OOXML Rumored to be Approved, Announcement Wednesday 223
dominux writes "Rumors are already circulating that Microsoft's OOXML has been voted in by the standards board. The Open Sourcerer claims to have results of the ballot on dis29500. According to the site Microsoft managed to flip enough countries to make it stick. 75% of the P members who didn't abstain voted for Microsoft (That is 58% of all the P members). 14% of all the P and O members voted to disapprove it, this includes all the new O members that joined just in time to cast their vote. Norway has asked that their vote be suspended due to voting irregularities, but it would take more than that to make a difference to the result. ZDNet is still playing it cautious, noting that an announcement either way is set to be made on Wednesday."
Re:ISO dead, blog at 11 (Score:5, Informative)
In Germany, for example, DIN used to be very highly respected. In fact, this whole mess is the first time ever that I heard people say that DIN should fuck itself, be dissolved, is corrupt, etc.
OpenDoc Announces Official Results (Score:4, Informative)
as you all may be aware we are involved with the ISO/JTC1 SC34 work.
Please find the official results for the ISO vote for OOXML (DIS 29500).
Probably the impact on the adoption of ODF of the OOXML process will be
minimal, but surely there will be some interest from the public around this.
OOXML which was submitted by Microsoft to ECMA, and by ECMA to ISO, has
literally crawled through the needles eye. After a year of discussion
and repairs it still receives the very minimum of support. The BRM
convinced some yet unconvinced others, and counter votes from large
countries like China, India, Brazil, Canada, South Africa and Iran speak
volumes. This must be one of the worst results ever for a standard to
pass within ISO/JTC1 in years.
Appartently the chair from the Norwegian committe has filed a protest
against the national outcome. Although one vote would not make much
difference, others may follow.
Kind regards,
Michiel Leenaars
NLnet foundation
OpenDoc Society board
http://lists.opendocsociety.org/pipermail/members.announce/2008-April/000002.html [opendocsociety.org]
which numbers don't add up? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Basically... (Score:4, Informative)
/.ers needed to help HP develop ethics leadership (Score:3, Informative)
On Groklaw we learned today [groklaw.net] that Hewlett Packard participated in overt political interference along side Microsoft
"Here's the scoop from Les Echos.fr on France's sudden change from its No vote to Abstain. Microsoft France's President Eric Boustouller sent AFNOR a letter [PDF] in French, of course. He tells a tale about OOXML and ODF progressing side by side and how if OOXML is approved, a group will be working hard to make the two more interoperable. Attached was a HP statement of support for OOXML [hp.com]. HP sings the same song. And AFNOR?"
Take a look at HP's Ethics and Compliance Page [hp.com] and you will see how concerned HP is of public perceptions after recent events connected with HP's investigation into leaks of confidential information from the Board of Directors tarnished HP's reputation in this area.
HP tells us they have a long-standing commitment to conducting business with uncompromising integrity, which is core to everything they stand for as a company. I am sure that if they really understood that by supporting MSOOXML they are headed for another scandal, they would distance themselves from OOXML. Even more, since their ambition is to provide a leadership role in corporate ethics, they would help to turn the tide against OOXML.
In light of this, you may wish to help them understand the errors presented by the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats" and you may comment directly to their Board of Ethics on the Comments page [hp.com]. That is where I just posted the following letter...
Dear members of the Board of Ethics and Compliance at HP
It is clear that your company is deeply concerned about conducting business with uncompromising integrity. In light of your commitment to being a leader in global citizenship and corporate ethics, I wish to direct your attention to a serious error in judgment by somebody there at HP who formulated the "HP Position Statement on Standardization of Office Document Formats".
I refer to the following statements...
"HP believes that the international standardization process is working."
It is now blatantly obvious that quite the contrary is true, specifically, that the standardization process was seriously flawed. Please see the current discussion on Groklaw about this at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080331212042460#c684749 [groklaw.net] and you will quickly realize that your statement is a serious error.
"additional evolution of it will take place under control of the global community"
...another error - in no way whatsoever could we conclude that the decision for MSOOXML to become an ISO standard was made by the "global community". I believe that decision was made by Microsoft and its partners who overwhelmed the ISO voting process, and AFAIK, additional evolution will be done by ECMA, who is controlled by Microsoft.
"Hewlett-Packard Company ...believe[s] that the two standards will co-exist interoperably, and that customers should have the opportunity to select the standards which best fit their needs."
The phrase boggles the mind when you try to parse it. Let us imagine that the two standards, MSOOXML and ODF are interoperable - then why would we need both? Why would the end user choose one over the other if they both do the same job? Interoperability implies that we could easily convert from one to the other. If this were possible, than that in itself is a demonstration that MSOOXML is a duplication of an existing standard - ODF - and therefore should not be/have been approved.
...and if they do
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ISO dead, blog at 11 (Score:3, Informative)