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
654757 2008-04-04 02:46:00 It will probably be as thoroughly used as the half-baked din standard (sub-standard?) for electronic schematics. That was a joke in weird taste.

And the excuse that it was "easier to draw" seemed to assume that the purpose of a drawing is to ease the lot of a draughtsperson somewhere, no consideration to ease or speed of interpretation by the end user. Haven't seen any examples about for a while though.

In similar vein, this latest substandard piece of gibberish scorns any interest in the end user. 		R2x1 (4628)
654758 2008-04-04 03:00:00 The Easier to Draw Standard (vortex.weather.brockport.edu)

The Slightly Harder To Draw *cough cough hack* (imagecache2.allposters.com) 		Murray P (44)
654759 2008-04-04 03:47:00 LINK (computerworld.co.nz)



Microsoft's ISO win may worsen antitrust woes
Claims of foul play in the voting process may come back to haunt the software giant

By Paul Meller Brussels | Thursday, 3 April, 2008


Microsoft may have won a year-long quest to make its Office Open XML document format an ISO-recognised international standard, but claims of foul play in the voting process may come back to haunt the software giant when the European Commission concludes its latest antitrust investigation of Microsoft's business practices.

When the Commission, Europe's top antitrust authority, opened a probe into Microsoft's business practices in January, it said part of the investigation would examine whether OOXML, as the format is known, is "sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products."

A month later the Commission sent a confidential request for information to all the national divisions of the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) in Europe, asking for information about the ongoing process of assessing OOXML.

"In your opinion, have there been any irregularities or attempts to influence the debate or vote on the ECMA 376 proposal as regards your organisation? If so please provide details and any relevant facts," the Commission wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by IDG News Service. ECMA 376 is the title under which Microsoft submitted OOXML for consideration by the ISO.

The request for information, known as an Article 18 letter, is a formal procedure carried out by the Commission's antitrust officials, designed to gather evidence of antitrust abuse.

It was used in the first Microsoft investigation, which concluded in 2004. The replies the Commission received that time led to fresh antitrust charges that Microsoft had been unfairly bundling its Media Player with its Windows operating system.

If national ISO bodies return evidence that Microsoft attempted to influence the votes to secure acceptance of OOXML, it would strengthen the Commission's antitrust case.

One ISO official from Norway has already spoken of "serious irregularities" in the voting process in his country. Steve Pepper, chairman of the committee advising the Norwegian branch of the ISO, wrote to the central office of the ISO in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday, recommending that the Norwegian vote be excluded from the final tally.

Norway voted against granting OOXML ISO-standard status in the first round of votes last year. In the vote taken last weekend, it changed its mind and supported Microsoft's bid.

"You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80 percent of which was against changing Norway's vote ... to yes," Pepper wrote in the letter, which he also posted in his blog.

Any evidence that Microsoft corrupted the ISO voting process would strengthen the Commission's antitrust case, but the case would still be strong without such evidence, according to Thomas Vinje, legal counsel for the European Committee for Interoperable Systems, a trade group whose complaint forms the basis for part of the latest Microsoft antitrust probe.

"Granting ISO status to OOXML doesn't begin to resolve the competition law questions the Commission is looking into," Vinje said by telephone. ECIS members include some of Microsoft's biggest rivals in the computer industry: IBM, Sun and Oracle.

The Commission declined to comment on any impact the ISO vote would have on its antitrust case.

"Even if the votes were legitimately won – which I doubt – OOXML is not an open standard because it isn't fully implemented on competing platforms, and its future shape is subject purely to Microsoft's control," according to Vinje.

Jan van den Beld, a standards expert with the trade group CompTIA, disagreed, arguing that hundreds of technical experts from the national ISO branches would ensure that OOXML "will not mutate to the benefit of a single vendor." CompTIA is a longtime ally of Microsoft in its antitrust battles with regulators. Van den Beld's comments were made in a statement Tuesday.

The ECIS complaint that sparked the Commission's latest antitrust charges claims that Microsoft has unfairly withheld information from companies that wanted to make products compatible with the word processing, spreadsheet and office management tools in Microsoft Office. By withholding the interoperability information, Microsoft has effectively kept rivals out of this lucrative market, ECIS argues.

Confusingly, the Office Open XML format being assessed by the ISO "is not what Microsoft implements in the Office suite," Vinje said, adding that "If you implement OOXML, you don't get interoperability with Office."

"ISO status for OOXML is certainly not the end of the story for the Commission's antitrust case," he said.


Discuss. 		Murray P (44)
654760 2008-04-04 10:32:00 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.

As before, you and I and everyone else should leave the legwork up to the maintainers of the standard. It is quite pointless to second-guess them, as we are in no way privy to their processes.


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.

You appeared to be wheedling the original poster at the beginning of the thread, as he insinuated that people on this forum were apathetic, ignorant or stupid. Yes, it is a waste of time revisiting it as you have now disclaimed this. I accept that you did not take any deliberate part in it.


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.

Good.


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.

I agree to disagree on this point, because neither of us can neither prove or disprove either case in a meaningful way. We will just have to let things take their course and see where they end up. I just think that letting MS publish their format specs out in the open allows open source projects - even the ODF people themselves - to take those specs and use them.


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.

I thought that the legacy bit was implicit. I don't care about future versions of MS Office, becuase I am hoping less people would be using it. All that are needed are the current/legacy specs really to give open source projects a boost.

And MS being forced to use ODF? This is suicidal for them, so they will fight tooth and nail. That idea that governments forcing the adoption of ODF verges on the fantastical. Can you imagine the legal, political and logistical obstacles, and MS' own exertions against it? It might happen in North Korea or China say, but not in Western countries. You and I can forget about it in our lifetimes.


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.

This seems to be implicit in your arguments. If you mean to say that you are not ignoring MS formats, how else would you engage MS if not by ratifying OOXML as a standard?


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.

Without access to MS formats, you will never know if an open source app can match or even exceed MS Office. This is the goal that I hope dealing with the devil will achieve. Wouldn't one day, you would like to recommend to someone to use an open source Office suite because it was the best tool fort the job?

If the status quo is maintained, MS Office will confinue to be the best tool. Along with gaming, there is very little reason to install Linux. MS will use Office and gaming to sleepwalk people into Vista with all its DRM evilness. This would be a terrible thing to happen.


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?

The ODF head honcho says that he wants OOXML to be ratified so he can look at the specs and incorporate them into ODF itself legally. If that happens sucessfully, you will therefore be able to save to ODF to your hearts desire. Not OOXML, but pure and natural 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.

Promoting open source is the point, and I believe a peak at the MS formats has a good chance of achieving that. Whether it further promotes MS in my mind is quite irrelevant. I don't really care whether MS prospers or not. Open source should properly prosper on its own merits, not because of the death of MS.


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).

OK.


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.

Then we should wait for the investigations and stop speculating. If it gets reversed, the low-single-figure percentage of us that use ODF can get our beloved ODF back. 		vinref (6194)
654761 2008-04-04 12:16:00 As before, you and I and everyone else should leave the legwork up to the maintainers of the standard . It is quite pointless to second-guess them, as we are in no way privy to their processes . I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this . From my perspective, I feel it is our responsibility to question them when it's clear there has been some kind of corruption involved, and it is us who will have to live with the fallout .


You appeared to be wheedling the original poster at the beginning of the thread, as he insinuated that people on this forum were apathetic, ignorant or stupid . Yes, it is a waste of time revisiting it as you have now disclaimed this . I accept that you did not take any deliberate part in it . Possibly it appeared that way, although that was not my intention . I do agree with him on the apathy point though .


. . . I just think that letting MS publish their format specs out in the open allows open source projects - even the ODF people themselves - to take those specs and use them . If that was what they were actually doing, sure . But it's not . What they are publishing isn't even the same thing as what Office 2007 uses (although it is similar) . What is in the specification isn't clear enough to be really useful, that's the reason for most of the opposition . Note also that publishing and ratifying as a standard are two very different things . Nothing is stopping them simply putting the specs up on their website .


I thought that the legacy bit was implicit . I don't care about future versions of MS Office, becuase I am hoping less people would be using it . Eh? OOXML has nothing to do with any legacy formats . The only format it is in any way related to is the format that Office 2007 saves in by default (MS-XML) . This is completely different to the doc/xls/ppt etc that MS has been using up until now .


All that are needed are the current/legacy specs really to give open source projects a boost . If the specs were accurate, complete, and actually described the same thing as what MS Office implemented, then sure . Sadly, none of this is true - the OOXML standard is neither accurate or complete, and it's not even the same thing that MS Office uses (although it is related) .


And MS being forced to use ODF? This is suicidal for them, so they will fight tooth and nail . Indeed, hence the huge push to get OOXML passed as a standard .


That idea that governments forcing the adoption of ODF verges on the fantastical . Can you imagine the legal, political and logistical obstacles, and MS' own exertions against it? It might happen in North Korea or China say, but not in Western countries . You and I can forget about it in our lifetimes . I disagree . Admittedly this part is speculation, but I think that if OOXML fails, then this is *exactly* what will happen . Corporate monopolies aside, there is no real option other than ODF - no other formats exist that meet necessary requirements . If you think there is, can you name another format that would do the job?


This seems to be implicit in your arguments . If you mean to say that you are not ignoring MS formats, how else would you engage MS if not by ratifying OOXML as a standard?Possibly we differ on the definition of ignoring . I feel that by sitting on the fence and allowing this standard to be rammed through, we are ignoring the situation (and therefore ignoring MS) . By not passing the standard, it sends a strong message to MS that people are no longer happy to sit and be sheep to their abuse of the monopoly they hold . Taking action to prevent something is not the same as ignoring it .


Without access to MS formats, you will never know if an open source app can match or even exceed MS Office . I disagree - software is evaluated based on its suitability to fulfill a requirement . The formats are a whole different kettle of fish . I can quite happily state that OpenOffice Writer's style support knocks the socks off MS Word . This is an example of a feature that has nothing to do with the formats, the only important thing is that the end result can be saved to a file . It's not until you start considering 'outside' access to the data stored in that file that you need to worry about the format .


This is the goal that I hope dealing with the devil will achieve . Wouldn't one day, you would like to recommend to someone to use an open source Office suite because it was the best tool for the job?I agree that this is a very worthy goal; in some aspects it's already here (and in some it very clearly hasn't made it yet) . That said, I don't think that passing this standard will help achieve that - in fact I think it will do the opposite . I think I've made it pretty clear why I think this with my earlier posts, but I'm more than happy to clarify things further if I didn't get my message across .


If the status quo is maintained, MS Office will confinue to be the best tool . For the situations where MS Office is already the best tool (and that's an awful lot), I agree completely . Where we differ is that I see the passing of this standard as maintaining the status quo . You see (I think) not passing it as maintaining the status quo . If the standard isn't passed, then open-source software and formats will continue to make the slow but steady (and getting faster) progress they have been making over the last few years . I think passing it will greatly impede that process .

Would you be willing to clarify how passing an unclear standard that contains proprietary extensions, is subject to change, and doesn't accurately reflect MS's implementation of the format benefits open-source at all? The information contained it is already available for the public to use (meaning the developers reverse-engineering the MS format still get a leg-up in implementing it), so as far as I can see actually passing the standard helps nobody other than MS .


Along with gaming, there is very little reason to install Linux . I disagree here . If you are a gamer, that is one of the few reasons to run Windows . In most other areas open-source software running on Linux is more than capable of competing, and in many cases is actually better . I am happy to provide examples if you'd like .


MS will use Office and gaming to sleepwalk people into Vista with all its DRM evilness . This would be a terrible thing to happen . Indeed - and they are already doing it, and have been for years . As their self-admitted corporate strategy states: "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish . "


The ODF head honcho says that he wants OOXML to be ratified so he can look at the specs and incorporate them into ODF itself legally . This is the head of the Open Document Foundation, and despite the confusion over the name this organisation actually has nothing at all to do with the ODF format . The head honcho is also widely known to be a bit of a flip-flopper, so take anything you hear from him with a grain of salt - it'll likely be different next time you hear from him .


If that happens sucessfully, you will therefore be able to save to ODF to your hearts desire . Not OOXML, but pure and natural ODF . Rubbish! Not if you want MS Office to open your file . It doesn't matter if the OOXML spec is incorporated into ODF, unless you save a pure, unaltered MS-XML file then Office 2007 won't know what the hell you're on about . MS Office does not understand ODF, no matter what other content it may contain! The only way to get this to happen without MS implementing ODF in their office suite is to save files in a format that Office can understand - which means not using ODF (unless MS supports ODF natively) .


Promoting open source is the point, and I believe a peek at the MS formats has a good chance of achieving that . Agreed . What I think you have missed is that we already have that peek; the 6000 pages of the OOXML standard contain a huge amount of information about MS-XML . The standard does not need to be passed by ISO before the developers can see it - it's already freely available to the public .


Whether it further promotes MS in my mind is quite irrelevant . I don't really care whether MS prospers or not . Open source should properly prosper on its own merits, not because of the death of MS . Agreed, up to a point . What I don't agree with is MS abusing its position to squash its competitors . You say that open-source should compete on its own merits; well so should MS . The fact that MS prospers largely from monopoly abuse is a side-effect .


Then we should wait for the investigations and stop speculating . I disagree . Discussing, speculating, whatever you want to call it, keeps this whole mess in sight . It makes people think . As soon as nobody talks about it, whatever their opinion may be, the fight is already lost because no-one cares (note that caring and saying nothing gets nowhere and gives the external impression of not caring - and it's all about external impressions) . I think this is what Murray was talking about earlier when he mentioned apathy .


If it gets reversed, the low-single-figure percentage of us that use ODF can get our beloved ODF back . We never lost it . Reversal simply means it will be adopted faster; if the standard passes then ODF uptake will see a huge hit . It won't go backwards, but it will certainly make a huge dent in the speed with which ODF can increase market share .





Thanks for engaging in logical debate - it makes things much more interesting, and you have some very good points :thumbs: . 		Erayd (23)
654762 2008-04-04 12:40:00 Got a definition of a standard yet vinref, do you have any actual answers, or are you going to keep running and hiding :lol: Murray P (44)
654763 2008-04-04 15:03:00 Got a definition of a standard yet vinref, do you have any actual answers, or are you going to keep running and hiding :lol:
Hey, be nice. 		Erayd (23)
654764 2008-04-04 20:58:00 As before, you and I and everyone else should leave the legwork up to the maintainers of the standard . It is quite pointless to second-guess them, as we are in no way privy to their processes . . .
. . . back .
You've almost got it nailed . Processes such as this fiasco either originated in,or are destined for, the privy .
The members of the approving council are indeed deserving of receiving some legwork .

Given the fact that MS cannot (or will not) maintain a standard format for saving files across their own versions of the Office programs, they should be kept away from anything to do with standards .
Frequently changing formats may be perfectly acceptable from a marketers point of view, but isn't the reason for a standard to enable the consumer to have a little bit of certainty in his storage?
Perhaps MS hope that the standard(?) will allow the ISO body to act as the analogue of a sheep dog to drive the sheep (us) in for shearing, saving the shearer (MS) from a lot of effort .

I have long held the view that MS Office was a nuisance, but fortunately not compulsory . Now perhaps they are trying to block that loophole . 		R2x1 (4628)
654765 2008-04-05 01:44:00 I have long held the view that MS Office was a nuisance, but fortunately not compulsory. Now perhaps they are trying to block that loophole.

It annoys me when a company expects any correspondence in proprietry formats, e.g. your CV in MS Word format. Why the hell can't there be a "open" standard which many programs can read and write. Certainly if companies want their data wrapped up in proprietry formats thats their problem :groan: but the interface with the public should be more "open".

I did some work for a guy once (yes, amazing isn't it) and where possible I tried to use open formats but his attitude was that Microsoft was where it was at (which frankly I have a real problem with - we don't all drive the same kind of car now do we).

Maybe its because I started in IT before Microsoft had made its impact on IT and therefore I realise that the world will not end if Microsoft ceases to exist. 		dolby digital (5073)
654766 2008-04-05 10:36:00 It annoys me when a company expects any correspondence in proprietry formats, e.g. your CV in MS Word format.

I actually had a company ask for the 'original MS Word document' of my CV once after sending them a PDF. I told them it had never been an MS Word document and attached the LaTeX source.

I would like to make clear that I see two major processes going on here that are being confused by many. The first process is Microsoft's move to an XML-based format for which at least basic information such as unformatted text can be extracted from. The second is the approval of this as a standard.

While I would prefer MS to do better in terms of opening their standards, I recognise that this is not going to happen and OOXML is at least a step towards being able to convert (albeit unreliably) from their office documents to others without reverse engineering and recreating software that can read it. Hopefully this represents a commitment to at least keep the structure of the basic things nailed down.

On the other hand, as a standard this would be a complete joke except that it's not funny. Accepting OOXML as a standard does not benefit the community in any way - it simply gives MS more leverage to bully governments. I'm glad they chose to document their formats but a standard has quite different quality requirements. In the case of OOXML this is not even a complete documentation of the files one may see encoded in it and it's clear that no compliant files will ever be created anyway.

The main argument in favour of a second office document standard has been from the start that it would be better for archival purposes because ODF could not represent some advanced features in MS office. I see documents as falling in either the category where only the text matters, in which case any open format will do, and documents where layout, presentation and such are important to at least some extent, where a format such as PDF should be used. There's a reason why printers are very cautious of printing MS Office documents and make it clear that they accept no responsibility for formatting errors. PDF, Postscript and most image formats would be suitable for this purpose.

The aim of this process for Microsoft was to persuade governments to continue to use their formats in the face of increasing awareness. Unfortunately for them the willingness of normal people to be aware and take a stand has made this process uncomfortably public for them. While they managed to get the vote through, they may well have saboutaged their original aims. How will small countries feel once all the MS partners start leaving their standards committees again? How will government standards officials react if they think Microsoft has been heavy-handed with their people?

If a country voted against OOXML, they are unlikely to use it in the future.
If a country's committee was loaded by MS partners this will create resentment and they are unlikely to use it in the future.
If a country had to suspend or intervene in voting after inappropriate behaviour, this will raise questions of why foul play was necessary. They are unlikely to use it in the future.

This almost certainly makes up the majority of countries. What have MS really gained? 		TGoddard (7263)
1 2 3 4 5 6