ISO Recommends Denying OOXML Appeals 203
An anonymous reader passes along word that ISO has responded to the four appeals filed against the approval of OOXML as a standard. To no one's surprise, ISO says that there was nothing wrong with the process. Groklaw's coverage is (as usual) the most comprehensive. Andy Updegrove summarizes ISO's position this way: "1. All judgments made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable Directives. 2. The fact that the BRM voted on all proposed resolutions in some fashion satisfies the requirements of the Directives. 3. The fact that a sufficient percentage of National Bodies (NBs) ultimately voted to approve DIS 29500 ratifies the process and any flaws in that process. 4. Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process."
Meaning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meaning. (Score:5, Insightful)
The processing of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 project has been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, with decisions determined by the votes expressed by the relevant ISO and IEC national bodies under their own responsibility, and consequently, for the reasons mentioned above, the appeals should not be processed further
Typical desk jockey jargon with no content whatsoever... "Vote was counted and records are signed, that is the end of it, just shut up, we do not care if a company bought out some (most) of the votes or not..."
Sign to Move On (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't care about fair process because it's our game anyway.
ISO need not have a monopoly on games. Sure, it's going to take some work to replace it. So the question is, "is it worthwhile doing?"
Re:Sign to Move On (Score:5, Informative)
As for most things IT, there is a body of standards, fully documented and with free, accessible and royalty-free reference implementations. I am using such an embodiment right now to write this e-mail.
ISO is useful for connectors, naming conventions and mechanical parts specifications. Its role in defining open data-exchange standards is obsolete.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As for most things IT, there is a body of standards, fully documented and with free, accessible and royalty-free reference implementations. I am using such an embodiment right now to write this e-mail.
You're not doing a very good job of it - that isn't an email.
Damage done to ISO and Commercial Standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
The corruption is so obvious that the ISO's reputation has been harmed. This is a bigger win for M$ than the coo-coo standard they never intended to follow. It is as if RJR got the AMA to approve a cigarette through bribery and a truncated "fast track" process. OOXML is against everything the ISO stood for and that contradiction is the forest that should be seen through all the clear cut trees. Commercial standards are now obviously compromised.
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
Re:Damage done to ISO and Commercial Standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the blowback, that M$ may not have anticipated. It is now up to GNU, Debian and other community efforts to define reasonable standards. People who have "respect" for convicted monopolists will no longer be trusted. The more M$ abuses their power, the more people want to escape.
Trouble is, the vast vast majority of Microsoft users will have no interest in this whole fiasco. The "more people" who want to escape will be lost in the noise. The things that concern the majority of /. readers are rarely the things that concern the corporate suits who make the purchasing decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, the vast vast majority of Microsoft users will have no interest in this whole fiasco. The "more people" who want to escape will be lost in the noise. The things that concern the majority of /. readers are rarely the things that concern the corporate suits who make the purchasing decisions.
Maybe. I'm not so sure anymore. I used to expect certain things to show up on Slashdot that wouldn't show up at work - or at least would only show up among a small subset of folks at work. But I've seen a change over the years.
I've seen these issues shared among IT workers far more often these days. I have to admit - I'm still surprised when they surface. But I've noted that its only the die-hard Microsoft shops / groups that still toe the expected Microsoft line.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's high time for you to stop being rewarded for your "opinions". It's high time for everyone on Slashdot to know what you're doing.
http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/205317 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/206779 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/~willyhill/journal/206879 [slashdot.org]
And to stay on topic, "GNU" and Debian do not set standards of any sort, and it's spelled Microsoft, not "M$".
Re: (Score:2)
People who have a reason not to listen to you don't need to make up lame excuses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As an ironic aside, the 'M$' meme, according to Google Meme Search, was originally [google.com] planted by one of the thousands of Microsoft employees who frequent Slashdot in an attempt to equate Microsoft and Money and drive up stock.
How's that meme working out for you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Using M$ is not "childish"; it is community spirit. [...] A derogatory epithet for the enemy binds the community together against a common foe.
Perhaps, but it is not the only way to engender community spirit.
If your intention is to provoke meaningful change outside of the community then it is counterproductive.. if your intention is to sustain a community for the sake of being part of a community then go right ahead.
To use someone's own chosen name is to honour them.
As someone from Great Britain, I can see why you might feel more strongly about that.
It is not childish, though it is militant. [...] Micro$hit do not deserve that honour.
Your complaint is not about Microsoft which, as an corporate animal, behaves in just the way you'd expect it to.. but against the greater environment
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft are not "just a symptom", the people there actually shaped the current environment and continue to shape it (largely by political machinations). They are a part of the disease, not just a result.
Part of what makes OOXML such a terrible standard, is that it can't be implemented as written, and so it can't be a standard.
In other words - people need standards for documents for them to be useful.
This is precisely the emergent factor which drove Microsoft Office to dominance in the first place -- in lieu of a commonplace internet, people needed to go to the store, buy a few floppy disks and know that the contents would guarantee them interoperability.
Did Microsoft abuse it's monopoly position? The co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. It reminds me more of a scene from "A few good men"
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
I think the point is that the number of objections is irrelevant if it's deemed the rules have been followed. It's like having 1000 people show up for your traffic court hearing and booing the judge. If you were wrong, it won't affect the outc
Does it matter (Score:3, Interesting)
How does it matter whether OOXML is an ISO standard or not. No real world implementation exists, so anyone who wants to actually use a standard is still going to have to use ODF.
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never understood why standards bodies can't understand that patents are anti-standards and cannot be permitted to exist within a standard.
They should apply a click-wrap patent licence clause. "By submitting any idea or specification to this standards body, submitter irrevocably grants a world wide royalty free license to all entities on any patents contained within.
Re: (Score:2)
Starting embrace, extend and suffocate maneuvers in 3... 2... 1...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has already realized that OOXML is unimplementable
...Was it the statement that the OOSML SDK "will definitely be 100% compliant with the final ISO/IEC 29500 spec, including the changes accepted at the BRM" (Doug Mahugh) that tipped you off that "Microsoft has already realized that OOXML is unimplementable"? Or was it the one about "We are committed to supporting the Open XML specification that is approved by ISO/IEC in our products (Chris Capossela [microsoft.com])?
And what exactly is it about OOXML that is so "unimplementable" exactly? ISO 29500/Transitional is pret
Re: (Score:2)
But I like FormatLikeBabbageDiffEngine.
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of legislation that requires governments to use only "standards compliant" formats. If OOXML is an ISO standard, then those governments can continue to use MS Office formats that no other software can use.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I'm sure that saying "MS Office 2007 implements MSOOXML, which later became an ISO standard" will be enough to justify it's continued use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point I was making is that for most agencies, the distinction won't be made, and if ISO/IEC29500 is an accepted standard, then MS Office 2007, supporting ECMA 376, will be considered "close enough".
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you understand that? Not even Microsoft has any product which implements the standard.
You seem to have the quaint notion that any debate by a government department of contractor over whether .docx is an ISO standard will be based on accurate information and rational argument by open-minded people who understand the technical issues.
Welcome to our planet, stranger!
The reality is that the ISO has handed Microsoft advocates a massive FUD weapon. Before, ODF was ISO certified, .doc wasn't. End of story. Now, the salesman can tell your pointy-haired boss (who's genes tell him that nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft anyway) that MS's ISO-certified OOXML format will leverage support for legacy documents without the potential loss of fidelity* associated with ODF without telling an actionable lie.
(* 'cos half of OOXML seems to boil down to "render this blob exactly like Office 97, right down to the leap-year bugs" - and MS are really going to pull out all the stops to ensure that their ODF implementation is absolutely rock-solid, right?)
Re:Does it matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, even before this, ISO wasn't really particularly relevant. I mean seriously, by their own admission, they were allowing multiple competing standards to develop to solve the same problem.
I'm not really sure I understand what the point of ISO is if they're going to allow multiple competing standards to develop. Perhaps it's that I don't work in IT, but how on earth is multiple standards a good thing? How exactly is it useful to the consumer or whoever is implementing them to get to choose amongst mu
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, even before this, ISO wasn't really particularly relevant. I mean seriously, by their own admission, they were allowing multiple competing standards to develop to solve the same problem.
I think that you misunderstand what the ISO is all about. They are not there to pick the winners. They just allow a single definition of things in the hope that each vendor doesn't come up with their own slightly different version.
It is just as valid for the ISO to standardise both ODF and OOXML as it is for them to standardise C++ and Fortran. Both are competing for the same goal, but it means that you can choose a programming language/document format and get the same C++, Fortran, ODF or OOXML no matter w
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Don't be an idiot and turn
Re:Does it matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps it's because so many of the processes used in this were used improperly (such as fast tracking) or subverted entirely (ignoring appeals, allowing microsoft shills to be on the boards voting for ratification). What really gets me is the line about "All these appeals, despite how much merit they have, are being ignored by us. Suck it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Office implements OOXML. It has some minor deviations from the standard, but it is closer to the OOXML standard than OpenOffice is to the ODF standard, as measured by the number of validation errors you get if you validate real-world documents against the schema for the two specs.
Re:Does it matter (Score:4, Informative)
Noooope. Word does not (currently) implement OOXML.
And that doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
MSOffice will support MSOOXML*
* but not the ISO standard implementation of MSOOXML **
** written in VERY small print. On a disused paper. In the basement. Without a light (lost) or stairs (lost) behind a closed door saying "Beware of the leopard"
Re:And that doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
"Beware of the Leopard" indeed, and perhaps also the Heron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it doesn't. Howewever, like XHTML, OOXML has a transitional format part of the ISO specs. Office doesn't implement that format, but it is virtually 3 tags away from it (its stuff like 0/1 instead of true/false in attributes, and other simple junk like that which had to be changed because of the last batch of recommendations for the ISO standard stuff).
So roll up a minimalistic patch, backward compatibility would be painfully simple to get, auto-convert any document that is being modified, and
Half truth (Score:2)
Noooope. Word does not (currently) implement OOXML.
Half truth.
Word does currently implement OOXMl as defined by ECMA 376.
Word does not currently implement OOXML as defined by ISO 29500 (for the obvious reason that all the changes from the ECMA standard were made after Office 2007 had already come out).
Also, that second statement can be broken down into:
- Word very nearly implements ISO 29500/Transitional (the differences being tag semantic tidying, such as "on" "off" being replaced by "true" "false" etc.)
- Word is very far from implementing ISO
ISO has failed (Score:4, Insightful)
They either need to replaced or it must be built up from scratch. If this does not happen, there can NEVER be any trust in them again.
Fuck ISO
Re:ISO has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ISO has failed (Score:4, Interesting)
It's quite a silly thing to get all ruffled up about. So what if it's a standard? Yea, it probably should not be, and people probably did get paid off, but the ISO is not a defender of freedom for uber-geeks, they are a standards organization, and overall they do a very good job (compare them to ICANN for instance). Get over it man, it's not a big deal. There are bigger things in life to get miffed about.
Yah, it isn't going to be bad at all whenever we turn to paperless filing for things and the government uses crappy "standards" like this and anyone who doesn't use whatever the "standard" implementation is, can't file something such as taxes.
Re:ISO has failed (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards keep your car from flying apart, jets from dropping out of the sky and bridges from collapsing.
Yes industry standards matter. Screwing around with them as real world consequences. This is about more than just software.
Re: (Score:2)
Standards keep your car from flying apart, jets from dropping out of the sky and bridges from collapsing.
Though I don't intend to carelessly contend your utterly valid point (because I agree with you wholeheartedly) I would argue that the risk of liability plays a large part in these things.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of government officials stand to gain by using ISO-sanctioned standards that cannot be correctly implemented and that won't be readable in a couple decades.
It will save a lot of reputations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can demand that all clown shoes must be measured in cubits and have it made the clown shoe standard. That doesn't mean people will use it.
Re:On the plus side.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quantum theory can then explain why so many clowns can fit inside of a very small vehicle.
Compressability is an inherent property of bozons.
Appeal vs. Objection (Score:2, Insightful)
Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant to the appeals process.
Hmm, what is the difference between an objection and an appeal again?
define:objection - expostulation: the act of expressing earnest opposition or protest.
define:appeal - challenge (a decision); "She appealed the verdict"
Ahh yes, completely different.
Bleah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even MSFT gave up on trying to use the thing as a standard (for now)... but at least ISO's actions show us just how worthless and suspect (and probably corrupt) an ISO standard can get nowadays.
Guess I should've seen it coming back in the 1990's, when companies were plastering "ISO (insert number) Certified!1!1!!11!" across every marketing material surface that would hold ink.
Ah well... back to the good ol' RFC's, methinks.
ISO 9000 (Score:3, Informative)
Its a fairly meaningless certfication, since the company can still be turning out crap. But at least
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Too many RFCs are being blatantly ignored. To the interweb's detriment. RFC 821/2821, RFC 1178... need I go on?
You forgot RFC 1149 [ietf.org]
boycott iso! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize you're being sarcastic, but you do realize that would mean boycotting things like ODF, PDF, Standard text files, etc.. right?
Re: (Score:2)
So ISO wants to become irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I see it is that they have exactly two options:
1) Clean up their process and make resilient against amoral scum like Microsoft, that have a lot of power and absolutely no restraints on using it.
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
Seems to me that ISO is bound to beceome irrelevant unless they chose 1). This would be detrimental to the whole world and a real pity. Can they just admit that their process has been successfully hacked and take a stand and poclaim that they will not tolerate it? Obviously not. Pathetic.
Re:So ISO wants to become irrelevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Let them get away with it and have all their standardization efforts become meaningless.
ISO standards may be meaningless to all rational people if they continue down this road. Sadly, there are a lot of powerful organizations that have a lot of influence on many of our lives that are not even close to rational. As someone who has occasionally had to deal with standards for products used by the US government, I can tell you right now there is nothing rational about the requirements or procedures. It is millions in consulting fees being handed to people for completely useless certifications, largely as a way to prevent competitors from bidding on contracts. I actually saw a Windows 95 based "device" win a contract we wanted to bid on, because that was the only OS "certified" for security for that use. The "certification" basically amounted to MS stating it was not guaranteed to be fit for any purpose and paying contractors to fill out a boatload of paperwork. Any vendor with a pile of money could get "certified" but it took time and cost a lot of money.
The problem with ISO and OOXML is that it won't be viewed rationally and it will likely be used as a way to make MS Office a legal requirement in certain government applications without any regard for the real merits of other software packages. Even if all rational people know ISO certification no longer means anything, that doesn't mean we won't be spending millions in tax dollars needlessly because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the whole ISO thing is irrelevant:
M$ Pimp Bureaucrat: Ye must use an ISO standard for documents.
M$ Business School Product: We have an M$OOXML implementing thingy that produces docs and M$OOXML is an ISO standard.
M$ PB: (checking bank account) I see here that you have not yet implemented yon standard.
M$ MSB: Check your bank account again, you'll find we have indeedy implemented something like what you are suggesting.
M$ PB: (checking bank account again) Why yes, I see it says right here that you have
Huh? (Score:2)
Many objections, regardless of their merits, are irrelevant
So even if an objection is relevant... it's somehow not relevant?
Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.
What do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to move away from standards bodies... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think instead of having standards bodies, perhaps we should just say, defacto, that the open source application that manages an open document is in fact the reference implementation. It has all the knowledge in code, for public display and re-use, and that's way better than mere requirements. Like, I'm a total Windows bigot, but I do more C++ on Linux and I now expect that Visual C++ should actually perform the same way that GNU does, rather than vice versa, because I trust GNU more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like, I'm a total Windows bigot, but I do more C++ on Linux and I now expect that Visual C++ should actually perform the same way that GNU does, rather than vice versa, because I trust GNU more.
Problem #1: You trust GNU more, but that doesn't mean the GNU way will win out. What happens when the most prevalent de facto standards is held up by someone unscrupulous, and you want to do something about it? We'll all be sitting around saying, "We sure wish there was some group that could study the different formats to use and make unbiased recommendations, so that the less-knowledgeable among us can make better decisions about what to implement."
Problem #2: Standards bodies (when they're working prop
You've got it almost exactly backwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
In practice though, it's really hard to do this - I used to know someone who spent a long time doing a real ISO reference C compiler. (Standards are mind numbing stuff - particularly the corner cases).
Andy
zz (Score:4, Insightful)
really, who cares?
Who are the losers here?
MS - because this has all come out in the wash, they are going ODF anyhow and its made them look daft for not even using their own standard. I mean, how could they now?
ISO - because this has generated enough mud to stick and tarnished their reputation maybe beyond compare.
Re:zz (Score:5, Informative)
Who are the losers here?
You forgot, taxpayers, who will end up paying for purchases of MS Office because of government regulations requiring use of specific ISO standards, like OOXML, for particular uses. It will basically be used as a way to lock out everyone but MS for certain contracts and we'll be paying the bills.
Re:zz (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IOW: OOXML is like OSI for documents.
Neither have a implementation that exists.
MS' OOXML is the closest but no cigar.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
MS - because this has all come out in the wash, they are going ODF anyhow and its made them look daft for not even using their own standard. I mean, how could they now?
We don't know what Microsoft's endgame is here. They might implement ODF in a buggy, half-assed manor, argue that it's because ODF is a sub-standard format, and then say, "Hmmm.... I guess we need to find a new format. Luckily, we have another ISO standard all ready to go!"
It could all just be a PR play so they can claim, "We tried to do what those FOSS fanatics wanted, but gave up when we realized how awful the format is. Those guys just can't be satisfied!"
Is it still a standard... (Score:4, Interesting)
What does this say about ISO Standards when their decisions are rejected by the community at-large?
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, its like OSI for documents.
Neither have a implementation that exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a few ISO standards don't have full implementations, or took many years to get full implementations after approval, take C++ for instance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is not that unusual.
I have been a C++ programmer for many years, long before the standard for C++ was passed. When it was passed there was no complete implementation of it, and it was many years before there were implementations that came close.
I still have trouble forgetting the effort it took to get 'standard' code to build on AIX, Sun, and Windows.
A standard doesn't say there is an implementation, it says this is what we expect/want to be implemented.
Re: (Score:2)
::dring dring::
"Hmm, hello? yes... oh, sure, no problem."
Buddy, the W3C just called. They wanna speak with you about something.
ISO fails/refuses to see the issue (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like asking a paralyzed man to piss and hit toilet.
ISO feedback (Score:2, Insightful)
the ISO's website has a nice feedback form, I would encourage people in a restrained and intelligent way to point out what OOXML has done to the ISO's now ruined reputation.
Nothing wrong with the process? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, at this point all I can say is fsck ISO. And I think that's the general feeling of many in the IT right now. That's going to have some consequences - like, ISO standards not being worth the paper they're written on, for example.
Ah, misstatement in point 1... (Score:3, Funny)
There was a misstatement in point 1 - it should read:
1. All judgements made during the course of the process were appropriately made under the applicable tables.
In other words... (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems kind of odd to me that certain members of the ISO are fighting so hard to defend their questionable actions during the process. Could it be they are afraid of what may surface during an investigation of what really happened? Could it be they are afraid of what they might lose if it's overturned? Just curious...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That and it would be embarrassing to have to return any "items" which M$ entrusted to their perpetual care.
Gerry
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever heard of the term "rule of law"? If not, look it up.
The idea is, opinions do not matter in rule of law (other than legal opinions). If you don't follow the rule of law, then laws become meaningless.
The same is true for organziations like ISO, and while their rules aren't law, they may as well be for them. If they don't follow them and allow public opinion to sway their actions, then the rules are meaningless. If you don't like the rules, you have to work to get them changed, not cry foul for having followed the rules.
Most people against the ISO decisions don't seem to understand this. They think that if they just stand up and yell loud enough, then the ISO will (or should) violate it's own rules to side with them. That would be an even worse situation for the ISO and would make them even more worthless if they can be swayed to violate their own rules by public opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The rule of law works because there are checks and balances, meta-laws that laws are subject to, judges and juries to interpret the laws, an appeals process. When these are short-circuited, the law becomes ineffective.
If the rules of a body do not include equivalent mechanisms, if they *have to* be blindly followed, as if every one of these rules was the equivalent of the mandatory sentencing rules that tie judges hands and prevent them from applying the judgement that oils the wheels of justice, then the r
Saying (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminded saying heard long time ago. [ Probably native speaker can give original saying for my memory is bad with such things. ]
When process is against you - argue facts
When facts against you - argue procedure.
Facts are against ISO. So they are pushing the procedure thing. After all procedure was so to say followed and voting on the so called standard so to say have happened. Or probably "had been happened" is more appropriate wording in the context??
Estabilish a new standards body? (Score:2)
I imagine this is not impossible: the ISO has decided they want to be irrelevant and shunned. What better way to oblige them than to start a foundation (I'm sure Sun, IBM and RedHat would love to chip in with a few bucks) that is in direct and totally blatant competition with ISO, just without the bribeability and corruptability of the ISO? After the OOXML fiasco, I think this new international standards organisation would have no major problems getting established.
Probably other donors would appear: Nokia,
To Paraphrase... (Score:2)
To paraphrase ISO's response: "We're still relevant!!!"
No, you are not.
Welcome to the Real World (TM) (Score:3, Interesting)
Before the first time I ever participated in a "standards body", I thought that the committees consisted of really smart technical people gathering together to figure out what was best for the industry at large. How naive!
Then came the rude awakening: The committees are almost entirely comprised of representatives (who often reflect minimal technical expertise in the domain of interest) of the major commercial players in the industry. Each of the reps does whatever he/she can to promote his/her constituent employer's stance on each and every detailed issue, without regard for ethics, and with no regard whatsoever to what is "best" for the industry at large. Buying votes is certainly considered within the pale, in these contexts.
Consequently, the only standards I can respect are the RFCs published by the IETF, for 2 major reasons:
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a real shame their anti-MS hatred has to taint everything in the world. But at least the ISO is not putting up with it any longer.
Yeah, because Microsoft stuffed ISO with its own people. Maybe they should rename it MS-ISO. I'm sure they'd have no problem getting the name approval.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft was hardly the only one doing the stuffing. IBM, Google, Oracle, and others were doing lots of their own stuffing. A lot of people like to point out all the people that joined recently and voted yes, but they ignore the fact that just as many (if not more) joined recently and voted no.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the result? one more chain keeping the banana republics enslaved.
Re:OOXML is a standard. Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact there is corruption and fraud elsewhere do not make this one a tiny bit more tolerable.
OOXML will *become* a requirement (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Governments will have to use an ISO approved standard, to make sure their documents can be exchanged, and that their documents will be readable in the future.
2) Since msft has a monopoly on office products, the ISO standard of choice is a foregone conclusion.
3) Anybody who does business with the governments will also have to use the OOXML standard. So those who do business with the governments will also standardize on OOXML. Those who business, with those who do business with governments, will also have