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."
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML doesn't open it.
It just describes it, and incompletely at that.
The sole purpose of OOXML is to torpedo any real standard document format. With Microsoft's machinations in the various ISO committees, it's ridiculous to continue pretending they have any intention of allowing real interoperability.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, actually, keeping this particular "standard" as an option in "choice" is a potentially dangerous thing if for no other reason than the fact that Microsoft's "standards" are always moving targets. Invariably their specifications are subject to change or additional documentation. Their format is based on and/or defined by the behavior of specific other software applications or operating systems API code which is also subject to change.
To standardize on something that's not firmly documented is asking for future problems. Further, "standardizing" on something that references proprietary (not openly documented) software is just one step removed from standardizing the operating environment along with it.
And finally, to include OOXML as a required option would require all of the dependencies associated with the need to support the standard... those dependencies would be a MS Windows OS and a MS Office applications suite as I cannot imagine an effective or 100% compatible implementation by competing software when the specs are as nebulous as they are.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML is still closed. When the spec has things like "This element means to parse it like Word97 with all of Word97's obscure bugs", that's not an open standard. What we're opposed to is having garbage like that officially recognized as an open standard.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:didn't know what OOXML meant (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two arguments here:
The first is that, independently of the existence of any other standards covering the same subject matter, OOXML is a poorly described, non-implementable, and otherwise bad proposed standard, and should be rejected.
The second is that that the existence of one standard covering a topic makes additional standards covering the topic less valuable, potentially redundant, and in some cases contradictory to the purpose of standardization, particularly when adopted by the same standards body.
Debate over the second seems to only make sense in a context where it is assumed or concluded that OOXML would be a desirable standard on its own in the first place.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing preventing MS from publishing their format. That is very different from being ratified as an ISO standard. I could publish my very own file format. But if I have shoddy documentation for the file format, it is useless. No one, besides myself, could effectively use the format.
Ratification is when a group (of people, states, etc) approve of something (a constitution, a file format). In the case of my file format, they wouldn't ratify my format because it is useless to them.
Not possible for ODF to have the feature MS wants (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the problem here is NOT technical, it's ideological. The feature that Microsoft wants is user lock-in. The essential feature for MS is that THEY control the standard document format, and exclude all others from adequately rendering that format, keeping essentially all users as a captive market. This is more than adequately demonstrated by an objective examination of MS' public comments, their corporate conduct during this debate, and their private intentions as evidenced by the Halloween memos. For that matter, simply look at their corporate conduct over their whole history, and ask if it's ever changed for the better.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Well thanks for the links, and already having seen them, except for one, I really must compliment you on providing a well rounded set of links that present both sides of the argument. Why, all of those are surprisingly non-slanted. Dammit, why doesn't HTML have a <Sarcasm> tag?
Really, thats alot like saying, "Here, read all about the Mormons at http://www.whymormonismisevil.com/ [whymormonismisevil.com]".
So, you want to find out about Jews? Try reading "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
I understand the argument, people are afraid that if the OOXML standard is accepted, even with ODF, that the popularity of the MS Office products will eventually drown out ODF. In an open market of ideas, that's how it works. But, if you mean "Freedom" as in RMS version of Freedom where the choice is made for you so you are Free From Making the Choice.
I like the "Mile of Cars", there are good cars and bad cars. Hummers, Volkswagons, used Yugos and Chevettes. I get to choose and in the MoC, I have thousands of them.
This is so petty I can't believe it. (Score:2, Insightful)
What does this have to do with anything? Last I checked, OpenOffice can save in xml and Microsoft Word can save in ODF (with a plugin). This is like a cock-flexing match between the FSF and Microsoft and it's basically irrelevant to 99.99% of users and government employees.
If ODF, as it stands, were released by Microsoft and called Microsoft ODF, we'd have the same level of FSF, GNU, etc pushback.
Isn't mainstream software development about adaptation and matching and supporting standards- not massive legal battles for complete control?
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really want both Betamax and VHS? Do you really want both DVD and Laserdisk? Come on. Demand real open standards. It is not about free software. It is not about open software. It is not about non-commercial software. It is perfectly OK to have two or three proprietary closed software supporting ODF and one or two Open Source but not-free software and a couple of Open Source and free software all supporting one document standard with perfect portability across them.
Only when users demand the ability to switch from one software to another without any loss of functionality they will have the power in negotiation. In the present situation, they have to buy whatever MSFT charges. Did you really think people will be forking over 150$ for a spreadsheet and word processor 10 years ago? The whole MS Office was selling for 50$. Now it is supposed to be 500$. Dont you see where the customers lost the ability to negotiate better prices because of vendor lock in?
Re:I seek clarification (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, for those who haven't extrapolated it yet, means "About 90% of them in any organisation which has decided to use OOXML as their standard file format".
5 years down the line and other suites are coming out with the "Supports OOXML" box ticked, but further investigation reveals that the organisation still has a huge number of files which haven't had much attention paid to them since the conversion process, are still relevant and don't open properly in anything other than MS Office, regardless of whether or not the product they're testing claims to support OOXML.
Re:I, for one, am for choice (Score:3, Insightful)
See, Billy G. and Stevie B. really, genuinely are corrupt, horrible monopolist pigs who eat babies. Why do you think that antitrust suit exists?
Well, not exactly. Actually, Billy G. and Stevie B. simply have such a low opinion of their own ability to compete on a level playing field that they are desperate to find some way to game the system. And it's clear their problem is endemic-- a fundamental part of the way they've been operating the business for decades.
Re:Is there anything we can do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I seek clarification (Score:1, Insightful)
So - to demand a ISO standard has to include vendor specific closed non-interchangeable parts is idiotic. A standard is a standard. And a standard has to be open, understandable and usable for every vendor, company or person without any problem. Demanding Microsoft-only closed -non-usable for other vendors- parts in a ISO standard is completely insane..
For instance - the metric screw thread for screws and bolts is normalized and standardized an can be used by any factory, person or otherwise. If however a factory uses a special screw tread of their own an patented it so nobody can use it, it is not a standard and cannot be used as such. If that factory tries to make a international standard out of it - they would be laughed at and the proposal would be rejected. And exactly this last thing is what Microsoft tries to do!
Re:No OOXML; Maybe Not ODF (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is pushing the most important part of OOXML being it's ability to include old Office file data as opaque binary chunks (!). Problem is that their documentation of those binary chunks pretty much consists of 'try reverse-engineering old versions of office.' -- which is against the EULA for old versions of office.
Even if someone manages to figure out how to decode those old chunks properly, Microsoft's patent peace for them doesn't apply because they weren't explicitly described in the ECMA 'standard'. Many of these 'critical' parts of OOXML are also described in the documentation as 'optional', which means that their so-called partners (like Novel and linspire) who are creating readers can create converters that MS can trumpet as 'ecma compliant', but that don't handle the part of OOXML that they are selling to the MA (and other) government as the most usefull aspect of OOXML.
In other words, this 'standard' explicitly does not do what you see as it's most useful aspect.
You could easily end up with documents with critical parts readable only by Microsoft software .... and then find that Microsoft has stopped supporting those critical parts 'because they're optional'.