-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Beating a dead horse
,----[ Quote ]
| It's been 3 months since ISO made that April 1st gag when they declared OOXML
| a valid candidate for an "open standard", even though it's riddled with
| patents.
|
| Microsoft made the situation even more ridiculous by making available, after
| April 1st, documents that are absolutely necessary in order to fully
| implement their file formats. Well, if those documents were not part of the
| ISO proposal in the first place, then what is the ISO proposal good for?
| Isn't an "open standard" meant to be implemented by more than one vendor?
|
| Completely, utterly, shamelessly, ridiculous. Typical Microsoft.
|
| Let's get on with the ridicule. Remember the days before April 1st? A day
| could not pass without a number of so-called independent companies claiming
| support for OOXML in one way or another, and telling how good it was. Well,
| since April 1st, it's like not a single freaking person cares about it.
| Silence. How so? Wasn't it a fraud to begin with?
|
| [...]
|
| How is this project going on? Let's see for yourself on this web page. The
| project is still a 1st revision source code dump, and it's 4-month old. It's
| hard not to laugh.
|
| Who thought Microsoft was serious when they started this project? Everyone
| worth his salt knows that a project like this involves an almost complete
| rewrite of both engines, and it could take a decade to do so. It's ridiculous
| to think that a company or independent people would spend their lives
| essentially rewriting Microsoft Office code base (the non UI part). After
| all, isn't it what was essentially done already with OpenOffice? Why isn't
| Microsoft instead pledging support for the OpenOffice suite by helping
| implement the undocumented stuff? Alternatively, why don't they instead open
| source their compatibility pack, a component that migrates Office documents
| back and forth?
|
| It gets better.
|
| Earlier this month, Microsoft released another 5000+ pages of documentation.
| This additional documentation is a direct acknowledgement that what I have
| been saying on this blog was spot on, which is that the documentation that
| was made available earlier was just a fraction of what was needed to
| implement a full run-time of Office documents. At least Microsoft gives way
to a so-called anti-Microsoft person.
`----
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2008/07/beating-dead-horse.html
ISO chief recommends to throw away the 4 appeals against OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| Alan Bryden, Secretary-General of ISO, has sent a recommendation to all
| countries members of the TMB (Technical Management Board) asking them to
| throw away the 4 appeals tabled by South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela and India.
| He does not however justify its position in regard of the JTC1 directives.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-73380/iso-chief-recommends-to-throw-away-the-4-appeals-against-ooxml
Yesterday:
ISO to TMB: Here Are the Appeals Against OOXML; They Should Be Denied
,----[ Quote ]
| In short, it's all been a farce, in keeping with the rest of the OOXML
| processing. ISO thinks there not a thing wrong with the job they did on
| OOXML, they do not countenance criticism, and if we don't like it, we can
| lump it. Or, ISO has decided to go down with the ship. Anyway, stay tuned. It
| ain't over 'til it's over.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2008070907285710
ISO TMB Recommends Rejection of OOXML Appeals
,----[ Quote ]
| A final source of frustration is that despite the fact that one basis for
| appeal under the Directives is a negative impact to the reputation of
| ISO/IEC, the document makes almost no response at all to the comments made in
| this regard. Whether one concludes that ISO and IEC have justifiably or
| unjustifiably suffered such an impact, I think that it would be hard to
| conclude that a substantial hit has not been taken.
|
| In my view, ISO/IEC would be wise to acknowledge that fact, and take more
| intelligent actions to address it. Acting in the open (i.e., publicly
| releasing documents like this) and acknowledging that those that must live
| with the results of what ISO/IEC decides are entitled to better answers than
| they have received to date would be a great place to start.
|
| [...]
|
| At the end of the day, even winning an appeal is cold comfort after the time
| has been wasted by countless peole around the world, the marketplace has been
| confused, and the reputation has been tarnished.
`----
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080709060030380
The month of the zombie standards
,----[ Quote ]
| Ah, here we are back in 2007, in the good old summer 2007 where everything
| for the ISO was fine. Everything works just fine, there’s nothing to see, so
| mind your own business folks. Worldwide fraud, four appeals for a standard
| that has “been conducted in conformity with the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives”
| pressures on governments standards bodies, one investigation on OOXML led by
| the European Commission… and appeals “should not be processed further”?
|
| Somehow I think we have missed one thing or two with the ISO. I don’t exactly
| know what it is we missed. Perhaps it was a better understanding of how they
| work. Perhaps it was money. Perhaps it was just all about taking them out for
| a walk and show them the world before they all got brainwashed.
`----
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/07/09/the-month-of-the-zombie-standards/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkh2fLsACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4sVACfcRR6f/8O7zI35NCmgWErbNbI
X2QAn0FHfDJ874nkNrC6DLnChnTvPIdg
=htsw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
