ISO Releases OOXML FAQ 185
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The ISO has put out a FAQ concerning OOXML, but it may raise more questions than it answers. For one, it promises to address problems if they arise in the future. PJ of Groklaw said that's akin to 'selling you a car with four different sizes of tires and assuring that that if you see it's a problem, you can always bring it in for maintenance.' It also handwaves the OSP discriminatory patent promise issues, when asked about contradictions states that some 'may still remain', and asserts that duplicate standards are 'something that need[s] to be decided by the market place.' Notably, the FAQ does not answer the question, 'what the hell were you thinking?'"
Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should rename themselves the "International Organization for Vague and Undefined Standardization, To Be Decided By The Market"
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Living up to your name, I see.
Two absolutely key requirements for a standard are that it be well specified and possible to usefully implement. The OOXML processes wasn't even long enough for someone to *read* the standard, and all the criticisms that were submitted by standards bodies were ignored in bulk - hence there is *no way* that the ISO could have known that OOXML met those requirements.
Re:This one's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no. They're saying: "This was approved with the same process as all our other standards. So imagine how many other ISO standards are complete BS!"
Re:This one's good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it is a nice misdirection they pulled. I have always considered the study of logic to be akin to studying mental self-defense (or, perhaps "brain-fu").
I would classify their fallacy as "ignoratio elenchi," [wikipedia.org] or "ignorance of refutation." Their evidence did demonstrate something, but not what they set out to demonstrate. Stating "ISO and IEC have collections of more than 17 000 and 7 000 successful standards" could be used to defend statements like "we have produced standards," "we produce standards," "we have produced LOTS of standards," etc. This statement, however, does NOT suggest that "the standards development process is credible."
Credibility must be established by evidence other than volume. And we already have plenty of evidence suggestive of a lack of credibility.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen blatant, ample evidence that this was a bought vote. We've seen MS bribe normally uninterested countries into voting their way. We've seen them manage to fast-track a standard when it is obviously due more scrutiny (if nothing else, due to its larger size compared to the earlier ODF standard). And we've seen *blatant* vote tampering with Norway, which voted yes despite a majority of its technical advisors voting no.
The ISO's complicity in all this cheating is plain and obvious to anyone who cares to look. Their attitude of blaming the observers is, frankly, insulting to the morals and intelligence of anyone who is speaking the truth.
Yes, this does bring suspicion on the validity of the other standards. However, the other standards do not have the blatant, obvious process tampering that this one did, nor (to my knowledge) the enormous, unscrupulous corporation with an interest in seeing the standard passed.
Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
We reviewed the process before it started, all the while during its course and afterwards as well.
"Our review process sucks so much that we can't even spot the most blatant and obvious abuse in our entire history right while it's going on under our noses."
Thanks, ISO. That removes my final doubts regarding your reliability and competence. Only leaves me to wonder how you're getting anything done right at all.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know much about the ISO process or about previous ISO standards, but it's entirely possible that this is the first time that an ISO standards process has been gamed so thoroughly.
There is evidence that multiple new countries signed up as ISO members *specifically* to vote in OOXML. If so, that's an extremely large scale procedural attack. If this is the first time that a procedural attack on that scale has been attempted, then the whole situation only implies that the ISO wasn't prepared to withstand an attack of that magnitude (and now are trying to cover their asses in response).
Now, if that is what occurred and the ISO goes on refusing to admit to the problem rather than trying to fix it then the ISO name will no longer be worth trusting - but the ISO still has a month or so to make a procedural catch on this issue, fix the problem, and save their reputation.
The FAQ is missing questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Second: Microsoft undoubtedly has dozens of "patents" on the OOXML standard effectively preventing anyone from implementing the standard in the near future.
First: Microsoft hasn't implemented this "standard" in their own products. Their
Third: If someone were to somehow make a faithful implementation of OOXML that wasn't Microsoft, people would assume it's broken or non-standards compliant because it won't open and display properly under Microsoft word since Word doesn't presently implement OOXML properly as defined. (Other examples of this broken standards behavior can be seen in Internet Explorer where the perception is that if it works in MSIE but doesn't work with Firefox, Opera or Safari, then it's a problem with Firefox, Opera or Safari and not MSIE since it works there.) This mistaken perception will enable Microsoft to establish a standard that, even if faithfully implemented, will be perceived as broken.
They won't fix it (Score:5, Insightful)
The FAQ is all about not fixing it. They're rationalizing about how they have great process and how they have to accept the result of that process. The fix is in.
And Microsoft? Now that they've built this grand machine for subverting ISO do you expect them to use it once and then throw it away? Not likely. Their duty to their shareholders and all that...
You can stick a fork in the ISO. They're done.
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been pointed out quite often that OOXML does not match docx exactly and that the specification is incomplete so it will not allow you to open Office 2007 files without further reverse engineering.
I don't trust ISO anymore... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless they cancel the Standardization of OOXML immediately and furthermore establish a reasonable code of conduct for itself and for all the national bodies that are entitled to vote.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think ISO realizes how much damage they've done to themselves here. ISO certification is supposed to guarantee that no matter what, your process is sound. ISO's own process has failed here, and everybody knows it. If ISO themselves can't even adhere to an ISO process, what value is their certification? What value is any ISO standard?
Re:Does no one understand? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever the ISOs procedures, what Microsoft has got certified is a standard that, at best, can only be partially implemented without inside knowledge as to certain formats that remain proprietary. The standard is so hard to implement that Microsoft hasn't even produced a full-blown implementation yet.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the lack is intentional... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:3, Insightful)