What they should be concentrating on is whether or not XML format and its adoption would prevent creativity by developers, improve quality and will make it possible to interoperate with open source so more people can use software. Many members decided to abstain. I am not sure whether or not is because the lack of principles or the lack of direction or perhaps both. It is not clear to me will the adoption of xml format curtail of enhance creativity? Will OOXML format be more affordable and accessible to more people? Will OOXML format be create more interoperability in software at large? Will it add extra costs to the consumer? I do not think that your arguments about legal preceedence are valid (it is not important whether or not you wear a wig as a judge it is far more important how and what you judge and the result and fairness of your judgement).

You really do not need to havelegal preceedents to know the history of Microsoft and Open Source or to know the importance of competition in the market place so consumers obtain a better and a cheaper product. Monopolistic tendencies are obvious. Whether or not is the European Commission of any other Court. Your remarks about the importance of having preceedents in law ignores hundred of years of jurisprudence, the civil code and Roman Laws of commerce. Allow others to live and concentrate in making a better product Microsoft. Do a good deal with open source and allow competetitors to improve their products after all that will be good for everyone. Look at history and General Electrics.

You say "What the 1990s taught Microsoft is that it can no longer get what it wants by scheming with - or against - its customers. All through that decade, the company was accused by both competitors and customers of being unjust, unfair, and disrespectful of their needs and of the standards process".

Maybe, but IMHO it is not a good pupil at all...

This passage...

"If there is any greater nightmare than having a US federal court impose oversight on one's business affairs, it's having the European Commission do it. European law is an extremely fragile framework, and the European Union is still a young organization, without the benefit of a few centuries of legal precedent to guide it."

forgets that the European Union is also known as the old continent, where laws were made before the existence of the EUA. The European Union may be young but the countries that form it are very old and have great experience in law making.

Regards.

EDIT: I see Scott's comments below, they answer the questions I had regarding the article.

Open standard from Microsoft. LMAO.

[Scott Fulton]: Microsoft's purpose for suggesting its Office Open XML suite of formats become adopted as an international standard is... to enable the company to be perceived worldwide as cooperating with businesses and with nations in the drive for interoperability.... whether or not OOXML is eventually adopted by the ISO come February is not as important as whether Microsoft is perceived as trying to play fair. OOXML could still be rejected, but if Microsoft handles this right, it could still argue it's striving for interoperability and fair competition even in the face of that loss. And being able to maintain that argument is of principal importance.
________________________________________________
Scott, I disagree. That's like saying that as long as George Bush is perceived as wanting to bring the troops home, he should be rewarded for continuing to make war around the globe at will.

This [MS-OOXML] story is long from over with ISO. However, remember that the real goal is high quality, non-vendor dictated open standards. Users, businesses, and governements want interoperability now, and document integrity for the future. ODF ensures that; MS-OOXML does not. Users should have a superb choice of applications that can all share the same information, no matter who writes the software.

Unlike MS-OOXML, not a single negative vote was cast against ODF during its ISO process. And when you read through the list of countries who voted for and against, most all of those who voted for it are the smaller, corrupt, third world nations who are easy to bribe. At least Sweden voted to abstain after some of the business partners Microsoft paid to join their National Body voted twice in favor of MS-OOXML. Others perhaps were not so honest.

MS-OOXML will forever be restricted as a format that only Microsoft can use and implement. That's the definition of a product specification — in this case, MS Office 2007 — not an open standard.

If Microsoft were smart, they'd go back and do what they should have done in the first place. Join OASIS in shaping ODF's active development and evolution for MS Office. ODF was already doing well and now has renewed momentum with governments, academia, and users around the world.

Good arguments, zridling. I would respond with this: First, I believe whether OOXML eventually becomes ISO 29500 has absolutely nothing to do with the relative quality of ODF. ODF has already been approved as an international standard; its evaluation period is over. It's now up to everyone participating in ODF to ensure that what you're saying about its quality is correct, and also (no less importantly) to produce high-quality software that uses ODF.

While the public argument centers on a comparison of OOXML and ODF, what ISO has to consider come February is whether Microsoft has adequately addressed their concerns for quality, integrity, and usability for the long term. And I would say it's in Microsoft's best interests to play absolutely fair and to make the best case it can for addressing each comment individually. If it can do that, then when the criticism does come (because let's face it, OOXML support will never be unanimous, because it's Microsoft), the company can make the best case in the public eye for playing fair, even if the standard inevitably loses.

Because Office is so strong an application in the market, losing the ISO battle won't put much of a dent in overall sales. There may be some public sector agencies that decide not to use it. At that time, it will be up to the open source community to come up with some way to compensate for Microsoft's ability to service and support its software, which includes training. Anybody up for volunteering to teach OpenOffice courses at the state penitentiary?

Any institution or corporation that decides unilaterally, after using Microsoft Office for several years, to stop using it...has a tremendous vacuum to fill. The alternative has to be more than a better format. It has to be well serviced, well documented, well supported, well trained...and well liked. God help whoever dares to step into that void.

I'd also add that I've seen this argument before that no one can use OOXML but Microsoft, but Corel keeps coming back to me and saying that's false.

-SF3

I would like to see MS-OOXML die.

Why a few reasons:

1. Once it becomes a 'standard' you can expect that MS will 'slightly change' it so their product only works. And we're back where we started.
2. Standardizing a format that has so many flaws and hacks for backwards compatibility is not sound.
3. How many 'undocumented' features will be used by MS-Office that makes it incompatible.

I still am a strong believer of one standard, one file spec.

Anything else is just fluff.

Consumers get choice -- they can elect which Office Suite they use.

meb,

Is it just me or do the statements "one standard, one file spec" and "consumers get choice" in opposition to one another?

My take on your comment is that they can have their choice as long as they don't choose MS.

I think that if ODF is a viable alternative and enough other programs start using it for storing documents and those documents become proliferate - then MS will have to support that format.

MS would also have to be held to the fire in not having certain features of their programs either a) break the ODF format or b) features of their app(s) would not be "savable" under the ODF format. That will be up to the users to pressure MS to be fair in this regard.

Do I see any of this happening? NOPE. Why - because there is currently no real set of applications (in a suite or individually) that are actually challenging MS's domain. Like it or not, it's the reality of the situation.

Until someone or something comes along that will convince users to move off of the Office suite of products, we're not going to see some other format become the defacto standard.

I think having MS-OOXML become a standard and then having the population at large demand that MS no "tweak" their version of it to make it stop working in other apps would be best.

But again - what apps are we talking about? What's the user base that's going to complain?

The several hundred who actually use something other than MS Office (even if it's several thousand) - how many people use Office day in and day out?

That's a hurdle I don't see us jumping. I don't even know if another OS could take on MS at this point.

Look at history. OS/2 was a much better OS than Windows 3.1x or even Windows 95/98. Yet because IBM decided to support Windows 3.1 applications within their OS, developers said "Why build for OS/2 - when I can write for Windows 3.1 and my apps run on both platforms."

If we had a new OS (OS/X - Parallels anyone) where we can run our Windows apps seamlessly - why would anyone write apps specifically for that new OS - when by writing for Windows - they get the best of both worlds?

We need to make a huge leap to a new platform - but the apps that are needed HAVE to be there before the leap. It has to be cheaper to move than to upgrade, and it has to be easier to manage, safer to operate and compatible with all existing documents, web sites, etc - otherwise it will be relegated to history as the "almost was".

If Apple was serious about taking on MS - they'd make their OS installable on ANY Intel/AMD box and support the same hardware that MS currently supports. They'd be all over every manufacturer out there to create drivers to support their OS and then practically give the software away.

Then maybe we'd see people start to switch. But Apple won't do that because I believe their egos won't allow it. The typical Apple user I think would go into convulsive shock at the thought of running OS/X on a black box Dell. (That would be kind of funny to watch - as a spoof video)

Linux is probably never going to make it main stream. There are so many flavors out there and none of them work exactly the same as far as software installs, etc that I can't see it taking over the desktop in any corporation. No matter how well intentioned. You need an OS that can be stupid simple for most corporate users. Not to say they are stupid, but that they don't need and or want the complexity to get the job done.

So - the long and short of it is that I think Apple has a ripe opportunity here - with Vista being a bit of a dud - they could take the world by storm. Will they take that step? I don't think so.

I pretty much agree with everything you said here, just warning that the statement:

"Linux is probably never going to make it main stream."

That isn't really true. Don't get me wrong--I'm not a huge Linux fan and I use almost strictly Microsoft for business usage and for home OS, but to say that Linux isn't mainstream is somewhat innaccurate. Now, it isn't making much of a dent in stealing away Microsoft's market share; however, try telling the large coorporations that rely on Linux distros for their entire network that they aren't "mainstream" and you'll be getting quite a bit of flak :)

"The typical Apple user I think would go into convulsive shock at the thought of running OS/X on a black box Dell. (That would be kind of funny to watch - as a spoof video)"

I second doing a spoof video. I suspect that it would do quite well on YouTube.

We now have proof that delusional thoughts can be caused by reading too much Microsoft PR.

We also have further proof you troll any topic that mentions MS.

Who cares if it gets adopted, if the other format is better and makes more sense why is this a big deal?

"Who cares if it gets adopted, if the other format is better and makes more sense why is this a big deal?"

oh how naive you are. lol. this must be a troll.

I can't figure out if you are stupid or you argue just to argue, my point was if ODF is better and makes more sense why does it matter if ooxml gets adopted, seriously?

Pitdingo is known as the dumbest poster on betanews...you should have already known that terminal, save your breath. :)

Yeah, like you two clowns would know. You're just mad that your lousy Microsoft L.O.S.T. It's obvious you're not informed on this issue. Come back next March for another "We lost, but it's really a win!" announcement from Microsoft's PR department.

mad? where in my post did I say I was mad I asked a question and you know what I got, the same "m$ sux" they are trying to take over the world blah blah blah.

It still continues, you, pit and scotch, both spout off the exact same thing and rather then responding to a comment your first instinct is to rattle off incoherent nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. For three people who don't like MS you all can't ever shut up about them.

Ignore zaine, as I've learned from donationcoder.com, he cant post anything unless he's bashing Microsoft or any other commercial company and then promoting OSS in the process. He never seems to reply to legitimate questions, he only dodges them by trolling.

I think the problem with everyone attacking ODF is the big "OSS is better and Microsoft sucks" train that lots of people have been jumping on lately. You are right, if ODF were truly better, then it would be able to stand on its own merits and not require Microsoft to fail in order for it to be successful.

As SMFulton3 pointed out below, its not about the better standard, but the better program. Microsoft currently has the funds available to make a better product, despite how much open source/office fanatics care to dispute it. They have to offer people a reason to switch and make it cost effective. Is it cost effective for big businesses to switch to ODF/OpenOffice and force people to learn a new program and convert all of their documents? Not really, the OSS foundation has to give them reasons to convert. Converting simply because they hate microsoft isnt reason enough and isnt cost justifiable. Not only does the cost of software come into play, but the cost of time training employees, converting docs, notifying partners and other business acquaintances about their migration. That all costs money and one would probably spend more money doing this than sticking with what works already.

Please keep it up though, it's way funnier than TV.

*laughs*

Reality: MS doesn't get approval for fast-track. Must address concerns and wait for another vote.

MS Troll: M$ L.O.S.T!!!!!

Pure comic genius there, bud.

You know...

I don't dispute Microsoft's motives are to maintain their business, because that's what any good-old all-American capitalist business should do, but I also believe approving OOXML as a standard is a good thing for consumers.

Why? It's a good thing for consumers, because it finally makes it so that consumers CAN pick and choose any product they want to use. This is a good thing.

Also, if OOXML is accepted, then Microsoft will have finally given the open-standards community what they've demanded for YEARS: an Office file format that is genuinely open and compatible.

Unfortunately, giving the open-standards group what they want will ultimately hurt the open-standards group. The problem with open standards is that it trivializes file formats to the point that consumers will use the product that they are most familiar with rather than change just because they hate a company.

What does that mean? You guessed it-- they'll pick Office, because it's what they're used to and know. Of course, that means that competitors will have to actually compete with Microsoft the right way-- by developing a product that is actually capable of BEATING Office feature for feature. They can't just "steal" control from Microsoft.

So when it comes down to approving the standard, the response against OOXML is nothing more than an attempt at sabotaging Microsoft instead of having to compete. The claim is always that Microsoft has hurt them, so now they're going to hurt Microsoft back. The only other choice is acknowledge that what they have always wanted from Office is the worst thing for them.

"Why? It's a good thing for consumers, because it finally makes it so that consumers CAN pick and choose any product they want to use. This is a good thing."

Wrong. The spec is _impossible_ for anyone to implement except for M$. Please stop the nonsense.

MS-OOXML is a closed proprietary format designed for one thing and one thing only...to keep people locked into M$ Office.

It is full of Windows-only proprietary patent laiden garbage. If you want to be forced to pay M$ $499 every couple of years for a new office suite, be my guest.

M$ can not compete. They have no ability to innovate. They bribe and corrupt the process to get their garbage standard through ISO as no one in their right mind would approve it.

OOXML is nothing more than M$ attempts at sabotaging an open ISO format, ODF, and several other approved standards.

You know...

I frankly have to agree with a lot of what you said, GoodThings2Life. I don't believe the purpose of a standard is to make a choice on which tool to use, on behalf of consumers or users or citizens or any class of individual. It's to certify the viability of a way of working, both now and into the future.

So the question comes down to the true definition of "open," which among many on both sides of this debate...appears to be an "open" question. What should it truly mean to be "open?" If it were up to me to decide, I would say that openness implies that every part of the specification is 1) available for public examination; 2) open to debate and possible change by someone other than its original creator.

That doesn't mean you don't have to pay to use it. It doesn't mean there has to be more than one implementer. It simply means that everything's on the table. Now, that's a new and relatively unfamiliar position for Microsoft, but if it's in the best interest of the company, it will find a way to assume that position...while at the same time reaping as much as it can from that investment.

I absolutely, positively, without compromise agree with you on the following point: Anyone who wants to compete against Microsoft can't presume to win that battle based on better formats. It has to win based on better software.

Now, sabotage? That's a strong claim, but I do believe I've detected instances where some opponents of OOXML as a standard have been willing to adjust their public stance, especially on whether Microsoft should truly participate in the standards process, in order to maintain the same objective. They've done that publicly and out in the "open," which makes me think it's not sabotage. But the outcry against OOXML is based on very different premises than the outcry against the proprietary file formats of Office 2003 and their predecessors.

-SF "Still Singing the GE Jingle" 3

Yes, it is so _impossible_, that WordPerfect already supports the format -- on any platform including linux. Oh, and there is also a sourceforge project that supports it too.

Maybe your definition of _impossible_ is different than mine. Or perhaps the cute _'s, are supposed to signify sarcasm?

Agreed. Microsoft will never, ever gain anything by giving up control of even one part of the market. Thats exactly what ODF would mean for them - an acknowledged standard that they don't control. They aren't about to give customers the option of taking their data to another product without going through some major agony. So ODF gets approved as the one true "open" standard, we'll say. What happens to Office users? Well, life goes on as normal as long as documents they produce only get shared with other Office users. They'll be able to import ODF files, of course..Microsoft won't be bold enough to shut that door. But they'll be no way to export data directly to ODF. You'll need a third party for that - say, Corel with WP Lightning, perhaps. Thats what Corel is thinking, and it might pay off for them: if M$ keeps altering the Word format with every new patch, that will break a LOT of third-party apps like Lightning. Its anti-competitive brinkmanship at its finest!

Consumers already CAN pick any product they want to use.

What they can't do is move their data out of a Microsoft product and OOXML is not going to fix that. At least not without many of the significant changes proposed by the ISO members that voted NO with comments.

Of course Microsoft has admitted that if significant changes are made to OOXML in the standardization process, they will ignore the standard and go their own way.

The spec is _impossible_ for anyone to implement except for M$


Office Open XML is the default Microsoft Office 2007 format. For older versions such as Microsoft Office 2000, XP and 2003 a compatibility pack is provided.[47] The compatibility pack can also be used as a stand alone converter with Microsoft Office 97.

* Microsoft Office Open XML File Format Converter for Mac 0.2 (Beta)[48]Microsoft had previously advised users of Office 2007 to save their files in the old Office binary format[49].
* Beta testing has started on Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, which will support the format. The final version is scheduled to release in the mid-January 2008.[50]

* Apple Inc's iWork '08 suite has read only support for Office Open XML word processing, spreadsheet and presentation file formats in Pages, Numbers and Keynote (respectively). [51] [52] [53]

* Apple Inc.'s TextEdit will support Office Open XML in the next version of OS X, Leopard.[54]

* Apple Inc.'s iPhone has read only support for Office Open XML attachments in emails [55]

* Corel has announced that by mid-2007 its WordPerfect Office suite will support Office Open XML as well as OpenDocument.[56]

* Gnumeric has limited SpreadsheetML markup language support.[57]

* Novell has created an Office Open XML plugin for the Novell edition of OpenOffice.org[58]. An Office Open XML import filter is slated for inclusion in version 2.3 of the OpenOffice.org project[59].

* docXConverter by Panergy Ltd. converts from WordprocessingML to Rich Text Format (RTF). DocXConverter can be used to transfer WordprocessingML data to other applications that read RTF data such as Word 97.[60]

* Dataviz' DocumentsToGo for PalmOS supports Office Open XML documents.[61]

* Datawatch supports Office Open XML spreadsheets in its report mining tool Monarch v9.0[62]

Please stop the nonsense, indeed.

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

...

And exactly *how* does that counter my response to your "It can't be implemented" BS?

Oh, that's right... you can't, because it has been. So you post a link to a blog that has nothing to do with that point in an effort to steer us all away from your gross ignorance.

That worked.

partial, read only, announced ...

And yet, NONE of these has happened after MS-OOXML has been released almost a year now. Why?

Corel certainly DOES NOT support MS-OOXML yet, despite their old announcements. Don't you know why? Want a clue? There are tons of examples online testing how poorly the current two MS-OOXML converters work — even on the simplest text documents! Put a decimal in a spreadsheet and MS-OOXML even screws that up, bumping its justification every single time. How is that even usable, much less useful to anyone?

Finally, if you even cared, you'd know that Microsoft cannot even get MS-OOXML to work in its own mac product, Office 2008. That folks, is hilarious AND indefensible. Yet toolie keeps upchucking more Microsoft PR lies because for some reason he "admires" them with unbounding man-love.

Tell me, Oh Great Guru of ODF...

How long was ODF out before it became adopted by *anything* other than OpenOffice/StarOffice?

Eh?

Go away, troll.

you seem to know, so let's have it? How long?

No one, not even M$, can implement the disaster that is MS-OOXML.

Who has a full implementation of OOXML? M$ does not.

WordPerfect has lots of problems with the format. Try creating a doc in Office and then open it with WordPerfect. LOL. good luck!

A rats nest to be sure.