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?'"
The Fax is just a test run... (Score:4, Funny)
FAQ. I meant FAQ. (Score:2)
Re:FAQ. I meant FAQ. (Score:5, Funny)
One would think you'd be used to it by now.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so! (Score:2)
I believe the lack is intentional... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One would think you'd be used to it by now.
Especially as his first name is Brendan
Q: what the hell were you thinking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Q: what the hell were you thinking? (Score:5, Funny)
ISO . o O ( $$$$$$$$$ )
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Which victory is more pyrrhic: submitting OOXML or shipping Vista?
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Look for ISO 4217 if you dont know what CHF is....
Slashdot define ISO as (Score:5, Funny)
Frequently Asked Questions indeed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The tricky part is making a clean break, and stopping any bleeding...
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
I$O Standard?
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
ISOldout
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
International Standards Under Corporate Kontrol?
(If you use KDE, you probably didn't notice the inappropriate use of K, but if you use GNOME, it's probably tearing at your brain that I did that just so I could spell a word)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Funny)
"[I]nternational [S]tandards [W]ith [A]llegiance to [L]imited [L]iability [O]rganizations [W]hatever"
Cue Marly: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Isn't the whole idea of a standard (Score:5, Informative)
The intial version they submitted already wasn't compatible with what office implements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mass and other governments caught on to the fact they were losing ability to read data LESS than a decade old.
They passed laws saying data must be an "open standard" so they could read the data in the future even if they had to rewrite a reading application for Windows 2100 ultimate based on 85 year old spec docs.
Microsoft wrote a patent encumbered XML file spec that even they can't code and payed $$$$$ to have a bunch of people vote that it was to be labeled an "open standard" satisfying the legal requi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This one's good. (Score:5, Interesting)
So they're basically saying: "Since we've done a lot of successful standards before, there can't possibly be anything wrong with how this one was carried out."
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's funny. I think we can put their argument into perspective by comparing them to the Patent office of the US. The Patent office grants thousands of patents. That makes their credibility go down; not up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and for the love of all things, please stop confusing standard with free to implement. There are plenty of standards that aren't freely available for anyoen to implement. I understand that Microsoft intentionally confused the issue by calling it 'open'. But standards don't obligate anyone to allow others free acce
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
loophole (Score:2)
Well I can dream can't I ?!?
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: (Score:2, Funny)
So I guess you're to blame
For the "love" that I feel
Just from hearing your name
You're as open as future
And warm as pastell
*windows dings*
I wuv my OOXML
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just a small detail (Score:2, Interesting)
"A number of such claimed contradictions were identified...//...It is possible that others may still remain, but these can be taken care of during the maintenance of the standard."
Am I to interpret this as meaning that when they find problems with the standrad, they will change the standard to 'fix' it?
If my interpretation is correct, I wonder where this leads us. I could end up havin
Re:Just a small detail (Score:4, Interesting)
Just hours ago I was reading the TWAIN 1.9a specification. 1.9a being a big tip-off that the spec has changed over time.
My TV and DVD player are connected with HDMI 1.3 compliant cables.
So yes, if there are problems with the standard they will change the standard. That is standard behavior if you will.
Re: (Score:2)
That is irrelevant to Microsoft. They will stick an "ISO compliant" label on
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all interesting questions. And they would have just as interesting months ago, when ODF was being standardized, as EXACTLY THE SAME THING happened there. A large number of technical issues raised about ODF were "resolved" by "OASIS will fix that in a later revision of the standard".
A very large number of the criticism of OOXML is about things where OOXML was treated exactly the same as most prior standards, including ODF. For God's sake, ODF got away with pushing spreadsheet formulas off to a
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of errors that are in OOXML are not omissions but commissions.
The FAQ is missing questions (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You *may* be putting too much value in ISO standards and its ability to stop a moving target and promoting interoperability. There is a difference between having a standard and having that standard enforced.
Just look at ISO-15445 for example...
I know what they were thinking.. (Score:2)
The market speaks! (Score:5, Informative)
OOXML: Zero applications can write the format.
ODF Wins!
Re: (Score:2)
MS will claim office implements OOXML, and that this makes it the most widespread standard, and enough people will buy into it to make the lie turn true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ODF will win in my eyes when MS Office will read and write it (correctly) without requiring a third party plugin. If it's a standard that 95% of users are unable to use (without conscious effort) then it's of limited usefulness.
That aside, I use ODF for my own things and I'd like it a lot if I could actually give my ODF docs to lots of other people and expect them to be able to open them.
ISO is not like IETF (Score:4, Interesting)
ISO generally first adopts standards, then waits for people to prototype implementations and discover the bugs in the standard (unless someone walks in with existing technology and asks for it to be standardized). When people start reporting that aspects of the standard can't be implemented, ISO works on fixing it.
After ISO adopted the Open System Interconnection (OSI) standards, they had to set up "implementers' workshops" to figure out how to make their newly adopted standards workable. (The OSI standards are the 7-layer reference model and related protocol suite that were pushed aside by the Internet protocol suite, a.k.a TCP/IP. Many OSI protocols were never fully implemented or never made to work.)
The workshops met (one was sponsored by NIST) and produced a lot of documents on things that needed to be done to make OSI work. When the Clinton/Gore administration came into office, they killed US government support for the OSI protocols and told its agencies to use the Internet protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Compliance (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious, because I've heard that no product, including Microsoft's, currently follows the OOXML standard... and I wonder if there's a chance they never will? I suspect it may not be possible.
Or are Microsoft products going to be rubberstamped for the approval process as well, even if their implementation is buggy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microsoft's own implementation.. If a clear distinction is made between
How that actuall
What about ISO safety standards ? (Score:2)
If competing standards... (Score:3, Interesting)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
More of a QWWPWFA than a FAQ (Score:2)
Time to take ISO on that last, sad trip to the vet (Score:2)
I hadn't thought shooting oneself in the foot was fatal. In the case of the ISO and its manifestly dishonest dealings with respect to OOXML, I may be mistaken.
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Imperial system consisted of definitions like "Measure this like King George III would have", I'm sure people would argue against that being a standard also.
The Imperial system did consist of such definitions. From the Wikipedia article about the foot:
Some believe that the original measurement of the English foot was from King Henry I, who had a foot 12 inches long; he wished to standardise the unit of measurement in England. However this is unlikely, because there are records of the word being used approximately 70 years before his birth (Laws Ãthelstan). This of course does not exclude the possibility that this old standard was redefined ("calibrated")
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: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.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, ISO was essentially owned by a 0-day. That's bad enough. But much worse is the part where they pretend nothing happened, no damage was done, everything is alright - instead of fixing the hole and undoing the damage.
I know what I'd think about a sysadmin who acts that way with his system. I tend to think the same about ISO now: Incompetence, corruption and stupidity.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once a "real" standards body has presented something to ISO, then it's down to the business as usual of rubber stamping it. After all, the technical work should
ECMA is at fault also (Score:2, Interesting)
But that does not excuse ISO. On receipt of this monster ISO could have laughed, refused it, and revoked their recognition of ECMA as a standard setting body for cause. They could have used a less harsh method of censure amounting to "get away from me kid, I've got work to do."
ISO didn't do that. Instead it went through the drama in three acts that was the validation of this garbage. Now in this FAQ they tell us they monitored the process quite closely all the way through. That means they observed all
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, it just makes the credibility of the voting results even worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, with respect to those individual companies, I would never dream of saying that Google is not 100% capable of reviewing the proposed standard independently and deciding it's of poor enough quality that they must to join th
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the metric system exists, it does not mean that the Imperial system should cease to exist. The practical applications of the "inferior" standard still exist, so it makes no sense to bitch and moan about it.
I realize that the Imperial system of units is so entrenched that it's not going away any time soon. What I don't get is why mass is quantified in pounds and not slugs [wikipedia.org]. And why don't metric-using folks quantify their weight in newtons?
For a real head-spin, check out the wikipedia article on pound mass [wikipedia.org]. Here's a quote: "Historically, in different parts of the world, at different points in time, and for different applications, the pound (or its translation) has referred to broadly similar but not identical s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pounds-mass predates slugs. Of course it helps that the concept of "pounds" also predates the concept of a distinction between weight and mass.
Because people don't measure their weight. They measure their mass. How much that mass happens to weigh at sea level or somesuch is unimportant, since it's the total quantity of matter that composes you that is the h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
using only a spring scale in your bathroom simply won't tell you anything, unless you calibrate it everyday with copy of the international prototype kilogram (IPK).
man, this is the second time in less than a week that i post somethi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What the hell were they thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
What people think of the 'standard' is totally relevant. Simply blindly accepting something as the golden rule is ignorant, and this will (probably) lower the esteem of this standards body for a very long time. That is damaging to the purpose of standards, and part of the reason that there are not 47 international standards bodies.
Yes, I know that sounds like being negative, but you must remember that using OOXML as a design example of what standards SHOULD NOT BE is a valid method to promote the standard of your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they are supposed to evaluate that 'standard' to ensure that it meets the specific and general requirements of such a standard before accepting it as a standard. Paying off the mortgage on the summer house is not one of the requirements, BTW.
Precisely, that sort of thinking is what made web development such a nightmare. Compared to the relatively straightforward task that it should have been, there's a bunch of proprietary gunk that various browsers use and even relatively trivial tasks often times require far more hackery than is fair to expect. Even then it may or may not work. I see no reason why ISO needs to encourage that sort of MS v., Netscape misbehavior. In the long run everybody lost as a result of that selfish behavior.
Yes, I know that sounds like being negative, but you must remember that using OOXML as a design example of what standards SHOULD NOT BE is a valid method to promote the standard of your choice.
Ideally the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good summary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that ISO have dealt with non-implementable standards before (OSI anyone?) but at least there they have previously had working groups who attempted to hammer out the bugs without someone with only political interests watching over their collective shoulders.
Re: (Score:3)
And to not do so would destroy ISO's credibility in the wider world, as well.
Many ISO standards have had flaws before; now adding corruption and outright blatant incompetence at their primary purpose to the list of sins will impact ISO relevance. Perhaps that was partially Microsofts intention; the end result is more likely to be a migration to a standards building process with more integrity.
This will work
No it wont. This isn't 1990 where people co
OO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever the ISOs procedures, what Microsoft has got certified is a standard that, at best, can on