I’m a Norwegian IT Journalist that got the opportunity to interview mr. Durusay today.

I first wrote about it in Norwegian at my dayjob in digi.no and then I did an English version of the interview at my blog.

Patrick Durusau basically says that he sees a lot of room for improvement for OOXML, but that he believes that the problems with OOXML will be fixed.

On almost every story I’ve written on OOXML the last week, our readers have pointet to your article here at this blog.

I therefore thought that you might be interested in checking it out.

Best regards,
Anders Brenna
Journalist/Editor
digi.no

When the same old line starts doing the rounds, and ODF formulas is certainly a main one, I get slightly suspicious of certain people.

Additionally, Durusau’s open letters now seem to get linked to within hours or minutes by OOXML ’sympathetic’ people as answers to just about everything. People like Rick Jelliffe link to him quite regularly. “Oh, this ODF guy says everything is fine!”

It’s as though there is a network of communication that goes around where they all link to each other to try and give themselves credibility, and as answers to questions they simply don’t want to answer.

Or put it another way, I find I can trust a spreadsheet where the spreadsheet is treated as a programming language and is expressed in a verifiable (and compilable) grammar; I can know that it isn’t “automagical”.

Pass that on to your local city councils; the city councillors won’t know what to make of it, but I think the engineers will.

Given Microsoft’s standards track record, both their own and standards created by others, I don’t think anyone should be giving them the time of day on this. They should first need to actually *implement* *a* standard *correctly*. It’s my impression that, while they have come close, they have not actually ever accomplished this simple task, in the entire course of their corporate existence. I haven’t reviewed all of their work, of course. However, as a former email admin, I know they haven’t come close regarding any of the email standards, and there’s a few that are fairly simple, IMHO.

The fact that they haven’t even implemented DIS 295000 correctly should be enough in and of itself. The fact that they named their product essentially the same as their name for their competitor’s format, except with two words switched, should be enough in and of itself.

I hear some people saying, “What about RFC1925?” That RFC is merely informational. If 1925 is correct in its assertions, they cannot avoid following it.

I still wonder what the various ISO delegates who actually approved or abstained this monstrosity for fast track were thinking. At 6,000 pages, it’s certainly possible that some of them had read the whole thing by the end of the month review period for conflicts, but I can’t imagine any of them actually felt they had enough time to give the whole thing serious review. And since the effect of it being voted down – even if it was a 100% ‘No’ vote – would simply be to remove it from fast track, with no prejudice on resubmit via the standard process, I see no reason to not vote ‘no’ for it gaining fast track approval.

I agree with you and the previous commenters, so there is not much more for me to add to this discussion but to suggest one small correction for your consideration:

“Last September, the NB’s of … Columbia …”

My Colombian wife objects whenever someone mis-spells the name of her country.

Simple question: given that Patrick is the OpenDocument editor, why are his blog posts published in PDF format?”

if you are using Adobe Reader ,do a “document properties” and you will see the source of the document

if you are using another reader ( evince, KPDF, ghostview, etc ) there is a similar functionality: document properties

enjoy!

At best I’d consider that a lack of respect for the knowledgability and neutrality of INCITS members, at worst it almost sounds to me like someone is petitioning to be relieved from his duties…

I’m not going to mention the conspiracy theorist option, any intelligent person will be able to read between the lines and form his/her own opinion ;)

This is because, from Microsoft’s viewpoint, the only “LOSS” situation is if OOXML is rejected and ISO throws it out. If OOXML passes, Microsoft wins. If Microsoft manages to destroy ISO’s credibility, Microsoft wins; by destroying de jure standards, de facto standards rule, and Microsoft’s monopoly guarantees that they will have the de facto standard. They don’t care what the result is, as long as they win in the end. It’s such horrible and short-term thinking it makes me sick, but that’s what it comes down to.

In May 2007 Patrick Durusau said in INCITS V1 about the naming of Office Open XML,

“The current name of DIS 29500, Office Open XML is seriously misleading in several respects.

Such a name should not carry an implied reference to a Microsoft product nor should it use the term ‘open’ The use of ‘Open’ is deeply problematic as every ISO standard is as ‘open’ as any other ISO standard. It is a marketing buzz word and does not belong in the title of a proposal that may become an ISO standard.

Lastly, the proposal is no more or less open than any other ISO proposal and so ‘Open’ is meaningless in this context. Proposed change by MB: It is suggested that a new name be chosen for the proposal”

VS

“OpenXML”

I continue to be surprised how one dishonest (or corrupt) party can bring down an entire organization — ISO — exposing weaknesses we never thought it had. It’s a damn shame that Microsoft not only does not want to follow the rules, but is intent on dropping a nuclear bomb to ISO, eroding what was a highly regarded reputation.

You are of course very careful to avoid insinuations of foul play (almost); but I can’t think of any motivations for Durusau’s postings apart from naivety or subterfuge. And for someone as apparently experienced and knowledgeable as Durusau, naivety surely isn’t an option.

Being editor of ODF and chair of the V1 committee is obviously a huge conflict of interest and while I’m sure that’s not a problem in the standards world when everything is consensus-based, it is an issue when the topic is as contentious as OOXML. Surely a man with respect for the standards process would recognise the conflict of interest and just stay silent?

The Russian peasant post is very, very strange. He calls out “OOXML” – who is that? noooxml.org? If so, then his talk of customers and revenue streams is misguided, because noooxml is an advocacy site. It has no product, customers, or commercial aim. Can he not see that?

Then the leap from “NOOXML” to the statement that there is no reason other than spite to oppose OOXML. Does he not see the tangible commercial benefits that would accrue to the whole IT ecosystem, not just Microsoft and its chosen partners, from a single, well-supported document format? If he can’t see that, why does he bother with ODF?

Honestly, the “customers want choice in standards” chestnut is really starting to annoy me.

Well, I’m a Russian peasant because I don’t believe that Microsoft’s intentions are open with regard to OOXML, that the OOXML spec is rushed and inadequate, and that having one standard is in the best interests of the great majority of people. Rob, you too are obviously such a peasant.

I don’t know what Durusau has received in exchange for his “personal opinions”, but I hope he values it more than his (now irrevocably shattered) credibility.

i.e:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wITyO71Et6g
(this was in an event last week in Lisbon)

Jan Van de Beld said at 4:30:

“ECMA for instance has made all the standards for DVD and optical disks. There were 5 recording formats. So there you are a little bit uneasy, of course. And again after a few beers I can ask the people in the room. Why do you want to have 5 formats? Do you still call that standardization?
The answer is always the same:
You are well paid. Shut up”

!!

Re your point of Microsoft’s tradition of Standards-Abandonment, I urge readers to note how many W3C standards play a part in Microsoft’s next-gen catalog.

That answer alone speaks the necessary volumes as to Microsoft’s commitment to interoperability.