Seriously. If the Number One reason for approving OOXML is that if we don’t, MS will walk away from the standards table, fine. Let’s get some competent public relations, some industry solidarity built up. We know that on a scale of 1 to 10,000, that OOXML rates a 37, but we’re too ‘pragmatic’ to care about principles or telling the truth ourselves (that it’s a junk standard that can’t be implemented by anybody except MS).

Or, we’ll give MS a counteroffer. OOXML can be ratified if – IF – Microsoft can show a conforming independent implementation which relied exclusively on publicly available information (not even ‘just the draft standard’) for implementation.

This really *is* “fish or cut bait” time, people. Either we want a standards process that means something – is defensible and worthy of respect – or we’re going to lower ISO and the industry to the level commonly described as Ecma – “never met a standard it wouldn’t approve”. This *is* 1938, ISO is the industry equivalent of Chamberlain, and OOXML *is* the Munich Agreement. Do we really so want “peace in our time” that we’re willing to give away – not even sell, but give away – our basic principles in the idiotic hope that the bully will somehow stop punching everybody into the ground?

Color me disgusted. The world *is* watching.

Start with the readable DVD format. Why is that universally understood? Because there was a strong motivation for content producers (movie studios) and device manufacturers (consumer electronics) to agree on a single format. That leads to nice consolidation around that standard at all levels.

Now writable DVD’s? Well, movie studios really have no incentive to encourage that, do they? In fact, they fear that. So the “grand alliance” that pooled patents, etc., to produce a single format falls apart, because there is no common interest anymore.

In other words, the existence of multiple standards in that domain is a failure of standardization.

what OOXML do you refer?

as far as i know, there is *no* final text of this draft specification to review nor approve

ECMA and Microsoft are still changing conformance terminology, creating annexes, creating schemas, deprecating/transitioning clauses, reorganizing the text in parts, creating/deleting standards parts, deleting duplicated normative text, fixing and changing XML of examples , adding +400 pages of rushed changes decided in BRM ( some of them with errors, like the mangled BRM resolution mentioned here… and the resolution of date handling that doesn’t match the “…V9.doc” document referenced ) + 98% ( 2000 pages ~ +800 comments ) of not consensued nor discussed changes ( approved by 4 national bodies in BRM, two of them O members), etc, etc

Many of this rushed changes are re-introducing errors, problems and inconsistencies.

So, this OOXML or DIS 29500 draft is , in this moment, vaporware.

How easy is to get an ISO brand, you just overflow NBs with lot of pages + lot of changes to review in a very tight schedule … the result: to avoid problems, NB officials say: “no one is fired to approve a Microsoft proposed standard” ( Czech’s Jirka Kosek approach)

Orlando ( from Argentina ) ( my NB lacks expertise in XML , but at least is honest and doesn’t approve a non existent text, like some Microsoft/ECMA pawns )

I had a very enlightening conversation with my wife’s father over the weekend: he’s just bought a combo VHS player/DVD recorder box, and wanted to know about recordable DVD formats. I really didn’t know what to tell him; I’ve found that DVD+R works best in my DVD player, but I know someone else who swears by DVD-R.

It was enlightening because, as a geek, I am used to dealing with the odd incompatibility issues and don’t think much of it. But to non-techie types, it’s both very frustrating and totally incomprehensible. Why would there be multiple things called “recordable DVDs” which are not recordable in all recorders, and not playable in all players? This customer doesn’t want “choice” in DVD standards, he wants something that works!

Document format incompatibility is old news, of course – everyone knows that if you’re receiving documents by e-mail that you can’t open, then the correct response is to upgrade to the latest version of Microsoft Office.

How great it would be if, in some future world, there would be meaningful document compatibility (even at the cost of “customer choice”).

Seeing how far has this fast-track fiasco reached .. i can’t stop to wonder :

We are in 2008 ( eight years after 21th century beginning ). This [OOXML] is what we [the world] deserve as a average ISO international standard deliverable?

Are we re-entering the dark ages?