Slashdot Log In
ISO Releases OOXML FAQ
Posted by
Zonk
on Wed Apr 16, 2008 01:31 PM
from the frequently-aggressive-queries dept.
from the frequently-aggressive-queries dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The ISO has put out a FAQ concerning OOXML, but it may raise more questions than it answers. For one, it promises to address problems if they arise in the future. PJ of Groklaw said that's akin to 'selling you a car with four different sizes of tires and assuring that that if you see it's a problem, you can always bring it in for maintenance.' It also handwaves the OSP discriminatory patent promise issues, when asked about contradictions states that some 'may still remain', and asserts that duplicate standards are 'something that need[s] to be decided by the market place.' Notably, the FAQ does not answer the question, 'what the hell were you thinking?'"
Related Stories
Submission: ISO Releases OOXML FAQ by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The Fax is just a test run... (Score:4, Funny)
FAQ. I meant FAQ. (Score:2)
Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ. (Score:5, Funny)
One would think you'd be used to it by now.
Parent
I believe the lack is intentional... (Score:3, Insightful)
Q: what the hell were you thinking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Q: what the hell were you thinking? (Score:5, Funny)
ISO . o O ( $$$$$$$$$ )
Parent
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Look for ISO 4217 if you dont know what CHF is....
Parent
Slashdot define ISO as (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Frequently Asked Questions indeed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The tricky part is making a clean break, and stopping any bleeding...
Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should rename themselves the "International Organization for Vague and Undefined Standardization, To Be Decided By The Market"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
I$O Standard?
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
ISOldout
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
International Standards Under Corporate Kontrol?
(If you use KDE, you probably didn't notice the inappropriate use of K, but if you use GNOME, it's probably tearing at your brain that I did that just so I could spell a word)
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
"[I]nternational [S]tandards [W]ith [A]llegiance to [L]imited [L]iability [O]rganizations [W]hatever"
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Second: Microsoft undoubtedly has dozens of "patents" on the OOXML standard effectively preventing anyone from implementing the standard in the near future.
First: Microsoft hasn't implemented this "standard" in their own products. Their
Third: If someone were to somehow make a faithful implementation of OOXML that wasn't Microsoft, people would assume it's broken or non-standards compliant because it won't open and display properly under Microsoft word since Word doesn't presently implement OOXML properly as defined. (Other examples of this broken standards behavior can be seen in Internet Explorer where the perception is that if it works in MSIE but doesn't work with Firefox, Opera or Safari, then it's a problem with Firefox, Opera or Safari and not MSIE since it works there.) This mistaken perception will enable Microsoft to establish a standard that, even if faithfully implemented, will be perceived as broken.
Parent
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Informative)
The intial version they submitted already wasn't compatible with what office implements.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This one's good. (Score:5, Interesting)
So they're basically saying: "Since we've done a lot of successful standards before, there can't possibly be anything wrong with how this one was carried out."
Re:This one's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no. They're saying: "This was approved with the same process as all our other standards. So imagine how many other ISO standards are complete BS!"
Parent
Re:This one's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it is a nice misdirection they pulled. I have always considered the study of logic to be akin to studying mental self-defense (or, perhaps "brain-fu").
I would classify their fallacy as "ignoratio elenchi," [wikipedia.org] or "ignorance of refutation." Their evidence did demonstrate something, but not what they set out to demonstrate. Stating "ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards" could be used to defend statements like "we have produced standards," "we produce standards," "we have produced LOTS of standards," etc. This statement, however, does NOT suggest that "the standards development process is credible."
Credibility must be established by evidence other than volume. And we already have plenty of evidence suggestive of a lack of credibility.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny. I think we can put their argument into perspective by comparing them to the Patent office of the US. The Patent office grants thousands of patents. That makes their credibility go down; not up.
loophole (Score:2)
Well I can dream can't I ?!?
Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
We reviewed the process before it started, all the while during its course and afterwards as well.
"Our review process sucks so much that we can't even spot the most blatant and obvious abuse in our entire history right while it's going on under our noses."
Thanks, ISO. That removes my final doubts regarding your reliability and competence. Only leaves me to wonder how you're getting anything done right at all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The market speaks! (Score:5, Informative)
OOXML: Zero applications can write the format.
ODF Wins!
ISO is not like IETF (Score:4, Interesting)
ISO generally first adopts standards, then waits for people to prototype implementations and discover the bugs in the standard (unless someone walks in with existing technology and asks for it to be standardized). When people start reporting that aspects of the standard can't be implemented, ISO works on fixing it.
After ISO adopted the Open System Interconnection (OSI) standards, they had to set up "implementers' workshops" to figure out how to make their newly adopted standards workable. (The OSI standards are the 7-layer reference model and related protocol suite that were pushed aside by the Internet protocol suite, a.k.a TCP/IP. Many OSI protocols were never fully implemented or never made to work.)
The workshops met (one was sponsored by NIST) and produced a lot of documents on things that needed to be done to make OSI work. When the Clinton/Gore administration came into office, they killed US government support for the OSI protocols and told its agencies to use the Internet protocols.
Compliance (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious, because I've heard that no product, including Microsoft's, currently follows the OOXML standard... and I wonder if there's a chance they never will? I suspect it may not be possible.
Or are Microsoft products going to be rubberstamped for the approval process as well, even if their implementation is buggy?
If competing standards... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Living up to your name, I see.
Two absolutely key requirements for a standard are that it be well specified and possible to usefully implement. The OOXML processes wasn't even long enough for someone to *read* the standard, and all the criticisms that were submitted by standards bodies were ignored in bulk - hence there is *no way* that the ISO could have known that OOXML met those requirements.
Parent
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen blatant, ample evidence that this was a bought vote. We've seen MS bribe normally uninterested countries into voting their way. We've seen them manage to fast-track a standard when it is obviously due more scrutiny (if nothing else, due to its larger size compared to the earlier ODF standard). And we've seen *blatant* vote tampering with Norway, which voted yes despite a majority of its technical advisors voting no.
The ISO's complicity in all this cheating is plain and obvious to anyone who cares to look. Their attitude of blaming the observers is, frankly, insulting to the morals and intelligence of anyone who is speaking the truth.
Yes, this does bring suspicion on the validity of the other standards. However, the other standards do not have the blatant, obvious process tampering that this one did, nor (to my knowledge) the enormous, unscrupulous corporation with an interest in seeing the standard passed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think ISO realizes how much damage they've done to themselves here. ISO certification is supposed to guarantee that no matter what, your process is sound. ISO's own process has failed here, and everybody knows it. If ISO themselves can't even adhere to an ISO process, what value is their certification? What value is any ISO standard?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know much about the ISO process or about previous ISO standards, but it's entirely possible that this is the first time that an ISO standards process has been gamed so thoroughly.
There is evidence that multiple new countries signed up as ISO members *specifically* to vote in OOXML. If so, that's an extremely large scale procedural attack. If this is the first time that a procedural attack on that scale has been attempted, then the whole situation only implies that the ISO wasn't prepared to withstand an attack of that magnitude (and now are trying to cover their asses in response).
Now, if that is what occurred and the ISO goes on refusing to admit to the problem rather than trying to fix it then the ISO name will no longer be worth trusting - but the ISO still has a month or so to make a procedural catch on this issue, fix the problem, and save their reputation.
Parent
They won't fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
The FAQ is all about not fixing it. They're rationalizing about how they have great process and how they have to accept the result of that process. The fix is in.
And Microsoft? Now that they've built this grand machine for subverting ISO do you expect them to use it once and then throw it away? Not likely. Their duty to their shareholders and all that...
You can stick a fork in the ISO. They're done.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the metric system exists, it does not mean that the Imperial system should cease to exist. The practical applications of the "inferior" standard still exist, so it makes no sense to bitch and moan about it.
I realize that the Imperial system of units is so entrenched that it's not going away any time soon. What I don't get is why mass is quantified in pounds and not slugs [wikipedia.org]. And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons?
For a real head-spin, check out the wikipedia article on pound mass [wikipedia.org]. Here's a quote: "Historically, in different parts of the world, at different points in time, and for different applications, the pound (or its translation) has referred to broadly similar but not identical s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pounds-mass predates slugs. Of course it helps that the concept of "pounds" also predates the concept of a distinction between weight and mass.
Because people don't measure their weight. They measure their mass. How much that mass happens to weigh at sea level or somesuch is unimportant, since it's the total quantity of matter that composes you that is the h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
using only a spring scale in your bathroom simply won't tell you anything, unless you calibrate it everyday with copy of the international prototype kilogram (IPK).
man, this is the second time in less than a week that i post somethi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
What people think of the 'standard' is totally relevant. Simply blindly accepting something as the golden rule is ignorant, and this will (probably) lower the esteem of this standards body for a very long time. That is damaging to the purpose of standards, and part of the reason that there are not 47 international standards bodies.
Yes, I know that sounds like being negative, but you must remember that using OOXML as a design example of what standards SHOULD NOT BE is a valid method to promote the standard of your choice.
Parent
Re:Just a small detail (Score:4, Interesting)
Just hours ago I was reading the TWAIN 1.9a specification. 1.9a being a big tip-off that the spec has changed over time.
My TV and DVD player are connected with HDMI 1.3 compliant cables.
So yes, if there are problems with the standard they will change the standard. That is standard behavior if you will.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And to not do so would destroy ISO's credibility in the wider world, as well.
Many ISO standards have had flaws before; now adding corruption and outright blatant incompetence at their primary purpose to the list of sins will impact ISO relevance. Perhaps that was partially Microsofts intention; the end result is more likely to be a migration to a standards building process with more integrity.
This will work
No it wont. This isn't 1990 where people co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever the ISOs procedures, what Microsoft has got certified is a standard that, at best, can on