Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Now an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy

   (Apr 3, 2008 - 3:03 PM)

   "Faster you said ???
   
   Through ISO? You bet.
   "
   
   The reason MSXML went slower, was because it is a piece of s*** that should never have been presented, and it got a record number of 'remark' for it. It takes a bit longer to pervert the system, how exactly does that play in favor of MSXML
   
   "which had been in development as early as 2001."
   
   Really ? Why no claim as early as 1981... Seriously, what microsoft do or claim it does behind close door doesn't get it points toward 'open standard' status.
   BEside it is well documented that the sudden interest of Microsoft in 'standard', or mare exactly in standard-stamping, was provoked by Massachusetts and others states epiphany that vendor lock-in was not a good policy.
   
   "Shouldn't really be *that* hard to reach a consensus, should it?"
   The consensus to be attain is within the P-members... no matter how many people work on the draft, it is still reviewed and approved by the members...
   An approved it got, unanimously.(22 approvals, 4 abstentions, 0 against, among P-member) and a dozen of comments overall, mostly editorial.
   
   "Also, perhaps one of the reasons ODF sat so long in OASIS is due to there being only 2 main individuals involved in the work "
   
   you just claimed that microsoft was at it since 2001. and with all the people they have they still managed to get such a crappy specifications, that get thousands of bug in ISO review ?
   That merely illustrate the a millions of monkeys do not beat a good author.
   Good software like good science is not a fostered by democraty nor by plutocracy but by meritocracy.

2. Comment - Now an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy

   (Apr 3, 2008 - 1:40 PM)

   "Are you even *aware* that ODF went through faster than OOXML? Damn near twice as fast?"
   It would be hard to be 'aware' of a blattant lie.
   
   ODF, a document an order of magnitude smaller thatn MSXML took 3 years maturing in OASIS to become an approved OASIS standard. Sure after that passing ISO was a breeze. The things had been vetted for 3 years and had been actually implemented by multiple parties.
   That was an effort of 700+ page in about 900 days.
   
   MSXML, was ruched through ECMA in barely a year
   An effort of 6000+ in less than 300 days.
   
   Faster you said ???
   Is it another one of you so-called 'facts' ?

3. Comment - Now an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy

   (Apr 3, 2008 - 1:23 PM)

   you can 'aught' all you want, still you ask 'who did it' and when answered you evade by 'but that is just one employee'...
   But even without having one caught red-handed, there would still be way enough evidence to get a civil conviction, including a pattern of behavior of Microsoft, a multiple convicted offender.

4. Comment - Now an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy

   (Apr 3, 2008 - 1:10 PM)

   "What rules were broken? What Microsoft person broke them?"
   For one thing this:
   http://www.iso.org/iso/codeethics_2004.pdf
   and
   http://www.iecee.org/cbscheme/html/cbcode.htm
   
   then,
   "One local employee, "
   
   Oh, so how many 'microsoft' employee have to get caught for it to count ?
   
   "had they not done so, it's possible that no one would ever have heard this story."
   I'm quite sure that they try very hard to seal the leaks....
   
   "a group of those members sent them an open letter stating they would vote "no" regardless of the outcome of the discussion or whether the issues had been addressed. Of course they were booted out."
   When 80% of your tech people tell you that the thing is a piece of crap, there is little chance that you can tap-dance around the problem. So, yes no matter how much last minute, unscrutinized and unreviewed, modifications where done a the BRM, the vote is legitimately NO.
   The house was built on quick-sand. No matter how good the paint look, it is still a doomed house.
   And it certainly no ground for administrative staff to REVERSE the original vote.

5. Comment - Now an official ISO standard, Microsoft's OOXML invites controversy

   (Apr 2, 2008 - 10:46 PM)

   "In the second ISO vote, 75 percent of nations belonging to the ISO/IEC joint technical committee said "yes" to standardization, where only 14 percent said "no."
   
   Bear in mind that
   Azerbaijan, Ivory-Cost, cyprus, Jamaica, Kazakhstan Malta, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Trinitad and Tabago, that is 10 or the 24 'yes' suddenly joint a P-Member at the last minute, while having never work on anything related to that subcommity, and having not worked on anything since then. Their ony 'Participation' (that is whta the P or p-Member is supposed to mean) was to vote Yes without comment to a specification that they haven't read (as admitted by Malta's representation). These vote were bought out-right by Microsoft.
   Now add the Norway's scandal, (the technical comity voted 19 to 5 against, yet Microsoft managed to get a reversal of the September no vote!)
   Poland, where the Chair decided that no-vote = yes vote for OOXML, DIN (germany) which offered just Yes or abstain as balloting option, and France, where last minute pressure from the very pro-Bush Sarkosy led to a 'surprise' overturn of a strong NO vote to an 'abstain'.
   Malasia abstain, depite the technical commity voting against. Sweden was not conted because of Microsoft bribery discovered in August, which invalidated Sweden vote... And the list goes on.
   Bottom line is: if the proposed standard was juged on it's technical merit - the only relevant yardstick for that kind of document - if the vote reflected the professional opinion of technical expert and not the deepness of the pocket and influence of Microsoft, that thing would not even have made it to the ISO desk.
   
   Objectively, on a technical merit, that proposed standard was and still is botched. Microsoft abused the standardization process for pure marketing reason, destroying the reputation of ISO along the way.