Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


IT Blogwatch's picture
IT Blogwatch

A Daily Digest of IT Blogs from Richi Jennings

Microsoft bashed in OOXML shens (and comparing loos)

Hello to Tuesday's IT Blogwatch: in which the deadline looms for national standards bodies to vote on Microsoft's proposed "Open Office XML" ISO standard. Not to mention comparative lavatories...

Rob Weir started the grumbling:

The word for today is "disenfranchisement" ... An attempt to fraudulently disenfranchise a voter is despicable wherever it occurs ... misrepresenting the rules and procedures in order to prevent another party from exercising their right to vote ... is universally deplored.
...
I just received an email from someone in a national standards committee considering the OOXML ballot, concerning false information given to his committee which suggested the Sept. 2nd ballot deadline was not real, that they actually had 30 more days to decide. I'm not going to name names in this post, but I will say that this isn't the first note I've received regarding such tactics. Some of the other ploys I've heard of include ...

  • One NB was told that the stated deadline from ISO had been extended ... If they had listened to this advice, this NB would have missed the deadline ...
  • Another NB was told that they were not allowed to vote ... Luckily this NB decided to check the facts for themselves.
  • Several NB's were told that JTC1 had resolved all contradiction concerns with OOXML ...
  • Several NB's have been asked not to submit comments to JTC1 at all ...
  • Many NB's are being asked to throw away their right to a conditional approval position ...

I'm expecting that such shenanigans are only going to increase as we go into the final week of this 5-month ballot. [more]

Pamela Jones adds:

Is that not sad? What a revolting picture we've gotten of the standards process ...  I'm not sure shenanigans is quite a big enough word, legally, to describe such things.  Norway, I have learned, will abstain, but how it got to that result is simply appalling. If you read about what happened there ... your jaw will simply drop. I do think there is something the matter with the ISO process if this is how it works.
...
A lot of people in Norway ... contacted their ISO committee ... In fact, every comment was negative. And not a single comment made it through the chair's process ... Another cynical exercise, where a standard no one has yet implemented (the article calls it a "theoretical exercise") and many say won't be implementable by anyone but Microsoft, and maybe not even by Microsoft, and that has many technical problems that need fixing first, gets through anyway.

I hope the process that chose the standard for electrical outlets wasn't like this. People could get killed. [more]

IBM's Ed Brill comments:

I guess this shouldn't surprise me, given some of the other tactics I've seen used for other efforts over the years. [more]

Microsoft's Brian Jones crows:

Similar to what we just saw from Germany earlier this week, the US has voted to approve Open XML as an ISO standard.
...
As I pointed out yesterday, Ecma has already publicly committed to dealing with all comments that have been raised by national bodies, and I've seen some pretty good ones coming in so far. The review that Open XML has undergone during this process has been phenomenal, and we'll see a much better specification as a result of it. I haven't seen many comments come through yet that will be too difficult to deal with, so it should be a fun several months working towards the Ballot Resolution Meeting. The majority of the comments are seeking to have bugs in the spec fixed, or further clarification on specific details.

We're already working within the Ecma TC to create a good system for collecting all of the comments and properly categorizing them as we've seen a number of the same issues come up in multiple countries. We're also looking into ways to assign any comment to a specific change in the spec. This way people can quickly see what the actual change was that resulted from their comment. [more]

Geir Isene explains why he thinks the U.S. voted to approve:

OOXML promises interoperability with earlier closed binary formats (the Word Doc, older Excel file formats etc.). But it doesn’t deliver ... [so Sun's] Jon Bosak gets Microsoft to admit that the interoperability with legacy documents are only marketing speech. He further gets an agreement in the comments to suggest an amendment: DIS 29500 be amended to include a reference to a mapping from the Microsoft Office 97 - 2003 formats, to OOXML.

By forcing Microsoft to comply with their very own promise in the standard, he puts pressure on them to release a full mapping of the old legacy formats to OOXML. By this he gains market access for SUN and everyone else. [more]

Niklas Derouche sounds worried about Sweden:

There’s a bunch of Swedish companies that really should take a long look at themselves in the mirror tomorrow. Because becoming a complete Microsoft pawn is not quite what their customers might be expecting of them. And the vote from the SIS working group went as expected. A yes to OOXML which means that now SIS has to decide whether they have the balls to go against that recommendation. I sincerely hope they do. Oh, and here are some of the companies whose participation in the process and discussion was turning up at the vote, paying 17 000 Swedish Krona ($2 600 approximately) per company and voting ... I note that there are a lot of Microsoft Gold Partners there. This smells worse by the minute. [more]

Microsoft's Stephen McGibbon counters:

I hear that IBM is still telling national bodies that a [Ballot Resolution Meeting] isn't guaranteed. I am unsure how IBM reached that conclusion but this seems to be concrete evidence to the contrary. [more]

Here's Rob Weir again, with a counter-counter:

Let me help refresh Mr. McGibbon's seemingly repressed memories. First, scheduling a BRM does not guarantee it will be held ... The SC Secretariat has some discretion here ... if a ballot passes by large margins, or fails by large margins, a BRM may not be necessary.
...
Of course, Microsoft already knows all this, and no doubt that is why they are working so hard to urge NB's to vote "Approval, with comments" with promises that their comments will be addressed at the BRM, a BRM that might not even occur. In fact, if everyone listened to Microsoft and followed their advice then that would almost guarantee that no BRM would be held and no NB's comments would be adopted. [more]

But Microsoft's Jason Matusow seeks consistency:

One argument that keeps getting raised by individuals representing companies with deep commercial interests in ODF is that Open XML is not technically ready to be approved. This seems inconsistent to me as those same folks are clearly OK with the fact that ODF was clearly not mature at the time of its JTC1 adoption.
...
8 of the 32 P- member countries voted Yes with comments for ODF ... ODF is not a static specification - ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF) is no longer the most current version ... Microsoft did not work to block this contributed specification from our competitors - we voted in favor of its adoption by ANSI of ISO/IEC ODF as a recognized National Standard. It is remarkable that so much effort is going into the blocking of an ISO/IEC specification. In other words, when ODF was submitted the same sense of civic duty was not as strongly felt by those opposing Open XML today.
...
people with glass houses should not be throwing stones. Specifications mature over time. A real litmus test for the viability of the ISO/IEC DIS (draft international standard) 29500 (Open XML) is whether or not there are independent implementations. The answer to this question for Open XML is an unequivocal yes. There are independent Open XML implementations based on the existing specification in applications that run on Linux, Mac, Palm OS, iPhone, and Windows. [more]

And Mark Shuttleworth seeks unification, ubuntu-style:

It’s too early to say for certain, but there are very encouraging signs that the world’s standards bodies will vote in favour of a single unified ISO (”International Standards Organisation”) document format standard. There is already one document format standard - ODF, and currently the ISO is considering a proposal to bless an alternative, Microsoft’s OpenXML, as another standard. In the latest developments, standards committees in South Africa and the United States have both said they will vote against a second standard and thereby issue a strong call for unity and a sensible, open, common standard for business documents in word processing, spreadsheets and presentations.

It’s very important that we build on those brave decisions and call on all of our national standards committees, to support the idea of a single common standard for these critical documents.
...
This is not a vote “for or against Microsoft” ... Open, consensus based document standards really WORK WELL - consider HTML ... A SINGLE standard with many implementations is MUCH more valuable than multiple standards. [more]

Buffer overflow:

Around the Net

Around Computerworld

Previously in IT Blogwatch

And finally... Raymond Chen asks, "Is this the normal way of comparing toilets?"

Richi Jennings is an independent analyst/adviser/consultant, specializing in blogging, email, and spam. A 20 year, cross-functional IT veteran, he is also an analyst at Ferris Research. You too can pretend to be Richi's friend on Facebook, or just use boring old email: blogwatch@richi.co.uk.

What People Are Saying

Microsoft forced partners to

Microsoft forced partners to vote Yes

"Vote Yes to OOXML and we'll make sure that you get extra marketing money for you campaigns; this is Microsoft's Sweden's own words when they rounded up their Gold Partners in Sweden. Klas Hammar, Microsoft Sweden now regrets the formulation and regrets that the e-mail was sent out."

More can be found here.

Technical criticisms *

Technical criticisms

* Reliance on application-defined behaviors to support important functionality that should be documented or supported via existing standards. For example, book 4 section 6.1.2.19 defines the "equationxml" attribute of "shape" elements, "used to rehydrate an equation using the Office Open XML Math syntax"; however, the "actual format of the contents of this attribute are application-defined".[23]
* Decimal time, a serial date format, is used in SpreadsheetML. One of the used format incorrectly treats 1900 as a leap year in order to remain backward compatible with previous versions of Microsoft Excel and in Lotus 1-2-3. The criticism is twofold; dates before 1/3/1900 cannot be used and the ISO 8601 standard for the representation of time and date should have been used instead of the decimal date formats. [59]
* Use of DrawingML and VML instead of SVG, and of a new mathematical format instead of MathML. MathML and SVG are W3C recommendations. VML was recommended as a W3C standard in 1997 but got rejected. Microsoft considers it deprecated and it should only occur in files converted from the MS Office WordprocessingML 2003 format.
* Internal inconsistencies and omissions. For example, book 4 section 2.18.4 lists styles such as "apples", "scaredCat", and "heebieJeebies", but does not fully define these styles. Missing properties include height, width, color depth, and orientation.[23]
* Inconsistent notations for percentage units. In book 4, section 2.18.85 uses predefined symbols (like "pct15" for 15%) in 5 or 2.5 percent increments, section 2.15.1.95 uses a decimal number giving the percentage, section 2.18.97 uses a number in fiftieths of a percent, and section 5.1.12.41 uses a number in thousandths of a percent.[23]
* Inflexible numbering format. For example, book 4 section 2.18.66 describes a numbering format that is fixed to a few countries and contradicts both the W3C XSLT recommendation and Unicode ISO 10646 standard.[23]
* Non-standard, inflexible paper size naming. For example, book 4 sections 3.3.1.61 define a "paperSize" attribute for which values 1 through 68 are predefined standard paper sizes such as A4 paper.[23]
* Non-standard language codes and color names.[23]
* Non-extensible bitmasks, some elements attributes are defined as bitmasks. For example, book 4 section 2.8.2.16 "sig (Supported Unicode Subranges and Code Pages)" describes the element, the attributes of which are all bitmasks.[23]
* Legacy document rendering compatibility is identified using (deprecated) tags. For example, book 4 section 2.15.3.6, "autoSpaceLikeWord95", “useWord97LineBreakRules”, “useWord2002TableStyleRules", and book 4 section 2.15.3.31, "lineWrapLikeWord6", and "suppressTopSpacingWP" for a 16-year-old version of WordPerfect.[23]. These items should only occur in OOXML documents that were converted from predecessor Microsoft Office documents.
* Errors in the spreadsheet formula specifications confirmed by Microsoft [60].

"You may stop this individual,
but you can't stop us all..."

I can sort of understand

I can sort of understand MS's behavior and their underhanded practices. You can't blame a business for doing all they can to prosper. The people that make me sick are the millions who support MS by complying with their wishes. Those on the standards commitees are especially contemptuous.

Don't forget that millions outside of MS prosper because of MS. Hardware manufacturers get to sell another round of hardware every time a new version of Windows arrives. Think of all the training businesses, book manufacturers, support services, security software suppliers, etc that get to sell a new round of product with each MS "upgrade". They don't want a stable environment like open source creates.

Open source advocates are up against far more than just MS. There's tons of people benefitting from MS success.

Your logic is flawed. If you

Your logic is flawed. If you can understand Microsoft for its tactics, you should also understand Microsoft's pawns for their tactics.

They directly financially benefit from voting a certain way and while the voting in a standards body should be based on technical merits and not personal financial merits.

I gravely detest those Microsoft tactics and everyone who financially gains from them by abusing the public's interest.

If this pulls through, it is a shame for Microsoft, corporate America and ISO and the public should revolt. The only way you can is by not choosing anything Microsoft.

Tactics like these need to backfire, and sadly there is nobody standing up against it. Even the media does not condemn it because of financial interest.

Shame on them.

Actually, I have to agree

Actually, I have to agree with the "one standard" idea. I simply don't see any benefit to anybody but Microsoft to have more than one ISO standard for document formats. Others have already pointed out HTML--astoundingly successful. I'll point out TCP/IP. Yet another example is the set of standardized programming languages that are truly unencumbered. Good examples are C, C++, PERL, and PHP (and now, finally, Java). That's a major factor in the success of those languages.

I simply don't see why we need another "standardized" file format now that we have ODF. That's particularly true since ODF is truly unencumbered, whereas OOXML does appear to have legal encumbrances.

OOXML is broken by design.

OOXML is broken by design. Microsoft doesn't even really support the stated standard in Office 2007.

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

Microsoft's Brian Jones,

Microsoft's Brian Jones, sums it up best. The OOXML ECMA spec is not finished yet. Even if Microsoft faithfully responds to every comment (including patents issues) and even if OOXML received enough review (which it didn't) and even if Microsoft can justify the need for a separate OOXML standard rather than correcting any legitimate deficiencies in ODF (which they haven't yet pointed out), the OOXML spec isn't done.

If the OOXML spec isn't complete, what on earth is ISO standarizing? The only honest and courteous (not that Microsoft deserves it) response ISO can give is "Thank you for submitting OOXML to standardization, but it doesn't yet qualify. Come back when you've corrected the flaws."