Slashdot Log In
ISO Recommends Denying OOXML Appeals
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jul 11, 2008 09:25 AM
from the as-expected dept.
from the as-expected dept.
An anonymous reader passes along word that ISO has responded to the four appeals filed against the approval of OOXML as a standard. To no one's surprise, ISO says that there was nothing wrong with the process. Groklaw's coverage is (as usual) the most comprehensive. Andy Updegrove summarizes ISO's position this way: "1. All judgments made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable Directives. 2. The fact that the BRM voted on all proposed resolutions in some fashion satisfies the requirements of the Directives. 3. The fact that a sufficient percentage of National Bodies (NBs) ultimately voted to approve DIS 29500 ratifies the process and any flaws in that process. 4. Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process."
Related Stories
Submission: ISO Suggests that the OOXML Appeals be Denied 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Meaning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meaning. (Score:5, Insightful)
The processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further
Typical desk jockey jargon with no content whatsoever... "Vote was counted and records are signed, that is the end of it, just shut up, we do not care if a company bought out some (most) of the votes or not..."
Parent
Sign to Move On (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
ISO need not have a monopoly on games. Sure, it's going to take some work to replace it. So the question is, "is it worthwhile doing?"
Parent
Re:Sign to Move On (Score:5, Informative)
As for most things IT, there is a body of standards, fully documented and with free, accessible and royalty-free reference implementations. I am using such an embodiment right now to write this e-mail.
ISO is useful for connectors, naming conventions and mechanical parts specifications. Its role in defining open data-exchange standards is obsolete.
Parent
Damage done to ISO and Commercial Standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
The corruption is so obvious that the ISO's reputation has been harmed. This is a bigger win for M$ than the coo-coo standard they never intended to follow. It is as if RJR got the AMA to approve a cigarette through bribery and a truncated "fast track" process. OOXML is against everything the ISO stood for and that contradiction is the forest that should be seen through all the clear cut trees. Commercial standards are now obviously compromised.
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
Parent
Re:Damage done to ISO and Commercial Standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
Trouble is, the vast vast majority of Microsoft users will have no interest in this whole fiasco. The "more people" who want to escape will be lost in the noise. The things that concern the majority of /. readers are rarely the things that concern the corporate suits who make the purchasing decisions.
Parent
Does it matter (Score:3, Interesting)
How does it matter whether OOXML is an ISO standard or not. No real world implementation exists, so anyone who wants to actually use a standard is still going to have to use ODF.
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of legislation that requires governments to use only "standards compliant" formats. If OOXML is an ISO standard, then those governments can continue to use MS Office formats that no other software can use.
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
"No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists. No implementation of OOXML exists."
Did you understand that? Not even Microsoft has any product which implements the standard. docx, pptx, xlsx - none are compatible with OOXML as approved by ISO.
Even Microsoft has admitted that it will implement ODF before OOXML.
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you understand that? Not even Microsoft has any product which implements the standard.
You seem to have the quaint notion that any debate by a government department of contractor over whether .docx is an ISO standard will be based on accurate information and rational argument by open-minded people who understand the technical issues.
Welcome to our planet, stranger!
The reality is that the ISO has handed Microsoft advocates a massive FUD weapon. Before, ODF was ISO certified, .doc wasn't. End of story. Now, the salesman can tell your pointy-haired boss (who's genes tell him that nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft anyway) that MS's ISO-certified OOXML format will leverage support for legacy documents without the potential loss of fidelity* associated with ODF without telling an actionable lie.
(* 'cos half of OOXML seems to boil down to "render this blob exactly like Office 97, right down to the leap-year bugs" - and MS are really going to pull out all the stops to ensure that their ODF implementation is absolutely rock-solid, right?)
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, even before this, ISO wasn't really particularly relevant. I mean seriously, by their own admission, they were allowing multiple competing standards to develop to solve the same problem.
I'm not really sure I understand what the point of ISO is if they're going to allow multiple competing standards to develop. Perhaps it's that I don't work in IT, but how on earth is multiple standards a good thing? How exactly is it useful to the consumer or whoever is implementing them to get to choose amongst mu
Re:Does it matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's because so many of the processes used in this were used improperly (such as fast tracking) or subverted entirely (ignoring appeals, allowing microsoft shills to be on the boards voting for ratification). What really gets me is the line about "All these appeals, despite how much merit they have, are being ignored by us. Suck it."
Parent
Re:Does it matter (Score:4, Informative)
Noooope. Word does not (currently) implement OOXML.
Parent
And that doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
MSOffice will support MSOOXML*
* but not the ISO standard implementation of MSOOXML **
** written in VERY small print. On a disused paper. In the basement. Without a light (lost) or stairs (lost) behind a closed door saying "Beware of the leopard"
Parent
Re:And that doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
"Beware of the Leopard" indeed, and perhaps also the Heron.
Parent
ISO has failed (Score:4, Insightful)
They either need to replaced or it must be built up from scratch. If this does not happen, there can NEVER be any trust in them again.
Fuck ISO
Re:ISO has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:ISO has failed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's quite a silly thing to get all ruffled up about. So what if it's a standard? Yea, it probably should not be, and people probably did get paid off, but the ISO is not a defender of freedom for uber-geeks, they are a standards organization, and overall they do a very good job (compare them to ICANN for instance). Get over it man, it's not a big deal. There are bigger things in life to get miffed about.
Yah, it isn't going to be bad at all whenever we turn to paperless filing for things and the government uses crappy "standards" like this and anyone who doesn't use whatever the "standard" implementation is, can't file something such as taxes.
Parent
Re:ISO has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards keep your car from flying apart, jets from dropping out of the sky and bridges from collapsing.
Yes industry standards matter. Screwing around with them as real world consequences. This is about more than just software.
Parent
On the plus side.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can demand that all clown shoes must be measured in cubits and have it made the clown shoe standard. That doesn't mean people will use it.
Re:On the plus side.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Bleah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even MSFT gave up on trying to use the thing as a standard (for now)... but at least ISO's actions show us just how worthless and suspect (and probably corrupt) an ISO standard can get nowadays.
Guess I should've seen it coming back in the 1990's, when companies were plastering "ISO (insert number) Certified!1!1!!11!" across every marketing material surface that would hold ink.
Ah well... back to the good ol' RFC's, methinks.
ISO 9000 (Score:3, Informative)
Its a fairly meaningless certfication, since the company can still be turning out crap. But at least
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too many RFCs are being blatantly ignored. To the interweb's detriment. RFC 821/2821, RFC 1178... need I go on?
You forgot RFC 1149 [ietf.org]
boycott iso! (Score:5, Funny)
So ISO wants to become irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is that they have exactly two options:
1) Clean up their process and make resilient against amoral scum like Microsoft, that have a lot of power and absolutely no restraints on using it.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
Seems to me that ISO is bound to beceome irrelevant unless they chose 1). This would be detrimental to the whole world and a real pity. Can they just admit that their process has been successfully hacked and take a stand and poclaim that they will not tolerate it? Obviously not. Pathetic.
Re:So ISO wants to become irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
ISO standards may be meaningless to all rational people if they continue down this road. Sadly, there are a lot of powerful organizations that have a lot of influence on many of our lives that are not even close to rational. As someone who has occasionally had to deal with standards for products used by the US government, I can tell you right now there is nothing rational about the requirements or procedures. It is millions in consulting fees being handed to people for completely useless certifications, largely as a way to prevent competitors from bidding on contracts. I actually saw a Windows 95 based "device" win a contract we wanted to bid on, because that was the only OS "certified" for security for that use. The "certification" basically amounted to MS stating it was not guaranteed to be fit for any purpose and paying contractors to fill out a boatload of paperwork. Any vendor with a pile of money could get "certified" but it took time and cost a lot of money.
The problem with ISO and OOXML is that it won't be viewed rationally and it will likely be used as a way to make MS Office a legal requirement in certain government applications without any regard for the real merits of other software packages. Even if all rational people know ISO certification no longer means anything, that doesn't mean we won't be spending millions in tax dollars needlessly because of it.
Parent
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to move away from standards bodies... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think instead of having standards bodies, perhaps we should just say, defacto, that the open source application that manages an open document is in fact the reference implementation. It has all the knowledge in code, for public display and re-use, and that's way better than mere requirements. Like, I'm a total Windows bigot, but I do more C++ on Linux and I now expect that Visual C++ should actually perform the same way that GNU does, rather than vice versa, because I trust GNU more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like, I'm a total Windows bigot, but I do more C++ on Linux and I now expect that Visual C++ should actually perform the same way that GNU does, rather than vice versa, because I trust GNU more.
Problem #1: You trust GNU more, but that doesn't mean the GNU way will win out. What happens when the most prevalent de facto standards is held up by someone unscrupulous, and you want to do something about it? We'll all be sitting around saying, "We sure wish there was some group that could study the different formats to use and make unbiased recommendations, so that the less-knowledgeable among us can make better decisions about what to implement."
Problem #2: Standards bodies (when they're working prop
You've got it almost exactly backwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
In practice though, it's really hard to do this - I used to know someone who spent a long time doing a real ISO reference C compiler. (Standards are mind numbing stuff - particularly the corner cases).
Andy
zz (Score:4, Insightful)
really, who cares?
Who are the losers here?
MS - because this has all come out in the wash, they are going ODF anyhow and its made them look daft for not even using their own standard. I mean, how could they now?
ISO - because this has generated enough mud to stick and tarnished their reputation maybe beyond compare.
Re:zz (Score:5, Informative)
Who are the losers here?
You forgot, taxpayers, who will end up paying for purchases of MS Office because of government regulations requiring use of specific ISO standards, like OOXML, for particular uses. It will basically be used as a way to lock out everyone but MS for certain contracts and we'll be paying the bills.
Parent
Re:zz (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MS - because this has all come out in the wash, they are going ODF anyhow and its made them look daft for not even using their own standard. I mean, how could they now?
We don't know what Microsoft's endgame is here. They might implement ODF in a buggy, half-assed manor, argue that it's because ODF is a sub-standard format, and then say, "Hmmm.... I guess we need to find a new format. Luckily, we have another ISO standard all ready to go!"
It could all just be a PR play so they can claim, "We tried to do what those FOSS fanatics wanted, but gave up when we realized how awful the format is. Those guys just can't be satisfied!"
Is it still a standard... (Score:4, Interesting)
What does this say about ISO Standards when their decisions are rejected by the community at-large?
ISO fails/refuses to see the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like asking a paralyzed man to piss and hit toilet.
Nothing wrong with the process? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, at this point all I can say is fsck ISO. And I think that's the general feeling of many in the IT right now. That's going to have some consequences - like, ISO standards not being worth the paper they're written on, for example.
Ah, misstatement in point 1... (Score:3, Funny)
There was a misstatement in point 1 - it should read:
1. All judgements made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable tables.
In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems kind of odd to me that certain members of the ISO are fighting so hard to defend their questionable actions during the process. Could it be they are afraid of what may surface during an investigation of what really happened? Could it be they are afraid of what they might lose if it's overturned? Just curious...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That and it would be embarrassing to have to return any "items" which M$ entrusted to their perpetual care.
Gerry
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of the term "rule of law"? If not, look it up.
The idea is, opinions do not matter in rule of law (other than legal opinions). If you don't follow the rule of law, then laws become meaningless.
The same is true for organziations like ISO, and while their rules aren't law, they may as well be for them. If they don't follow them and allow public opinion to sway their actions, then the rules are meaningless. If you don't like the rules, you have to work to get them changed, not cry foul for having followed the rules.
Most people against the ISO decisions don't seem to understand this. They think that if they just stand up and yell loud enough, then the ISO will (or should) violate it's own rules to side with them. That would be an even worse situation for the ISO and would make them even more worthless if they can be swayed to violate their own rules by public opinion.
Parent
Saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminded saying heard long time ago. [ Probably native speaker can give original saying for my memory is bad with such things. ]
When process is against you - argue facts
When facts against you - argue procedure.
Facts are against ISO. So they are pushing the procedure thing. After all procedure was so to say followed and voting on the so called standard so to say have happened. Or probably "had been happened" is more appropriate wording in the context??
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a real shame their anti-MS hatred has to taint everything in the world. But at least the ISO is not putting up with it any longer.
Yeah, because Microsoft stuffed ISO with its own people. Maybe they should rename it MS-ISO. I'm sure they'd have no problem getting the name approval.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OOXML is a standard. Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact there is corruption and fraud elsewhere do not make this one a tiny bit more tolerable.
Parent