ISO Calls For OOXML Ceasefire 312
In response to the continued attacks on Microsoft's OOXML standard, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has called for a ceasefire. "Last week the ISO committee in charge of document standards, SC 34, met in Oslo to discuss the way forward for OOXML and ODF. The plenary session was marked by protests outside, largely carried out by delegates from a nearby open-source conference. The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month or two."
Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
We the undersigned wish to make it clear that the ISO fucked up and should never have made OOXML a standard, and that we will continue to attack ISO until it is revoked. Furthermore, we believe that this is for the ISO's own good, because allowing this result of obvious corruption to remain can only harm ISO's credibility as a standards organization. We also wish to remind the ISO that these so-called "personal attacks" have only become necessary in the first place because our technical objections have been entirely ignored. Finally, we note that the resolution to create working groups to maintain OOXML and "harmonize" it with ODF was stupid, because neither group would be necessary in the first place if the redundant, conflicting, and poorly-designed OOXML hadn't been approved in the first place!
ISO f$cked up, and can't stand the heat ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They deserve to be taken to the woodshed for a good spanking.
The ONLY ones who will benefit from a "cease-fire" are the ones who have the criticism coming to them. Let them admit they screwed up, that the processes behind their handling of MSOOXML are fatally flawed, and that a redo is necessary to preserve^Wrestore the integrity of ISO.
What's the ISO standard for Irony? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um no it won't stop (Score:5, Insightful)
right now there are several MSFT P member countries that will no longer vote on anything because they are no longer being paid by MSFT to work with the ISO. These countries are deadlocking other standards and forcing them to fail because they refuse to vote on anything not OOXML. Those countries should have their votes discarded until they start attended and voting on things other than OOXML.
So why should the attacks stop? Has the corruption stopped yet?
Re:An easier route is this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
The greater concern for me is having ECMA stripped of its ability to push a standard through the fast-track process (Class A Liaison status, IIRC) and changing the fast-track process to be substantially less able to be abused, even if this means taking some or all of the "fast" out of "fast track".
Cart before the Horse (Score:1, Insightful)
"Another ad hoc group will also become operational in three months' time, collecting reports of "possible editorial or technical defects" in OOXML from national standards bodies, "liaison organisations" and the general public."
Shouldn't they have done that BEFORE making it a "standard"?
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
No, "turning it into a reasonable standard" is stupid regardless, because we already have a reasonable standard -- namely, ODF -- and don't need a different one. Moreover, the fact that the current version of OOXML is ISO-approved means that Microsoft can claim compliance with this version regardless of what happen to the next one, which is bad because then governments and such would continue to use the current, flawed, unimplmentable-by-third-parties version and we would have no recourse.
Re:An easier route is this one (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't see a problem here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I suspect that... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, what you just wrote does not make you seem witty, funny or smart. People are seriously concerned about OOXML, and someone here just takes potty shots? If you don't know what the issues are about, go find out before shooting off your keyboard.
Re:If they throw out the standard (Score:3, Insightful)
So... NO!
Re:Way forward on ODF? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the major effect though. I think that most unbiased observers would conclude that Microsoft's main goal in having OOXML rushed through is to allow .govs to tick the box that allows them to keep purchasing Microsoft Office. I have no faith that Microsoft will adhere to OOXML in letter or spirit, and in fact that having it 'controlled' by ISO makes this even less likely. Microsoft will not approach ISO to have new features included, they'll just binary-blob them in.
I say this as someone whose job it is to implement editors for previous (binary) versions of Office formats. The (new) guys working on our OOXML version are super stoked because (they say) it's much clearer. Sure, I tell them, but wait until Office >=2009 starts saving out documents with big embedded proprietary binary blobs. They'll still be OOXML 'compliant', for all the good that'll do us.
Re:I suspect that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, I think you underestimate the apathy of the public over this stuff.
Joe user will hear the words "ISO Standard", "voting" and decide they neither know nor care WTF this is all about. The mainstream news will know this, and won't both reporting it.
Us in tech will find yet another reason to loathe Microsoft and their business practices, but to the average user, they simply will not care about this. You can't easily make this an issue people will understand why they should care about. It's so far off their radar as to be non-existent.
Cheers
Re:Cart before the Horse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
"Withdrawing OOOXML is not the only option... In theory, OOOXML could be turned into a reasonable standard so that is the other option. In theory."
Yes, but the problem is that the 6000+ page OOXML is so riddled with problems that it would take years to clean it up. Also, Standards are supposed to be open. OOXML is dependent on proprietary technology. So anyone that tries to implement anything from this standard can be sued by $M. If you trust $M, then you deserve to be sued.
Option #1. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is ISO playing at when they take something that CANNOT be said to be a "reasonable standard" and still APPROVE it as an ISO Standard?
Fuck that! ISO is supposed to approve STANDARDS. Not approve crap and then try to turn it into a "reasonable standard".
ISO sold out and is now trying to play the victim in this.
"Personal Attacks?" (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML is *NOT* worthy of ISO approval. Any rational review of the "standard," will show that it is incomplete, non-specific, and completely worthless as a blue print on how to implement a document reader for a document.
How this got approved is clearly worth a corruption investigation. It calls into question the integrity of the people and organization that approved it.
It is nothing less than an attempt to eliminate the ability to share documents without paying Microsoft and maintain Microsoft's monopoly. The very thing the ISO standard is supposed to fight. It is criminal that these bastards have subverted the standards process as they did.
Calling for the end of "Personal attacks" is nothing more than saying "fuck you." Public statements questioning the motives and integrity of these people is the only ration course of action given what they have done. They deserve every last bit of it. Jailtime if we can find a law to fit the crime.
"signed" (Score:5, Insightful)
ISO got gamed, ganked and pwned. At this point, Microsoft are teabagging their corpse [wikipedia.org].
What ISO need to do right now is to grow a pair and admit that they're gagging on sweaty Ballmer-balls, rather than putting their fingers in their ears and going "La la la, the process is perfect, la la la, there's nothing wrong."
I doubt you'd find any unbiased informed observer that believes them, although I'm sure you'd find a few who would happily say that in return for a free upgrade of their corporate Office installs. The emperor has no clothes, no matter how many procedural boxes they tick off to try to hide their ding-a-ling dangling in the wind.
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This seems pretty backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
If they don't want to be called a microsoft lackey or corrupt, then they should have thought about that before hand.
Sorry, they can't whine just because people are exposing their corruption. Sucks to be them, but they brought it on themselves.
OOXML Ceasefire? Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition to targeting OOXML, we ought to start targeting the ISO as a whole.
This organization, theoretically being in charge for the Standardization of a thousand matters, has knowingly let its own standards drop to an abysmal low level.
It is time now to question the qualification of the ISO as such severely and, possibly, get rid of it, replacing it by an impartial and responsible institution.
Re:Um no it won't stop (Score:3, Insightful)
On online gaming servers cheaters get kicked and IP-banned. Why should the ISO be any different?
Revoke their membership and never let them join again. That's the answer.
Re:Formulas in spreadsheets (Score:3, Insightful)
To use a bad car analogy, if I made a spec for a car without specifying the color, that wouldn't be the end of the world. If, on the other hand, my spec said "The car should have this particular color, but I won't tell you what it looks like nor how to make it, but it has to be identical to this paint sample I have in my basement, and which present law prohibits you from reverse engineering" then the spec has a rather serious problem. OOXMl effectively does the latter.
Re:Formulas in spreadsheets (Score:3, Insightful)
In OpenDocument's defence, the OpenDocument committee stated that "A comment was submitted concerning the (inclusion) of a grammar for spreadsheet formulas which conforming implementations should support. While we think that having interoperability on that level would be of great benefit to users, we do not believe [sic] that this is in the scope of the current specification".
I disagree with the above excuse, but OpenFormula [wikipedia.org] is being worked on, and will fix the problem. Approving a totally different and incompatible standard just makes the problem worse.
I agree. Refrain from personal attacks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
But a standard is meaningless unless it is possible to determine whether you've complied with it or not. And for something like this, it should be possible to define a compliance test suite that everybody who wants to claim compliance has to pass. Sorry, "our product is the only compliant one because we're the only ones who knows what compliance means" doesn't cut the mustard.
If a neutral third party could not examine a product and determine that it is compliant, what you have isn't a standard, it's a brand dressing up like a standard.
Re:Way forward on ODF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
SC34 is totally controlled by Microsoft. And it invited ECMA to the group!
SC34 will play a role in the maintenance regime for OOXML and they announced to corrupt ODF.
Outside the SC34, the Norwegian committee took the streets.
Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed... (Score:3, Insightful)
Past crimes have a way of repeating themselves over and over again.
"INK" is all nice and everything, but it is hardly something that will, how did you put it, "cripple the medical industry at the very least."
I laugh at this. There is no reason why Microsoft can't support ODF and propose additions to the standard to support emerging technologies. Let these emerging technologies be developed and perfected in public.
If, however, they want their own proprietary system, no one is stopping them, but using the ISO standardization to promote their PROPRIETARY software is bogus.
Re:what is a one-sided cease fire? (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't want to end hostilities. They've already committed all the atrocities and they are trying to escape retribution.
That's like someone shooting you and then trying to declare an armistice as you reach for YOUR revolver.
Ya right.
We'll take the cease-fire after the standard is struck down, thank you.
Re:I don't see a problem here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your mistake is in assuming the US Government is acting (or tries to act) in the best interest of the US population as a whole.
Re:Um no it won't stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:thank you M$ (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, if you ever had to deal with ISO standards before, you'd realise that what Microsoft did is the least of your worries. ISO, W3C, OASIS, ECMA... they all suck. They're all organisations that make "standards" by comittee, and while that sounds great in theory, in practice its more like:
Member A: "I want our next standard to have feature X"
Member B: "No way, that would only further YOUR agenda and will destroy interop and/or makes its harder to implement for nothing! Instead, we should have feature Y, much better"
Member A: "Nooo! That would only further YOUR agenda. Its even worse than X!"
Member B: "Ok, what about this: you can have X, I can have Y, everyone's happy"
Member C: "Wh...what? X and Y are mutually -exclusive-, you'll make it hell for -everyone- if we have both"
Member A + B: "Two vs 1, we win, go to hell".
A lot of "standards", from all the stuff ISO has, to XHTML/XML/SOAP, stopping in between for things that are not so standards such as all of the accessibility acts and hell, the -law-, is made like this. And thats why it all sucks, and its all out of wack.
Compared to a lot of things that didn't cause so much of a stir, OOXML is a blessing... and thats not saying much. Point is, its nothing new, ISO, and most of the other standard bodies have always done this... this time it was just more visible because it was Microsoft... but anyone who tried to make a company ISO certified to various degree knows: you're better off going to IKEA for clear, sensible instructions.
Re:Fun to Hate MS, but OOXML is needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
INK has no business being part of a document format. It's an image format. It should exist as a separate standard on its own. The document format need not know INK specifically but rather provide for a way of including 'images' which both OOXML and ODF do. Then their specs can say "We allow the use of ISO XXXX (aka INK)."
MS doesn't get it. You don't get it. ISO doesn't even seem to get it anymore. It's hysterical that a format that represents exactly 1 commercial interest and has no implementations is published as a "standard." ODF has its failings, but it's already being used as a standard (multiple parties implement it) and it is being evolved with multiple parties in mind. Like a standard or something.
Re:An easier route is this one (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought the Red Car so that I could dismantle it (Score:5, Insightful)
Another version reads: "Two standards good, One standard better!"
Or perhaps summed up clearest: "Embrace, extend, extinguish."
- Roey
Re:Way forward on ODF? (Score:4, Insightful)
And HTML is the most widely used XML schema so really it's a twofer.
Re:Way forward on ODF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Replace them (Score:5, Insightful)
"ISO has just launched the new ISO Standards collection on CD-ROM â" Materials for the production of primary aluminium. It contains the full collection of 108 ISO standards for materials used in the production of primary aluminium, including standards for alumina, pitch, coke, electrodes, ramming paste and fluorides."
Since of course aluminum smelters the world over will be abandoning the ISO en masse for Certified Open Dot Com.
By the way, openness != standardisation.
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
The job of the ISO is not to approve the one -and-only-one standard for a given task. Its job is to be a repository of standards that can be followed by all those whose wish to comply with said standard.
Ideally the bulk of the ISO's work should be to only accept standards that CAN be followed by others outside of the original submitter.
There is nothing wrong with the market leader of that application (ie. Microsoft and its Word) setting the standard. As long as that standard can be followed by those OUTSIDE of Microsoft.
The reason some open source enthusiasts are opposed to OOXML is because they would like to create a market for ODF through legislation rather than through competition. While others, such as myself, would be glad to have a document file format that is described well enough to be considered a standard which can be implemented by anyone regardless of the standard's author. We (well at least I) oppose OOXML solely on the merits of its documentation and the method that Microsoft has used to push the inadequate documentation through the standards process. Once OOXML gets its documentation up to shape, I see no reason for it not being accepted by the ISO.
Just more proof... (Score:2, Insightful)
I say it is time to just abandon ISO, no longer useful. OOXML is just so glaringly and obviously lame that it stands out now, and they fully deserve all the criticism they are getting. They make US "blackbox voting" look scrupulously fair and honest.
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Personal Attacks?" (Score:3, Insightful)
While I doubt this assertion, assuming it is "true" within some M$ favorable scenario, at least OpenOffice source code is available. How would one go about getting MS Office source code to use as a definitive source?
See the problem? Proprietary software and from a monopoly at that *MUST* be held at a tougher standard.
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot calls for ISO cessation of stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
Additionally, due to patent issues, and the extremely limited nature of the MS patent pledge, nobody but MS who cares for their corporate existence would even *try* to implement it. Remember that the MS patent pledge was good for only one version of the OOXML specifications, and only for complete implementations of the specifications. Which nobody, including MS, has yet done.
I'll accept the description of OOXML as specifications, not as standard. At that I feel I'm being generous. If the OOXML is specifications, then so is "Build me a barn like the one I lived near when I was 9 years old."
Re:Formulas in spreadsheets (Score:2, Insightful)