Comments on: The Final OOXML Update: Part III http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=final-ooxml-update-part-iii 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: GreyGeek77 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2466 GreyGeek77 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:31:17 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2466 You are surprised by Microsoft's corrupt practices? Didn't you read James Plamondon's "Evangelism is War!", where he defines the "Stacked Panel"? The current OOXML committee has been stacked, but Microsoft "promised" that they didn't behave like that any more. Ya, right. <br /><br />Did ANYONE honestly believe OOXML would end up being anything but a Microsoft PROPRIETARY standard? You are surprised by Microsoft's corrupt practices? Didn't you read James Plamondon's "Evangelism is War!", where he defines the "Stacked Panel"? The current OOXML committee has been stacked, but Microsoft "promised" that they didn't behave like that any more. Ya, right.

Did ANYONE honestly believe OOXML would end up being anything but a Microsoft PROPRIETARY standard?

]]> By: observer http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2465 observer Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:56:56 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2465 As an outsider looking at this, I have to ask a question. Doesn't this, combined with what was written in part 2, indicate that ISO/IEC 29500 is an illegal standard as it has not conformed with the stated reasons to allow it to be a standard in the first place? If this is the case, then shouldn't ISO/IEC 29500 be declared as no longer a standard by several countries standing committees, or rather organizations despite the committee itself being overwealmed by microsoft? Looking at this, member countries outside of the committees can claim falsification, and in some countries sue the maintainers for this as it is akin to false advertising. If this is the case, can it be handled under false advertising laws of several countries.<br /><br />Just thought I'd ask. As an outsider looking at this, I have to ask a question. Doesn't this, combined with what was written in part 2, indicate that ISO/IEC 29500 is an illegal standard as it has not conformed with the stated reasons to allow it to be a standard in the first place? If this is the case, then shouldn't ISO/IEC 29500 be declared as no longer a standard by several countries standing committees, or rather organizations despite the committee itself being overwealmed by microsoft? Looking at this, member countries outside of the committees can claim falsification, and in some countries sue the maintainers for this as it is akin to false advertising. If this is the case, can it be handled under false advertising laws of several countries.

Just thought I'd ask.

]]> By: Doug Webb http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2464 Doug Webb Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:38:13 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2464 If ISO can be so easily manipulated to favor a particular vendor, what is the point of ISO? Why are we supporting an organization that fails to do it's job at every turn? Is there any point to ISO's continued existence? If ISO can be so easily manipulated to favor a particular vendor, what is the point of ISO? Why are we supporting an organization that fails to do it's job at every turn? Is there any point to ISO's continued existence?

]]> By: Stephan Wehner http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2463 Stephan Wehner Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:48:02 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2463 It looks like the EU needs to increase their fines to several, even 100s of, billions of dollars. These clowns don't take notice otherwise.<br /><br />Quite possibly that much money is at stake for Microsoft.<br /><br />Stephan It looks like the EU needs to increase their fines to several, even 100s of, billions of dollars. These clowns don't take notice otherwise.

Quite possibly that much money is at stake for Microsoft.

Stephan

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2462 Anonymous Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:54:12 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2462 I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. What irks me is that there is apparently no sanction for this, so I'd second the request to forward to the EU competition commissioner. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. What irks me is that there is apparently no sanction for this, so I'd second the request to forward to the EU competition commissioner.

]]> By: Stephan Jaensch http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2461 Stephan Jaensch Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:58:58 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2461 Wow, I'm eagerly awaiting a response to all of this from Dough Mahugh or some other Microsoft employee. But I have a feeling even they can't put a positive spin on this one... Wow, I'm eagerly awaiting a response to all of this from Dough Mahugh or some other Microsoft employee. But I have a feeling even they can't put a positive spin on this one…

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2460 Anonymous Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:03:38 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2460 Rob,<br /><br />I really think you should pack your 3 posts together and send them to the EU Comission, if you haven't thought of doing so... <br /><br />Maybe you can use the contacts mentioned in:<br />http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091010104533940<br /><br />Neelie Kroes's needs to know. Rob,

I really think you should pack your 3 posts together and send them to the EU Comission, if you haven't thought of doing so…

Maybe you can use the contacts mentioned in:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091010104533940

Neelie Kroes's needs to know.

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2459 Rob Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:33:22 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2459 @Alex, error noted and corrected. My apologies. I must have been thinking of your presentation in Copenhagen, where you asked, rhetorically, "Are BRM decisions in any sense sacrosanct?" @Alex, error noted and corrected. My apologies. I must have been thinking of your presentation in Copenhagen, where you asked, rhetorically, "Are BRM decisions in any sense sacrosanct?"

]]> By: adjb.net http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2458 adjb.net Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:15:23 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/the-final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html#comment-2458 Hi Rob<br /><br />You're wrong to attribute the words of DR 09-0159 to me.<br /><br />I don't write everything you know!<br /><br />- Alex. Hi Rob

You're wrong to attribute the words of DR 09-0159 to me.

I don't write everything you know!

- Alex.

]]>