RSSISO to Fast-Track Office Open XML Process
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 12, 2007, 4:38 PM
As reported first by Computerworld's Eric Lai this afternoon, the head of the International Standards Organization committee JTC 1 has given her official approval to giving consideration to Microsoft's Office Open XML document standard under a fast-track process. This approval comes as opposition to the standard's discussion, which at one time was believed to have been fierce and widespread, may actually have been much more limited and tempered, according to Lai's own survey of JTC 1 members.
While ISO officials had earlier confirmed reports of as many as 19 nations opposing Microsoft's and ECMA's move for the world's largest standards body to ratify OOXML, the response to Lai's survey -- a kind of exit poll, using ISO-approved questions -- indicates that only six nations may have lodged their formal disapproval of fast track consideration, while another five may have expressed concerns but not objections.
Under a fast-track process, OOXML could become ratified in five months or less, which would enable states such as California to continue to use Microsoft Office under proposed new legislation which would mandate them to use only open standards approved by international bodies.
The apparent reversal of fortune in Microsoft's favor has some perennial advocates of open standardization crying foul, having reversed their stance from faith in the open standards community to doubts as to its integrity.
As Groklaw writes this afternoon, "So the objections process is an elaborate waltz with no purpose? Why even have such a process if Microsoft can push its will forward anyway?...Assuming we are projecting the future correctly, we'll have some of the world driving on the ODF side of the road, so to speak, and the rest on the Open XML side, with inevitable traffic jams, which is exactly what a document standard is supposed to prevent. Wow."
5:38 pm March 12, 2007 - Late this afternoon, Microsoft declined comment on the matter, indicating that it doesn't have a hand in the standards process at present, deferring the matter to ECMA International, which already approved OOXML as one of its standards last year.
Just for fun, take the time to read the comments on MS Office 14 (2009) by Microsoft employees. Office is like $3 gas — enjoy it now because it's dying before our eyes.
Score: 0
|Maybe Microsoft knows it won't spend the time to correct MS-XML's contradictions and ISO agrees, thinking "let's just fast-track the no-vote and be done."
But just to realize what Lisa Rajchel has dismissed, peruse the technical contradictions found in the almost 7,000-page OXML spec in the first month of review. If she gets her way, then not only will 1900 be standardized as a Leap year, but I'll forever be a day early on all my calculations when using Microsoft software. Revise your history books now — Microsoft says 2007 didn't start when you think it did.
Hey-indeedy.
Score: 0
|In tactical terms its a mess for Microsoft.
Score: 0
|There's a standard, and then there's the Microsoft standard. What's new about this? Having two standards goes as far back as MSFT.
Score: 0
|From the comments over at Groklaw, it seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of the "Fast Track" process at the ISO, and in particular the purpose and process of the 1-month Contradiction period. A clear explanation of these subjects is given at:
http://blogs.msdn.com/br...fast-track-process.aspx
My own take on what just happened is that about 5% of the countries raised one or more objections (6 out of 100+). If you read the ECMA document with the countries' objections, there is a fair bit of cut and paste from ODF supporters' documents. These objections were replied to by the ECMA in a straightforward way. Typically, the objections were found to be trivial, irrelevant, or based on a misunderstanding of the spec or the process. So, it should be no surprise that the draft standard has now passed to the 5-month phase.
Score: 0
|Wow, you either really don't know what you're talking about or you're deliberately lying. First off, at this stage, there is no "6 ouf of 100." Second, you could not have read their "objections" because they've yet to be written.
Third, I agree with some of the Groklaw commenters: How did "Lisa Rajchel" up and "decide" all by herself without any vote to push OXML into FastTrack despite 2/3 of the JTC1 objecting to OXML? The ComputerWorld article states that in her decision, she "did not mention that the 6,000-page proposal, submitted by another standards body, Ecma International, had garnered comments and criticism from 20 out of the 30 countries sitting on the JTC-1 committee."
That's 20 of 30 nations that have objected to OXML, and yet Lisa Rajchel didn't think she owed them any justification for ignoring them. If you thought the world had lined up against Microsoft to this point, just wait. This is equivalent to a president saying, I don't care what the law says, I'm going to openly disobey it no matter what all of you think! Oy.
Meanwhile, recently Microsoft's Jason Matusow admitted he will not respond to any of OXML's contradictions. OXML is a dead-end street, if for no other reasons than its endless legacy dependencies and that it's an unimplementable format. Even if by a miracle (and it won't happen) that OXML were to become a second and distinct 'standard' unto itself, it won't stop the growing number of governments from adopting an Open Standard Open Document (ODF) format.
Score: 0
|easson = No friggin clue.
The first thing you do NOT do when defending Microsoft, is pull nonsense form THEIR own blogs.
You have to be pretty dumb to think they don't use blogging in their own form of propaganda and nonsense. BTW, its NOT 6 out of 100+. That's what Microsoft wants you to believe.
Score: 0
|Zridling,
The "6" is from the Computerworld article quoted above as the number of nations that have lodged disapproval; the "100+" is the number of nations that are allowed to comment according to the ISO process (not 30).
The objections are not only written, they are available for download, along with the detailed ECMA answers to them. I've read them. And besides, they have to be written and replied to by the ECMA before the draft spec can enter into its five month period.
Clearly, you did not bother to even read the information I pointed to regarding the process, because you are clearly ignorant of it.
The rest of your comment is just your usual propoganda and self-delusional thinking.
Score: 0
|Simply put, as a standard MS-OOXML has far too many interdependencies upon other core Microsoft-specific technologies, many of which are not themselves under any standards body. This alone disqualifies it as anything near "open," and for what Microsoft is wanting ISO for, it doesn't need it. MS-OOXML will be around for a while, but note that none of Microsoft's Live strategies involve any interaction with the format in any way.
Yes, I noticed you posted a lame Brian Jones Microsoft blog post which is full of so many inaccuracies it's laughable. He's just making stuff up about the ISO process. For example, this line is a bald-faced lie: "This is not the point where people raise technical objections, missing content, poor design, etc. Instead this is where you want to make sure that the approval of this ISO spec won't cause another ISO standard to break." You and Brian might want to study ISO a little bit before embarrassing yourself further today. In other words, read the source material and don't rely on a Microsoft employee to get your facts about another organization.
The comments you're downloading are from JTC1, easson, not all 157 members of the IOS. You don't even have access beyond their summaries. ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC1) is a technical committee made up of 30 member nations. Six have formally "disappoved" of MS-OOXML (Ecma 376) as you state, but another 14 have submitted negative responses, with 20 of the 30 submitted detailed contradictions. (Guess you don't care to read that link.) For a proposed standard to be approved by the ISO, no more than one-third of JTC-1, or 10 countries, can vote against it. Meanwhile, no more than one quarter of ISO’s 157 members that cast their vote — non-JTC-1 member countries may abstain — can vote against it.
The Ecma responses are trivial to say the least, and Microsoft itself refuses to comment at all on all the contradictions listed in MS-OOXML by the 20 JTC1 nations; that is, Microsoft itself won't even defend its own format! Brian Jones wants to sell his own company products as THE Standard. His company is not interested in anything "open," ever.
Score: 0
|