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

[News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Crimes Return: BRM Ignored, OOXML Still a Fraud

  • Subject: [News] [Rival] Microsoft's OOXML Crimes Return: BRM Ignored, OOXML Still a Fraud
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:56:37 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.9
Hash: SHA1

For the skeptical, the final proof: The OpenXML wasn’t (and isn’t) ready

,----[ Quote ]
| The document N1101/N1168 contains for example, several items in which they 
| recognize that there are decisions made in the BRM (BRM resolutions) which 
| were not incorporated into the final published text of the standard. In other 
| words, even taking almost a year after the aproval of the standard to publish 
| the text (yes, approved without reading), there wasn’t time/attention or 
| anything else necessary to assure that the changes were published in the text 
| (most of those changes, “conditioned” the approval). What makes me much more 
| angry about this is that during the BRM I asked about who would be 
| responsible for verifying that all these changes would be part of the final 
| text and the answer was ITTF (kind of joint ISO/IEC secretariat). When I 
| asked if the ITTF would really make this work, I received as a reply the 
| intimidating: “You are doubting the ITTF, kid ?”…           
| [...]
| I saved the best for the end: document N1187. This one says that OpenXML “as 
| is” contains unintentional errors that may prevent existing documents to be 
| fully represented in this new format.  It is amazing because the legacy 
| support was alleged as  the main reason for OpenXML development and approval  
| at ISO, and also the reason why several countries supported the development 
| and approval of the standard. In this document, they also explain the 
| criteria that will be used to specify the changes that will be developed, so 
| that they can do it all really quickly (in other words, they go trough the b
| reaches of the JTC1 directives to get these changes incorporated into 
| standard already approved without making much noise about it).       
| Unfortunately I can not put all these documents here, to allow access trough 
| the blog, because they should be restricted SC34 documents (yep, zero 
| transparency), but I believe that sooner or later they will be published 
| somewhere (and of course, NB members should already received those).   


"There is such an overvaluation of technology stocks that it is absurd. I would
include our stock in that category. It is bad for the long-term worth of the
                                --Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO


South Africa Files Official Appeal Re OOXML - OOXML in Limbo Now

,----[ Quote ]
| I wonder if this is why Microsoft suddenly decided to support ODF, to avoid
| being shut out completely pending the appeal. Might other national bodies be
| considering doing the same thing? Stay tuned.
| [...]
| So. OOXML is not currently an official standard? I think that is what this
| means. It will take months, at least, I believe, to resolve this. So, to me
| the ODF support announcement by Microsoft yesterday suddenly makes sense. I
| wrote a bit about the appeal process here, if you want to review it. In the
| immortal words of Yogi Berra, it ain't over till it's over.


Has OOXML Broken the British Standards Institution?

,----[ Quote ]
| That the BSI, long the quintessence of standards in this country, should see
| itself dragged through the courts over something as apparently minor as a
| document standard, is truly an extraordinary development. But of course it is
| not a minor issue: at stake is the question of how something as central to
| technology and business as standards should be decided. Unless people have
| complete confidence in the process, the end-result will be deemed worthless –
| truly, little more than a “rubber-stamping”.
| A good start along the road of bolstering confidence would be making the
| standards-setting process completely open, which currently it is not. The
| practice of voting on an open standard behind closed doors borders is simply
| not justifiable in the age of the Internet and of increasing openness in
| general. And as the UK government loves to remind us: if you have nothing to
| hide, you have nothing to fear....


UK standards body taken to court over OOXML

,----[ Quote ]
| The British Standards Institution has been taken to court by a group of Unix
| users in an attempt to get the standards body to recant its approval of
| Microsoft's Office Open XML document format.
| The UK Unix & Open Systems User Group (UKUUG) said on Thursday that the
| British Standards Institution's (BSI's) controversial decision to vote for
| approval of OOXML in a recent International Organization for Standardization
| (ISO) ballot followed a flawed decision-making process.


BSI faces High Court challenge over OOXML U-turn

,----[ Quote ]
| OSC director Mark Taylor told The Register that the UKUUG and chums
| were "very confident that the BSI has a case to answer". He claimed
| that "they haven’t followed procedures and we want them to explain their
| controversial actions".
| However, even if legal action against the BSI leads to the UK standards body
| being forced, in the form of mandatory orders, to withdraw its vote to the
| ISO, its impact could be muted.
| Taylor agreed: "Should the BSI be asked to remove its vote, that in itself
| probably won’t change the outcome."
| He added that the group hopes to see individuals in other countries mount
| similar challenges against national standards bodies in order to force the
| ISO to "sit up and take notice".


EC probes OOXML standards-setting process

,----[ Quote ]
| A spokesman for the European Commissioner for Competition, Neelie Kroes, told
| The Register that regulators were continuing to scrutinise interoperability
| issues related to Microsoft’s products following complaints from the
| Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) group.
| As part of that process, the EC formally contacted a number of national
| standards bodies, including the Norwegian Standards Institute (NSI),
| requesting more details about possible irregularities in the OOXML
| standardisation process.
| [...]
| “It must be stressed that it is not the Commission's intention to influence
| the outcome of this process, but the Commission considers it essential to
| ensure that European competition law is not violated in the course of the
| standard setting process,” he said in an email to El Reg.
| In January the EC began formal anti-trust probes against Microsoft in two
| cases where it was alleged that the multinational firm had abused its strong
| market position. As part of the investigation into the first case, the
| Commission said that it would scrutinise OOXML on the grounds that the
| specification doesn't work with those of competitors.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


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