Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

[Hagar Delest]

Thanks to sign the petition here :

http://www.noooxml.org/petition/

Plenty of information on the site. NB: cookies have to be enabled for that site. Your signature will be confirmed after you reply the mail that will be sent when filling the form.

2492 votes at this very minute.

NB: up to a moderator to move/duplicate this thread in another forum section to get better attention.

[Johnsie]

Compare 2492 to the total number of people who use Microsoft Office.

[reyfer]

Thank you for the link. Signed

[Hagar Delest]

Compare 2492 to the total number of people who use Microsoft Office.
I'd like to know when the petition started exactly. That's why I gave the votes number. Let's see how far it goes.

Note that some MS Office users may also sign the petition because they're fed up with the lack of backward compatibility (see Nature and Science magazines rejection of papers written in OOOXML).

[%hMa@?b<C]

thanks and signed

[marco123]

Signed. Thanks for the link.

[%hMa@?b<C]

someone should post this to digg .

[Trynemjoel]

/Signed

[RedNikon]

Done and done. ;)

[joe.turion64x2]

All signatures so far: 40590

Signed.

[joe.turion64x2]

Supposing OOXML gets approved ($$$) by ISO, what could change? what could be the real effect? Does that mean that everybody is gonna actually be forced to use that format? Are we ODF users gonna be prosecuted and locked into concentration camps?

I think .doc, .xls, .ppt, and those MS file formats are not ISO standards, are they? Besides with or without ISO's approval MS is gonna push out its new OOXML formats, isn't it? And that last statement could mean a temporary drawback to OpenOffice.org (temporary if OOXML is truly open), and it would occur with or without ISO's approval, wouldn't it?

Which one is the sideway effect everybody is fearing?

Thanks.
Joe.

[happysmileman]

Supposing OOXML gets approved ($$$) by ISO, what could change? what could be the real effect? Does that mean that everybody is gonna actually be forced to use that format? Are we ODF users gonna be prosecuted and locked into concentration camps?

It means governments, universities and all will happily use this under the assumption that everyone can use it, then blame users when it turns out none of their software can read it, practically forcing them to use Microsoft Software because the "open" format only works fully with it

[joe.turion64x2]

It means governments, universities and all will happily use this under the assumption that everyone can use it, then blame users when it turns out none of their software can read it, practically forcing them to use Microsoft Software because the "open" format only works fully with it
It that case they would be implicitly supporting piracy.

[Hagar Delest]

The ISO status is only a marketing point for Microsoft. I think that the only reason why they have made a documented format is that ODF would have been adopted widely because it's open and documented. It means that users keep the property of their own data. Which they don't have with closed formats.

A certification is a good marketing value nowadays with all the certification mania. It shows that you're serious and that you can be trusted.

[Hagar Delest]

It that case they would be implicitly supporting piracy.
That's a bit exagerated !

However, I'm quite sure MS has kept the piracy of their products possible voluntarily. Why ? because it insures the expansion of your base of users. If everybody uses your products, it becomes a standard that you must have and use. This is what happened with MS Office and their formats ! So you lose some licenses but you get the market shares and the de facto standardization of your products.

[dart1007]

/Signed. Thanks.

[joe.turion64x2]

And when & where will we see the votation results?

[Fonon]

Signed. Thanks for the link.

[starcraft.man]

And when & where will we see the votation results?

Seconded. Didn't voting end yesterday and thus tally should be out today no? Or was it today it ended? I guess we'll just have to wait...

[mips]

Seconded. Didn't voting end yesterday and thus tally should be out today no? Or was it today it ended? I guess we'll just have to wait...

Yes, the ISO voting process took place yesterday 2 Sept.

So it's kinda pointless to carry on with this petition.

[Hendrixski]

Yes, the ISO voting process took place yesterday 2 Sept.

So it's kinda pointless to carry on with this petition.

It may be pointless to petition, but you can still boycott it. ONLY send ODF documents to people. if they can't read it then suggest that they fix their broken Office software with a patch available from Sun Microsystems, or Novell, or the opendocument foundation. It helps you avoid the world around you becoming OOXML-dependant. As to how such a thing would happen, read this: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=540016

[jeremy]

It is not pointless at, as I understand it no final decision will be made until February next year. So please, please keep on signing and getting everyone you know to sign it too.

To quote http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13300004CTBE
"In February at the ISO's ballot resolution meeting, the body will edit the standard to address the comments made by member countries. Members can change their votes at that time; a two-thirds majority is needed to approve the format."

[phrostbyte]

I don't know if this petition helped or not, but it looks like OOXML is having quite a difficulty becoming an ISO standard.

[phrostbyte]

It is not pointless at, as I understand it no final decision will be made until February next year. So please, please keep on signing and getting everyone you know to sign it too.

To quote http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13300004CTBE
"In February at the ISO's ballot resolution meeting, the body will edit the standard to address the comments made by member countries. Members can change their votes at that time; a two-thirds majority is needed to approve the format."

2/3 needs to vote yes? Unless there is a fundamental change in votes, doesn't it seem like OOXML pretty much lost? I mean, who voted for OOXML? Not many countries it seems.

[Spr0k3t]

Signed... should this be reposted to digg once again? I didn't know about it until just now.

[Hendrixski]

2/3 needs to vote yes? Unless there is a fundamental change in votes, doesn't it seem like OOXML pretty much lost? I mean, who voted for OOXML? Not many countries it seems.

The vote is still taking place
Here's the latest update: 19 "no" votes, 37 "yes" votes, and 11 abstentions... that's about half of the voting... if this keeps up, we'll have defeated MSOOXML because it would need to pass with 75% of the non-abstentions... right now that's 66%
here's a map of the breakdown http://www.noooxml.org/local--files/start/isodis29500-votes-map-20070902a-big.png

[goumples]

Signed.

[st33med]

There have been UNCONFIRMED reports that OOXML has failed.

To me, that is as good as confirmed.

Source?
http://balanceofcowards.blogspot.com/2007/08/tracking-status-of-office-open-xml.html
:guitar:

[ComplexNumber]

There have been UNCONFIRMED reports that OOXML has failed.

To me, that is as good as confirmed.

Source?
http://balanceofcowards.blogspot.com/2007/08/tracking-status-of-office-open-xml.html
:guitar:
thankyou! it deserves to fail.....not because that it is a microsoft format, but because of the following:
a) it has far too flaws
b) MS have tried to vote it in under dubious means. thats not how a standard should be.
c) there's already a fully open standard - ODF
d) we don't need more than 1 standard.
e) OOXML isn't open.

[buzzmandt]

signed as no. 41548

[Hagar Delest]

Here is some additional information : The results of the ISO voting: Office Open XML is Disapproved (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070904082606181).

See also here : http://www.noooxml.org/start

Let's see what happens next February.

[starcraft.man]

Yay Canada voted no too :).

[dmacdonald111]

I certainly hope that MOffice format is not an ISO standard. OMG. This should totally be open source and not even up for debate. Damn Micro$oft. Damn Google (I'm sure they'll be on in it)

Things to do;

gain copyright on the word 'www'
Charge everyone fee everytime they use the word 'www'

[argie]

They failed. Yay. That'll hold them off till Feb atleast.

[mtn]

For the sake of completeness here is the official ISO press release http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1070

[st33med]

Now, I doubt that Microsoft will change anything in the document when it comes time to get a consensus. Bugs, mistakes, referrals to kernel functions are vague, proprietary, vendor lock-in....

They won't be changing it so that vendor lock-in is removed. If they do, I won't mind anymore about OOXML being passed...

Except for the other stuff mentioned above.

Which reminds me, what are the comments on the no votes?

[atlfalcons866]

I ask the national members of ISO to vote "NO" in the ballot of ISO DIS 29500 (Office OpenXML or OOXML format) for the following reasons:

1. There is already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format (ODF): a dual standard adds costs, uncertainty and confusion to industry, government and citizens;
2. There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
3. There is information missing from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
4. More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
5. There is no guarantee that anybody can write software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent lawsuits or patent license fees by Microsoft;
6. This format conflicts with existing ISO standards, such as ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times), ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages) or ISO/IEC 10118-3 (cryptographic hash);
7. There is a bug in the spreadsheet file format which forbids any date before the year 1900: such bugs affect the OOXML specification as well as software applications like Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 and 2007.
8. This standard proposal was not created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties (such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators), but by Microsoft alone.

here is the link http://www.noooxml.org/petition

[some_random_noob]

I've heard about this issue a number of times, but haven't read anything about it. Could you post a few links about this please? Because I feel like an idiot for not staying up-to-date.

[ThinkBuntu]

What should happen is .doc should be opened. It's a very fine format, if only other programs could easily work with it (no 100KB+ OpenOffice .doc files). What people don't understand is that XML is by its very nature a very slow format. Applications that work with mostly XML are very slow when dealing with data, especially web apps. The slowest is usually a web app that runs on Java and stores data with XML.

For small, simple tasks (XHTML, etc.) XML is a great descriptive format. But for large files, I think it's the wrong direction.

[stoodleysnow]

Hear, hear!=D>

[BoyOfDestiny]

What should happen is .doc should be opened. It's a very fine format, if only other programs could easily work with it (no 100KB+ OpenOffice .doc files). What people don't understand is that XML is by its very nature a very slow format. Applications that work with mostly XML are very slow when dealing with data, especially web apps. The slowest is usually a web app that runs on Java and stores data with XML.

For small, simple tasks (XHTML, etc.) XML is a great descriptive format. But for large files, I think it's the wrong direction.

Which version of .doc? Each iteration of Office made changes to .doc, so it's a little different, thus the need to upgrade or procure an MS document viewer. Is .doc a fine format? I wouldn't know, since it's closed, and through reverse engineering I have been able to deal with them with OpenOffice.

What should be done is scrap .doc, ppt, etc. And make an properly open specification. So ANYONE can implement read/write of this format, and be accessible to ALL regardless of the whims of one corporation.

The whole point of MS's OOXML was to be compatible with it's older stuff, and as such (pointed out by the OP) only be able to be correctly implemented by MS. Now if they fix those issues, that's another story, and in that case I'd back it.

As for XML being slow... would this create a delay on current machines. I would claim no... Between CPU's and RAM, I'd say the bottleneck is getting the data off a hard drive...

[Hagar Delest]

Well, you're quite late, see here : Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=480227).

Many links inside that thread. The vote has been held beginning of September and the 'No' won. But the end of the story is next February for the final vote, depending on what has happened to the specs after the technical comments from the national bodies.

[BoyOfDestiny]

Well, you're quite late, see here : Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=480227).

Many links inside that thread. The vote has been held beginning of September and the 'No' won. But the end of the story is next February for the final vote, depending on what has happened to the specs after the technical comments from the national bodies.

Yeah, but better late then never :) The site the OP links to does cover this

http://www.noooxml.org/

[dhobbs]

What should happen is .doc should be opened. It's a very fine format, if only other programs could easily work with it (no 100KB+ OpenOffice .doc files). What people don't understand is that XML is by its very nature a very slow format. Applications that work with mostly XML are very slow when dealing with data, especially web apps. The slowest is usually a web app that runs on Java and stores data with XML.

For small, simple tasks (XHTML, etc.) XML is a great descriptive format. But for large files, I think it's the wrong direction.

XML is a standard that can be read by web browsers. If a public document is truly going to be public it should be available to people anywhere and the best way to do that is to publish it on the internet. Viewing a document online that is stored in a binary format would mean that a web browser would need an implementation for reading that format. Using XML removes that requirement.

[atlfalcons866]

I am sick of Microsoft. They are threatening to sue open source because it violates there patents. But what patents are they violating?

[Steveway]

http://storm.elxx.net/mgrinshpon/slowpoke.jpeg
It's the thought that counts.