|
South Africa Files Official Appeal Re OOXML - OOXML in Limbo Now - Updated |
|
Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:05 PM EDT
|
Andy Updegrove has the news that South Africa has filed an official appeal, protesting the approval of OOXML, and the action means that OOXML is now in limbo until the appeal is decided.
I wonder if this is why Microsoft suddenly decided to support ODF, to avoid being shut out completely pending the appeal. Might other national bodies be considering doing the same thing? Stay tuned.
Updegrove:
SABS, the National Body member of ISO/IEC JTC1 for South Africa, has filed a formal appeal with both ISO and IEC, challenging the Fast Track adoption of OOXML. With the filing of this formal appeal, DIS 29500 is now formally in limbo (i.e., cannot become an approved standard) until the appeal has been addressed.
The cited basis for South Africa's appeal is found in the following text of Clause 11.1.2 of the applicable Directives:
A P Member of JTC1 or an SC may appeal against any action or inaction, on the part of JTC 1 or an SC when the P member considers that in such action or inaction:
- questions of principle are involved;
- the contents of a draft may be detrimental to the reputation of IEC or ISO; or
- the point giving rise to objection was not known to JTC 1 or SC during earlier discussions.
The identical three page letters, signed by Mr. M. Kuscus, Chief Executive Officer of SABS, include other concerns not directly based upon the language of the Directives, as follows:
In addition, South Africa wishes to register its deep concern over the increasing tendency of international organizations to use the JTC 1 processes to circumvent the consensus-building process that is the cornerstone to the success and international acceptance of ISO and IEC standards. The ability of large multi-national organizations to influence many national bodies, with the resultant block-voting over-riding legitimate issues raised by other countries, is also of concern. The letter goes on to say that not only is a matter of principle involved, they believe the reputation of ISO is at stake, and then it responds to calls to revise the ISO Directives, saying that while that might be needed, the issue here is that the existing directives weren't followed: We believe that there is an important question of principle involved and that the reputation of ISO/IEC is indeed at stake. There has been specuulation about the need to revise the directives around fast track processing. While such revision might indeed be necessary, we cannot accept the outcome of a process in which the existing directives have not, in our opinion, been applied. The letter then goes into specifics. Here's one that reverberates in my heart and memory: 2. Clause 13.8 states that "At the ballot resolution group meeting,
decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable
the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures."
Since only 67 of the 1027 responses by Ecma were discussed, the process used
to 'approve' the remaining responses by voting were questionable and did
nothing to promote consensus, but simple 'approved' Ecma's attempt to
improve the quality of the standard. This was especially disconcerting to
the large number of experts from various countries who spent many hours in
ad hoc meetings during the period of the BRM to develop consensus on some of
the Ecma responses that contained errors or other issues of contention. The
decision to ignore such important proposals for improving the standard and
to resort to blanket voting on all issues not resolved during the
discussions (more than three quarters of the responses were never tabled
during the BRM) was procedurally flawed. Effectively, this required the
national bodies to write a blank cheque approving the proposals of the
authors of the proposed standard, which is inappropriate for any standard,
never mind one that has generated considerable controversy.
Amen. The letter goes on to challenge Alex Brown's interpretation of the directives: There has been some dispute over what "normal" procedures should be in such
a case. The general directive for meetings is as follows:
Clause 9.14 "In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives,
questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P
members expressing either approval or disapproval." However, since many of
the countries represented were not P members of JTC 1, the actual voting
during the BRM was conducting according to clause 9.5 Combined Voting
Procedure that states "The voting procedure which uses simultaneous voting
(one vote per country) by the P-members for JTC 1 and by all ISO member
bodies and IEC national committees on a letter ballot is called the combined
voting procedure. This procedure shall be used on FDISs,
DISs, FDAMs, DAMs
and FDISPs." The decision to use this interpretation was incorrect since the
voting during the BRM was not a letter ballot. While we are aware that the
Convenor, in consultation with representative from ITTF and the IEC
representative decided otherwise, we challenge this interpretation and
therefore the result of the voting that was based upon that interpretation.
I agree with the letter on this point, and I wrote about it at the time as being odd. The letter also notes that there is no final draft even now, let alone within the one-month time period as required, and it concludes: In conclusion, South Africa challenges the validity of the final vote that
we contend was based upon inadequate information resulting from poorly
conducted BRM. Moreover, we challenge the validity of a process that, from
beginning to end, required all parties involved to analyze far too much
information in far too little time, involved a BRM that did not remotely
provide enough time to perform the appointed purpose of that procedure, and
for which an arbitrary time limitation was imposed to discuss and resolve a
significant number of substantial responses, despite the Directives for not
requiring any such limitation as to duration.
It is our opinion that the process followed during all stages of this fast
track has harmed the reputations of both ISO and the IEC and brought the
processes enshrined in the Directives into disrepute, and that this negative
publicity has, in turn, also harmed the reputations of all member bodies of
ISO and the IEC.
You can find links to all the Directives on Groklaw's permanent ODF/OOXML page, under the ISO heading. Here's the one referenced here [PDF]. And you can read the two letters on OpenMalaysia Blog. If you scroll down, you can read it as plain text also. The second entity South Africa sent its letter to is the IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission. That body co-sponsors JTC1. Steve Pepper, the hero of the Standards Norway protest, has information on how other national bodies can help: I would also like to take this opportunity to urge other national body members of JTC1 to declare their support for this appeal. Let’s make it impossible for ISO and IEC to simply wave it aside.
One issue that does concern me is whether we can expect fair consideration of the appeal on the part of ISO Technical Management Board (TMB): One of its members is the very same Norwegian bureaucrat (the “Little One“) who arrogantly ignored the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Norwegian technical experts and changed Norway’s vote from No to Yes. This person is clearly not impartial and should not be allowed to participate in the TMB’s discussion of the appeal.
South Africa’s action confirms that the battle is not yet lost. Here in Norway we are working hard to get the Norwegian vote changed back to No and we think we might succeed. If we do, only two more votes will have to be changed in order for the final outcome to be a rejection of OOXML. I urge those of you in countries that voted Yes or Abstain to investigate any irregularities and try to get the vote changed. Of course, we have no guarantee that JTC1 will accept revised votes. Such a thing has never happened before (to my knowledge), but then there are many things in this process that have happened for the first time - not least the passage of a 6,000 page document through the Fast-Track process.
But even if JTC1 cannot be forced to accept revised votes, we can achieve a moral victory that will make it easier for those trying to resist having OOXML thrust upon them as a standard for national e-Government.
So. OOXML is not currently an official standard? I think that is what this means. It will take months, at least, I believe, to resolve this. So, to me the ODF support announcement by Microsoft yesterday suddenly makes sense. I wrote a bit about the appeal process here, if you want to review it. In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over.
[ Update:Here's a very strange reaction, or nonreaction, from ISO: According to ISO spokesman Roger Frost, "Because the period for receipt of appeals remains open until the end of May, ISO will communicate on the next steps in early June, when it knows whether any other national bodies are appealing." They have one appeal already. I believe that should make it possible for them to communicate now as to what the next steps are for this appeal.
Besides if you look to the directives, you find this:
11.2.2 Upon receipt, the JTC 1 Secretariat shall advise all its
P-members of the appeal, and take immediate action, by correspondence or
at a meeting, to consider and decide on the appeal, consulting the
Secretaries-General in the process.
So, not that anyone at JTC pays attention to directives that I can see, but has that happened? What about the "immediate action" part? I know. They don't care what the directives say, and Alex Brown now says, in a comment on his blog, that a "special working group" is rewriting them anyhow. I don't know why they bother. No one pays any attention when they get in the way. End update.]
Here's the letter, with different headers for ISO and IEC, obviously:
*******************************
Dear Sir
Appeal from the South African national body regarding the outcome of the
fast-track processing of DIS 29500 Office open XML
The national body of South Africa (SABS), as a P member of JTC 1, hereby
submits an appeal against the outcome of the fast track processing of DIS
29500 Office open XML. This is based on the procedures followed before and
during the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) held from 25 to 29 February 2008
to discuss the comments submitted on the fast-tracked DIS 29500 and the
proposed responses from Ecma.
In addition, South Africa wishes to register its deep concern over the
increasing tendency of international organizations to use the JTC 1
processes to circumvent the consensus-building process that is the
cornerstone to the success and international acceptance of ISO and IEC
standards. The ability of large multi-national organizations to influence
many national bodies, with the resultant block-voting over-riding legitimate
issues raised by other countries, is also of concern.
This appeal is made in accordance with Clause 11.1.2: "A P member of JTC 1
or an SC may appeal against any action, or inaction, on the part of JTC 1 or
an SC when the P member considers that in such action or inaction:
- questions of principle are involved;
- the contents of a draft may be detrimental to the reputation of IEC or
ISO; or
- the point giving rise to objection was not known to JTC 1 or SC during
earlier discussions
."
We believe that there is an important question of principle involved and
that the reputation of ISO/IEC is indeed at stake. There has been
speculation about the need to revise the directives around fast track
processing. While such revision might indeed be necessary, we cannot accept
the outcome of a process which the existing directives have not, in our
opinion, been applied.
Reasons for appeal
We are of the opinion that in the following instances the ISO/IEC JTC 1
Directives, Edition 5 have not been followed.
1. Clause 13.4, second paragraph states "During the 30-day review period, a
NB may identify to the JTC 1 Secretariat any perceived contradiction with
other standards or approved projects of JTC 1, ISO or IEC.
If such a contradiction is alleged, the matter shall be addressed by the
ITTF and JTC 1 Secretariat in accordance with Section 13.2 before ballot
voting can commence. If no contradiction is alleged, the 5 month fast-track
ballot voting commences immediately following the 30-day period. If a
contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall make the best
effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month period,
consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the NB(s) raising
the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem necessary. A meeting of
these parties, open to all NBs, may be convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if
required."
Whereas various NBs raised contradictions in this period, there is no
evidence that "A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs" was held and
that the result were made available to the other participating NBs. We
understand that after Ecma was afforded a chance to address the NB comments
submitted regarding contradictions, the JTC 1 Chairman, Secretariat and ITT
F staff decided that convening a meeting to discuss contradictions would not
be productive and that the best way to proceed would be to issue the draft
for ballot without delay. The other NBs were not informed about the alleged
contradictions but only informed, in the HOD meeting immediately prior to
the BRM, that any issues of contradictions raised during the BRM would be
ruled out of order by the BRM Chairman. Given this instruction, and given
the fact that despite such instruction, a number of NBs continued to raise
contradictions both in their written comments and during the BRM, it is
clear that the JTC 1 Chairman, Secretariat and ITTF should have seen that a
meeting of parties, as envisaged in the Directives, was indeed a necessity.
2. Clause 13.8 states that "At the ballot resolution group meeting,
decisions should be reached preferably by consensus. If a vote is unavoidable
the vote of the NBs will be taken according to normal JTC 1 procedures."
Since only 67 of the 1027 responses by Ecma were discussed, the process used
to 'approve' the remaining responses by voting were questionable and did
nothing to promote consensus, but simple 'approved' Ecma's attempt to
improve the quality of the standard. This was especially disconcerting to
the large number of experts from various countries who spent many hours in
ad hoc meetings during the period of the BRM to develop consensus on some of
the Ecma responses that contained errors or other issues of contention. The
decision to ignore such important proposals for improving the standard and
to resort to blanket voting on all issues not resolved during the
discussions (more than three quarters of the responses were never tabled
during the BRM) was procedurally flawed. Effectively, this required the
national bodies to write a blank cheque approving the proposals of the
authors of the proposed standard, which is inappropriate for any standard,
never mind one that has generated considerable controversy.
There has been some dispute over what "normal" procedures should be in such
a case. The general directive for meetings is as follows:
Clause 9.14 "In a meeting, except as otherwise specified in these directives,
questions are decided by a majority of the votes cast at the meeting by P
members expressing either approval or disapproval." However, since many of
the countries represented were not P members of JTC 1, the actual voting
during the BRM was conducting according to clause 9.5 Combined Voting
Procedure that states "The voting procedure which uses simultaneous voting
(one vote per country) by the P-members for JTC 1 and by all ISO member
bodies and IEC national committees on a letter ballot is called the combined
voting procedure. This procedure shall be used on FDISs,
DISs, FDAMs, DAMs
and FDISPs." The decision to use this interpretation was incorrect since the
voting during the BRM was not a letter ballot. While we are aware that the
Convenor, in consultation with representative from ITTF and the IEC
representative decided otherwise, we challenge this interpretation and
therefore the result of the voting that was based upon that interpretation.
3. Clause 13.12, last bullet point: "In not more than one month after the
ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the
final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance." Up to
date of writing, neither the final report of the BRM meeting or the revised
FDIS text has been circulated by the SC Secretariat. The only communication
to NBs (other than press releases) has been 34N1015, which was the result of
the revised voting during the 30-day period subsequent to the BRM. There is
no indication when the final DIS text might be expected, but has not been
distributed within the one month period prescribed.
Given the magnitude of the specification and the number of identified edits
required it was clear that this directive could not have been met. This is
the clearest possible indication that DIS 29500 as submitted by Ecma and as
modified by the BRM is not ready for fast track processing. It was not
incumbent on the participants of the BRM to modify this clearly stated
requirement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, South Africa challenges the validity of the final vote that
we contend was based upon inadequate information resulting from poorly
conducted BRM. Moreover, we challenge the validity of a process that, from
beginning to end, required all parties involved to analyze far too much
information in far too little time, involved a BRM that did not remotely
provide enough time to perform the appointed purpose of that procedure, and
for which an arbitrary time limitation was imposed to discuss and resolve a
significant number of substantial responses, despite the Directives for not
requiring any such limitation as to duration.
It is our opinion that the process followed during all stages of this fast
track has harmed the reputations of both ISO and the IEC and brought the
processes enshrined in the Directives into disrepute, and that this negative
publicity has, in turn, also harmed the reputations of all member bodies of
ISO and the IEC.
Yours faithfully
___[signature]_____
Mr M Kuscus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
South African Bureau of Standards (SABS)
cc
ISO TMB Secretary (Mr Mike Smith)
ISO SMB Secretary (Mr Jack Sheldon)
ISO/IEC JTC 1 Chairperson (Mr Scott Jameson [email redacted])
ISO/IEC JTC 1 Secretariat (Ms Lisa Rajchel [email redacted])
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
So they can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2008 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsi on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
I was wondering why no one had filed an appeal! I sincerely hope that other
countries also file appeals. Hopefully, the more filed, the more the ISO will
take these appeals seriously![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AlanGriffiths on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
http://www.o
penmalaysiablog.com/2008/05/the-south-afric.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
It looks as those my suspicions were correct. ISO choked on
OOXML. Is South Africa the only objection?
--- If it's green and in my
fridge, it's been there too long.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
Please remember to make clickable links (and post in HTML) when appropriate.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
Discussion about items in the News Picks on the RHS of the Groklaw home page.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
Send your thanks here
p> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Frihet on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
This is a good start. Let's hope a few more consciences start bothering folks.
I'm beginning to think that OOXML is down the tubes. The EU (currently with a
government of, by, and for the people) has just about had it with MS anyway, and
the more that comes out about the fraudulent odd ISO
proceedings surrounding MS's attempt to kill a real standard with their
impossible proprietary scheme OOXML the more tarred MS appears.
--- Frihet
Repeal the Digital Monopoly Conservation Act.
Write your congress folks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Well, I wouldn't have believed it.
Cynic that I am, I didn't think anything would come of it. I mean, how many
countries had people screaming that the vote was fixed and NO ONE was doing
anything. No complaints, nothing, ignoring the will to the people they
represent.
And here comes South Africa for the save.
So, what comes next? M$ rigged the vote. What can they do at this next level?
They will not give up without a fight, and if they can control the hearing body,
they might get their results anyway. Time to start examining, because it's not
over. Not for anyone.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM EDT |
Because they're amusing... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: gjleger on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:28 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: red floyd on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- They stayed away in droves (n/t) - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:56 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 05:44 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: OnlyAnEgg on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 10:08 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: hardmath on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Favorite Yogi Berra Quotes Here - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, May 27 2008 @ 12:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
That appeal is nice to read and comes across as very reasonable. South Africa
did a good job, I think![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
I guess what remains to be seen is how well MS supports ODF. With OOXML-ISO
dead in the water, they have to properly support ODF or be shut out of places
like South Africa. I guess MS has found themselves caught between a rock and a
hard place.
Perhaps this would be a good time to get into the chair business in Redmond!
;-)
---
If it's green and in my fridge, it's been there too long.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Naich on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
The theory that this is why MS suddenly decided to support ODF makes more sense
than anything else that's been suggested. If it looks like OXML might have
trouble being fast tracked, supporting ODF could be the only way they can
produce a standards-compliant office suite in the near future.
The thing to bear in mind though, is that the danger for them is that OXML might
not get _fast tracked_ to a standard. I don't think they'll stop the process of
getting it accepted as one the slow way, and as soon as it's through they can
stop supporting ODF and everything is back to normal. I think this ODF support
(if it's anything other than vapourware anyway), is at best just a temporary
measure while they regroup.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
What are the procedures that ISO/IEC must follow in order to address the South
Africa NB appeal? How long should it take? Who is going to evaluate the appeal?
There are concerns that the group that is going to study the appeal is not
independent.. so, who are they?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jroyale on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
like ISO needs an ISO for how to make ISOs [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sounds - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- ISO image - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- ISO image - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- ISO image - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 06:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:18 PM EDT |
Thanks! Good to know there exists atleast one country with some moral ground and
a spine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
Now, if MS still cannot push OOXML through the fast track, they will start
paying off governments to adopt policies that say that neither OOXML nor ODF are
quite good enoufh.
They MUST BE MERGED! Then MS will screw around with that process.
YES, beware of govenments making declarations of support for open formats that
don't disallow OOXML, MS will try to tilt this in the direction of making ODF
inoperable, or at least to incorporate proprietary MS tech.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Sometimes the Earth doesn't spin your way. Even monopolies have rainy
days, even two in a row.
- The important question now is do all
those people who dedicated themselves to passing OOXML on the fast track reap
their rewards now, or do they have to wait for the appeal? Is their reward
contingent on adoption? Do they get anything at all if it fails on appeal? Do
they get less due to the delay? The answers should leak out of some of the
frustrated fast track zealots that put out so shamelessly for their sugar
daddy.
- The combination of delaying, fixing OOXML and supporting
ODF may be a killer for OOXML. Working with ODF is easier. Some will adopt ODF
and not OOXML. The Monopoly will want to stay in the ODF ball game. OOXML
won't be worth the effort. Once the world has a taste of true documentary
interoperability there is no going back. An expensive, bloated, partial,
alternative, Monopoly standard will just be superfluous. It would be easier and
wiser for them to just make their old .doc and .xls standards truly open. They
could even fast track 'em. They are even already implemented by other suites
like OO.org. Once they start ODF they won't be able to stop.
- Is the fix in on the appeal too? Does it matter? One has to
review PJ's
appeal link and see who is deciding the appeal. It stinks already. Looking
at the Norway member and the brouhahas to come, PJ has many articles to go
before resolution. The best way to resolve the matter is to take it off the fast
track and resolve it in the normal technical way. No, withdrawal may be best.
With some matters it is better to flush than to contemplate.
- The
Monopoly hoped to have their own unique, magnificent standard months and years
ahead of everyone else just as they always have. Lock 'em in; lock 'em out;
upgrade and change. They have finally hit a snag. It's high time they do
something constructive and helpful but no one volunteers for monopoly therapy.
They are fighting tooth and nail to keep their Golden Geese.
- The
bottom line of the moment is that OOXML is delayed. Delay in a megaherz era can
be very destructive. Can this go to bankruptcy court after the
appeal?
One wonders if South Africa approached BSF about help
with this appeal.
---------webster
Tyrants
live
their delusions.
Beware. Deal with the PIPE
Fairy and you will sell your soul.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bhima on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
Very quickly after the OOXML approval news, I saw a few news stories about
governments and other organizations talking about which document
standards
they would consider acceptable.
They were talking about, for example,
evaluating the quality of the standards
and deciding which one was
better.
I suspect that Microsoft forgot about that problem: there are almost
always
multiple standards for anything. If you're going to
standardize the light bulbs in your office, for example, you won't
automatically
say, "The first vendor that offers us an ISO-standard bulb
chooses the bulb
standard for us," or "Any ISO standard bulb is
fine."
Rather, you will evaluate the different standards and choose the one
or more
that fit your needs. After all, having multiple standards can be
annoying -
and,
not all standards are actually appropriate for you.
Up
until now, it has often been hard to convince people that the inability of
third party tools to read MS Office documents is anything other than, "many
third party tools aren't as good." Now, we can actually point out objective
ways
we don't like the standard. And, if we don't like the OOXML standard, we
have
a
good response to those who shrug their shoulders and ask, "what is the
alternative? Something nobody uses?" We can point out that you can, and
must,
choose the best standard for the job.
I wonder if one of the side effects
of this whole process will be Microsoft
actually validating the concept of ISO
standard file formats. Some people
have, I
think, the attitude that official
document formats are like the metric system:
It's
a good, logical idea in
theory, but nobody really uses
them
outside of some
specialized areas. (I'm obviously speaking from an American
perspective. Please
localize the analogy to your culture as appropriate.)
By Microsoft's act of
stating, "Standardization of document formats is
important," they are, I hope,
setting the stage for the analysis and question,
"Which standard is best for
us?" Now that you can actually read their
document
format spec, you can say
why it is problematic.
Now...when will Apple support ODF in their apps? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Now we're going to have to go bribe all those brainless little countries that we
got to join ISO last time for the sole purpose of screwing up the standards
process, and get them to join again since we carelessly forgot to tell them to
keep their sham memberships until *after* the standard was approved.
I'd put a wink, but I suspect the above statement is FAR too close to the actual
truth.
Bravo, South Africa! Finally, a country with nerve and smarts![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
Office 2007 has been strugling with its new UI to gain traction. The whole
principle of keeping with MS Office is that productivity stays high because it
is the same from one version to the next. Vista and Office 2007 broke that,
Windows 7 and Office 14 will probably break it again.
When Windows 3.0 arrived it was competing with OS/2 Presentation Manager.
Developers had to choose one or the other as they had fundemental differences
that prevented an interface with a common subset being used.
IBM made a strategic mistake by anouncing that OS/2 would support a hosted
Windows 3. This meant that developers could choose Windows 3 API and have their
systems run on both. This could have worked but IBM was only allowed to include
_released_ versions of Windows. OS/2 version 4 was going to include Windows 3.1,
but it hadn't been released by MS, they held it up. OS/2 4 had to be delayed
until Windows 3.1 was actually on the shelves and MS could wait. IBM was still
under the directive that it could not pre-announce any of its products in
advance of 90 days before release so it was stuck with having to get it out the
door.
IBM had to revert to including Windows 3.0 and then once that was committed to
manufacturing MS could get Win 3.1 out the door. Thus OS/2 4 was obsolete the
day it was released.
MS has the same problem with Office. OOXML won't fly so it needs to have an ISO
to meet government and corporate requirements. It needs to support ODF but now
that has resolved the issue of whether the world will use OOXML or ODF.
Developers can now focus on ODF as being what will be used everywhere and
supported by everyone. However they can't get it from MS so they will get it
from OOo, Star Office and IBM, and many others.
While ODF support puts MS Office back on the list as ISO format supplier it
makes it irrelevant because it is a year behind the rest, and when it has ODF
1.1 everyone else will have 1.2.
Sun will drive the next round of Office Suites, supported by Novel and IBM. The
Sun ODF plugin will be adopted by the Office 97/XP/2003 users while they convert
to Star Office, OOo or Symphony.
Just like Wordstar, Wordperfect and Lotus, MS Office will become 'so last
year'.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
They keep running here and there, bidding for Yahoo, not bidding
for Yahoo; breaking laws and rules left and right to get a standard
and then putting it on hold and then proposing to help the existing
standard they wanted to defeat; pushing two different versions
of Windows (Windows 7 and Vista) at the same time. Name other
of your favorites. Does anyone there have a clue where the
company is headed?
I keep fantasizing what would happen to Microsoft stock and the
future of Windows if Microsoft did what Apple did, and that is to
move its OS to BSD. That would turn around Windows overnight,
in my view, because Windows security problems would instantly
become fixable and put Windows on a foundation with a proven
track record of stability and security that people would have confidence in. I
think users would be willing to put up with backward
incompatibility, as Apple users were, in return for a stable and
secure OS.
And, by the way, I think the death of the desktop PC is greatly
exaggerated.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: podge on Friday, May 23 2008 @ 11:08 PM EDT |
Standards Australia voted Abstain in the recent OOXML standards vote.
I am still of the opinion that this was not the correct vote to make, however I
will move on to say that it is not unreasonable for Australia to put forward an
appeal in regards to the voting procedures.
South Africa recently put forward an appeal and the arguments they presented as
grounds for the appeal are difficult to ignore.
I request that Standards Australia also put forward a similar appeal and make it
known to the International Standards community that Standards Australia will not
accept anything less than best practices and best of breed in standards.
Our friendly neighbours in New Zealand easily saw the light and made a stand for
quality amongst standards. Australia should stand up and be counted in the same
way.
Read more here :
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080523130503456
Cheers,
Aaron Browne
Australian Citizen
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 24 2008 @ 12:41 AM EDT |
www.itvendorsdirectory.ca
not much of
an article but features a quote from an ISO spokesperson: According
to ISO spokesman Roger Frost, "Because the period for receipt of appeals remains
open until the end of May, ISO will communicate on the next steps in early June,
when it knows whether any other national bodies are appealing." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 26 2008 @ 05:11 AM EDT |
This comment will tell you what will happen:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/comment.php?mode=view&cid=19389
In summary, OOXML will be approved and the appeal dismissed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|