Approved OOXML
Solved
teutates
Posted messages
19847
Registration date
Status
Modérateur
Last intervention
-
ogyon Posted messages 345 Registration date Status Contributeur Last intervention -
ogyon Posted messages 345 Registration date Status Contributeur Last intervention -
Microsoft seems to have succeeded in its trial! Its OOXML format is indeed on track for adoption as an ISO standard, according to some leaks.
Some will criticize this maneuver by Microsoft, which aims to have its format adopted as a standard in order to extract a new argument for its Microsoft Office suite. I acknowledge that it is only natural for Microsoft to act this way as a commercial company.
However:
- Microsoft is well known for distorting formats to suit its views!
- Why not stick with OpenDocument, which is also based on XML format while being widely supported by software (OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, LotusNotes)? Even though OOXML is in Microsoft's logic, it is the validating body that should have said "No"!
- It seems to me that France (AFNOR) requested a description of OOXML, which turned out to be a true bland and tedious tome of several hundred pages! Not everyone will be able to utilize this tome at least!
- AFNOR also requested a convergence towards the open format OpenDocument (ODF). Where is it now?
To move away from purely technical considerations (I may have forgotten some!), note that standardization votes are subject to controversies in various countries!
- Norway: 21 members voted against and 2 for. The 21 left the room, thus leaving the floor open for others to adopt OOXML! How on earth did they come to dispute like this and retreat?!!!
- Germany: Voters could only vote "Yes" or .... "abstain"! Democratic?!!
- Croatia: Croatia had previously voted "yes". For the second vote, Microsoft Croatia argues that since the vote was validated in the first round, there was no need to revote and therefore refused to participate. So, in this case, any new element is completely ignored! Democratic?!!
- France: The French abstained as they believe some doubts have disappeared while others remain.
Sources:
* Clubic: OOXML approved
* PCInpact: Scandals over votes
* Le Monde: OOXML approved but controversial
* CCM: Open XML
* CCM: Convergence OOXML - ODF
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Some will criticize this maneuver by Microsoft, which aims to have its format adopted as a standard in order to extract a new argument for its Microsoft Office suite. I acknowledge that it is only natural for Microsoft to act this way as a commercial company.
However:
- Microsoft is well known for distorting formats to suit its views!
- Why not stick with OpenDocument, which is also based on XML format while being widely supported by software (OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, LotusNotes)? Even though OOXML is in Microsoft's logic, it is the validating body that should have said "No"!
- It seems to me that France (AFNOR) requested a description of OOXML, which turned out to be a true bland and tedious tome of several hundred pages! Not everyone will be able to utilize this tome at least!
- AFNOR also requested a convergence towards the open format OpenDocument (ODF). Where is it now?
To move away from purely technical considerations (I may have forgotten some!), note that standardization votes are subject to controversies in various countries!
- Norway: 21 members voted against and 2 for. The 21 left the room, thus leaving the floor open for others to adopt OOXML! How on earth did they come to dispute like this and retreat?!!!
- Germany: Voters could only vote "Yes" or .... "abstain"! Democratic?!!
- Croatia: Croatia had previously voted "yes". For the second vote, Microsoft Croatia argues that since the vote was validated in the first round, there was no need to revote and therefore refused to participate. So, in this case, any new element is completely ignored! Democratic?!!
- France: The French abstained as they believe some doubts have disappeared while others remain.
Sources:
* Clubic: OOXML approved
* PCInpact: Scandals over votes
* Le Monde: OOXML approved but controversial
* CCM: Open XML
* CCM: Convergence OOXML - ODF
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
19 réponses
Yeah, it was a big scam on Microsoft's part in all countries to get it approved by ISO, not great.
Not to mention that the license attached to the OOXML format is absurd:
- it is not compatible with most other open-source licenses (GPL). So it's impossible to include this in open-source projects.
- the spec specifies that you must reimplement certain behaviors similar to Word/Excel... for which no one has the source code!
- The license states that Microsoft will not sue those who fully reimplement this spec. If you implement only a part, you're liable to be sued.
Knowing that even Microsoft can't fully implement its own specification (!)
- Finally, the license allows Microsoft to develop new features for OOXML (which will be included in Microsoft Office) that you will not be able to reimplement since they are not included in the original spec. In other words, you won't be able to stay completely compatible without risking being sued.
Avoid this "standard"!
Not to mention that the license attached to the OOXML format is absurd:
- it is not compatible with most other open-source licenses (GPL). So it's impossible to include this in open-source projects.
- the spec specifies that you must reimplement certain behaviors similar to Word/Excel... for which no one has the source code!
- The license states that Microsoft will not sue those who fully reimplement this spec. If you implement only a part, you're liable to be sued.
Knowing that even Microsoft can't fully implement its own specification (!)
- Finally, the license allows Microsoft to develop new features for OOXML (which will be included in Microsoft Office) that you will not be able to reimplement since they are not included in the original spec. In other words, you won't be able to stay completely compatible without risking being sued.
Avoid this "standard"!
Hello
Continuation of the series, OOXML: Microsoft did not have an internal service dedicated to standards
Working on standard technologies, including the Office Open XML (OOXML) document format, is a very recent activity for Microsoft, which acknowledges its limited experience in this area.
As they were convinced that THEIR standard was the one... they didn’t know what a standard was.
--
Always zen
Continuation of the series, OOXML: Microsoft did not have an internal service dedicated to standards
Working on standard technologies, including the Office Open XML (OOXML) document format, is a very recent activity for Microsoft, which acknowledges its limited experience in this area.
As they were convinced that THEIR standard was the one... they didn’t know what a standard was.
--
Always zen
and without mastering the subject since we did not have an internal service dedicated to standards
oO
It's unbelievable.
Microsoft has positioned itself for years as a champion of enterprise computing, and they have no one working on standards?
Is this a joke?
It makes it easier to understand all the liberties taken with the norms (and the resulting chaos): TCP/IP (thanks to the tweaks between IIS/IE while ignoring the TCP handshakes), Kerberos (and I reuse fields without warning), SMB/CIFS (and I tinker with a protocol without documenting it), HTML (IE-specific tags, non-standard Javascript behavior), Java (and I cobble together my own version of Java not-quite-standard-but-almost)...
Not to mention this obsession with reinventing the wheel instead of using existing standards (Metro, WMA, WMV...).
Given the way they have distorted and twisted standards in the past, I don't see why we could trust them, whether for OOXML or even for ODF.
oO
It's unbelievable.
Microsoft has positioned itself for years as a champion of enterprise computing, and they have no one working on standards?
Is this a joke?
It makes it easier to understand all the liberties taken with the norms (and the resulting chaos): TCP/IP (thanks to the tweaks between IIS/IE while ignoring the TCP handshakes), Kerberos (and I reuse fields without warning), SMB/CIFS (and I tinker with a protocol without documenting it), HTML (IE-specific tags, non-standard Javascript behavior), Java (and I cobble together my own version of Java not-quite-standard-but-almost)...
Not to mention this obsession with reinventing the wheel instead of using existing standards (Metro, WMA, WMV...).
Given the way they have distorted and twisted standards in the past, I don't see why we could trust them, whether for OOXML or even for ODF.
New update:
AFNOR explains why it abstained. We learn - or rediscover - in this same Clubic document that Microsoft, supported by Ecma, the European industrial standardization body, held an emergency vote.
As for interoperability between ODF and OOXML, it is still not achieved!
See also the article from Linuxfr.org where we learn that the voting process for recognition as an ISO standard is somewhat convoluted: "It must be remembered that voters are organized into two committees, committee P, which includes the main member countries, and the entirety of the member countries. For a standard to be decided, it is necessary to obtain a favorable vote from at least 66.7% of the P members and at least 75% of all members. Thus, in the vote that concluded on March 29, OOXML would have obtained a score of 86% favorable votes among all members and 75% favorable votes among the P countries only." (Clubic citation)
--
Toco y se gausos!!!
AFNOR explains why it abstained. We learn - or rediscover - in this same Clubic document that Microsoft, supported by Ecma, the European industrial standardization body, held an emergency vote.
As for interoperability between ODF and OOXML, it is still not achieved!
See also the article from Linuxfr.org where we learn that the voting process for recognition as an ISO standard is somewhat convoluted: "It must be remembered that voters are organized into two committees, committee P, which includes the main member countries, and the entirety of the member countries. For a standard to be decided, it is necessary to obtain a favorable vote from at least 66.7% of the P members and at least 75% of all members. Thus, in the vote that concluded on March 29, OOXML would have obtained a score of 86% favorable votes among all members and 75% favorable votes among the P countries only." (Clubic citation)
--
Toco y se gausos!!!
Personally, I don't understand everything in this field.
Am I correct? We're talking about a standard to define interoperability between office applications, right?
The goal being ultimately to have a suitable file format, whether we're working with Office, Open Office, Star Office, or any other office suite.
So no more headaches when a user receives a .doc or .xls file and doesn't have Office or vice versa.
If I set aside my anti-Microsoft stance, what are the major advantages and disadvantages in summary between the two "standards" ODF and OOXML?
If it's a standard, can the "commercial" aspect take precedence over the standard?
Can they put their stamp on it and mess up access to information?
Thank you for your insights
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)
Am I correct? We're talking about a standard to define interoperability between office applications, right?
The goal being ultimately to have a suitable file format, whether we're working with Office, Open Office, Star Office, or any other office suite.
So no more headaches when a user receives a .doc or .xls file and doesn't have Office or vice versa.
If I set aside my anti-Microsoft stance, what are the major advantages and disadvantages in summary between the two "standards" ODF and OOXML?
If it's a standard, can the "commercial" aspect take precedence over the standard?
Can they put their stamp on it and mess up access to information?
Thank you for your insights
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)
If it is a standard, can the "commercial" side take precedence over the standard?
Yes.
In fact, it is entirely possible for an ISO standard to require payment.
For example, the MP3 format is an ISO standard, but you have to pay in order to create software that creates MP3s.
Can they have their stamp on it, and spoil access to information?
They already have their stamp on it.
Microsoft - and Microsoft alone - can evolve the OOXML format and introduce whatever they want (including things that are impossible for others to implement).
And in particular, Microsoft can add things to OOXML that are outside of the ISO specification, and these additions - not covered by the ISO standard - are the property of Microsoft, who could sue you if you implement them.
In contrast, ODF has an open and concerned evolution (several companies involved), the minutes of meetings are public, and especially Sun (the originator of ODF) has placed ODF under a license that prevents all members participating in ODF from suing anyone who uses this format, regardless of any future developments of ODF.
In fact, it is even better: Sun has used part of its patents in the ODF format, and has crafted the ODF license so that no one can ever be sued regarding these patents.
The contrast with Microsoft OpenXML is staggering.
Yes.
In fact, it is entirely possible for an ISO standard to require payment.
For example, the MP3 format is an ISO standard, but you have to pay in order to create software that creates MP3s.
Can they have their stamp on it, and spoil access to information?
They already have their stamp on it.
Microsoft - and Microsoft alone - can evolve the OOXML format and introduce whatever they want (including things that are impossible for others to implement).
And in particular, Microsoft can add things to OOXML that are outside of the ISO specification, and these additions - not covered by the ISO standard - are the property of Microsoft, who could sue you if you implement them.
In contrast, ODF has an open and concerned evolution (several companies involved), the minutes of meetings are public, and especially Sun (the originator of ODF) has placed ODF under a license that prevents all members participating in ODF from suing anyone who uses this format, regardless of any future developments of ODF.
In fact, it is even better: Sun has used part of its patents in the ODF format, and has crafted the ODF license so that no one can ever be sued regarding these patents.
The contrast with Microsoft OpenXML is staggering.
Thank you Seb for this clarification :)
On the contrary, ODF has an open and concerned evolution (involving multiple companies), the meeting minutes are public, and above all, Sun (the originator of ODF) placed ODF under a license that prevents any member participating in ODF from suing anyone who uses this format, regardless of the future developments of ODF.
Here, I completely agree with you; it seems completely logical.
And that's exactly what I find "mind-blowing": how can we allow a single company to manage a standard? !!
If I take the following definitions from Wikipedia:
A standardization body is any entity whose primary activities include the development, coordination, promulgation, revision, modification, reissuing, interpretation, or maintenance of standards intended for a large number of people outside that entity.
A standard (from the Latin norma, square, rule) refers to a state that is usually widespread or average, often considered as a rule to follow.
So tell me if I'm saying a "nonsense":
If a single company like Microsoft manages its OOXML standard, does the definition of the standardization body no longer hold? Microsoft is not a standardization body, right?
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)
On the contrary, ODF has an open and concerned evolution (involving multiple companies), the meeting minutes are public, and above all, Sun (the originator of ODF) placed ODF under a license that prevents any member participating in ODF from suing anyone who uses this format, regardless of the future developments of ODF.
Here, I completely agree with you; it seems completely logical.
And that's exactly what I find "mind-blowing": how can we allow a single company to manage a standard? !!
If I take the following definitions from Wikipedia:
A standardization body is any entity whose primary activities include the development, coordination, promulgation, revision, modification, reissuing, interpretation, or maintenance of standards intended for a large number of people outside that entity.
A standard (from the Latin norma, square, rule) refers to a state that is usually widespread or average, often considered as a rule to follow.
So tell me if I'm saying a "nonsense":
If a single company like Microsoft manages its OOXML standard, does the definition of the standardization body no longer hold? Microsoft is not a standardization body, right?
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)
Flock has bitten into the event (drawing published by Clubic):
http://img.clubic.com/photo/01081554.jpg
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
http://img.clubic.com/photo/01081554.jpg
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Office 2007 would be incompatible with the Open XML format! Surprised?! In fact, the "Open XML standard" used by Office 2007 dates, in terms of its technical specifications, from before the ISO vote. To obtain this ISO validation, Microsoft had to modify its Open XML format in the meantime.
Therefore, how will this play out for actual compatibility? An update for Office 2007 or waiting for the next version of Microsoft Office? Not to mention the other software???
Source:
https://www.clubic.com/actualite-137182-office-2007-incompatible-open-xml.html
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Therefore, how will this play out for actual compatibility? An update for Office 2007 or waiting for the next version of Microsoft Office? Not to mention the other software???
Source:
https://www.clubic.com/actualite-137182-office-2007-incompatible-open-xml.html
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Microsoft allegedly imposed its OpenXML format on the French administration.
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
In fact, the "Open XML" standard used by Office 2007 dates, for its technical specifications, from before the ISO vote.
No no no.
This is not an excuse.
The "Fast track" procedure that Microsoft forced ISO to adopt is only intended to be used for standards for which there is an implementation.
However, as it stands, there is no implementation of the ISO OOXML standard, since even Microsoft cannot manage to implement this standard.
And even if you manage to be compatible with the ISO OOXML standard (good luck reading the 6000 pages), that absolutely does not mean you will be compatible with Office 2007 or with future versions of Office.
Why?
Because the license attached to the ISO OOXML standard allows Microsoft to implement things in addition to this standard that will not be covered by the license.
If you try to implement these new features, Microsoft could take legal action against you.
In other words, despite the ISO standard, Microsoft has the means to legally prevent anyone from being compatible with Microsoft Office.
Not to mention that a number of OOXML tags require re-implementing the behavior of Word and Excel.
How do you re-implement the behavior of software for which you do not have the source code?
Oh, and I almost forgot about the binary blobs and all the related issues (EMF vector format, is that documented?)
In short, mission impossible.
This "standard" is unusable.
No no no.
This is not an excuse.
The "Fast track" procedure that Microsoft forced ISO to adopt is only intended to be used for standards for which there is an implementation.
However, as it stands, there is no implementation of the ISO OOXML standard, since even Microsoft cannot manage to implement this standard.
And even if you manage to be compatible with the ISO OOXML standard (good luck reading the 6000 pages), that absolutely does not mean you will be compatible with Office 2007 or with future versions of Office.
Why?
Because the license attached to the ISO OOXML standard allows Microsoft to implement things in addition to this standard that will not be covered by the license.
If you try to implement these new features, Microsoft could take legal action against you.
In other words, despite the ISO standard, Microsoft has the means to legally prevent anyone from being compatible with Microsoft Office.
Not to mention that a number of OOXML tags require re-implementing the behavior of Word and Excel.
How do you re-implement the behavior of software for which you do not have the source code?
Oh, and I almost forgot about the binary blobs and all the related issues (EMF vector format, is that documented?)
In short, mission impossible.
This "standard" is unusable.
Hello
How will the deputies who work with Linux be compatible with Microsoft?
They will probably wait for OpenOffice.org 3.0, which should be compatible with MS-Office 2007.
Behind the scenes, OpenOffice.org 3.0 will support the upcoming OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.2 standard, and is capable of opening files created with MS-Office 2007 or MS-Office 2008 for Mac OS X (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.). This is in addition to read and write support for the MS-Office binary file formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc.).
--
Always zen
How will the deputies who work with Linux be compatible with Microsoft?
They will probably wait for OpenOffice.org 3.0, which should be compatible with MS-Office 2007.
Behind the scenes, OpenOffice.org 3.0 will support the upcoming OpenDocument Format (ODF) 1.2 standard, and is capable of opening files created with MS-Office 2007 or MS-Office 2008 for Mac OS X (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.). This is in addition to read and write support for the MS-Office binary file formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc.).
--
Always zen
Hello
Is Microsoft's OOXML format going to lose its ISO standard status (DIS 29500), which was voted on last April? Its official ratification is, in any case, delayed due to the formal objection recently filed by South Africa.
South African members of ISO are filing an appeal against OOXML
--
Always zen
Is Microsoft's OOXML format going to lose its ISO standard status (DIS 29500), which was voted on last April? Its official ratification is, in any case, delayed due to the formal objection recently filed by South Africa.
South African members of ISO are filing an appeal against OOXML
--
Always zen
Here’s some news that brings me great joy!!!
Basically, South Africa is denouncing procedural flaws:
* too little time to seriously compare the OOXML standard with other standards and reach a proper consensus,
* non-publication within the legal 30-day deadline after the final format's standardization.
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Basically, South Africa is denouncing procedural flaws:
* too little time to seriously compare the OOXML standard with other standards and reach a proper consensus,
* non-publication within the legal 30-day deadline after the final format's standardization.
--
Toco y se gausos !!!
Pouarck.......
This time the OOXML format has been successfully passed, despite the appeals made by several countries (including Brazil, if I remember correctly).
https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/ooxml-l-iso-confirme-la-standardisation-du-format-de-microsoft-39382759.htm
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)
This time the OOXML format has been successfully passed, despite the appeals made by several countries (including Brazil, if I remember correctly).
https://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/ooxml-l-iso-confirme-la-standardisation-du-format-de-microsoft-39382759.htm
--
Best regards,
24/7 at your service :)