn's position, developed over the last few months as a participant in the US National Body advisory committee, V1. In light of these findings, we voted against approval of the specification in its current form. This reflects our belief that these very significant shortcomings must be addressed prior to acceptance of ECMA 376 as an ISO sttandard.
Just as we believe that ECMA 376 has technical issues that should be explored more fully and addressed prior to becoming an ISO standard, we also believe that the impact of a policy including both standards should be far better understood than at present. For example, in the case of ODF, the Commonwealth has carefully considered and ultimately adopted Sun's plug-in for ODF support in Microsoft Office applications to minimize application and desktop impacts. We would suggest further detailed study of the availability and operation of the various OOXML converters available to ensure that they meet the Commonwealth's needs, both in fidelity and impact on workflows and business processes. We are also concerned that the high water mark on accessibility features set with ODF 1.1 may not be met with OOXML. ETRM v. 4.0 should not recede from this mark. Indeed, the Commonwealth insisted on ODF v1.1 because it addressed issues discovered by a peer review body of all experts and PWDs; such a body doesn't seem to exist for OOXML.
- I think the government needs to use a document format that is independent of proprietary vendors and that can be implemented in free software.
- I strongly support the use of ODF as the official electronic document format for the Commonwealth. Unlike Microsoft's OpenXML, it actually is an open ... standard. The real value of government documents should be their contents.... Using a standard like ODF means that the documents will always be readable, even if the software that created them is no longer available. Microsoft's format doesn't provide that guarantee....Using ODF ensures the availability of information that belongs to the people of Massachusetts.
- I would like to express my support for the Commonwealth to decline the Open Office formats. I hope that this will reduce the excessive costs associated with using Microsoft products and will improve access to technology.
- I am in college... I think you should use ODF... OOXML is the format that is going to be used by Microsoft and its partners....On the issue of translator itself, Microsoft did not build it and does not take credit for it. You only hear them say that such a translator exists you do not hear them say that they made it. Lastly such translators only work part way as not all the specifications are open even to those that sign NDA's.
- The true test of a standard is whether there exist at least two independent implementations that successfully interoperate. All of the procedural requirements and formalisms of the standardization process are attempts to ensure this by process. They do not ensure success. There are numerous unsuccessful standards. Massachusetts should wait until there are two independently developed implementations that successfully exchange files. I know that PDF has met this test. I think ODF passes this test. OOXML does not yet pass this test.
Massachusetts should postpone consideration of OOXML until both of these are resolved. Microsoft can address the first issue. Only the decision of some second organization to independently implement OOXML can deal with the second. Massachusetts should also ensure that this second implementation is a genuinely independent implementation that does not depend in any way upon Microsoft components or other information that is not present in the OOXML standard.
- As a participant in the US committee reviewing OOXML, INCITS V1, I had the opportunity to review the text of the OOXML specification and to discuss it with others. I am sorry to report that I found the OOXML specification to be full of errors and omissions. Of course, no technical document is perfect. But this one, in particular, is of far greater length (more than 6,000 pages) and of far lower quality than any I have seen before. If it has advanced this far in the ISO process it is because of vendor pressure, not because of technical merit.
What is the problem with a buggy standard? Interoperability suffers. That is the problem. There is no doubt that if everyone in the Commonwealth used Microsoft Office 2007 on Windows Vista, that their interoperability will be good. But as soon as we admit choice in applications and operating systems, then interoperability will only occur when all sides follow a common standard. So the technical quality of a standard (accuracy, comprehensiveness, level of detail, consistency, etc.) is directly proportional to the level of interoperability and the cost to achieve it.
The ISO ballot on OOXML will not end until September 2nd, after which a resolution process to fix defects n the text of the standard will take at least an additional 6-18 months. That is, of course, if OOXML gains ISO approval, something which is not certain at this point. So I would recommend a cautious approach, and wait for the ISO process to conclude, or conduct your own independent technical evaluation of the OOXML specification to confirm its technical quality before adding OOXML to your list. Ask other vendors: IS this something you can implement? Ask yourself: Will this truly give the Commonwealth the interoperability and choice that you desire?
- I would like to register my oppostion to Ecma 376 (Open XML). The State of Massachusetts should seek ways to make its services and the information it publishes accessible to all its citizens, and not merely those who have purchased the correct version of the correct software on the correct platform. Fully open standards, such as ODF, have the best chance of fulfilling this promise. Proprietary and semi-proprietary formats impose a third party into communications between the State and its constituents....
Further, I am concerned about the cost to the State and to the Citizens of the State imposed by proprietary and semi-proprietary standards. As many have experienced with existing software, support for old file formats may be dropped after as few as one intervening version, rendering the old files inaccessible.... Even if a vendor drops support for a particular version of a fully open file format, everything needed to implement full support for that format is still available to the public.... With a proprietary or semi-proprietary file format, there is always some amount of information about the specification which the vendor keeps to themselves, and thus, some amount of data will always be lost when the vendor drops support for that version of the format.
- The debate between the ODF and OOXML can be boiled down to this:
Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on making cars that run on Microfuel. Microsoft makes frequent changes to Microfuel so that old cars which are perfectly good no longer run and you have to buy a new Microsoft car. In addition the entry level model only costs slightly less than the fully loaded luxury model.
Someone has now invented Gasoline. Gasoline can be used to run a car built by anyone and its formalation is public knowledge and will not change. Microsoft could easily change its cars to run on Gasoline but has instead chosen to run its new cars on Microfuel Advanced. For certain consideration, which could change in the future, it will also allow competitors to create cars that run on Microfuel Advanced, although no competitor has yet created a car that runs on Microfuel Advanced. Microsoft also reserves the right at any time in the future to modify Microfuel Advanced and can't guarantee that competitors cars will be able to run on modified Microfuel Advanced. Microsoft has chosen to have its cars run on Gasoline. Microsoft is lobbying hard to have Massachusetts cars run on Microfuel Advanced. Which fuel would you rather have your car run on?
- Microsoft has done its level best at obfuscating its reluctance to freely produce details regarding its proprietary document formats. To not produce these details is to disallow ANY other party the ability to implement a competing product....
And to allow ECMA 376 to become a "standard" would be tantamount to signing off on a blueprint that doesn't show where the plumbing or electrical are in a building!
- I am concerned that the Commonwealth is considering the inclusion of ECMA 376 in theun Enterprise Technical Reference Model....As a resident and taxpayer of Massachusetts for more than thirty years, I am deeply troubled that a proprietary format as described in ECMA 376 would be included in a policy intended to make documents broadly available in perpetuity.
ECMA 376 is (at best) an incomplete definition and arguably unworthy of the label 'standard', given the haphazard descriptions and obtuse language used to conceal the proprietary elements in the description. A standard, by definition, should not be proprietary. The very reason for a standard is so that multiple parties may conform to an agreed list of specifications. this result is simply impossible in ECMA 376.
It is virtually assured that certain documents conforming to ECMA 376 will become unreadable in future years, which will either render the affected documents useless or require a massive outlay of tax dollars to convert to an updated document definition. The ODF standard documents do not share this potential liability.
- People with disabilities... require their software to make adjustments to how the content is displayed.... Developers of software for these purposes have to specialize for the document format, as well as for the target population, which is often very small. With two standards, rather than one, there will be a need to solve two such software problems for every population, resulting in a loss of quality, speed and availability of software development, spreading a niche industry very thinly.
Besides the problems of multiple standards, ooxml has serious accessibility flaws. It fundamentally lacks semantic information to make it possible to reformat content without altering the meaning. A simple example is that in data entry forms, it lacks a link to connect the form labels to the corresponding entry areas. The reshuffling of elements that can happen with zooming, a small screen, or reading aloud with a screen reader, is impossible to do correctly without this information.
Well, that's just a sample. Do they sound like they lack accurate information? They just don't know about ECMA? By the way, I assume, since there are issues raised here regarding OOXML with respect to accessibility for the disabled that we will see hearings on this very serious matter, as we did on whether ODF met the needs of the disabled. Hardy har. I know. This is all just dancing baloney. Or in Microsoft's Jason Matusow's immortal words in the context of IBM and Sun being excluded in Portugal from the Technical Committee voting on whether or not to approve Ecma 376 as an ISO standard, "There is no question that all over the world the competing interests in the Open XML standardization process are going to use all tactics available to them within the rules." I take that as a Microsoft admission, since all I'm hearing about is Microsoft trying every trick in the book. No one else is making such headlines. Massachusetts, of course, is Exhibit A showing the Microsoft version of standards setting.
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
Post your corrections below so PJ can find them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
Please follow the inructions in red text to make clickable links...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
Off topic discussions go here.
Remember to use HTML to make those
links clickable
This is the second time in two days I've managed to get
the Corrections and OT threads started. I wonder what the record is. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- [OT] Research Help Request with UNIX history paper. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- Novell Hack Week - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:30 AM EDT
- Today's User Friendly -- What's Going On? - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:36 AM EDT
- Question for IP hounds - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- Two points. - Authored by: LocoYokel on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Two points. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 10:45 PM EDT
- Disney's Long Arm of the Law - Authored by: PM on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- In Pursuit of a Fully FOSS-Friendly PC - Authored by: Simon G Best on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- In Pursuit of a Fully FOSS-Friendly PC - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:16 PM EDT
- Yea, me too! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:36 PM EDT
- In Pursuit of a Fully FOSS-Friendly PC - Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT
- In Pursuit of a Fully FOSS-Friendly PC - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- In Pursuit of a Fully FOSS-Friendly PC - Authored by: The Cornishman on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Consider Building Your Own - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Watch out for graphics and WLAN - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 04:15 AM EDT
- Watch out for graphics and WLAN - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 05:11 AM EDT
- Thanks, Respondents! - Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- Increasing Mono/Moonlight Deps In Gnome - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- Sun's freely-downloadable ODF Plug-in is a bona fide shipping product - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT
- Off Topic - first posters. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 09:12 AM EDT
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:15 AM EDT |
PJ, it can be done, but not in Acroread. I opened it (automatically) in Acroread
running in a browser window, in the usual way, then saved it to the desktop. I
then opened it in Kpdf, and copied and pasted a sample into Kate just to see
that it worked. Sometimes this FOSS stuff just gets the job done, while
proprietary stuff just gets in the way..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More about copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:21 AM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:45 AM EDT
- pdftotext - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:08 AM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: feldegast on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT
- 16.2 MegaBytes!!?! - Authored by: tyche on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT
- Isn't that circumvention? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Copying and pasting from the PDF..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 03:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: PeterMan on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
Paul Thurott has obviously been listening to Microsoft lobbyists and took their
words for the truth.
He obviously regards the letters is misinformed.
It a sign of the times: sleazy talk has replaced the facts.
One day MA will pay a price for his stupidity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dobbo on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
The important thing about a format is not who defines it but how many
implement
it.
Consider for a moment the Java standard. Java is
controlled by Sun, just like
OOXML is controlled by Microsoft. But the Java
standard was written to be
implementable by more than just the one company.
IBM did just that. They
even validated their implementation against the same
tests that Sun use for
their own implementation. And IBM are not the only one.
In Java there is some real choice.
In the long term I'm not worried
Massachusetts decision to go with OOXML.
What matters is that they started out
with a clear set of objectives,
did their evaluations and made their selection.
Other institutions
will (or are) doing the same but will select ODF rather than
OOXML. This
will allow an independent reviewer in the future to see how
successful
Massachusetts and others was in meeting their initial objectives
given
the decisions they made.
Lessons will be learnt. It may take
time, but they will be learnt.
Dobbo [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
I seem to remember a helpful piece he did regarding Vista licensing...
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Oh yeah and "... Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher told
me..."
yeah he can it seems pick up a phone and speak to a ms general manager quite
easily... handy that.
"The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because
it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single copy of
XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention. "This clause
was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft general manager
Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants
to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example.""
---
Linus
The bulk of all patents are [bad]...
Spending time reading them is stupid...
Moglen
I can change the rules...
The coupons have no expiration date..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT |
Micro$oft is trying to dominate everywhere. The potential value for video on the
web is 7 trillion dollar$ annually. And Micro$oft wants all of it.
Micro$oft even goes as far as sending 3 Micro$oft employees who are video
compression "experts" to participate on the Doom9 web site - at the
"how to" video forums.
Doom9 supposedly has all these "video pirates" hanging out; so it is
ironic that Micro$oft is hanging out with these so-called "pirates"
... or is it? ;)
The three Micro$oft employees are flogging Microsoft's version of VC-1, which is
crummy in comparison to H.264.
Well one can only imagine how many thousands of "pay for say" folks
are on the take from Micro$oft - spinning all kinds of stories. It is likely
that 90% of the Micro$oft "pay for sayers" do not tell people that
they are on the take from Micro$oft.
As important as text file formats are, video formats/players are under
monopolistic attack by Micro$oft, Apple, Flash and others.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
Deval Patrick was supposed to be a bright new light in the
Democratic Party. Does he care about any of this? Mitt
Romney, a Republican, was heavily involved.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Peter Baker on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
I'm having trouble convincing myself about the "within the rules" bit
- track record indicates an apparent lack of understanding of who has to comply
with rules and boundaries..
---
= P =
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Holocene_Epoch on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
while Microsoft originally developed the Open XML in-house, these
file formats are now controlled by a standards community that answers to Ecma
International.
I guess what community you live in
determines who controls what. Redmond has its nose to far in the air, not that
they are up wind of the aroma of Tacoma, or anything like that, they put
Bellevue and Gig Harbor to shame. So, this is like the Communist domination
of the world. I never could figure out what they were going to do, or how they
would keep power once they dominated, no way to rally the troops, Oh, Orwell's
"1984".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: karl on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
It's worse than just that you have to use a Microsoft program to read and
write OOXML. Sure they say you won't have to but GL readers already know
that Microsoft will work very hard to make sure you will.
What's worse? If I crack an ODF document with an XML parser, it's all there
laid out for me. I can traverse parsed document and figure out all sorts of
stuff about it, extract content, interpret it, render it for the blind, etc.
While
XML parsers will parse OOXML documents, the tags will often be senseless,
essentially binary, including stuff like < ForceLegacyWindows95Layout >
and
other crazy stuff, plus the content of the tags that make sense will be BOLD
etc, rather than something that conveys information about the content.
Once again Microsoft pushed back hard with everything they had and they
stopped a threat to their hegemony, at a great ultimate cost to the state of
Massachusetts that the government people who helped them do it either
actually did not comprehend or did not care. A sad day for the people of
Massachusetts, and you can count on Microsoft rerunning this play elsewhere
until they come across a case where it doesn't work, in which case they'll have
lots of other stuff to try. They won't stop trying.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
This thought has been bugging me for quite a while. I really don't think that
Microsoft could reimplement the standard if they tried.I believe that the
Microsoft codebase is so crufty that it cannot be untangled anymore.
Look at all the trouble that they have had documenting the format for the USA,
the EU, for the standard. 6,000 pages, and they still don't have it completely
specified. Don't even think about whether the standard is internally consistent.
I'll bet big bucks against that. Arguments about whether the standard is indeed
internally consistent will be taken as proof that it is internally INconsistent.
in fact, it has been on a two week crack run, and has run out of things to steal
to fund continuing the run.
There is a concept that I have run into before about software brittleness. I
can't recall the source. Perhaps someone here remembers where it came from. The
older software gets, and the more maintenance that has been performed on it, the
more brittle the software becomes.
In this context, brittle means that changes are more likely to produce
unexpected behavior and errors. At the end, changes completely crash the
system.
I have seen one system that was thoroughly brittle. It was an old Honeywell DCS
(distributed control system) that was way obsolete. The program had grown to
occupy all available memory. All I/O racks were occupied. Any changes were met
with dread by the staff maintaining it.
In cases like this, it is almost impossible to document the data or logic flow
in a clear, understandable manner. The rat's nest control flow defies any
logical inspection.True to form, on a six month metric conversion project, this
system provided the only production error. Someone forgot about one flowmeter
hooked up to it. Two batches had to be reworked.
I have worked on many systems that were only severely brittle. Connections
between subroutines and databases were obscure. A great deal of time with the
system was required to get halfway competent with it. You never knew when a
surprise might pop up to bite you.
So, anyway, I suspect that Microsoft has lost control of its own code, and is
battling to survive in the face of competition and obstreperous code.
---
Every time I have seen a business move enterprise (business-critical) software
to Windows, the company has gone broke if small, or lost lots of money if large.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
Paul actually you don't have to type PDF formats for a copy even if they are
"locked" in Adobe PDF. Scansoft PDF will get hold of the PDF file and
you can copy, edit or do anything you want with it.
I have four high end Adobe programs for PDF files. When I complained in the
Adobe forum about not being able to do anything with PDF once it was created,
the Adobe crowd flamed me. Obviously I dumped Adobe and went to a software
program which will let me edit PDF files even if they are "locked".
Barb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
OOXML is like deficit spending with information. Using OOXML now is betting
that in 50 years a) Microsoft will still exist and be using OOXML or b) Another
entity will have implemented OOXML so those documents can be read.
We know from all the technical experts that there will never be a none Microsoft
OOXML implementation because the standard contains undefined proprietary
elements. So option b) cannot happen which leaves only the hope that Microsoft
will still be using OOXML in 50 years, if Microsoft even exists in 50 years.
To quote Dr. Phil, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Every new version of Microsoft Office has used a new file format, obsoleting all
old ones. We can only presume that Microsoft will continue to operate in the
same way, so the next version of Office will not use OOXML in it's current form.
That will probably be within about 3 years.
Massachusetts is aiming to make their documents readable in 100 years and they
have adopted a standard that will be obsolete within 3 years. No wonder America
is mired in Iraq.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Using my old Acrobat 5 program, I Selected All and then copied the contents. I
was then able to paste into an empty WordPad file. Sure, all the formatting was
lost but nothing prevented me from doing the copy of the text and inserting it
elsewhere.
---
Bill The Cat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
I know it sounds a bit silly put like that but I am not a US resident and some
of your customs are not clear to me.
When someone makes a 'campaign contribution' does it have to be declared? Is a
brown envelope stuffed with bills permitted? Is a promise of future (or even
current) lucrative consultancy work permitted?
Can a politician openly advertise that his vote is for sale?
Are there any rules (or laws) that distinguish between permissible and
non-permissible corruption? Do political parties or the various legislative
assemblies have any system for dealing with members who over-step the mark?
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
I used pdf2ps on it first, to put it in PostScript, and
then I used ps2pdf to
put it back to PDF. This strips all
the
DRM crap. The resulting file is
about 2MB larger than the
original (19MB vs 17MB).
It is available
here
for those of you without GNU/Linux or *BSD.
--TP [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
It seems to me that ECMA has been hired to make the standard, as they say,
"fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats".
This implies that it is and shall be 'whatever Microsoft says it is'. If MS
changes their formats then ECMA must update the 'standard' to match these. If
other suggest changes then they can't be added because it is not MS does.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Everyone likes to dig into different
things.
I was curious to
see if all the
comments really made it into the PDF file that
PJ was
referencing. Specifically, I wondered if my comment
made it
into the public record.
I also wondered if we might see
some
"push back" from parties harvesting data from the
comments.
I am an MS partner, but oppose OOXML as it stands. Sometimes we
hear
feedback about our public comments, which is why I usually
remain
anonymous. I wondered if any info was going to be redacted ... or if
I'm
now on a few new SPAM lists. So I took a look.
I downloaded the
16.6 MB Mass.
ETRM PDF comments file and browsed the comments for
myself.
A few things stood out to the naked
eye.
There were a
few "comment
spammers" that posted identical replies.
Some for
OOXML, some opposed.
The OOXML support effort pushed via partner channels
was
clearly represented.
So was the "Groklaw effect".
Since the duplicate posts made it into
the file, as well as a couple
messages that appeared to be incomplete or useless to
the process, it would
appear that no selection or erasure was done.
The file is ordered by date
and time, so each comment is sequential.
That helps to narrow down some
external trigger events.
Specifically,
you can tell when PJ posted her BLOG
entry
about the Massachusetts OOXML push on 12 July 2007.
[smile]
Then I applied a few simple searches to
it.
I found 463 instances of
“To:
Standards (ITD)”, so there are 463 complete comments in
this
852 page PDF. It's harder to determine how many
“unique”
comments because there are a few cut and paste jobs that
make it
clear a PR push was stacking the deck.
While I find that
Groklaw was mentioned
74 times, 31 of those mentions were for links to
"www.groklaw.net".
Clearly Groklaw has an audience.
However, Microsoft
was encouraging
people to support OOXML in MA and I found a number of posters
copied
the MS suggested text, creating a number of look-alike comments. The MS
web text included:
I fully support the Open
XML
initiative.
1-As an international open
standard of Ecma
International, Open XML meets all state requirements
as an open standard. Use of
the format will help enable citizens and
state agencies to access electronic
files well into the future.
2-There is significant support
for
Open XML in the marketplace today as shown by the support
in
openxmlcommunity.org and openxmldeveloper.org, and many
independent
developers and their customers are benefiting from this
new
technology.
3-Technology policies should
enable government
agencies to choose from technologies and products
that meet their needs.
Accepting the Open XML standard will enable
wider choice, which will spur
competition and innovation.
Looking for matches on key
segments of
the suggested text I found:
27 instances of
“Accepting
the Open XML standard will enable wider
choice”
25 instances of “Technology
policies should
enable government agencies to choose”
18 instances of
“There is
significant support for Open XML in the marketplace today as
shown”
13 instances of “As an
international open
standard of ECMA International, Open XML meets all
state”
15
instances of “shown by
the support in openxmlcommunity.org and
openxmldeveloper”
which suggests at least 27 comments
were
directly driven by Microsoft, from people that did not bother to
verify or
understand the facts about ECMA, what constitutes a
standard, what
“choice” means or that
www.openxmlcommunity.org and www.openxmldeveloper.org are MS owned
sites, not
independent communities.
What other info does this PDF
reveal?
Your input is welcome.
Anon [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
It's clear that Paul Thurrott is a paid troll. This will have the effect of
making documents in their state troublesome in the future, which they will then
have the liberty to recognize as the consequences of allowing Microsoft (or any
one particular company) dictate your political policies.
In other words, monopolies are bad and need to be eradicated.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
Someone who says: "...these file formats are now controlled by a standards
community that answers to Ecma International. It's likely that most of those in
Massachusetts who complained about Open XML adoption there were unaware of this
relationship..." is not going to listen to your complaints. He didn't read
the earlier criticisms. He's not going to read the new ones either. Even
Microsoft did that much.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: warner on Sunday, August 05 2007 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
...did ya get that?
Like the slow motion swing of a 2x4 drifting
through the air coming to wake you up right between the eyes.
IPR
The
perfect match up with global standards, IPR, take a bow. Don't they look perfect
together? Let them eat cake, we must be fed. It is our sovereign
right.
....sigh... --- free software, for free minds and a free
world. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 06 2007 @ 04:01 AM EDT |
In case you haven't learned this already, the PDF file on the Massachusetts site
does contain the attachments. I can read the attachments in Adobe Reader 7.0
running on Windows. I also can copy text from the document and paste it into
another document.
Perhaps the software you are using can't do it, but I did nothing special as far
as I know and I had no trouble. If you want more details, reply to this comment
and I'll comment again.
If these points have already been mentioned, sorry to repeat them. I did search
the comments for "attachment" and didn't find any other mention of
this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kosmonaut on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
Not only the accessibility problem. Read this essay by Bruce Perens
about patents inserted into standards: I think it explains exactly what
Microsoft is desperately trying to achieve by submitting MSOOXML to the
ISO:
Today's computer industry standards increasingly include
technology that may be covered by a software patent. The owner of that patent
has the right to demand a royalty from all parties that implement the patented
principle, or may discriminate regarding who will and will not be allowed to
license the patent. It is often the case that there is no way to implement a
standard without making use of a particular patented principle. This effectively
gives the patent holder absolute control regarding who will implement a standard
containing his patented principle.
Such patents arise in two ways: they
are knowingly embedded in the standard as it is being created, or they are
submarine patents, unknowingly part of the standard until they "surface" after
the standard is already in wide use. A pernicious patent holder can engage in
patent farming: influencing a standards organization to use a particular
principle covered by a patent. In the worst and most deceptive form of patent
farming, the patent holder encourages the standards organization to make use of
a principle without revealing the existence of a patent covering that principle.
Then, later on, the patent holder demands royalties from all implementers of the
standard. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kosmonaut on Tuesday, August 07 2007 @ 03:00 AM EDT |
The Adaptative Resource Technology Centre in Toronto has published a Paper thoroughly documenting the
accessibility issues with OOXML, with demolishing
conclussions:
There are grave issues with respect to the
accessibility of Office Open XML as a format and potential standard that should
preclude its adoption at present. It may be the case that OOXML can be improved
to ameliorate some of the more specific technical concerns, but it is most
likely too late for the higher-level issues, especially those inherent in the
process by which OOXML was developed. We suggest that energy would be better
spent in the ongoing effort to improve the existing ISO ODF standard (with which
OOXML would overlap and compete if it is adopted). In any event, decisions with
respect to standardized document formats should be made in consultation with
members of disability communities, disabilities experts and developers of
assistive technologies, with universal accessibility as a core requirement as
opposed to an ad hoc afterthought.
(So where is now the heavy
lobbying of the disabled workers against MSOOXML as was the case in the past
against ODF?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|