An Antic Disposition

You are here: Home / 2008 / Archives for February 2008

Archives for February 2008

Legacy Inflation

By 8 Comments

When I was a child I stumbled upon the dark secret that all the adults were hiding. A simple mathematical calculation revealed their conspiracy. I was 10 years old, and my mother was 30. So she was 3x my age. I observed that in 10-years time I would be 20, and my mother would be 40. She would then be only twice my age. A few more calculations and the ominous truth was clear: At some point I would surely catch up, and perhaps even surpass her age!

Well, to be fair, I haven’t quite caught up yet.

But I am reminded of this when I hear Microsoft’s claims about “legacy document compatibility”. At first they used the term “legacy documents” to refer to the masses of existing binary documents, these “exobytes” of documents in Office binary formats. The argument seemed to be, that since Microsoft Word 95 had a bug, therefore Apple iWork 08 must also have this same bug when using OOXML format. This form of argument is used to defend all manner of defects in OOXML.

But in recent weeks, the argument has morphed. The legacy era is catching up with us. Microsoft’s unwillingness to fix errors in OOXML is now being defended because the fixes (Microsoft claims) would break compatibility with Ecma-376. In other words, Office 2007 files are now part of this large legacy that must be preserved. I can only call it call this “legacy inflation”.

First, note that Microsoft shipped Office 2007 with support for OOXML as the default, and this was entirely their choice. Beta versions of Office 2007 did not have OOXML as the default. If Microsoft had left the binary formats as the default, it would have been far easier for their customers. They could have waited for the Mac Office to support OOXML, Mobile Office, developer tools, etc., and then have a coordinated rollout of the new format, rather than dump it on an unprepared world. They could have also waited for standards approval for OOXML, wait for the standard to stop changing before forcing on their customers. But the didn’t do that. They took the approach that caused maximum disruption for their customers. And now that Office 2007 is in use, Microsoft wants ISO to bail them out, and not make any changes that would result in even a single attribute in OOXML differing from Ecma-376.

We see similar brinkmanship in wireless networking protocols where chip manufacturers rush to be the first to ship support for “draft” standards like 802.11n, build up an inventory of chips, and then lobby to ensure that the draft does not change, so they can cement their first mover advantage. This does not benefit the consumer, this does not benefit the standard, this does not benefit interoperability. It is all about maneuvering for market advantage. We should not be encouraging or supporting this.

It is interesting to note that in the wifi world, any company that plays this game with draft standards takes a big risk. They may win, or they may lose. It is a gamble. Only a monopolist would assume that they can play this game risk free. Microsoft does not face the same market risks that others would face for making a bad decision.

In any case, the argument that DIS 29500 must remain identical to Ecma-376 is technically deficient. Consider: Ecma-376 is not identical to the binary formats, but Microsoft Office can still read both. That is because Office can tell these files apart and call different code to parse the two different formats. Similarly, if OOXML diverges from Ecma-376, Microsoft can tell, with 100% certainty, which documents were created in Ecma-376 format versus which ones were made according to the ISO version of the standard.

The key is that all OOXML documents describe the application that created them, as well as a detailed version number. These are described in DIS 29500, Part 4:

7.2.2.1 Application (Application Name)

This element specifies the name of the application that created this document.

7.2.2.2 “AppVersion (Application Version)”

to differentiate between different versions of the same producer

If we look at three Office 2007 documents, we see the following in app.xml:

<application>Microsoft Office Word</application>
<appversion>12.0000</appversion>

<application>Microsoft Excel</application>
<appversion>12.0000</appversion>

<application>Microsoft Office PowerPoint</application>
<appversion>12.0000</appversion>

So the way to ensure compatibility in the fact of the standard changing through the approval process is clear. If the version is “12.0000” then interpret as Ecma-376. But when Office is updated to support an approved DIS 29500 (if this ever occurs) then they can simply update the version number in the files. That way Microsoft Office and every other application can tell them apart and process them correctly.

So let’s reject Microsoft’s push for legacy inflation. Otherwise we will soon find that the next version of OOXML is also unchangable, since Office 14 will be out before the next version of OOXML is standardized. Will we then be unable to change anything in OOXML 1.1 because Office 14 is already in beta? Where does this end?

This doesn’t mean we should be capricious with changes in DIS 29500, but where something is clearly wrong, let’s fix it. The assumption should be that the future is bigger than the past, that no matter how many documents existed before, there will soon be many more created in the future. We should be optimizing for that future.

Interoperability the ELIZA way

By 3 Comments

Back in the days before the Web, before GUI’s, before PC’s, before many of you were even born there was ELIZA. The brainchild of Joseph Weizenbaum, ELIZA was a 1966 computer program that seemed to understand.

I’m sure we’ve all played with ELIZA or variants over the years. I remember playing it during lunch in the 9th grade, working off of a teletype in the school’s main office. This terminal was intended for connecting to a remote application at a local college that allowed us to query a database of US colleges. From my small town perspective, this was amazing. It was the only computer in the world that was connected to any other computer, or at least as far as I knew. This must have been 1984 or so. I wonder what this system was. BITNET?

In any case I eventually figured out how to get to a command prompt, and found out that the terminal could be used for much more. I could play exciting text-based games, like Hunt the Wampus and Moon Landing. I eventually figured out how to list the source code for games, and printed out a some of them to take home and key in to my TI-99/4A. ELIZA was the first I ported. It was an interesting, early lesson on divergent standards, dealing with the differences between Dartmouth BASIC and TI BASIC.

In any case, for the benefit of those whose first computer had storage measured in gigabytes, here is an example an example of an ELIZA session:

> Hello, I am Eliza.
* Hello, I am BillG
> How are you today.. What would you like to discuss?
* ISO standards
> Tell me more…
* I want an ISO standard for OOXML
> I sometimes also want an ISO standard for OOXML.
* Good, maybe I can get you to write some letters for me.
> Oh… to write some letters for you?
* Yes, to national standards bodies, telling them why OOXML is good
> Are such questions on your mind often?
* Always
> Can you think of a specific example?
* I need an ISO standard and I need it bad
> Can you elaborate on that?
* Other people have one, so I need one too.
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* I need a standard quickly
> That is quite interesting.
* So, I went to Ecma and asked for a fast track standard
> That is quite interesting.
* And they gave me a 6,000 page one in less than a year
> Can you elaborate on that?
* That is their speciality, rubber-stamping standards
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* So, now I have an Ecma standard, but ISO doesn’t like it
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
*The open source zealots don’t respect our standards
> I’m not sure I understand you fully.
* They are thieving communists who don’t respect intellectual property
> What do you think?
* I think we should outlaw open source
> Do you really think so?
* Yes, otherwise there will be no more innovation
> Why no?
* Because without profit there is no incentive to innovate
> Why no?
* Without profit, no one would work
> Why no?
* What are you, some sort of communist?
> Would you prefer if I were not some sort of communist?
* Yes, better dead than red
> I understand.
* OK. So we need an ISO so we can continue innovation
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* An ISO allows us to sell the same old MS Office we always had with our monopolist’s profit margin. That is how we ensure innovation.
> What do you think?
* I have a monopoly.
> You have a monopoly?
* Yes, otherwise we would not be able to claim innovation by having an ISO format that merely mimics a 10-year old legacy format.
> I see.

Now of course, this is something of a parlor trick, an illusion of understanding, but an impressive one nevertheless. Weizenbaum explains in his 1966 paper “ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication between man and machine” (CACM, Vol. 9, Num. 1, p. 43):

A large part of whatever elegance may be credited to ELIZA lies in the fact that ELIZA maintains the illusion of understanding with so little machinery. But there are also bounds to the extendability of ELIZA’s “understanding” power, which are a function of the ELIZA program itself and not a function of any script it may be given. The crucial test of understanding, as every teacher should know, is not the subject’s ability to continue a conversation, but to draw valid conclusions from what is being told.

It is in a similar vein that I am suspicious of any claims to “universal document interoperability” that are not firmly based on both sides of the interaction fully understanding the data that they are exchanging. For example, I have heard some claims that a generic extension mechanism in OOXML or ODF would allow a vendor to store away additional formatting hints that would ensure round-trip interoperability between editors. But this is merely a parlor trick, regurgitating data that is stored, without understanding it. It might work for the most trivial demos, but falls apart quickly when the document is manipulated, combined with others, split, converted into other formats, edited with other editors, sections cut & pasted, etc. Real interoperability is more complicated than the trivial round-trip demos, just as real conversations are more complicated than ELIZA sessions.

So, if anyone shows you interoperability, ask yourself whether both sides of the interaction actually fully understand the data that is being exchanged. If not, this is not really full interoperability. It is just an illusion.

Fast Track versus PAS

By 14 Comments

Years ago I read an interesting article about the encyclopedia entry for the keyword “Longitude”. According to the article, the entry merely said “See Latitude”. With that short, two-word sentence the encyclopedia author conflated these two concepts as mere orthogonal dimensions, lumped together, each as boring as the other. This ignored the fact that latitude is boring, easy, trivial, known to the ancients and as easy to calculate as measuring the altitude of Polaris. But longitude, there lies an epic adventure, something fiendishly difficult to calculate accurately, something that propelled a great seafaring nation to a search for accurate timepieces that would work at sea, just in order to more accurately calculate longitude. Books have been written about longitude, lives lost, fortunes made. But latitude — latitude is for children.

So when I hear people lump Fast Track and PAS process in JTC1 together, I roll my eyes and think… If only they knew how different they really are.

Let’s give it a try, starting with PAS.

PAS stands for “Publicly Available Specification” and the PAS process in JTC1 allows an existing standard from outside of JTC1 to be submitted, reviewed and approved in an accelerated review cycle. An organization that wishes to make a PAS submission (typically a standards consortium) must first seek recognition as a PAS Submitter. This requires that they submit to JTC1 for approval a list of standards they wish to submit, as well as documentation that explains their organizational qualifications. The long list of organizational acceptance criteria are outlined in JTC1 Directives, Annex M:

M7.3 Organisation Acceptance Criteria

M7.3.1 Co-operative Stance (M)

There should be evidence of a co-operative attitude toward open dialogue, and a stated objective of pursuing standardisation in the JTC 1 arena. The JTC 1 community will reciprocate in similar ways, and in addition, will recognise the organisation’s contribution to international standards.

It is JTC 1’s intention to avoid any divergence between the JTC 1 revision of a transposed PAS and a version published by the originator. Therefore, JTC 1 invites the submitter to work closely with JTC 1 in revising or amending a transposed PAS.

There should be acceptable proposals covering the following categories and topics.

M.7.3.1.1 Commitment to Working Agreement(s)

  1. What working agreements have been provided, how comprehensive are they?
  2. How manageable are the proposed working agreements (e.g. understandable, simple, direct, devoid of legalistic language except where necessary)?
  3. What is the attitude toward creating and using working agreements?

M.7.3.1.2 Ongoing Maintenance

  1. What is the willingness and resource availability to conduct ongoing maintenance, interpretation, and 5 year revision cycles following JTC 1 approval (see also M6.1.5)?
  2. What level of willingness and resources are available to facilitate specification progression during the transposition process (e.g. technical clarification and normal document editing)?

M.7.3.1.3 Changes during transposition

  1. What are the expectations of the proposer toward technical and editorial changes to the specification during the transposition process?
  2. How flexible is the proposing organisation toward using only portions of the proposed specification or adding supplemental material to it?

M.7.3.1.4 Future Plans

  1. What are the intentions of the proposing organisation toward future additions, extensions, deletions or modifications to the specification? Under what conditions? When? Rationale?
  2. What willingness exists to work with JTC 1 on future versions in order to avoid divergence? Note that the answer to this question is particularly relevant in cases where doubts may exist about the openness of the submitter organisation.
  3. What is the scope of the organisation activities relative to specifications similar to but beyond that being proposed?

M7.3.2 Characteristics of the Organisation (M)

The PAS should have originated in a stable body that uses reasonable processes for achieving broad consensus among many parties. The PAS owner should demonstrate the openness and non-discrimination of the process which is used to establish consensus, and it should declare any ongoing commercial interest in the specification either as an organisation in its own right or by supporting organisations such as revenue from sales or royalties.

M.7.3.2.1 Process and Consensus:

  1. What processes and procedures are used to achieve consensus, by small groups and by the organisation in its entirety?
  2. How easy or difficult is it for interested parties, e.g. business entities, individuals, or government representatives to participate?
  3. What criteria are used to determine “voting” rights in the process of achieving consensus?

M.7.3.2.2 Credibility and Longevity:

  1. What is the extent of and support from (technical commitment) active members of the organisation? b) How well is the organisation recognised by the interested/affected industry?
  2. How long has the organisation been functional (beyond the initial establishment period) and what are the future expectations for continued existence?
  3. What sort of legal business entity is the organisation operating under?

M7.3.3 Intellectual Property Rights: (M)

The organisation is requested to make known its position on the items listed below. In particular, there shall be a written statement of willingness of the organisation and its members, if applicable, to comply with the ISO/IEC patent policy in reference to the PAS under consideration.

Note: Each JTC 1 National Body should investigate and report the legal implications of this section.

M.7.3.3.1 Patents:

  1. How willing are the organisation and its members to meet the ISO/IEC policy on these matters?
  2. What patent rights, covering any item of the proposal, is the PAS owner aware of?

M.7.3.3.2 Copyrights:

  1. What copyrights have been granted relevant to the subject specification(s)?
  2. What copyrights, including those on implementable code in the specification, is the PAS originator willing to grant?
  3. What conditions, if any, apply (e.g. copyright statements, electronic labels, logos)?

M.7.3.3.3 Distribution Rights:

  1. What distribution rights exist and what are the terms of use?
  2. What degree of flexibility exists relative to modifying distribution rights; before the transposition process is complete, after transposition completion?
  3. Is dual/multiple publication and/or distribution envisaged, and if so, by whom?

M.7.3.3.4 Trademark Rights:

  1. What trademarks apply to the subject specification?
  2. What are the conditions for use and are they to be transferred to ISO/IEC in part or in their entirety?

M.7.3.3.5 Original Contributions:

  1. What original contributions (outside the above IPR categories) (e.g. documents, plans, research papers, tests, proposals) need consideration in terms of ownership and recognition?
  2. What financial considerations are there?
  3. What legal considerations are there?

Once this documentation is provided, a three-month JTC1 ballot is held on the question of whether to approved the applicant as a Recognized PAS Submitter. If approved, this status last for 2 years, but may be renewed by reapplying with updated organizational documentation. Renewals must also be approved by a 3-month letter ballot.

Once an organization has Recognized PAS Submitter status, it may now propose a PAS submission. Such a submission must be within scope of the Submitter’s original application, and must be accompanied by an Explanatory Report that speaks to JTC1’s strategic interests in Interoperability, Cultural and Linguistic Adaptability, as well as the following document-related acceptance criteria:

M7.4 Document Related Criteria

M7.4.1 Quality

Within its scope the specification shall completely describe the functionality (in terms of interfaces, protocols, formats, etc) necessary for an implementation of the PAS. If it is based on a product, it shall include all the functionality necessary to achieve the stated level of compatibility or interoperability in a product independent manner.

M.7.4.1.1 Completeness (M):

  1. How well are all interfaces specified?
  2. How easily can implementation take place without need of additional descriptions?
  3. What proof exists for successful implementations (e.g. availability of test results for media standards)?

M.7.4.1.2 Clarity:

  1. What means are used to provide definitive descriptions beyond straight text?
  2. What tables, figures, and reference materials are used to remove ambiguity?
  3. What contextual material is provided to educate the reader?

M.7.4.1.3 Testability (M)

The extent, use and availability of conformance/interoperability tests or means of implementation verification (e.g. availability of reference material for magnetic media) shall be described, as well as the provisions the specification has for testability.

The specification shall have had sufficient review over an extended time period to characterise it as being stable.

M.7.4.1.4 Stability (M):

  1. How long has the specification existed, unchanged, since some form of verification (e.g. prototype testing, paper analysis, full interoperability tests) has been achieved?
  2. To what extent and for how long have products been implemented using the specification?
  3. What mechanisms are in place to track versions, fixes, and addenda?

M.7.4.1.5 Availability (M):

  1. Where is the specification available (e.g. one source, multinational locations, what types of distributors)?
  2. How long has the specification been available?
  3. Has the distribution been widespread or restricted? (describe situation)
  4. What are the costs associated with specification availability?

M7.4.2 Consensus (M)

The accompanying report shall describe the extent of (inter)national consensus that the document has already achieved.

M.7.4.2.1 Development Consensus:

  1. Describe the process by which the specification was developed.
  2. Describe the process by which the specification was approved.
  3. What “levels” of approval have been obtained?

M.7.4.2.2 Response to User Requirements:

  1. How and when were user requirements considered and utilised?
  2. To what extent have users demonstrated satisfaction?

M.7.4.2.3 Market Acceptance:

  1. How widespread is the market acceptance today? Anticipated?
  2. What evidence is there of market acceptance in the literature?

M.7.4.2.4 Credibility:

  1. What is the extent and use of conformance tests or means of implementation verification?
  2. What provisions does the specification have for testability?

M7.4.3 Alignment

The specification should be aligned with existing JTC 1 standards or ongoing work and thus complement existing standards, architectures and style guides. Any conflicts with existing standards, architectures and style guides should be made clear and justified.

M.7.4.3.1 Relationship to Existing Standards:

  1. What international standards are closely related to the specification and how?
  2. To what international standards is the proposed specification a natural extension?
  3. How is the specification related to emerging and ongoing JTC 1 projects?

M.7.4.3.2 Adaptability and Migration:

  1. What adaptations (migrations) of either the specification or international standards would improve the relationship between the specification and international standards?
  2. How much flexibility do the proponents of the specification have?
  3. What are the longer-range plans for new/evolving specifications?

M.7.4.3.3 Substitution and Replacement:

  1. What needs exist, if any, to replace an existing international standard? Rationale?
  2. What is the need and feasibility of using only a portion of the specification as an international standard?
  3. What portions, if any, of the specification do not belong in an international standard (e.g. too implementation specific)?

M.7.4.3.4 Document Format and Style

  1. What plans, if any, exist to conform to JTC 1 document styles?

The Explanatory Report also sets the maintenance regime for the submission, if approved

The proposed standard, along with the Explanatory Report is then distributed to JTC1 NB’s for a 6-month ballot. Approval criteria is 2/3 approval of voting P-members, and no more than 25% disapproval in total. At the end of the ballot a Ballot Resolution Meeting may be held if needed.

So, that is PAS process, in brief. PAS process is how ODF was approved back in 2006, with OASIS as the Recognized PAS Submitter.

Fast Track process, is almost the same from the time the ballot is issued. The six-month period is split into a 30-day “contradiction period” and a 5-month ballot. (That is an odd difference, with no clear reason). But the voting criteria, the BRM process, etc., this is all the same between the two. What is different (and there are critical differences) is everything that happens before the ballot.

Who can submit a Fast Track? Any JTC1 P-member, or any Class A Liaison can propose a Fast Track.

We all know about P-members. They are NB’s, typically the highest standardization committee in any country. A P-member used to also mean that you had a broad interest in many or most JTC1 matters. But now it may mean merely that Microsoft asked you to join as a P-member.

Class A Liaison are “Organisations which make an effective contribution to and participate actively in the work of JTC 1 or its SCs for most of the questions dealt with by the committee”. Any organization can apply to be a Class A Liaison and be voted in via a letter ballot or at a meeting. There are no formal organization qualifications, no requirement to state an interest in eventually making Fast Tracks, or to answer any of the types of questions that PAS Submitters must answer.

Further, once approved as a Class A Liaison, the status lasts forever. There is no requirement to renew or reapply. In fact JTC1 Directives even lack a documented procedure for removing a Class A Liaison.

So what about the proposals for Fast Track submission. What is required of them? No Explanatory Report is required. No checklist of document-related criteria must be answered. JTC1 Directives say merely “The criteria for proposing an existing standard for the fast-track procedure is a matter for each proposer to decide.” That’s it. It is at the sole discretion of the Class A Liaison.

So you can see what great power Ecma has over JTC1 — they can submit any standard they want for Fast Track, and no one in JTC1 can stop them, or even remove their right to submit more Fast Tracks.

This may explain why Ecma is able to command such high membership fees. A full voting membership in OASIS, which would allow a company to help produce an OASIS Standard for later submission to JTC1 under the arduous PAS process, this costs $1,100 for a small company. To join the US NB and be able to lobby for a Fast Track submission from the US, this will cost you $9,500. But to join Ecma as a voting member (what they call an “Ordinary Member”) this will cost you 70,000 Swiss Francs, or $64,000. That is what no-questions-asked Fast Track service is worth. I think that, from Microsoft’s perspective, the extra $62,900 is money well spent. But what about from JTC1’s perspective? They don’t get this extra money. So what’s their excuse for having these permissive Fast Track procedures that give Ecma so much control?

In any case, that is why I roll my eyes when people lump PAS and Fast Track together, and say that they are essentially the same process. They clearly aren’t. PAS Submitters like OASIS are given intense scrutiny, and are required to document in great detail how their organization and their proposals meet JTC1 criteria. The scrutiny never ends, as a new Explanatory Report is required for every submission, and their status as Recognized PAS Submitter only lasts for a few years before requiring re-approval.

Fast Track submitters, as Class A Liaisons, on the other hand, are the monarchs of JTC1. They serve for life and are answerable to no one. They can submit a Fast Track on any subject they want, at any time. So a standards consortium like Ecma, with primary expertise in optical disk standards, but never having produced an XML standard before, can rubber stamp the world’s largest XML standard and submit it for Fast Track processing to JTC1. And no one can do a thing about it.

A Pre-BRM Miscellany

By 8 Comments

I’ll be attending the BRM as part of the US delegation, leaving for Geneva a week from today. I am awed by the security apparatus which is being rolled out to ensure the integrity of the open standards process. Photo ID requirements, badged access to the meeting room, prohibitions against cameras and recording devices, no observers, no press. Truly, this is what open standards are all about.

Our delegation has been warned that there will be a dangerous group of agitators at the event and we may need to walk past them to get to the meeting room, and we should not lend our support in any fashion to this event, which includes such known disruptive elements as Vint Cerf, Håkon Wium Lie, Bob Sutor, and Andy Updegrove. Eyes front, do not look to the left, do not look to the right.

I’m certainly impressed that JTC1 is taking the BRM process so seriously, and everyone is so concerned with the integrity of the process. But I must wonder where all this attention was when NB’s were reporting to JTC1 that OOXML was too large to review under Fast Track procedures? Where was the concern when NB’s were objecting that the proposal contradicted numerous international standards? Where were the precautions when committees were being stuffed, and new NB’s were joining JTC1 only days before the ballot ended? Who was watching out for the integrity of the process then? Why is an OFE panel discussion on “Standards and the Future of the Internet” by international experts on the subject a threat to the international standards system, but no one in JTC1 even blinked when Côte-d’Ivoire joined JTC1 as a P-member three days before the end of a 6-month standardization process and voted “Yes” without comments on a 6,000 page proposal?

In other news, Martin Bekkelund has a look at some of the much vaunted “support” for OOXML on the Mac. Despite the claims, the support is quite underwhelming. As Gertrude Stein said, “There is no there there”. (That probably won’t translate well, so for my non-native English-speaking friends, trust me, that was hilarious.)

From ZDNet Australia and Brett Winterford comes a summary of some analysis by IP law practitioners and academics of OOXML and IPR. “Can Microsoft be trusted on OOXML covenants?” My summary: individuals, small companies and open source projects are roadkill.

Google searches for “ODF” and “OpenDocument” or even “noooxml” are now returning sponsored links with phrases like “Learn the truth about the standard for interoperability” that lead you to a pro-OOXML petition on Microsoft’s faux OOXML community site. For example, try this query.

Let’s see if I understand how this pay-per-click system works. Every time I click these sponsored links, money gets transferred out of some pro-OOXML supporter’s bank account and is sent to Google? These seems the expensive route to go, but there is some logic to it. A look at Google Trends shows that Google queries for “ODF” far outnumber queries for “OOXML”.

On the other side, at the real <NO>OOXML petition, the count stands at 82,422 signatures. Apparently they did not need to trick people into visiting their web site.

Three ODF applications in the news this week.

IBM Lotus Symphony takes Datamation’s “Product of the Year” award in the “Office Productivity Software” category, beating out Microsoft Office. Congratulations to Symphony team!

Also, CNet TV puts OpenOffice.org in the #1 slot in their “Top 5 Best downloads of 2007“.

As reported by <NO>OOXML, the OpenDoc Society has an interesting tease in their February newsletter about a proposal “under investigation” by an “ODF standards group” within Microsoft to add better support to MS Office for ODF. Interesting.

Get it while you can. Microsoft is making their legacy binary format documentation available for download. This timely disclosure comes a few month after they silently disabled access to many of their legacy formats in Office 2003 SP3.

My advice — download these binary formats, burn them to CD and store them in a safe place. Over the years Microsoft has made these formats available for download (ca 1996), put them on MSDN CD’s (ca 1998), then added restrictive terms that specifically forbade use by competitors (ca 1999), removed the documentation entirely from the web and MSDN CD’s (ca 2000), made the formats available under commercial license only, made a RF license available only after filling out an intrusive questionnaire and only when the use was “complementary to Office” (ca 2005), to the present download terms. So get them now, since there are no guarantees on how long they will remain available this time.

In any case, it is good to have this material available once again. We now have a file format specification, controlled exclusively by Microsoft, with all sorts of quirks and bugs necessary to be an accurate and compatible description of the billions of existing Microsoft Office documents, available for anyone to download and implement under terms granted by Microsft’s Open Specification Promise. In fact, the observant reader will note that the same could be said about OOXML. But why should either be an ISO Standard? They both remain a description of the anomalous quirks of a single vendor’s proprietary products, with no generality or applicability to other uses.

In fact, if a claim is made for needing ISO standardization, the better claim should be given to the legacy binary formats, since they indeed are widely implemented, and are used for billions of legacy documents. Microsoft would not even need to pad their résumé with toy implementations. The binary formats are implemented in everything from MS Office, to OpenOffice, to Lotus SmartSuite to Lotus Symphony, to Corel WordPerfect Office, to KOffice, Google Docs & Spreadsheets, to Apple iWork, to MindJet. In fact, for every partial implementation of OOXML that Microsoft claims, we could point to dozens of fuller implementations of the legacy binary formats.

So why the rush to make an ISO standard for OOXML? I wonder if instead we should be taking Adobe’s example and standardizing the existing binary formats, as insurance for long-term access to the legacy base of MS Office documents. Then moving forward, MS Office could use a clear, modern format like ODF, enhanced with Microsoft’s participation in the ODF TC, to ensure that it includes all of the capabilities that they require for moving forward in the office productivity market. Do we really want to drag deprecated VML and incorrect leap calculations into the 21st Century?

Punct Contrapunct

By 4 Comments

The recent Burton Group report, What’s Up, .DOC? by Guy Creese and Peter O’Kelly was made available free to the public for a stated purpose:

We’ve made the overview available for free (I must admit I’m not sure for how long), as we believe this topic warrants expanded industry debate before a February, 2008 ISO ballot on OOXML, and we want to help catalyze and advance the debate.

The degree of expanded debate achieved may be estimated by noting that Microsoft is sending this report to every JTC1 national body involved in the OOXML ballot, from Pakistan to Ecuador, and has invited Peter O’Kelly to speak on this paper both at the recent OOXML press event in Washington as well as this week’s Office Developers Conference.

Much could be said of this report, but I’ll limit myself to commenting on a single passage:

[S]everal vendors interviewed for this overview indicated that it’s essentially impossible to get ODF proposals approved if they’re not also supported in OpenOffice.org, and further noted that Sun closely controls OpenOffice.org (much as it also holds control over Java).

It should be noted that, before making this statement, the authors neither contacted OASIS nor the OASIS ODF TC in order to check their facts.

The ODF Alliance published a rebuttal of this report, and in particular took umbrage at that passage, saying:

This is demonstrably false, and the use of unnamed “vendors” as sources does not eliminate the need for doing basic fact checking on such claims. Rumors and innuendo do not objective analysis make.

First, on the control aspect, note that ODF 1.0, the standard, is owned and controlled by OASIS, a standards consortium of over 600 member organizations. Sun is just one company among many members. Indeed, for most of the development of ODF, Microsoft was on the Board of Directors of OASIS.

Second, OASIS is a corporation. It is legally bound to its Bylaws. There is no arbitrary control by member corporations.

The ODF TC is co-chaired by an IBM employee and a Sun employee, and is regulated by the OASIS TC Process document, which is publicly readable by all and has clear rules of procedure and appeal.

The ODF TC has three subcommittees. The Accessibility SC is co-chaired by IBM and Sun, while the Formula Subcommittee and the Metadata Subcommittee are each chaired by individual members of OASIS who are not affiliated with any large corporations.

Voting rights in the ODF TC, for accepting or rejecting features, is currently as follows:

  • Sun – 3 voting members
  • IBM – 4 voting members
  • Individuals – 3 voting members

This can easily be verified at the OASIS ODF TC website.

Is sharing the chair position on the TC and on 1 of 3 subcommittees considered “closely controlling”? Is having 30% of the votes considered “closely controlling”?

As for proposals being accepted into ODF, we note that all three major features for ODF 1.2, RDF metadata, OpenFormula, and enhanced accessibility, are new proposals which have not been yet implemented in OpenOffice. Moreover, the ODF TC is currently processing a set of features requested by the KOffice open source project. So the assertion that it is “essentially impossible” to get new features into ODF if they are not already supported by OpenOffice is not true. This error is unfortunate and needs correcting through rigorous fact checking, as do the others, in our opinion.

Oddly enough, this particular error occurs in several places. A search of the report for the word “control” shows it used six times, once in reference to “Chinese communists” and five times in reference to Sun Microsystems. Note, however, that no mention is ever made of the strong direct control Microsoft asserts over OOXML, its having sole chairmanship of the Ecma TC45, and its having secured a committee charter that prevents any changes to OOXML that are not compatible with Microsoft Office.

Again, we’re puzzled by the inaccuracy on one hand and the lack of balance on the other.

Now, back to the Burton Group, where Guy Creese responds on the Burton Group blog:

We were not expecting to be told that Sun had significant sway over the standard, but several people told us that (spread across more than one ODF-oriented vendor), which is why we noted it in the report. As the ODF Alliance notes, IBM and Sun—two of Microsoft’s most powerful productivity application archrivals today (as well as partners to Microsoft in myriad other domains, e.g., Web services-related standards initiatives)—collectively control 70% of the votes in the ODF TC which determines if proposals will be accepted or rejected. This suggests there is ample opportunity for conflicts of interest.

Guy, excuse me, did you say “conflicts of interest”? Please explain. Or maybe when Peter O’Kelly comes back from speaking at Microsoft’s Office Developers Conference he can explain it for us?

In any case, the factual errors in your report with respect to the control of ODF have been clearly demonstrated, but instead of simply admitting and correcting the error, you hide beyond anonymous sources and further impugn OASIS by charging some sort of “conflict of interest”.

To follow your logic further demonstrates the absurdity of it. If you believe that the fact that IBM and Sun “collectively control 70% of the votes in the ODF TC” lends weight to your argument, then what is shown by the equally true mathematical fact that IBM plus independent members also control 70% of the votes? Why is this equally true fact not mentioned? This is the nature of plurality, that there are many different combinations of votes that could make a majority position. Further, note that these groups in practice do not always vote as a bloc. We’ve had votes where the independent members split their vote, and we even had a vote where the IBM members did not all vote alike. So much for your simplistic control theory.

I will not question whether your anonymous sources indeed misled you. For sake of argument, I will accept unquestioningly that you indeed had sources and that they said exactly what you claim they said. However, having sources does not excuse you, as an analyst, from doing basic fact checking. The rules of OASIS and the voting composition of the ODF TC are facts, not opinions, and the correct information was sitting there, on public web sites, for you to check. It is not your fault that you were misled by sources, but it is your fault that you did not verify their claims. To publish controversial statements based on anonymous sources without fact checking, this is not something that represents the Burton Group’s finest work.

The Burton Group has denigrated the work and the members of the OASIS Open Document Format Technical Committee (of which I am Co-Chair) with published statements that have been shown to be false. The Burton Group owes us an apology and an immediate retraction.

Waiting until after February, after the DIS 29500 process concludes, to make corrections is unacceptable. Since your stated purpose in making this report public was to “advance the debate” in the current OOXML ISO process, withholding factual corrections until after that process concludes would imply that you and the Burton Group see no problems with knowingly persisting in influencing an ISO ballot with false information published under the Burton Group name. I don’t believe that is the image that the Burton Group would want to project. So I urge that a correction is in order now.