Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 March 2008 16:44 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 March 2008 13:42 : \____
>>>
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 04 March 2008 09:35 : \____
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>>> Some clarifications on the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>>| The contrast with OOXML is sharp, and this brings us to another issue
>>>>>>>| of contention. The Greek workgroup on OOXML had been handed only the
>>>>>>>| Ecma Responses for Greece. It was at the BRM when we found out that we
>>>>>>>| should have studied all responses, not only those for Greece. It is not
>>>>>>>| clear if this is an error by Ecma or by the Greek NB, but, in both
>>>>>>>| cases, we did not have the time to study one thousand responses, so
>>>>>>>| there would have been no difference. In fact, even the 80 responses
>>>>>>>| that Greece studied, we did not study at the level of scrutiny that is
>>>>>>>| required when you inspect a standard. There was no time for that. What
>>>>>>>| we did was glance through, and make fast decisions based on what seems
>>>>>>>| right at a quick glance.
>>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://elot.ece.ntua.gr/te48/ooxml/brm-clarifications
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know that standardisation is a public service, but I think in a case
>>>>>> like this, where a single company is quite clearly pushing their own
>>>>>> agenda, knowingly against an existing standard which we've already paid
>>>>>> for (ODF), then that company should have to pay for the work involved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, we have delegates from companies and governments all over the
>>>>>> world, the cost must be in the millions, with the singular purpose of
>>>>>> pushing through a clearly immature specification into an environment
>>>>>> where there is already a superior one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a abuse of the system, and a very expensive one. It seems to be
>>>>>> akin to the legal viewpoint around "contempt of court". This appears to
>>>>>> be "contempt of ISO" and should be handled in a similar way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Europe will probably have Microsoft fine for this, but it might take time
>>>>> for ISO to recover (ECMA is already ruined). Bush, as usual, doesn't give
>>>>> a damn... "is OXML like teh google on the internets?"
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ISO really needs to reconsider its processes. Equally, we really *must*
>>>> only permit standards which are not patent encumbered; the decision to
>>>> move away from that, pushed by the US, was an awful one.
>>>
>>> You ought to see the shots people take at ISO in FOSS or Linux forums at the
>>> moment. What a joke it has become. ISO isn't quite what it used to be.
>>> Microsoft dethroned or scared away the core people, just like it always does
>>> (bullying, manipulation, intimidation). I can fetch you the links if you are
>>> interested. it would make your blood boil.
>>>
>>
>> Bang a few together, let's have a look!
>
> Getting the good refs might take a while, but have a look:
>
> Tracking the Man with the Gavel: Alex Brown on the BRM
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| I found Alex's last comment particularly interesting from a strategic point
>| of view. As I've repeatedly noted in a variety of prior blog entries over
>| the past two years, Microsoft has adopted a high risk strategy by pushing
>| OOXML so aggressively through the Ecma, and then the ISO/IEC JTC1 process.
>| Already, it's received one set back, in that its failure to gain approval in
>| the first voting period has resulted in much bad press, and a seven month
>| delay (through the expiration of the second consideration period, which will
>| end on March 30).
> `----
>
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080130062110266
>
>
>
> That's ISO not I-S-O
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Ken Holman, who this week steps down from the role as the international
>| secretary of the ISO subcommittee responsible for the Standard Generalized
>| Markup Language(SGML), gave a briefing on ISO and related matters during the
>| conference's lightening round sessions Tuesday night.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| Now there is talk of making a fourth working group to handle office documents
>| formats. While now they are usually handled by WG 1 or WG 2, the volume of
>| work required of ODF and OOXML is threatening to overwhelm the members of
>| those groups.
>|
>| "Is there going to be a WG 4? Stay tuned," Holman said.
> `----
>
> http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/45556.html
>
>
>
> OOXML Questions Microsoft Cannot Answer in Geneva
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| At Left: Highly respected Martin Bryan. As outgoing Conveyor of ISO/IEC
>| JTC1/SC34 WG1 he accused MS of stacking his group and said, ?The days of open
>| standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are
>| getting ?standardization by corporation,? something I have been fighting
>| against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees.?
>|
>| The trend is that Microsoft is opening up the boring legacy bits of OOXML, in
>| stupefying detail, while neglecting to document the pieces actually needed
>| for interoperability at a competitive level, like macros, scripting,
>| encryption, etc. In essence, Microsoft is opening up and releasing the file
>| format information that competitors like OpenOffice.org have already figured
>| out on their own, while still at the same time restricting access to the
>| information needed to compete. And the more MS realizes it has to open up the
>| specification, deprecate and modernize OOXML, what do you get? You get XML.
>| XML is XML. Strip out the non-XML garbage from OOXML and you will have the
>| OpenDocument Format.
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| We need for MICROSOFT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. Rather than hiding all the
>| information we need and trying to cloak OOXML as ODF, we ask Microsoft to
>| please get off the sinking ship, collaborate with the global community (which
>| will welcome Microsoft) and help develop one universal file format for all.
>| Long term, Microsoft can only benefit from cooperating with the market!
> `----
>
> http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/ooxml-questions-microsoft-cannot-answer-in-geneva.html
>
>
> There are some better ones that show confessions of the runaways.
>
Let's keep the evidence flowing...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
