Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] [OSS] OOXML (Monopoly Enabler) Faces Very Strong Opposition in Canada

On Sun, 27 May 2007 03:16:06 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> Overwhelming opposition to adoption of OOXML as standard, Canada wants ODF
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The Standards Council of Canada is seeking comments on a proposal to 
>| adopt Office Open XML (Open XML) as an international standard. So far
>| there are over 130 comments to this proposal and the message is clear.
>| People don't want OOXML. They want a truly open standard that isn't
>| controlled by only one company. People want OpenDocument Format.
> `----
> 
> http://digg.com/tech_news/Overwhelming_opposition_to_adoption_of_OOXML_as_standard_Canada_wants_ODF
> http://forums.scc.ca/forums/scc/dispatch.cgi/public/docProfile/100009/d20070501143554/No/t100009.htm

Lol.  First, 90% of the comments don't even know what it is they are
arguing against.  They seem to think that it's a proposal for the adoption
of OOXML as the only file format to use in Canada.  In reality, the
proposal is merely to vote on acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard.

Second, the majority of arguments are based on the same bogus conclusions
that groklaw came up with.  Nobody seems to have an original thought.  

Arguments like "it's too complex" ignore the fact that other, highly
complex standards have been made available (SGML anyone?)  

Another argument is that Microsoft is the only organization capable of
implementing it, which is completely untrue (Apple is in the process right
now, as is Novell, Wordperfect, and several others).  

The "incomplete" argument is also bullshit since the flags people reference
are a) deprecated and b) not necessary to understanding the file format,
only the rendering of its contents (something that is, by definition,
application specific... even with ODF).  These arguments deliberately
confuse understanding the documents contents (the file format) with it's
presentation.  The arguments about allowing embedded documents that aren't
defined by the standard are illogical, since ODF allows that very same
thing.

Another common argument is that it's patent encumbered.  Microsoft offers
the exact same sort of patent covenant that Sun offers for ODF.  The
argument about Microsoft's covenant referring to a specific version ignores
the fact that Sun's ODF covenant, while applying to subsequent versions,
only applies if SUN themselves is participating in the subsequent version.
In other words, as of today, ODF 1.0 is the only version it covers, and
whether or not it covers subsequent versions is dependant upon whether Sun
decides to stay involved with the development, thus no guarantee of
subsequent versions being covered.

Yet another argument is that there's already a document format standard.
That's true.  In actuality, there are already dozens of document format
standards, including PDF (several varieties), XML, SGML, and many others.
Each of thoese formats do different things, but have a large amount of
overlap.  OOXML also does different things from ODF and has a large
overlap.  It's an invalid argument because they didn't oppose ODF when
there were already many other formats.  ODF itself shouldn't have been
adopted if this argument were valid.

Then there's the argument that the point of having more than standard
defeats the purpose of a standard, and that a standard is to have a single
way of doing things, which is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
Standards are there to document a specific thing, not to insure there are
no other competing things.  If there are two very common ways of doing
things, then both ways should be defined as standards so that both can be
fully implemented by multiple vendors.  The reasons for doing things in two
different ways don't change just because one of them gets standardized.

Another argument is that Microsoft controls the format.  No, they don't.
ISO would, and ECMA does.  That's the entire point of standardizing.  It
cannot be changed and still be a standard.  Further, Microsoft isn't the
only member of the ECMA committee, many other organizations took part in
the development of OOXML.  This also ignores the fact that Sun is the
primary driver of ODF, and they basically have full control over the
committee.

Many respondants seem to use almost identical language.  This would
indicate that the responses may all be coming from a single source who's
stuffing the response, or that they're coming as the direct result of a
single lobbying group telling them what they should say.

99% of the people responding have no clue other than what they read on
groklaw about any of it, and they're just parroting what they've been told
by people with a biased agenda.  

> Microsoft playing three card monte with XML conversion
> 
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation, a leading member
>| of its technical committee, says Microsoft is playing proprietary
>| games aimed at controlling XML file formats and preventing the
>| Open Document Format from gaining a foothold.
> `----
> 
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=959

And here we have the REAL reason ODF proponents are so hysterical about
this, willing to repeat the same disinformation over and over to whoever
will listen.  They're afraid that if OOXML is allowed to become a standard,
then there's no reason for ODF to exist, since most users will prefer a
format that allows them to keep their documents unchanged when converting
to a standard format.

People with heavy investments in ODF (Sun, IBM, etc..) will say anything to
prevent this.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index