PDA

View Full Version : petition : campaign against OOXML



newbie2
June 22nd, 2007, 07:46 PM
Microsoft is currently trying to make believe the ISO National Bodies that its Office Open XML (OOXML) format is a good standard. This website discusses why the this broken proprietary standard should never be accepted by ISO.

A decision by each National Standardisation Body in each country will happen somewhere during the holidays of July or August. Written comments should be sent before the end of June in most countries.

IT IS URGENT THAT YOU CONTACT YOUR STANDARDISATION BODY IN YOUR COUNTRY AND EXPLAIN THEM WHY OOXML IS BROKEN

Say NO to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

I ask the national members of ISO to vote "NO" in the ballot of ISO DIS 29500 (Open OfficeXML 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 missing information from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
4. More the 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate XML conformity;
5. There is no garantee that anybody can write a software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent damages or patent license fees by Microsoft;
6. This standard proposal conflicts with other 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 to enter any date before the year 1900: such bugs affects the OOXML specification as well as software versions such as Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 or 2007.
8. This standard proposal has not been 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.



Ubuntu leader do not trust OOXML

Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu in an interview with ZDNet: "I have no confidence in Microsoft's Open XML specification to deliver a vibrant, competitive and healthy market of multiple implementations. I don't believe that the specifications are good enough, nor that Microsoft will hold itself to the specification when it does not suit the company to do so," Shuttleworth said. OpenDocument Format, or ODF, is better, and Microsoft should improve its support for that standard, he said.

http://www.noooxml.org/petition
[-o<

forrestcupp
June 22nd, 2007, 07:56 PM
Does it really matter?

newbie2
June 22nd, 2007, 08:29 PM
Does it really matter?


If they are able to get OOXML accepted as a "standard", they will continue to build "embraced and extended" versions of the standards to perpetuate interoperability being largely a one-way street. And given that many parts of OOXML are apparently covered by MS patents, they will increase their sabre rattling towards anyone else who implements it or translators to/from it w/o paying their taxes.
http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/25546/
:roll:

gnomeuser
June 22nd, 2007, 08:35 PM
I would be more likely to campaign for OpenXML than against it. At least this spec covers spreadsheets in more than 4 pages like OpenDoc does (instead making the programmer rely on guess work and reading the OpenOffice source code to find the correct way things work).

Both standards have really ****** elements but at least OpenXML is well documented and hopefully we can change the aspects that make no sense.

reyfer
June 22nd, 2007, 09:39 PM
Apparently some people here have no idea what "well documented" is, and about the "does it really matter" part, some people follow the "hey, pollution is not big yet in our city, so why should we take steps to stop it?" approach. And then people think that Linux users are smart :(

karellen
June 22nd, 2007, 09:44 PM
Apparently some people here have no idea what "well documented" is, and about the "does it really matter" part, some people follow the "hey, pollution is not big yet in our city, so why should we take steps to stop it?" approach. And then people think that Linux users are smart :(

maybe it doesn't matter for them? it's their choice. this doesn't make them stupid or smart. just interested of other things

forrestcupp
June 22nd, 2007, 10:05 PM
If it's truly "Open," then I don't see how anything evil can come of it. People will always have a choice. Just because this gets ISO certification doesn't mean that it is "The Standard" that everyone has to use. It is possible for more than one format to be ISO certified, anyway.

That's why I asked, "does it really matter."

Extreme Coder
June 22nd, 2007, 11:52 PM
Does it really matter?

Yes, because the words 'standard' and 'Microsoft' can't be put in the same sentence ;)

Tundro Walker
June 23rd, 2007, 12:18 AM
I doubt a standardizations committee would agree to make a proprietary, closed-source format the "standard". .doc files have become an "unofficial" standard for the business masses, but by no means should it receive any kind of ISO / ANSI approval.

A standard is something that anyone can use, and, even though MS may hold a patent for it, I think the standards committee would treat this much like boat hulls, where no one group can hold patents on it, because it would be a vital foundation for a whole industry. (In other words, if someone could patent boat hulls...not a specific design, just the general idea of a boat having a hull to stay afloat...then large amounts of boating industries would be screwed. That patent holder could hold everyone by the nethers, demanding outrageous sums of money to use the patent. It would be a monopoly on an engineering design premise that would detrimentally impact the entire world and human populace if the patent holder was greedy or malicious. Same could be said for Linus' hold on the Linux patent. Thank God Linus is a decent guy.)

If MS is offering up something as a standard, it should come sans patents or control rights, otherwise, it's not a "standard".

newbie2
July 12th, 2007, 07:05 AM
I would be more likely to campaign for OpenXML than against it. At least this spec covers spreadsheets in more than 4 pages like OpenDoc does (instead making the programmer rely on guess work and reading the OpenOffice source code to find the correct way things work).

Both standards have really ****** elements but at least OpenXML is well documented and hopefully we can change the aspects that make no sense.

Microsoft OOXML spec 'dangerously flawed'
Techworld.com 07/11/2007


OOXML has been criticized in the past as encumbered with Microsoft intellectual property and as too complex to be effectively implemented by anybody but Microsoft -- the specification is 6,000 pages long, with 324 pages devoted to spreadsheet formulas and functions alone.

Now Rob Weir, a systems architect for IBM and a member of various ODF technical committees -- has alleged that even if third parties did manage to implement OOXML, many spreadsheet formulae wouldn't work properly.

Weir documented seven specific problems in a blog post, and said there are others. The problems relate to ambiguities and mistakes in trigonometric and financial functions, a function relating to setting workdays, and others, including the AVEDIV, CONFIDENCE and CONVERT functions.

In each case there is something left undefined, or something as simple as a typo, that Weir said would make the function work improperly if implemented by a third party as written.

Weir said the errors might be a side-effect of a rush to standardize the format. "OOXML's spreadsheet formula is worse than missing. It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to this standard, will bring important health, safety and environmental concerns, aside from the obvious financial risks of a spreadsheet that calculates incorrect results. This standard is seriously messed up," he wrote.

ODF supporters have good reason to find fault with Microsoft's spreadsheet standard -- since ODF doesn't yet define spreadsheets.

Weir said ODF developers are taking right approach by using specialist groups to review various aspects of the upcoming ODF spreadsheet specification. "Rather than rush, we're doing careful, methodical work," he wrote.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
http://www.itworld.com/App/070711msooxml/
:rolleyes:

siimo
July 12th, 2007, 11:05 AM
I support OOXml. \\:D/

DeadSuperHero
July 12th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Never subscribe to the mob mentality. Think for yourself.
Me, I don't really like Microsoft (because their products aren't great), but they're not some evil corporation like most people think. They're just a company. And companies make money, meaning they're making a living at the things they do.
Anyway, with GPLV2, they'd have to contribute source code back to everyone. Meaning that the OOXML will work better for everyone.
What, you hated Microsoft for not helping us, and now you hate them for helping us?
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

lamalex
July 12th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Never subscribe to the mob mentality. Think for yourself.
Me, I don't really like Microsoft (because their products aren't great), but they're not some evil corporation like most people think. They're just a company. And companies make money, meaning they're making a living at the things they do.
Anyway, with GPLV2, they'd have to contribute source code back to everyone. Meaning that the OOXML will work better for everyone.
What, you hated Microsoft for not helping us, and now you hate them for helping us?
I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

What does gpl have to do with this? OOXML is not gpl.. it's proprietary. The OOXML spec is mathematically incorrect, it's not a good specification. It's also so large it's hard to take it all in, meaning many of the flaws will be overlooked.

DeadSuperHero
July 12th, 2007, 03:26 PM
Wait, it's proprietary?
I thought the OO stood for Open Office.
And I thought Open Office was Open Source, therefore covered by GPL.
But you know, that's just gut instinct.

igknighted
July 12th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Wait, it's proprietary?
I thought the OO stood for Open Office.
And I thought Open Office was Open Source, therefore covered by GPL.
But you know, that's just gut instinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooxml

It's about as close as MS has ever come to "open", but not quite there. Honestly, all things considered I think it's good enough. Sure it isn't perfect, but lets all agree to work together then we can make it perfect. MS seems to be realizing that they need to consider interoperability (as evidenced by this format and recent deals where they paid linux companies for interoperability), and we should take what we can get. When the beast offers you something you don't shove it away because it isn't good enough, you say thank you and you start working on how to improve it.

<offtopic, but it follows from above>
Linux can never become truely accepted if it rejects any compromise that isn't 100% to its liking. Just like MS cannot expect us to ditch the GPL and behave like normal corporations, we cannot reject the corporate world unless they agree 100% to our ideals. That just isn't feasible. And if MS bends a little, we need to take what they give. Not because we are weak little puppies who need it, but rather because if we don't then the message we are sending is that we aren't willing to play nice. By accepting the standard, we are saying OK, we are working in good faith. Then we can start a working relationship that in the end can benfit all. But to shove everything away because it isn't perfect is childish, and in the end will get us nowhere.
</offtopic>

50words
July 12th, 2007, 03:58 PM
Wait, it's proprietary?
I thought the OO stood for Open Office.
And I thought Open Office was Open Source, therefore covered by GPL.
But you know, that's just gut instinct.

No, it stands for Office open XML, as in Microsoft Office. It is proprietary, but Microsoft has released it with a "promise not to sue," essentially.

I prefer ODF because, even with the flaws, there is a large community working to improve the spec. If not even MS can implement OOXML, I don't see what hope anyone else has.

Starchild
July 12th, 2007, 04:01 PM
Before supporting MS-OOXML just ask yourselves these six questions:

http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-questions

That should put things in proper perspective.

newbie2
July 12th, 2007, 04:08 PM
we need to take what they give. Not because we are weak little puppies who need it, but rather because if we don't then the message we are sending is that we aren't willing to play nice. By accepting the standard, we are saying OK, we are working in good faith. Then we can start a working relationship that in the end can benfit all. But to shove everything away because it isn't perfect is childish, and in the end will get us nowhere.

turn it the 'other way around' please.... THE standard IS ODF( ISO and ECMA ratified and open for ALL)....why can't MS 'bend a litle' ???
:rolleyes:

igknighted
July 12th, 2007, 04:36 PM
turn it the 'other way around' please.... THE standard IS ODF( ISO and ECMA ratified and open for ALL)....why can't MS 'bend a litle' ???
:rolleyes:

Easy. Because they make 90% of the software that will be used. Yes, you are correct that ODF would be a great choice, and it's fully OSS. I would love ODF to be THE standard. But, that isn't the point. They are offering an unideal, but still unprecedented ammount of cooperation. So lets run with it. The worst thing that happens is we end up in a better place than we are now, and if we cooperate a bit now then down the road we can expect a more, and then can point to the fact that we played ball with this.

Spr0k3t
July 12th, 2007, 05:56 PM
The sooner OOXML is out of the picture, the happier I will be. I use ODF at work every chance I get.

tszanon
July 12th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Microsoft does not want to cooperate. They want us to use a format they control so they can easily read whatever document created (without having to code a new module to read them).
On the other hand, they will keep up adding new "extensions" and "improvements" to this same format, so whatever document created with Microsoft Office won't be completely understood by OpenOffice.

In the end, what we will have is a "common" format, where they can read OpenOffice documents without any effort, and where we can read MS Office documents, but some parts will be missing. I would not be surprised if new versions of OOXML were released with new patches/versions of MS Office.

BoyOfDestiny
July 12th, 2007, 06:43 PM
Microsoft does not want to cooperate. They want us to use a format they control so they can easily read whatever document created (without having to code a new module to read them).
On the other hand, they will keep up adding new "extensions" and "improvements" to this same format, so whatever document created with Microsoft Office won't be completely understood by OpenOffice.

In the end, what we will have is a "common" format, where they can read OpenOffice documents without any effort, and where we can read MS Office documents, but some parts will be missing. I would not be surprised if new versions of OOXML were released with new patches/versions of MS Office.

Definitely. What some people are missing, thinking this is better than .doc since they've documented it... It's not right, there are gaps in the specification, that will make it "different" from the way MS's software will show it.

Rob Weir's Blog covers a lot of these issues:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/

Anyway, ODF is already an ISO approved standard. Any vendor, proprietary or open source not withstanding, can implement software that can read and write it properly. The same cannot be said of OOXML. If someone has an example please share it, even the Mac version of MS Office can't handle it. You need a viewer or a converter.

ODF should become the optimum choice so that one can share his/her documents, and someone regardless of OS of choice, Word Processor of choice, can handle these files without jumping through hoops.

Just because MS has a large market share, is just saying keep the status quo. I'm sure people with horse driven buggies early last century scoffed at the automobile with its combustion engine...

If OOXML is a good standard, and really anyone can implement a read/writer across platforms and applications, then it should be approved. Is this the case? Has MS addressed any criticisms of OOXML and made any changes...?

Starchild
July 12th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Rob Weir's Blog covers a lot of these issues:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/



I was going to mention Rob Weir's blog. It's a must read for anyone who wants to form an informed opinion about the issue.

vexorian
July 12th, 2007, 07:07 PM
If it's truly "Open," then I don't see how anything evil can come of it. People will always have a choice. Just because this gets ISO certification doesn't mean that it is "The Standard" that everyone has to use. It is possible for more than one format to be ISO certified, anyway.

That's why I asked, "does it really matter."
If it was truly open there would be no issues.

But the only thin open about the thing is in the name.

OpenXML! let's make it an standard to force everybody to pay royalties to MS, yay!

Extreme Coder
July 12th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Next thing you know, MS will be selling OO-XML 'premium' importers/exporters which can have better compatibility or faster speed :/

DoctorMO
July 12th, 2007, 07:58 PM
What is it with middelist extremists that makes them reach out for any compromise, even really stupid traps like MS-OO-XML? It's being fast tracked through ISO in order to make US Local Governments sign up to using Microsoft Office instead of Open office or some other office suite.

A blunt instrument, dedicated to hurting a non business competitor.

Again how many of you have read the specs? I've read the PDF, ODF, XPF and the MXOOXML specs; I'd go with PDF and ODF before I'd ever attempt to read XPF and OOXML again, it's horrendously complex and throws away a load of existing ISO standards in favour of it's own.

Come on you middelists, stop giving your support for the outrageous actions and motives of Microsoft on this issue.

Starchild
July 12th, 2007, 08:15 PM
What is it with middelist extremists that makes them reach out for any compromise, even really stupid traps like MS-OO-XML?

lol, excellent observation.

phrostbyte
July 12th, 2007, 08:59 PM
Microsoft should implement ODF as their default document format.

tszanon
July 12th, 2007, 09:11 PM
Never forget that Microsoft is a company. Everything they do has a reason:
1. or they are obligated to (law, for example)
2. or profit.

No company does something because it's "beautiful", or because it makes them look good. They are after money.

So, any ideas how MS would get more money if OOXML becomes a standard?

KhaaL
August 24th, 2007, 12:14 PM
I just hear that the US will be voting FOR openxml on 2nd september (and IEEE has abstained, strangely).