ISO Puts OOXML On Hold

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 Here is ISO's press release, which says that ISO/IEC DIS 29500 will not be published for at least "several months" while the appeals process goes forward.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.

GREAT

"On hold" is nice, but will there be an investigation or backlash regarding how it was passed in the first place? Or has the process of buying a standard just become a cost of doing business?

Re:GREAT

"On hold" is nice, but will there be an investigation or backlash regarding how it was passed in the first place? Or has the process of buying a standard just become a cost of doing business?

I think it's safe to assume there will be no investigation or backlash. However if OOXML is ultimately rejected as a standard, then it would mean that the attempt to buy a standard failed, thanks to the pressure put on ISO by the states that participate, which ultimately stemmed from organizations in those states who saw what was happening and protested. It would mean that while the ISO process is vulnerable, it is possible to have oversight over its proceedings. No more just coasting and assuming anything that comes into ISO must be okay, but that's probably a good thing that should have been the case all along.

I'm not saying this will completely save ISO, but it could certainly help.

Re:GREAT

I think you misunderstand -- It's still an international standard it's just not published and Ecma/Microsoft/ISO-secretariat have the only copy of the standard.

This means that 1) ISO are giving Microsoft an unfair advantage over their competitors and 2) national bodies still can't comment on OOXML.

3 nations appealed out of 88. This is not cause for celebration or a sign that the process is OK. The ISO process is broken and the people who forced this standard through are still in power.

ISO standards themselves are closed!

I know everyone's going to make comments about OOXML being not a truly open/free/libre format, but there's something bigger going on...

Just to get access to published standards themselves on http://www.iso.org/iso/store.htm costs easily $50 to $150 each! Can someone please tell me how that makes any sense at all? How can we have global standards if people can't afford to even read them? Am I the only one who thinks this might be a bit hypocritical?

--
Hey code monkey... learn digital electronics! [nerdkits.com]

Re:ISO standards themselves are closed!

The IEEE are just as bad. They charge an arm and a leg for every one of their standards. Just stick the thing up on the web, you cheap bastards.

Even worse...

are SAE standards, many of which are incorporated into US regulatory law.

The net effect is that you can't be sure you're legally compliant unless you pay some private organization a tithe.

Re:Even worse...

While you have a point, it is important to realize that the documents are generally available for reference at libraries or other public locations. Indeed the town hall (for local law) or state capitol (for State law) should have any standard referenced by applicable law available for public viewing. In the worst case you just request the document via inter-library loan, or view the mandatory deposited copy at the Library of Congress.
I do agree though that this is less than ideal, but it is not quite as bad as your post makes it sound.

hurrah!

I have a nasty thought that "on hold" is ISO speak for "waiting for the fuss to die down".

But I really hope that there has been enough of a back lash from the knowledgeable and enough of a crammed education on why this matters that this is now too high a profile for it to be swept under the rug.

Of course the downside of this whole fiasco is that there are now many, many more OOXML implementations out there and planned so this is hardly a complete bust for MS.

Still here's hoping that common sense prevails, and a bug grateful thank you for all those people who fought it.

Re:hurrah!

All those countries initially voted no with comments. The comments weren't addressed, and then suddenly the standard was fast-tracked and passed.

The "appeals" will be heard, but I'm not expecting a miracle here.

Re:hurrah!

Actually "on hold" is more along the lines of "Microsoft has gotten what it wanted and would really like this format to die on the table so it doesn't have to actually implement any of its promises".

[corporate spin]Oh sure! MS Office 2010 was going to be fully open spec, but the ISO never got around to finalizing OOXML, and we got tired of waiting. So, Hey! Here's a new proprietary format. After all, it's not our fault, we upheld our part of the bargain and released the specs...[/corporate spin]

Re:hurrah!

As Microsoft finally announced to switch to ODF and refuses to implement the unpublished OOXML format before adding full ODF support there is really no reason to go on with ISO OOXML. Governments should simply mandate ODF as the XML based document standard format in their own administration. The Netherlands are a perfect example. [ososs.nl] More governments will follow. Microsoft can just embrace the domino effect. Ironically it was the ISO OOXML process that made ODF adoption happen.

Re:hurrah!

The largest downside, in my opinion is the resignations from people who have become disenchanted with the ISO.

These people are the ones we need now more than ever. There is a good Steve Jobs quote that seems appropriate:

"John Sculley ruined Apple and he ruined it by bringing a set of values to the top of Apple which were corrupt and corrupted some of the top people who were there, drove out some of the ones who were not corruptible, and brought in more corrupt ones..."

On Hold...

Actually them putting it on hold is compliance with the OOXML specification as written by Microsoft.

"No Microsoft product shall have the features promised or be released when scheduled".

So all of you cheering this decision are incredibly misguided. Look a little closer and you will see this is clearly evidence of more MS tampering in the process.

Norway set aside the comittees no, and said yes

The Norwegian Standards committee was also almost unanimously against the OOXML. Then the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation offered a few hundred million $$ to various pet projects of the Norwegian prime minister such as a Svalbard seed bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault [wikipedia.org] as well as vaccination of kids in poor countries.

To everyones big suprise, the government set aside the No vote, and ruled by fiat that Norway would vote Yes.

But then again, why care about a petty little standard and some petty corruption when you can save the world.

After OOXML fails ISO

So, Bill, what are we going to do tonight?

Same thing we do every night, Stevie. Try to take over the world.

that's OK

Since even Microsoft has switched to ODF, that's pretty much a no-brainer :-)

Re:Wow

They didnt make any "decision" at all. From TFA:

According to the ISO/IEC rules, a document which is the subject of an appeal cannot be published as an ISO/IEC International Standard while the appeal is going on.

They're just doing what they have to.

Minor correction.

They're just doing what they have to.

Not even that.

This could all be another fake "evaluation" like the others were.

Just because they appear to be going through the steps that they're required to ... doesn't mean that they're still not bought and paid for.

Until ISO can PUBLICLY state the errors that were made and WHO made those "errors" AND take action against those individuals they can not be trusted. Not even to follow the procedures that their own rules require of them.

They didn't follow them when they were fast-tracking this. There is no reason to believe that this time will be any different.

If only I could cry nonsense

Alas I fear I cannot. I find myself tending towards the belief that Microsoft will stop at nothing to get their ISO standard assigned, even if it means the destruction of the credibility of ISO itself.

Mind you, if ISO is so vulnerable this does beg the question 'is it still relevant?'

Re:If only I could cry nonsense

Mind you, if ISO is so vulnerable this does beg the question 'is it still relevant?'

Perhaps not for you and me, but as long as people in decision-making positions consider "ISO standard" as relevant, it is automatically relevant.

Re:If only I could cry nonsense

Mind you, if ISO is so vulnerable this does beg the question 'is it still relevant?'

Maybe they're just better for things like high voltage electrical connections or things that are otherwise very safety-oriented (read: can catch on fire).

When it comes to things that could save nation-states guhzillions of dollars and maybe use that money for something more important...

Steve Ballmer will throw a chair (metaphorically) at anyone who gets in the way of his profits.

Re:If only I could cry nonsense

Mind you, if ISO is so vulnerable this does beg the question 'is it still relevant?'

No it doesn't. It actually shows how badly needed it is. Otherwise MS wouldn't give a damn and you wouldn't either.

It does beg several questions though - e.g How can a rational and fair evaluation be assured? How can the decision making be improved, especially in some "underdeveloped" countries, but sadly also in many "developed" ones. How can the national bodies be hardened against lobbying?

Re:Wow

Not to mention that the interim draft was not made available as mandated by ISO rules because of the failure of the editor to deliver it. The ISO JTC1 Directives demand the meeting report and the final DIS to be distributed within 1 month of the meeting.

Now Microsoft has a formal excuse for its lazyness to deliver the consolidated text. Blame ISO haha.

Re:Wow

Except no decision has been made yet.

The two management boards will then decide whether the appeals should be further processed or not.

They are simply "considering" the appeals. All MS has to do is stack the two management boards (should be at leats partly there already, considering almost all of ISO has been tampered with), and get them to reject the appeals.

There is only a faint glimmer of hope, a pinhole of light at the end of the tunnel.

Re:Well done, ISO!

I applaud ISO for recognizing the evaluation of the technical community it servers.

Heh, good one! The fast track process was completely inappropriate for OOXML. With 9 months to review 6000 pages the technical community had only scratched the surface of what's broken in OOXML [robweir.com].

No one in the technical community is happy with the quality of OOXML -- even Microsoft can't implement this thing.

ISO wrote:

According to the ISO/IEC rules, a document which is the subject of an appeal cannot be published as an ISO/IEC International Standard while the appeal is going on. Therefore, the decision to publish or not ISO/IEC DIS 29500 as an ISO/IEC International Standard cannot be taken until the outcome of the appeals is known.

This statement has no bearing on the similar statements issued by South Africa and Brazil in their formal appeals that they should have received a final text by now. National Bodies should have received a final text but this is quite different to publishing (which is all the ISO are talking about in that final paragraph).

Section 13.12 of the directives reads,

"In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance."

The BRM was in February and the final text was due in late March. It still has not arrived. You might call this evidence of the OOXML text being in an unreleasable state (read: a mess) and South Africa would agree...

"Given the magnitude of the specification and the number of identified edits required it was clear that this directive [13.12] could not have been met. This is the clearest possible indication that DIS 29500 as submitted by Ecma and as modified by the BRM is not ready for fast track processing." -- http://tinyurl.com/4ceags [tinyurl.com]