Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 88555	2008-03-31 21:20:00	OOXML & ISO.	Murray P (44)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
654747	2008-04-02 07:03:00	There is - MS office doesn't open or save ODF out of the box. The result is that people will be saving in OOXML by default, because they don't know any better. The 'dirt' doesn't mean the format is unusable, it just means that nobody else can implement it in a way that's compatible with MS office. For the record, the current MS implementation doesn't even follow their so-called standard anyway. The point is to get open source apps to interprete MS Office documents as much as possible (even perfectly). This would be good for open source, because it would draw people to open source apps and OSs. It doesn't matter what MS Office does, because it can't be worse than what they are doing now. Think about it. He is playing the ball. The problem is that you are dodging the darn thing and leaving the field. Nah. He got personal when he was shown up, and he got childish about it. And you should let him fight his own battles, and he yours. He, and you, started this thread by insinuating that people here were stupid. You both should get over yourselves already. It's not a metaphor, it's a real-life example of a standard that works, because it is properly and clearly defined. Until you can pick up the OOXML standard and implement something that is 100% compatible with the files MS office reads & writes, it's not a real standard. And what do you see the situation without OOXML being standardised? What is the obvious and 1000-lb alternative? That's right - the status quo. No, it's being considered because MS is pushing it, and because they refuse to support ODF. ODF is not hard to implement, if they did so OOXML would vanish overnight. They would never do this without being forced though, because it destroys their monopoly on office products. It is being pushed through because despite ODF being the standard, the vast majority of users still cannot do without MS formats. MSs formats cannot be ignored. Those who do are isolationists and wannabe elitists who are perpetuating the myth that open source efforts such as Linux arespecialist, hobby, geeky things. No they are not. Which really doesn't mean much. If everyone is saving in OOXML, you still need OOXML support in whatever program you're using to open it. That wouldn't be the case if people were using open source apps. Which they would be if only they could read that bloody Excel spreadsheet properly. You're missing the point. Until the OOXML standard is properly defined, and MS actually follows the standard, there isn't a hope in hell of this happening. The OSS developers will need to resort to reverse-engineering, as they did for the original .doc/xls/ppt etc formats. Note that 'properly defined' doesn't just mean being ratified as an ISO standard, particularly not when MS is using every underhanded tactic possible to drive it through. I, you and everyone else, will have to leave it to ECMA/ISO/whoever to manage the standard. Any comment you make about it now is idle speculation. Give it a chance, because there is always a way out - back to ODF. As an example: The Norwegian committee voted 18/2 against OOXML in the second round of voting. The '2' sent everyone else out of the room, and registered Norway's vote as a yes. The president of this committee has requested a formal investigation and asked that Norway's vote is discounted until the matter is cleared up. Big note here: they are trying to vote with their feet and leave the dirt well enough alone, MS just won't let them. Now tell me how that could possibly be an anti-MS conspiracy? Note that it's far from the only incident. More idle speculation. We need to wait and see what the outcome of the Norwegian/German/whoever investigations are.	vinref (6194)
654748	2008-04-02 07:58:00	Microsoft wins document format standards battle (stink) www.reuters.com	sal (67)
654749	2008-04-02 08:14:00	The point is to get open source apps to interprete MS Office documents as much as possible (even perfectly). This would be good for open source, because it would draw people to open source apps and OSs. It doesn't matter what MS Office does, because it can't be worse than what they are doing now. Think about it.No. The point is for MS to maintain their monopoly. Don't even try to pretend that this is good for open-source software - it's not. The only way this would be good is if the standard provided enough information to create a workable implementation of the format, which it doesn't even come close to doing. Nah. He got personal when he was shown up, and he got childish about it. And you should let him fight his own battles, and he yours. He, and you, started this thread by insinuating that people here were stupid. You both should get over yourselves already.Please provide quotes to back this up. At no point did I call anyone stupid, nor did I insinuate this fact. I don't think that Murray did either, although I'm not going to re-read the thread to find out. What we did do is briefly discuss a movie quote midway through the thread. Regarding your battle comment - I am not in this thread to battle, I am here to have a logical debate on the merits or otherwise of OOXML being ratified by the ISO. As you may have noticed, I enjoy a good argument. I do however draw the line at personal insults, doing so is never my intention, no matter what I may think of the other parties involved. Also refer to the proverb "No man is an island" - there is no rule that says I must be the only one to state my point of view. And what do you see the situation without OOXML being standardised? What is the obvious and 1000-lb alternative? That's right - the status quo.Nope - as many government organisations are required to save their documentation in an ISO-standardised format, OOXML failing to be ratified would cause a huge number of these bodies to adopt ODF as their new document format. The result of this would be to force MS to provide ODF support in MS office. That would be a good thing for open-source, because MS Office would then be competing on a level playing field rather than one heavily tilted in its favour. It is being pushed through because despite ODF being the standard, the vast majority of users still cannot do without MS formats. MSs formats cannot be ignored.No, it is being pushed through because MS wants it pushed through - if this failed, it would have a massive impact on MS's ability to keep a monopoly on the office software market. What government departments adopt, private enterprises also tend to adopt in time. Your comment about users is also incorrect - the vast majority of users cannot do without MS legacy formats, such as doc, xls, ppt etc. Most users don't even run into OOXML files in their day-to-day work. Those who do are isolationists and wannabe elitists who are perpetuating the myth that open source efforts such as Linux are specialist, hobby, geeky things. No they are not.Nobody is suggesting that MS formats be ignored; if you think that then I suggest you re-read the thread. What I am saying is that it's in nobody's interest but MS's to ratify OOXML as an ISO standard. If you still think I am suggesting they should be ignored, then please provide quotes. That wouldn't be the case if people were using open source apps. Which they would be if only they could read that bloody Excel spreadsheet properly.Not necessarily - they would be using the best tool for the job, which in some cases is actually MS office. Whatever I may think of MS as a company, their office suite isn't bad. Note that I exclude Office 2007 from that statement due to its interface. I also refer you to my original quote: "If everyone is saving in OOXML, you still need OOXML support in whatever program you're using to open it." Your statement above doesn't rebut this at all, can you rephrase it? I, you and everyone else, will have to leave it to ECMA/ISO/whoever to manage the standard. Any comment you make about it now is idle speculation. Give it a chance, because there is always a way out - back to ODF.I believe you missed the point. The whole idea is not to give MS a chance at pushing a flawed format simply to maintain its monopoly. If you think that is a good thing, or there are other reasons MS is pushing OOXML rather than simply adopting ODF, then please - explain why. There are also no laws that say I am not allowed to complain about this - quite the opposite; the laws governing free speech are some of the most important laws in any democratic society. If enough people complain, it may have an effect (although I'm realistic enough to admit that it also may have no effect at all). More idle speculation. We need to wait and see what the outcome of the Norwegian/German/whoever investigations are.Far from idle speculation - with a vote process this corrupt there is a very definite chance of reversal, particularly as the European Commission is smelling blood. They seem to be the only ones who have the guts to take on MS - refer to their European antitrust lawsuits for more detail. Note that doing nothing in this case is tacit approval; fence-sitting isn't really an option.	Erayd (23)
654750	2008-04-02 08:24:00	Nail in the coffin for those highly rattled by this www.iso.org	sal (67)
654751	2008-04-02 10:00:00	Well, all we need is the fan; we have the other stuff now.	R2x1 (4628)
654752	2008-04-02 12:24:00	The point is to get open source apps to interprete MS Office documents as much as possible (even perfectly). This would be good for open source, because it would draw people to open source apps and OSs. It doesn't matter what MS Office does, because it can't be worse than what they are doing now. Think about it. Nah. He got personal when he was shown up, and he got childish about it. And you should let him fight his own battles, and he yours. He, and you, started this thread by insinuating that people here were stupid. You both should get over yourselves already. And what do you see the situation without OOXML being standardised? What is the obvious and 1000-lb alternative? That's right - the status quo. It is being pushed through because despite ODF being the standard, the vast majority of users still cannot do without MS formats. MSs formats cannot be ignored. Those who do are isolationists and wannabe elitists who are perpetuating the myth that open source efforts such as Linux arespecialist, hobby, geeky things. No they are not. That wouldn't be the case if people were using open source apps. Which they would be if only they could read that bloody Excel spreadsheet properly. I, you and everyone else, will have to leave it to ECMA/ISO/whoever to manage the standard. Any comment you make about it now is idle speculation. Give it a chance, because there is always a way out - back to ODF. More idle speculation. We need to wait and see what the outcome of the Norwegian/German/whoever investigations are. Can't be bothered at this time, except to say that breaking every thing down to the minutia, while sometimes helpful to get ones point across, can equally show to all and sundry precisely how much you actually know and understand. Vinref, amongst all that bollocks, have you perchance explained to everybody what a standard is yet? I'd really be very interested to see it, I'm absolutely sure it will be fascinating. You're not avoiding the question are you, it is rather important to your argument.	Murray P (44)
654753	2008-04-02 23:46:00	Time to play this little game . Apologies in advance if there are errors in the following, I've not proofed it . Sloppy I know, but I can't be a r s e d . Good luck with wading through it and well done to you if you do manage to, (you get a smile face stamp if you do, hmmm, now where are my :) soled boots?) . The point is to get open source apps to interprete MS Office documents as much as possible (even perfectly) . This would be good for open source, because it would draw people to open source apps and OSs . It doesn't matter what MS Office does, because it can't be worse than what they are doing now . Think about it . And when will open SOurce apps be able to interpret OOXML, even imperfectly? The fact is they cannot be complaint with the standard because not all the methods to enable the standard are actually published and many that are are proprietary and therefore not open . Even MS do not comply with the OOXML standard (Office 2007 is non-compliant) and have stated that they will not be . A cynic might say that MS will avoid compliance with its own standard so that they can avoid publishing (making oublicly available) the means by which other organisations can implement and interoperate with OOXML and therefore MS Office apps, but I think it's simpler than that in that for MS to be technically and functionally compliant MS would break their own apps . Some standard eh! BTW, ECMA OOXML is different to ISO OOXML which is different to . docx produced by the so called MS OOXML in Office . i . e . there are zero, zilch, 0 implementations of either standard and probably never will be . Kinda hard to comply and interoperate with that moving target and, do you really think MS will provide the tools and sit idly by while vendors of other office suites interoperate freely and fully with MS Office documents? Nah . He got personal when he was shown up, and he got childish about it . And you should let him fight his own battles, and he [QUOTE=vinref;659876]yours . He, and you, started this thread by insinuating that people here were stupid . You both should get over yourselves already . You appear to have taken umbrage at my remarks in post # 22, I presume, then fired of some snide comments about my state of calmness . Please point out where in that post (22) I actually got personal rather than merely challenging your statements and your position . I'm concerned that you feel that this has been taken to a personal level, or needs to be, so let's get back to the objective and if that takes an unreserved apology from me, then so be it, I'll live . And what do you see the situation without OOXML being standardised? What is the obvious and 1000-lb alternative? That's right - the status quo . No not the status quo . The reason why MS has put so much effort in to having OOXML accepted as a standard is that they can see the danger in national and local governments increasingly demanding that all documents be published and archived in an open standard format . There are three primary reasons for governments to want this open standard; access to archived documents for the foreseeable future, avoidance of vendor lock in and interoperability . The first are the ones that governments are most concerned with, the last precludes PDF . The concern (read fear) that MS displays can be related directly to the noise they create in opposition to something, hence MSs increasingly strident criticism of, pin and FUD in respect of the ODF standard . MS Office after is one of the two cornerstones of their profitability . It is being pushed through because despite ODF being the standard, the vast majority of users still cannot do without MS formats . MSs formats cannot be ignored . Those who do are isolationists and wannabe elitists who are perpetuating the myth that open source efforts such as Linux arespecialist, hobby, geeky things . No they are not . Uhm, they can still use Office apps those apps were compliant with ODF standard . Why on earth couldn't they, what rationale (apart from those stated above) could there be for MS not to be compliant with the existing standard? (You do know that MS is a member of the Oasis organisation that implemented and monitors the ODF standard, that they could add technically to the standard and very easily adopt it and do so much easily and readily than OOXML . Gosh why wouldn't they) . "isolationists" You see, it is mine, and many other's, opinion that MS are the isolationists in this matter . It simply stands to reason that MS are very, very fearful of even, fair, competition, have lost the art of fair competition and therefore they are the ones that seek to isolate, to restrict and control . To be open and embracing, inclusive are opposites to isolation, now tell me and in all honesty and with actual proof to support your stance, can you still come to the same conclusion as you did in the quote above? That wouldn't be the case if people were using open source apps . Which they would be if only they could read that bloody Excel spreadsheet properly . Ok, right here we come to the crux of what a standard is, why we have them and why they should be technically usable by anyone who wishes to adhere to them . The statement you make there re Excel is an argument for the view opossing yours . Do you see that? Let me explain, if Excel was complaint with a true standard, then it would be very easy other spread sheets to read Excel, any version of it and any future iterations of it . Instead, we have a situation where other apps apply inelegant work arounds just to get partial viewing functionality . That in anyone's definition is not standard, cannot be and never will be unless we who use and abide by standards and Oxford, Websters, et al, dramatically change the meaning of the word 'standard' . I, you and everyone else, will have to leave it to ECMA/ISO/whoever to manage the standard . Any comment you make about it now is idle speculation . Give it a chance, because there is always a way out - back to ODF . Except that ISO and ECMA have accepted something as a standard that requires considerable work and management (as you rightly point out . Surely that cannot be called any thing but a DRAFT or a proposed standard . Where do you go if you work to a DRAFT or proposed standard and it changes considerably in it's final accepted form? Up the creek without a paddle, especially if you have put considerable resources in your implementation, even further up the creek if the standard [sic] cause technical issues because it is incomplete or has bugs in it . One of the very reasons for standards is to avoid this type of thing . Standards were not born out of idle speculation, but out of the experience that when they are not applied correct you end up with chaos, waste and confusion in industry and amongst consumers . History, experience, research, not idle at all . Standards organisations are usually very careful (at least in this neck of the woods they are) with the identification of DRAFTs and proposed standards as opposed to the finished article . The ones I regularly receive for comment are watermarked on every page with DRAFT and have a long preamble explaining that it is to be used for comment only, must not be used as a standard, is in effect under embargo . So why should this 'standard' [sic] be any different (I believe I know the answer) . BTW, NZ voted against acceptance of the OOXML standard, if you wish to know why and understand the process a little better, go here, Standards NZ press release ( . standards . co . nz/news/Media+releases/NZ+maintains+negative+vote+on+OOXML+Standard . htm" target="_blank">www . standards . co . nz) and, you might also be interested in Standards in LAW More idle speculation . We need to wait and see what the outcome of the Norwegian/German/whoever investigations are . No, direct participants in the process, even the chairs or heads of the committees have come out and admitted or communicated publicly that irregularities occurred . This is not confined to the two countries mentioned above, several others have been mentioned with, apparent, legitimate evidence being tabled that suggests quite strongly that something very rotten has occurred . I emphasise "apparent" and "suggests" . What would be "speculation", would be suggesting that the massive swing from the earlier no vote to the affirmative was due to bribery, corruption, fraud, vote stacking, ballot rigging, commercial expediency, etc, all terms used to describe the whole process (not just the vote) by various people and organisations . Nothing at all "idle" about it though, it's been quite feverous by all accounts . And of course, if it were idle speculation, the various govt ministers and the EU who have stated they are not happy with the process and are going to investigate would be wasting their time . Smoke + fire . My primary reasons for objecting to OOXML being accepted as a standard is that there is already a perfectly good standard that can be easily adopted by anyone, it not being beneficial to have more than one and, if perchance you were going to have two standards, then they must be equally available and useful to all . The shenanigans that has sullied the ISO vote process is another matter . That just pisses me off and makes me angry, but it has nothing to do with the merits of the standard per se . It has been a mess though and it has damaged ISO, to what extent will remain to be seen .	Murray P (44)
654754	2008-04-03 09:23:00	MS are phenomenally good at making money. (Alas, not too shiny at anything else.) If you understand that their actions are all to enhance their own money making then they are acting quite rationally. This is legal and in the interests of their shareholders. A standard that they can't influence, is counter-productive to the profit forecast 4 years out when they change formats and make purchase of the new Office, or whatever, imperative. An inflexibly enforced standard would only benefit the users of the software - and could imperil the MS shareholders' bottom line. Obviously a bad thing. I can understand the motives for MS, but why the ISO hierarchy adopted this crock is beyond me.	R2x1 (4628)
654755	2008-04-03 09:29:00	Can you imagine how Linux would boom if people can open Office document properly in open source apps? I had one dumb business send me an oder form in the latest MS Office format which I could not open with any thing I had so they lost my business. I don't think you really understand the full implications of this being rushed through as a standard. There is just too much wrong with the whole thing, like numbers not being stored as they should be. I suspect there will be a certain backlash against MS	mikebartnz (21)
654756	2008-04-04 02:14:00	I'm still waiting for a description of a standard, a real one as opposed to, say, a proprietary specification. Tis a good thing I haven't been holding my breath. It'll all be ok in the end though, the apologists, as always, will apologise when it all turns out to be a dreadful mistake, but not because of that, and the visionary's, as is their wont, won't say we told you so. :rolleyes:	Murray P (44)
1 2 3 4 5 6