Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

South Africa Appeals ISO Decision On OOXML

Posted by kdawson on Fri May 23, 2008 11:01 AM
from the first-of-the-dominos dept.
Software
mauritzhansen sends us a blog post by Steve Pepper, former chairman of the Norwegian standards committee responsible for evaluating OOXML, reporting that the South African national standards body, SABS, has appealed against the result of the OOXML DIS 29500 ballot in ISO. From the blog: "In a letter sent to the General Secretary of the IEC (co-sponsor with ISO of JTC1), the SABS expresses its 'deep concern over the increasing tendency of international organizations to use the JTC 1 process to circumvent the consensus-building process that is the cornerstone to the success and international acceptance of ISO and IEC standards.' Having resigned as Chairman of the Norwegian committee responsible for considering OOXML for exactly this reason, I congratulate South Africa on its willingness to stand up for the principles on which standardization work should be based."

Related Stories

Firehose:South Africa appeals against ISO decision on OOXML by mauritzhansen (1294498)
[+] Brazil Appeals OOXML Decision 129 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Brazil is now appealing the ISO's decision to standardize OOXML, following South Africa's lead. Interestingly, part of the reason this took so long was that Microsoft supporters at the meetings kept asking for delays because they 'weren't prepared' to discuss the issues raised. And the ISO as a whole is moving rather slowly, after that delay in releasing the DIS. But at least the ISO is also rewriting the directives in a special working group so this doesn't happen again. Of course, they'd have to be strict about making sure the directives are followed for it to help."
[+] News: Denmark Becomes Fourth Nation To Protest OOXML 171 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The rumors of a fourth OOXML complaint turned out to be true. Denmark has become the fourth nation to protest the ISO's acceptance of OOXML, and Groklaw has a translation of their complaint. They now join India, Brazil, and South Africa. There are going to be plenty of questions about deadlines, because people have been given two different deadlines for appeals, and the final DIS of OOXML was late in being distributed and not widely available. In fact, that seems to be one of Denmark's complaints, along with missing XML schemas, contradictory wording, lack of interoperability, and troubles with the maintenance of DIS29500. In other words, we should expect a lot of wrangling over untested rules from here on out, and Microsoft knows how to deal with that."
[+] ISO Puts OOXML On Hold 103 comments
schliz alerts us that ISO, in response to the four appeals (Venezuela, India, Brazil, South Africa) filed in recent weeks, has put the OOXML standardization process on hold. Here is ISO's press release, which says that ISO/IEC DIS 29500 will not be published for at least "several months" while the appeals process goes forward.
Update: 06/11 10:13 GMT by KD : Reader Alsee points out that the fourth officially recognized appealing country is Venezuela, not Denmark as originally stated. The protests of Denmark and Norway are being disregarded, as they do not come from the administrative heads of their national organizations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

South Africa Appeals ISO Decision On OOXML 25 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.

  • They can't do that (Score:3, Interesting)

    by overshoot (39700) on Friday May 23, @11:05AM (#23517788)
    Aside from the fact that they're protesting other NBs' votes (or so the Secretariat will rule) there's the little matter of there not being any IS-29500 text to object to. No standard, no objections.

    Think of it as creative interpretation of the Directives.

    • Re:They can't do that (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Friday May 23, @11:23AM (#23518044) Journal
      Maybe not according to the rules. But, rules can be ignored. Organizations can be ignored. This type of thing will continue, and it will kill ISO because there will be no perception of either trust or authority.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by uucp2 (731567)
        Unfortunately, this is probably exactly what Microsoft wants.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gunnk (463227)
          No central standards body? Oh dear! I guess we'll have to decentralize the process and make it transparent... an open standards process!

          Nah, I think Microsoft actually likes ISO because they've found ways to distort it. However, the gp post is spot on:
      • I don't think anyone would complain about Microsoft submitting standards for approval. The objections come when the spec for the standard submitted is 6000 pages long and includes some nuggets as "implement this as it's implemented in Windows 95" and associated garbage.

        The objections become bellows when the same company, impatient with the approval process, sets out to buy votes to get the "standard" approved with minimal change.

        I for one have a great deal of distaste for fanatics of all stripes, and I'm afraid Stallman and his more opinionated supporters do qualify as fanatics, but the process to date of getting OOXML qualified as an ISO standard has been a farce, and no amount of whinging on slashdot by AC fanbois (or MS sockpuppets) is going to change that.

        • Re:Kinda ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

          by g2devi (898503) on Friday May 23, @12:49PM (#23519268)
          > I don't think anyone would complain about Microsoft submitting standards for approval.

          Why not? The ISO mandate is to have one standard per task and ensure that any new standard should reuse other ISO standards and not try to reinvent the wheel.

          Any company submits a duplicate standard and reinvents ISO standardized from the date stamp to graphics files for no other reason than to get government contracts and ensure vendor lock-in, it's right to complain no matter who is doing the submission.

          > I for one have a great deal of distaste for fanatics of all stripes, and I'm afraid Stallman and his more opinionated supporters do qualify as fanatics

          Actually, even though I don't subscribe to Stallman's rigid views, I don't see a problem of them.

          He and his followers are equivalent to the Amish. The want to live in a world with certain constraints so that they can live in a society with certain rewards.

          Anyone who's been the victim of vendor lock-in or abandon-ware or forced obsolescence or had to support software where you don't have access to the source (so you don't even know what's going on) or has had to deal with security (e.g. Sony CDs) or has had to deal with paternalistic vendors that say "You don't need to now that" or "You can only run this software on hardware the vendor decides when the vendor decides for how long the vendor decides in which way the vendor decides and the vendor has the right to change terms whenever he feels like it", should feel sympathetic.

          I (or my family or my work) been burned by all the above, and I can understand why someone would want to build all the tools necessary so that they can become self sufficient.
          OOXML violates pretty much every one of these issues raised.

          I think your distaste has more to do with the evangelicalism within the Stallman camp. There's nothing wrong with evangelicalism per say. How are people supposed to know that there is a better way if they're not informed. The problem comes when the evangelical education and invitation turns pushiness and forced choice. As Sir Winston Churchill once stated, "A [bad] fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.".

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by firefly4f4 (1233902)

            Why not? The ISO mandate is to have one standard per task and ensure that any new standard should reuse other ISO standards and not try to reinvent the wheel.
            I believe the grandparent was referring to to standards *in general*. That is, if they don't:

            1) duplicate large parts of an existing standard
            2) have an extremely large standard go through the fast track process instead of a more thorough review.

            Gran

            • Grandparent does make one mistake, though: the "works like XX application" have been deprecated, and *supposedly* they have been defined in that deprecated section -- IE, use only for interpreting older documents, not new ones, as I understand MS's definition.

              The last I heard these were in "optional" sections, not in deprecated ones. That is to say, MS can and probably will use them in new documents they create, but others won't be required to implement them to meet the spec. Of course this still means docume

        • The problem was not so much that their proposed standard was flawed, but the fact they tried to fast track an unfinished standard of that size...
          The text is huge, much bigger than most other standards, so there wasn't enough time to review it thoroughly enough, and even then the first vote generated far too many comments to address in the time given before the resolution meeting.
          Also the fact the text was written by a single company, without any input from other interested parties.

          Instead, it should have been submitted through the normal ISO process, so that the standard could have been brought to a usable state (however long that took) before it was submitted for voting.
  • "Despite having an open source strategy the South African government doesn't really understand how to benefit from OSS. This is according to Microsoft director of corporate standards, Jason Matusow." http://www.tectonic.co.za/?p=2432 [tectonic.co.za]

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mckorr (1274964)
        Isn't Shuttleworth South African? More likely he is getting to the politicos first in order to keep Ubuntu growing.
  • Some extra info and thoughts in this article: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080523052458101 [consortiuminfo.org]

  • Ubuntu (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaveInAustin (549058) on Friday May 23, @11:40AM (#23518284) Homepage
    Have to think that this might be some good work that Shuttleworth's folks are doing. A lot of the original votes are determined by a lot of lobbying (just like in Congress).

  • 3 cheers (Score:5, Informative)

    by ianare (1132971) on Friday May 23, @11:50AM (#23518400)
    Thank you South Africa!
    Hip Hip Hurray!!

    BTW, the pdf letter linked in TFA is a great read, perfect summary of all the problems that were so apparent to anyone actually looking into the whole mess.
  • It seems outrageous to me that OOXML was approved as a standard despite not having more then one implementation to prove that it's possible for it to be a common format.

    However it's freakin' hilarious/sad/odd that there actually isn't even ONE implementation of OOXML and it was approved. Doesn't the ISO have any standards for standards? Or is it just a matter of gaming the process? Maybe the ISO itself should be reconsidered...
    • I think the infamous osi networking protocol from the 80's was done the same way.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model [wikipedia.org]
    • There was no implementation of standard C++ when C++ was standardized. There was no implementation of standard C when C was standardized. There was no implementation of Fortran 90 / 95 / 2003 when Fortran 90 / 95 / 2003 were standardized. This is fairly common for standards: after all one of the reasons for having standards is to have diverging impementations converge again. Not standardizing one of the existing implementations puts no vendor at an advantage and is therefore bound to happen if different vendors sit at the table negotiating.

      NB I'm not saying that OOXML is a good standard.

  • Cyberpunk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_kress (99356) on Friday May 23, @12:31PM (#23518984)
    A cyberpunk common theme is multinational industrial concerns having equal or more power than the governments. In fact, the governments seem to have been broken of most power and now are nothing more than location-based unions.

    The first time I saw this was actually Max Headroom (I suppose that show could be called the grandfather of cyberpunk).

    It always seemed like fantasy to me (a pretty horrifying one), but nothing that could come true.

    What's going on these days though feels like the first battles. Industries placing people in top government positions, controlling votes, manipulating laws and standards, Chevron killing villagers who are protesting, all the private police forces protecting industrial concerns in Iraq (and being better equipped than the solders to do so)...

    I'm surprised they were as accurate as they were, and I trust their predictions for our future in a corporate-run world if we let it go on--not that I know what to do about it...

    We've always been able to overthrow governments that became too problematic. How do you overthrow a multinational conglomerate that is in control of multiple governments? How do you even know who to fight?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dcollins (135727)
      In general I agree with your observations.

      Only quibble is how far back "cyberpunk" goes, any grandfather is certainly older than Max Headroom. Check out Larry McCaffery's anthology "Storming the Reality Studio" and its Cyberpunk 101: A Schematic Guide. It

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rossendryv (740305)
        Sorry, but I find this thread extremely distasteful! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing [wikipedia.org] is a horrible thing and to wish it on anyone!!! And imply that it is OK to do it to poor disfranchised Zimbabweans or Mozambicans is just sickening to me.
        • Such is the state of "modern" society that concepts like this are acceptable fare for potential humor. I too, am sickened.
    • Does SABS have bigger problems though? I wouldn't think so.

      Way to not even read the article summary. :)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Stewie241 (1035724)
        But TFA isn't talking about Africa as a continent. TFA is talking about SABS - the South African Body of Standards. As such, it has a concern for standards.

        Take this analogy - quirky, but perhaps appropriate - say you have a high tech company and you fin
    • bad bad bad AC. Learn to discriminate between 1st, 2nd and 3rd world countries before you discriminate.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bsDaemon (87307)
        First World countries are NATO-aligned, Second World countries are Soviet-aligned, and Third World countries are up for grabs...

        Who has filled the Soviet void? And since the ANC was always backed by the USSR, is "democratic" SA a 2nd World country?

        see: ht [wikipedia.org]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.