U.S. expected to recommend Open XML as ISO standard
The United States is expected to recommend that Microsoft's Open XML file formats be ratified as an international standard, according to people involved in the process.
Two members of the technical committee tasked with setting the national position on a pivotal vote said the States will retain its "Approve" position in a vote to make Open XML a standard at the International Organization for Standards (ISO).
The chair of the committee, Patrick Durusau, who is also the editor of the rival OpenDocument standard, said that the controversy surrounding Microsoft's Open XML standards bid is being fueled by an irrational anti-Microsoft sentiment.
"What is puzzling in this day and age of quarterly reports and returns is that any corporate-governance structure would long tolerate spite as a business strategy. Or that investors would stay with companies that follow such strategies," Durusau wrote Friday (PDF).
The Executive Board of the U.S. technical committee, called INCITS, will make the final decision on that recommendation.
Microsoft started the process of trying to make Open XML an international standard at the ISO two years ago. Last fall, Open XML failed to pass a ballot of international standards delegates. But a meeting in Geneva earlier this month, called the Ballot Resolution Meeting, sought to resolve technical problems and move the specification closer to standardization.
Delegates from national standards bodies have until March 29 to vote on Open XML. If it gains enough support, it will be certified as a standard.
Doug Mahugh, a Microsoft senior product manager and member of the INCITS committee, said on Friday that the next step for the U.S. delegation is to hold a ballot on the recommendation.
In addition to inciting anti-Open XML campaigns, such as the NOOXML movement, Microsoft's handling of the process has dismayed many industry observers, who say the company inappropriately chose an accelerated process for a very complicated technical specification.
A number of attendees to the Ballot Resolution Meeting at the end of last month complained that many of the technical issues were not thoroughly examined and that the credibility of the ISO standard process has been damaged.
In one example, a delegate from Brazil said the country's plan to discuss backward compatibility was not addressed during the BRM.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Reporters would take some heed from Durusau's comments. How long can spite sell column inches?
We'll just have to convert them all to PDF files anyway. Go US Government! Doing the best for all corporations!
Here are the problems with this, and you'll forgive me for looking like a reporter that got locked in on:
1. Microsoft purposefully stacked the ISO meetings with pro-Microsoft support. ODF had no such stack of the deck. Furthermore, the stacking made it impossible for even an impartial person to make it to a seat. If you weren't blatantly pro-MS, you were denied access. Period.
2. Microsoft's 'draft' is over 6000 pages long where ODF was 722.
3. Microsoft's 'draft' still has a few 'bugs' and I'll cite an example here:
"Starting with the somewhat silly, OOXML does not conform to ISO 8601:2004 'Representation of Dates and Times." Instead, OOXML section 3.17.4.1, "Date Representation,' on page 3305, requires that implementations replicate a Microsoft bug that dictates that 1900 is a leap year, which in fact it isn't." (src: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070117145745854)
To my knowledge, I don't believe this was ever addressed in any of the meetings, let alone the BRM.
4. Why do we need yet ANOTHER standard? ODF didn't have this much trouble and neither did PDF, both of which are now ISO standards. If a draft is having this much trouble that it's originator has to buy votes, then it's not worth the paper it's printed on. I didn't see anyone from Oasis 'buying' votes, and for the sake of the argument, I didn't see Adobe doing it, either.
So now I'm going to ask you this: do you honestly, firmly believe, that this ISO process has been so fully, undeniably, 100% impartial that we should expect nothing less than a "Yes" vote from everyone eligible to vote?
No one can claim to be perfectly objective on anything but I think it's quite a stretch to say we've been fanning anti-Microsoft flames to sell column inches.
Why didn't open office use an html based format to begin with? It's based on the most commonly read document in the world: web pages. It would seem like common sense. Open office didn't and microsoft is going to it. I thought it would have been the other way around.
As it turns out, it'll just be another standard... and you will have your choice of whether you want to use it or not. Here's a few examples... token ring vs ethernet, ipx/spx vs tcp/ip, frame relay vs ISDN... all competing standards. So, open office, afraid of the competition? Remember, competition is good... or so it was until you got a taste of it.
A good start would be to submit a format that was 1/10th the size. Trimming all the parts that are internally conflicting would be a good step in shrinking this format. Removing all of the references to commercial standards would be another.
Fas tracking a standard as complex as this is an attempt to prevent the international community from having time to work through all its flaws. If it is a good standard today (It is not), it will be a far better standard next year. Give us time to fix everything that is broken.
I have no problem with competition. I just don't like garbage forced onto the industry.
Read the backstory sometime...
When ODF first came out, the Massachusetts state CIO had recommended it, and MSFT eventually lobbied the state government hard enough to get him fired.
When MSFT realized the threat that an open document format presented to their biggest moneymaker, they came out with OOXML - a 6,000+ page document that mostly referred to 'whatever MS Office does', with little technical merit.
Marching on, when MSFT lobbied to get OOXML ratified by the ISO, they were caught stuffing the ballot... literally.
Little wonder that everyone who has actually followed this whole open documentation saga view MSFT with less than charitable eyes.
/P
support, and undocumented features, such as data encoding.
I think you should revisit why entities across the globe are
against it. This so-called standard is anything but a standard,
or open. In the end, would not matter WHO owned it. It would
still be bad.
Unfortunately, it never would have been considered if not for a
long, and un-ending campaign to have it accepted as a open
document standard. It's sad really.
Whether you want to believe it or not, microsoft has been responsible for uniting the majority of the world's computers in compatability. When a program will run on 90+ percent of all computers, that's an achievement you can't deny. Is it the best? No doubt it isn't, but they were the ones that did it. Not apple, not unix, not linix. All your screaming and kicking won't change that.
I sure hope MS expires soon. It served a purpose to maintain standards but that time has passed. The world needs to grow up and past MS' monopoly.
irrational anti-Microsoft sentiment first hand.
I am impressed to see Patrick Durusau put the issue out there
given his standing in the document format community. Let's
hope the "community" doesn't do their normal routine of
character assassination for speaking his mind (See Miguel de
Icaza and Larry Rosen).
So much of this spite stems from the failure to predict that Microsoft would be willing to give up IP and make its document
format a standard.
Let's hope that corporations like IBM, who have spent decades
managing standards bodies, will stop denigrating the standards
process merely out of spite for a decision they didn't see
coming.
However, when these standards were developed, MS was (has been) a leader with almost all the market share of Business documents.
My question is - How come some company with NO SHARE in Business Document space can come up with a standard one fine day and start dictating their own terms?
Shouldn't they have considered the prevailing (Practical) standard?
Why they didn't try to build upon the prevailing standard and rather try to criple it's functionalities?
Why this new standard be not called a break away standard?
And how come, standard agencies could ratify it as a standard.. when it doesn't represnt even an iota of market share?
"What is puzzling in this day and age of quarterly reports and returns is that any corporate-governance structure would long tolerate spite as a business strategy."
Of course, what Durusau calls "spite" is not spite at all. And, his use of the words "spite" and "irrational" is an indicator of just where the fuzzy thinking is being done. When you lack a good argument, use words like spite and irrational and yell at the other guy. It's easier than taking the time to learn the facts.
The quite rational and understandably outspoken ODF advocates who are crying foul at Microsoft's misbehavior (1) with respect to OOXML are trying to defend openness, opportunity, and liberty from the tactics of a convicted monopolist. (2, 3) But, the real point here is that Durusua should know, if he does not, that "quarterly reports and returns" simply cannot serve as a moral compass. Where that has been the case, we are demonstrably more likely to find Enron, WorldCom, and, yes, Microsoft.
Given the recent fines imposed upon Microsoft by the European Commission, it is odd that a preemptive outcry is not heard from that body. Would it not be better to pull the fangs from the monopolist rather than provide him another chain with which to bind those who would compete -- a chain that will later have to be broken at even more expense to the taxpayer?
Because the IT and media content business environments have been gamed to the point that effective competition is just about impossible, I tell those with whom I talk about this matter that Microsoft is not a force to be reckoned with. It is a force to be ignored. That is because all the institutions that are supposed to protect the people are products of IT and media cartel sponsored legislation. From the tragic-comic USPTO, the (hopefully) unconstitutional DMCA, to the global WIPO "cartel", these are no longer institutions that serve the public interest. Their "moral compasses" are set by businesses that have no concern for constitutional principles, just Durusau's "quarterly reports and returns". They can no longer be trusted to be fair and objective. Given this state of affairs, ignoring Microsoft may be the only way to deal with it. Then, like an isolated massive black hole, it will slowly evaporate and fade away. (4)
It remains to be seen if the ISO will suffer serious damage as an effective standards-setting body as a result of the OOXML process. I am guessing it will.
Another tea-party is overdue, I think. It appears it will be on the other side of the Atlantic this time, and it will take a while, but the result will be global. Go EU.
1. http://www.noooxml.org/irregularities
2. http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/03/24/
microsoft.eu/
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/27/tech
/main3883954.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_3883954
4. http://observers.org/tac.mailing.list/2004/
Jul/0269.html
US, I can only say "We, who are about to die, Salute You"
Quarterly Reports seem to have become the new rationale for a
strange kind of "McCarthyism", where the bottom-line of some
corporation more important than anything else.
... I know it's been happening far longer than that, but now
people behind this sort of idea seem to not understand the
amorality of it all.
If MS can't, then it doesn't belong as a standard, plain and simple. Standards with obvious issues, such as OOXML have no business being fast tracked, and should be delayed until those issues are resolved. This isn't "fanboy" time.
ISO standards should be based on two things: technical merit, and legal encumberence. If it is a technically useful standard, and is freely available for use without the encumbering patent licensing garbage, then it is worthwhile - regardless of who originated it.
OpenDocument only has 3% of the US using that standard and only 3% would vote for OpenDocument.
Besides the US Constitution does not cover computer file formats. Our founding fathers wouldn't even know what a computer was much less how it operated when they wrote the Constitution.
Microsoft is not about standards. It is about control.
Oh you foolish people.
Microsoft hasn't changed. It is still the illegal monopoly looking to control and own as much of your data and software as possible.
I am just glad that the ISO do not control Web standards.
It should be up to MS to be compatible with it and participate in the process of developing the next "enhanced" version of the standard, instead of always throwing the standard process a loop whenever it decides to. This is how it MS manages to encourage anti-MS sentiment when it always igrnores current standards - and the process - in favor of its own.
This is also another example of how bad American imperialism is. If the US government gets involved it could just very well backfire in MS's face.
The US goverment can choose to standardize on MS technology but it really has no business in this process.
"Part of the driver for the deal seems to be dissatisfaction with Microsoft's document standards, with governments demanding the OpenDocument Format instead of the series of formats used in Microsoft Office applications. Some claim that the Linux PCs are also more secure than their Windows equivalents.
"We are extremely excited that we finally have an alternative document-management offering to Microsoft, based on open source, that fits our needs," Aleksandar Spagnut, director of RusHotel, said in a VDEL press release. "We are already starting to implement this and are happy that IBM is again taking the lead in providing a total solution for the small- and medium-sized market, based on open source."
"Open Referent is a highly competitive alternative to Microsoft offerings for large organizations," said Oleg Churko, director of the Research Institute for Information Security in Minsk, Belarus. "Taking into account the unmatched security offered by the Linux platform, it will set a new standard for document management."
"Peter Judge of ZDNet UK reported from London".
Follow the below attached link to read the full article:
http://www.news.com/IBM-denies-re-entering-PC-market-with-Russian-deal/2100-1003_3-6233782.html
As can be seen from the above... these are quite obvious cases in "Where EAGLES (will) Dare" to differ from the "Redmond/Patrick Durusau" indoctrination. ;-) !
- MS specific tags was a big one.
Everyone knows this is a application specialized support product.
Not an International/National open document format. If it didn't
contain the issues that so many have pointed out, it would have
become a standard a LONG time ago.
OpenXML standard. Anyone have any comments on this?
http://www.durusau.net/publications/russianpeasant.pdf
(note: supporting doesn't mean he's being a fanboy. he still prefers
OpenDocument for obvious reasons).
2) Not being opposed to something does not mean one actively supports it.
Nice try. Try again?
/P
- Go International "BIG BLUE", Go!
-
by Commander_Spock
March 11, 2008 3:25 PM PDT
- This CNET NEWS article in part; "IBM is offering the PCs based on the open-source Linux operating system together with Red Hat software distributor VDEL of Austria and Polish distributor and services firm LX Polska in response to requests from Russian IT chiefs.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- Wait for It: The Backroom MSFT Arm Twist
-
by TheSmellyMoa
March 12, 2008 4:23 AM PDT
- MSFT will replay what it did to Digital Research in the 1980s with European PC manufactures. Remember that? They told them to get rid of DR-DOS (a superior product by orders of magnitude; GK RIP!) if they ever wanted to see a MSFT application on their boxes.
-
-
(71 Comments)The PCs will include IBM's Lotus Symphony software based on the Open Document Format, a rival format to Microsoft's Office Open XML document format, which the latter is trying to get adopted as an ISO internationally approved standard..."
Read the complete article by following the below attached link:
http://www.news.com/IBM%2C-allies-to-offer-open-source-PCs-in-Eastern-Europe/2100-7344_3-6232968.html?tag=item
Read the subject line. M :-$ M :-$ M :-$ ;-)
In a few weeks, MSFT representatives will visit the Polish PC manufacture, drag its president into a room and shout in his face for 6 full hours that it will get no, zero, nada, Microsoft products until their boxes boot Windows exclusively.
Inside of three months, the Polish PC maker will announce that the Linux offering was a failure and is offering Windows PCs. Ballmer will read the item in his morning newspaper in his office, chuckle under his breath, reach into a desk drawer, pull out a kitten and drop it into his vast maw to chew with savage satisfaction.
He'll pick up the phone to call Bill and ask for a bonus.