What Happens Next on the US Vote on OOXML 82
Andy Updegrove writes "As you may know, V1, the INCITS Technical Committee that had charge of the US vote on Microsoft's OOXML, failed to reach consensus on either approving or disapproving the specification. As expected, Microsoft has turned to the full INCITS Executive Board in an effort to salvage the situation. Between now and Labor Day, a complicated series of fall-back ballots and meetings has been scheduled to see whether the Executive Board can agree to approve or disapprove OOXML, in either case "with comments." A vote to approve would mean that addressing the comments would not be required for the US vote to stand, while a vote to disapprove would hold the possibility of US approval if the comments are satisfactorily addressed. The bottom line is that a vote to approve (either in the US or in many other nations around the world) does not appear likely, due to the sheer number of technical issues that have been raised with OOXML, and the expedited schedule upon which Microsoft has insisted throughout the process."
US vote or ISO vote? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the earlier article, V1 and INCITS were both extensions of the ISO evaluation process. Not just a US agency.
didn't know what OOXML meant (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) formats"
Thought others might want to know.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, the current OOXML (The Microsoft format) is so messy it's unmaintainable and unimplementable. Major holes, parts with undocumented binary data, etc. It's all a last-ditch attempt for Microsoft to continue it's office monopoly.
They are being way sneaky with the naming too. Note that the Open Office.org is called ODF (Open Document Format), while Microsoft sneakily called theirs OOXML (Office Open XML) - which confuses everyone, as many people think that OOXML is the "good" format, since they reasonably assume that OOXML means "Open Office XML". But it's not.
Our best attack right now is to make as many people as we can knowledgable of this name game.
ODF: Good and Open
OOXML: Bad and Closed by Microsoft. (It's not truly open when it comes to the details of the format)
Re:No OOXML; Maybe Not ODF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Informative)
If they weren't in the spec, it wouldn't be the complete OOXML spec used by by Office '07.
Re:No OOXML; Maybe Not ODF (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Informative)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=254267&cid=19
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:4, Informative)
Reality: MS has been found guilty of antitrust violations and leveraging its OS monopoly to support and gain market its shares in other markets.
Check: The only software capable of even competing with the market leader product is being given away for free.
Conclusion: The "desktop computer office suite" market is not an open market.
It doesn't belong (Score:4, Informative)
You don't put something in a specification and not define how it works. It has no place in the specification. That's the whole point.
So here we have Microsoft working backwards. They take what they did and try to create a specification for it instead of creating a specification and then programming to it. Then they leave out parts of what is actually done in Office '07 so that other parties can never be compliant with the "specification". That would be akin to the TCP specification [faqs.org] saying that bit 2 in byte 14 is a flag that says the checksum should be calculated like Windows 95 does it, without specifying how that is. This is just ridiculous. Do you not understand that some documents (probably all docs imported from Word 95 which I know is in the spec, I'm not sure about Word 97) WILL use this tag, and therefore anyone trying to comply with this specification will not be able to make the documents appear as they will in Office 2007? When importing a document from Word 95 or 97, Office 2007 should convert it completely to values defined in the specification, there should be no need for these tags for "backward compatibility".
If the specification has no way to make the spacing look the same, I would say that it is an incomplete specification (although it is 700+ pages). If there are certain quirks of Word 95 and Word 97 that would make the specification hard to understand, it doesn't matter. They should be defined exactly anyway so that ANYONE implementing the specification (and only the specification) will be able to produce documents that look the same.
Re:No OOXML; Maybe Not ODF (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is so petty I can't believe it. (Score:3, Informative)
Oh there would be MUCH much more.
Check the "Criticism" section of the ODF wikipedia article for a good starting point.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I seek clarification (Score:2, Informative)
Is it possible to implement with relative ease into ODF, all the features that Microsoft sees lacking in ODF?
With the behaviour and errors that Microsot insists on including, no. It is possible to convert such gems as 1900 is a leap year in an application that reads/writes MSO file formats. To make that behaviour mandatory is absurd.
Most of the other complaints that Microsoft has are trivial/non-existent.
Furthermore, OOXML can not correctly render most of the world's writing systems, or languages.
Amber
Re:The specs dead, but is INCITS credibility? (Score:3, Informative)