Application-defined: promote 'innovation' and kill interoperability
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft New Zealand representative wants competitors to make reverse
| engineering over their products. Standardizing the whole format would not
| permit Microsoft to have a 'competitive' advantage.
|
| [...]
|
| Sorry, but the macros are stored in a file format, so not defining how to
| interpret this data will lead to a competitive advantage for the company of
| Redmond, and will be a killer for interoperability. I don't want to buy a
| Windows license and an Intel PC just to be able to decode their crappy
| format.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-46855/application-defined:promote-innovation-and-kill-interoperability
OOXML Implementations: A Community of One?
,----[ Quote ]
| Unless there are multiple, competing, full implementations of OOXML, citizens
| will be faced with a choice of one – and only one – office suite based on
| OOXML, Microsoft Office. Until OOXML moves beyond its current single-vendor
| status, National Bodies should vote “No” (disapprove).
`----
http://www.fanaticattack.com/2008/ooxml-implementations-a-community-of-one.html
And that's about technical deficiencies and lack of diversity alone (Microsoft
Office-only). It doesn't even touch on the briberies, the bullying, the lying
and so forth.
Recent:
Which version of the JTC1 directives applies: v2.0 or v3.0?
,----[ Quote ]
| The 5 months ballot started on the 2nd of April 2007. JTC1 directives were
| changed on the 5 of April 2007, in order to add a special chapter 13 wrote
| with the help of ECMA's Jan van den Beld about the Fast Track procedure. So
| which version applies to the current process? v2.0 or v3.0?
|
| [...]
|
| Can you change the rules while a process is running?
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45222/which-version-of-the-jtc1-directives-applies:v2-0-or-v3-0
Alex Brown updates the BRM rules today
,----[ Quote ]
| Alex Brown has updated his blog post about the voting rules at the BRM. "This
| was the wrong clause" he says.
|
| [...]
|
| Some questions for the audience:
|
| 1. Which one is the "normal JTC1 procedures"?
| 2. None of them mentions which majority should be taken. Simple majority of
| 50%, or 66% of P-members?
| 3. Where is the "letter" in the letter ballot?
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-45179/alex-brown-updates-the-brm-rules-today
At the end: What we did in Geneva ?
,----[ Quote ]
| This person tried in saying that believes that we should not submit our
| proposal that asked the mapping, since there was no time at the meeting (just
| over three hours) to write the mapping document. We’ve said that our proposal
| stemmed from the premise that the ECMA had this document because they
| justifies “the need” of OOXML because it supports the binary documents legacy
| and it is also stated that there are still things that can not be translated
| (deprecated), they should have thoroughly studied this and at least have made
| the mapping.
|
| I have never seen a person so nervous and ashamed in my life… He said that
| Microsoft should have this mapping and if we want, we can ask it to Microsoft
| but not ask it to ECMA. He said that ECMA was only responsible for creating
| the new XML schema and who do not have this mapping documentation.
`----
http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html
ISO Statement on the BRM: Public Stay Out
,----[ Quote ]
| So much for an open standard. I have a question for the ISO. Have all prior
| meetings been run like this? In the deepest shade you can find? You know they
| have not, and I know they have not.
|
| So, how about letting us listen to audio of the meeting, so we can compare
| claims now coming from all sides? There are so many different accounts, and
| they don't all sync up. Given that this format, if accepted, will impact us
| little people, not just a bunch of vendors, how about letting us in enough to
| make it at least possible to figure out who is telling the truth?
|
| Hey, EU Commission. Did you know that there is reportedly audio made of the
| BRM meeting?
`----
http://homembit.com/2008/03/at-the-end-what-we-did-in-geneva.html
Probe into votes on Microsoft standard
,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission is investigating the process under which a key
| Microsoft document format could be adopted as an industry standard - a move
| that would carry significant commercial benefits for the software company.
|
| Officials at the European Commission's competition directorate have written
| to members of the International Organisation for Standardisation, asking how
| they prepared for votes in September and later this month on acceptance of
| Microsoft's OOXML document format as a worldwide standard. Without ISO
| acceptance, Microsoft could stand to lose business, particularly with
| government clients, some of which are becoming increasingly keen to use only
| ISO-certified software.
|
| The ISO process has been widely criticised, however, with some members of
| national standards' bodies accusing Microsoft and its rivals of attempting to
| influence the vote.
|
| Tim Bray, a member of the Canadian national standards body, called the
| procedure "complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit" in a recent blog posting.
|
| [...]
|
| In addition, in several countries, a large number of Microsoft partners
| joined the national standards organisations just ahead of a vote on the issue
| in September.
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft said it openly encouraged its partners to participate in the ISO
| process, but was not funding any third parties doing so. The company said it
| would cooperate with the European Commission's inquiry.
`----
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88e570a2-ea56-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
The Art of Being Mugged
,----[ Quote ]
| The four options presented were:
|
| * Option 1: Submitter's responses (Ecma's) are all automatically
| approved.
| * Option 2: Anything not discussed is not approved.
| * Option 3: Neutral third-party (ITTF) decides which Ecma responses are
| accepted
| * Option 4: Voting (approve + disapprove) must be at least 9 votes.
| Abstentions not counted.
|
| We were told that these options are not in the Directives and that were are
| given these choices because ITTF "needs to act in the best interests of the
| IEC". I don't quite get it, but there appears to be some concern over what
| the press would think if the BRM did not handle all of the comments. One NB
| requested to speak and asked, "I wonder what the press would think about
| arbitrarily changed procedures?". No response. I thought to myself, why
| wasn't ITTF thinking about the 'best interests" of JTC1 when they allowed a
| 6,045 page Fast Track submission, or ignored all those contradiction
| submissions, or decided to schedule a 5-day BRM to handle 3,522 NB comments.
| Isn't it a bit late to start worrying about what the press will think?
|
| We break for lunch.
|
| After lunch and after more discussion, the meeting adopted a variation of
| option 4, by removing the vote minimum. I believe in this vote the BRM and
| ITTF exceeded its authority and violated the consensus principles described
| in JTC1 Directives.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/art-of-being-mugged.html
|
|
