Comments on: The Final OOXML Update: Part II http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=final-ooxml-update-part-ii Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jakub Narebski http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2456 Jakub Narebski Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:03:57 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2456 > The other group (the Microsoft camp ?) prefers a creative contribution ... I hesitate to call it a standard ... <i>more reminiscent of the <b>multiplicity of plugs</b> and sockets we use <b>for charging our cellphone batteries</b>.</i><br /><br /><b>@Chris Ward</b> actually in European Union <b>new</b> cellphones must use mini-USB plug to charge cellphones: the charger is now standarized. > The other group (the Microsoft camp ?) prefers a creative contribution … I hesitate to call it a standard … more reminiscent of the multiplicity of plugs and sockets we use for charging our cellphone batteries.

@Chris Ward actually in European Union new cellphones must use mini-USB plug to charge cellphones: the charger is now standarized.

]]> By: Purple library guy http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2455 Purple library guy Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:56:59 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2455 Hardly for naught.<br />They get to tell ignorant prospective buyers and government buyers with checklists that their file format is a standard. That was the whole point from the beginning. They would hardly have wanted a format that actually behaved like a standard; everyone would have been able to interoperate with it! Hardly for naught.
They get to tell ignorant prospective buyers and government buyers with checklists that their file format is a standard. That was the whole point from the beginning. They would hardly have wanted a format that actually behaved like a standard; everyone would have been able to interoperate with it!

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2454 Anonymous Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:11:41 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2454 Is OOXML still relevant to anything? It appears <b>nobody</b> has actually implemented it—even Microsoft’s own Office doesn’t follow the published version of the spec. So really, all the maneouvring by Microsoft and its opponents, whether for good or ill, have been for naught.<br /><br />Lawrence D’Oliveiro Is OOXML still relevant to anything? It appears nobody has actually implemented it—even Microsoft’s own Office doesn’t follow the published version of the spec. So really, all the maneouvring by Microsoft and its opponents, whether for good or ill, have been for naught.

Lawrence D’Oliveiro

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2453 Rob Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:30:43 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2453 @Stefan, there is no procedure defined in the current rules to revoke Fast Track submission rights for a Class A Liaison like Ecma. However this theoretically could be done by an extraordinary resolution of JTC1. But I don't think this would ever happen. Remember, Ecma is Microsoft's golden goose, the vehicle they've used in the past to rubber stamp other pseudo-standards,from the Windows 3.0 API, to .NET/CLI, C#, XPS, etc., and to Fast Track them into ISO. But if Microsoft/Ecma could exert enough influence and bend enough arms to get OOXML approved, then surely they could also keep Ecma in the game. @Stefan, there is no procedure defined in the current rules to revoke Fast Track submission rights for a Class A Liaison like Ecma. However this theoretically could be done by an extraordinary resolution of JTC1. But I don't think this would ever happen. Remember, Ecma is Microsoft's golden goose, the vehicle they've used in the past to rubber stamp other pseudo-standards,from the Windows 3.0 API, to .NET/CLI, C#, XPS, etc., and to Fast Track them into ISO. But if Microsoft/Ecma could exert enough influence and bend enough arms to get OOXML approved, then surely they could also keep Ecma in the game.

]]> By: Chris Ward http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2452 Chris Ward Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:47:48 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2452 This feels reminiscent of the situation in 1776, when we had the British attempting to impose their 'standards' and the Americans contesting the imposition strongly enough to form their own country.<br /><br />Of course we are all friends now and the ISO shenanigans are nothing more serious than 'commercial', but it's a reminder that you won't manage to please all the people all of the time.<br /><br />One group (the IBM camp ?) favours a simple standard, rather like the 110v mains electric socket ubiquitous in US households. The other group (the Microsoft camp ?) prefers a creative contribution ... I hesitate to call it a standard ... more reminiscent of the multiplicity of plugs and sockets we use for charging our cellphone batteries.<br /><br />So where does the future lie ? I rather doubt that the world's scientists will bother turning up at ISO again to discuss document standards; they have said their piece already, and they have academic and commercial research to get on with. <br /><br />It's up to the engineers and the salesmen, now. This feels reminiscent of the situation in 1776, when we had the British attempting to impose their 'standards' and the Americans contesting the imposition strongly enough to form their own country.

Of course we are all friends now and the ISO shenanigans are nothing more serious than 'commercial', but it's a reminder that you won't manage to please all the people all of the time.

One group (the IBM camp ?) favours a simple standard, rather like the 110v mains electric socket ubiquitous in US households. The other group (the Microsoft camp ?) prefers a creative contribution … I hesitate to call it a standard … more reminiscent of the multiplicity of plugs and sockets we use for charging our cellphone batteries.

So where does the future lie ? I rather doubt that the world's scientists will bother turning up at ISO again to discuss document standards; they have said their piece already, and they have academic and commercial research to get on with.

It's up to the engineers and the salesmen, now.

]]> By: Stefan Gustavson http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2451 Stefan Gustavson Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:22:09 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2451 Are there any plans on creating rules for revoking the privilege of submitting proposals on fast track? It seems to me that ECMA needs incentive to stop abusing that privilege. It would not be unreasonable to introduce a threat of having their business ruined if they repeatedly fail to do their part of the job properly. Are there any plans on creating rules for revoking the privilege of submitting proposals on fast track? It seems to me that ECMA needs incentive to stop abusing that privilege. It would not be unreasonable to introduce a threat of having their business ruined if they repeatedly fail to do their part of the job properly.

]]> By: Stephan Wehner http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2450 Stephan Wehner Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:22:05 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2450 Is OOXML actually relevant, or was this not all just abuse and a waste of time? <br /><br />Are any actual users interested in this "standard"?<br /><br />Stephan Is OOXML actually relevant, or was this not all just abuse and a waste of time?

Are any actual users interested in this "standard"?

Stephan

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2449 Anonymous Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:22:45 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2449 What about OOXML which was the cause of all this. Will it be revised and if problems found will it be removed as an ISO standard? What about OOXML which was the cause of all this. Will it be revised and if problems found will it be removed as an ISO standard?

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2448 Rob Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:55:28 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2448 @Anonymous, although there certainly have been credible allegations of NB representatives receiving "incentives" to support OOXML, I don't think it is responsible to suggest the same of ISO leadership. Poor judgment, yes. Bureaucrats acting to protect the bureaucracy, certainly. Circling the wagons to defend a perceived attack on their Avalon, absolutely. But I see no need to suspect more. <br /><br />In any case, the scope of our achievement can be seen by noting that OOXML would have died under the proposed new rules. @Anonymous, although there certainly have been credible allegations of NB representatives receiving "incentives" to support OOXML, I don't think it is responsible to suggest the same of ISO leadership. Poor judgment, yes. Bureaucrats acting to protect the bureaucracy, certainly. Circling the wagons to defend a perceived attack on their Avalon, absolutely. But I see no need to suspect more.

In any case, the scope of our achievement can be seen by noting that OOXML would have died under the proposed new rules.

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2447 Rob Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:21:17 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2447 @Pete, I know they are considering other process changes as well. One would cause a Fast Track submission to die if the DIS ballot does not receive sufficient votes to be approved. So no BRM, etc., if the original ballot fails, as it did with OOXML. @Pete, I know they are considering other process changes as well. One would cause a Fast Track submission to die if the DIS ballot does not receive sufficient votes to be approved. So no BRM, etc., if the original ballot fails, as it did with OOXML.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2446 Anonymous Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:15:40 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2446 Why bother locking the barn door now that the horses have already run out? The ISO leadership then obviously got bought and paid for, and Microsoft would have the same effect on this "new" leadership.<br /><br />When the people in the leadership positions allow themselves to be bought off, it doesn't matter how many rules are in place. Why bother locking the barn door now that the horses have already run out? The ISO leadership then obviously got bought and paid for, and Microsoft would have the same effect on this "new" leadership.

When the people in the leadership positions allow themselves to be bought off, it doesn't matter how many rules are in place.

]]> By: Pete http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2445 Pete Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:25:48 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-ii.html#comment-2445 I hope that they are considering other changes to keep the system from being gamed like MS did... <br /><br />if anything hurt the peoples opinion of the ISO it was the way the it allowed MS to game it.. I hope that they are considering other changes to keep the system from being gamed like MS did…

if anything hurt the peoples opinion of the ISO it was the way the it allowed MS to game it..

]]>