Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Australia stalls OOXML vote as NZ scratches head
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| With the countdown on to the International Organization for Standardization
>| (ISO) ballot on OOXML, Australia and New Zealand's representatives are
>| keeping their cards close to their chests on which way they will vote.
> `----
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Australia-stalls-OOXML-vote-as-NZ-scratches-head/0,130061733,339286594,00.htm
>
How could anyone be anything other than implacably opposed to the
creation of a second standard alongside a perfectly good first one?
I'm amazed that Microsoft have managed to corrupt the process so much
that this most fundamental of questions is being ignored.
> Interoperability woes with MS-OOXML
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The proposed MS-OOXML/DIS29500 specification raises serious technical and
>| legal concerns. This context briefing highlights three examples of how the
>| proposed specification and its practical implementation in MS Office 2007
>| hinders interoperability, fosters vendor dependence and results in market
>| distortion.
>|
>| It does not alleviate concerns that at the ISO Ballot Resolution Meeting for
>| the proposed specification more than 1,000 technical concerns and proposed
>| dispositions required discussion. Participants were only able to discuss
>| between 20 to 30 dispositions and to accept approximately 200 minor editorial
>| corrections in the allocated time. Around 900 dispositions were not
>| discussed.
> `----
>
> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-interoperability
>
> OOXML: Why the debate?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| OOXML?despite its complexity?is not currently well-defined enough to be fully
>| implementable. It would take a great deal of time to resolve all of the
>| issues that have been identified, and the current ballot resolution process
>| simply does not provide enough time to fix these issues and create a truly
>| open standard that all vendors can implement.
>|
>| Next week we will look at the ISO certification process and how Red Hat has
>| been participating in the discussion.
> `----
>
> http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2008/03/06/ooxml-why-the-debate/
>
>
> Recent:
>
> Standards Australia denies OOXML bias
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Representatives from IBM, Google, Catalyst IT and Waugh Partners expressed
>| their concern the appointment of Topologi director Rick Jelliffe to the
>| delegation was not indicative of the wider industry view on OOXML
>| standardization.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1735452258&rid=-50
>
>
> The OOXML BRM and Australia: What happens next
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Senior project manager at Standards Australia, Panjan Navaratnam, will head
>| the delegation and shoulder the responsibility for all Australian positions.
>| He will be supported in an advisory role by technical expert Rick Jeliffe.
>|
>| Despite some concerns surrounding the objectivity of Jeliffe, Standards
>| Australia insists that its delegates are not participating as an agent of any
>| personal or organisational viewpoint.
> `----
>
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1392366014&rid=-50
>
>
> Standards Australia defends Jelliffe he has never developed Microsoft products
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Look at this press release from Standards Australia, it is really funny how
>| they carefully weight their words:
>|
>| The article also incorrectly describes Rick Jelliffe as a ?Microsoft
>| developer?. While Mr Jelliffe consults widely to industry and government
>| including Microsoft, he has never developed Microsoft products.
>|
>| Let's rewrite it like this to see if it changes something:
>|
>| Rick Jelliffe is not a ?Microsoft developer? as such. While Mr Jelliffe
>| is being paid for consultancy work by Microsoft, he is not developing
>| Microsoft products.
>|
>| Where is the money?
> `----
>
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-42872/standards-australia-defends-jelliffe:he-has-never-developed-microsoft-products
>
>
> Microsoft developer joins Aussie OOXML standards delegation
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Last year Jelliffe was implicated in editing OOXML Wikipedia entries at the
>| request of Microsoft. A public explanation is available on Jelliffe's blog.
> `----
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;445400562;fp;16;fpid;1
>
>
> How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| In the section of an internal manual on effective evangelism, written in 1997
>| by James Plamondon, Technical Evangelist, he lays out an elaborate series of
>| steps to get Microsoft's platforms accepted as de facto standards. Among the
>| steps lists are working behind the scenes with supposedly independent but
>| actually pliable and supportive analysts and consultants.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958
>
>
> Related:
>
> EU Initiates Investigation Against Microsoft OOXML Push
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| But with Steve Ballmer taking over as CEO, there was supposed to be a kinder,
>| gentler Microsoft - one that would play nicely with its competitors. When
>| antitrust regulators in turn challenged this new Microsoft, it issued not
>| challenges to fight to the end to prove that it had done nothing illegal, but
>| statements promising to "cooperate fully."
>|
>| But at the same time, Microsoft is still a tough competitor. As Microsoft's
>| Director of Corporate Standards Jason Matusow famously warned at his blog
>| last year:
>|
>| Make no mistake; all parties are looking at the full picture to find
>| strategies that will result in the outcome they desire. Provided - of
>| course - that they do so within the context of the rules that apply to
>| the process, this is exactly what one should expect to happen. It is
>| going to be a very interesting next few months.
>|
>| Indeed, the months that followed proved to be interesting indeed. Microsoft
>| said that some of its employees became over zealous, most flagrantly in
>| Sweden, where marketing assists were promised to several business partners as
>| incentives to join the national standards committee and vote for OOXM.
> `----
>
> http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080208082501776
>
>
> EU Commission Investigating Microsoft's MSOOXML Push
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| I hope they think to investigate the smear campaigns that seem to always
>| happen to anyone on the other side from Microsoft. What happened to Peter
>| Quinn was by no means unique.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080208151410252
--
| 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 |
|
|