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

Re: [News] [OSS] OOXML (Monopoly Enabler) Faces Very Strong Opposition in Canada

On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:17:46 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:

>> Arguments like "it's too complex" ignore the fact that other, highly
>> complex standards have been made available (SGML anyone?)
> 
> Actually, the most common statement is that the OOXML specification is
> simply the documentation of a compound hack. The specification is in many
> cases illogical and contradicts existing ISO standards.

That's bull.  It can only "contradict" an ISO standard if it's implementing
such standard incorrectly.  Since OOXML isn't implenting any ISO standard
other than XML, which it doesn't contradict, that argument is specious and
false.

>> Another argument is that Microsoft is the only organization capable of
>> implementing it, which is completely untrue (Apple is in the process right
>> now, as is Novell, Wordperfect, and several others).
> 
> Let us see how well they do.

Novell has already implemented a large part of it.

>> The "incomplete" argument is also bullshit since the flags people
>> reference are a) deprecated and b) not necessary to understanding the file
>> format, only the rendering of its contents (something that is, by
>> definition,
>> application specific... even with ODF).  These arguments deliberately
>> confuse understanding the documents contents (the file format) with it's
>> presentation.  The arguments about allowing embedded documents that aren't
>> defined by the standard are illogical, since ODF allows that very same
>> thing.
> 
> It looks to me like you have never had to implement anything against a
> documented standard. It is hard enough to implement things like ETSI
> protocols and they are no where near 6000 pages long. The other thing that
> has come out by those people who have read the standard is that the
> specification contains multiply cascaded protocols. Implementing such a
> protocol is a nightmare at the best of times. This is without the addition
> of binary blobs, which may or may not be fully documented.

THERE ARE NO BINARY BLOBS IN OOXML.  That's another bogus argument.  All
"binaries" are kept as seperate objects in the zip archive and referenced,
precisely the same way ODF does it.  For example, with OOo on Windows, if
you embed an unknown format, it saves it in the zip archive as a binary.

> Before anyone seriously considers even considering the OOXML specification
> as a standard, it is important to have a reference implementation based on
> the specification and then test that against the documents generated by
> Word 2007 to see if the specification is actually complete. Given the size
> of the specification, I suspect that a reference implementation would take
> years. This is why the process should not be fast tracked. Of course, given
> Microsoft's past history, the harder that Microsoft pushes to have OOXML
> fast tracked, the more others believe that Microsoft has something to hide.

Ironically, OOo will likely become the reference impelmentation with OOXML
support.

>> Yet another argument is that there's already a document format standard.
>> That's true.  In actuality, there are already dozens of document format
>> standards, including PDF (several varieties), XML, SGML, and many others.
>> Each of thoese formats do different things, but have a large amount of
>> overlap.  OOXML also does different things from ODF and has a large
>> overlap.  It's an invalid argument because they didn't oppose ODF when
>> there were already many other formats.  ODF itself shouldn't have been
>> adopted if this argument were valid.
> 
> XML, SGML, et al are not considered as word processing document formats.

No, they're document formats.  Word processing has nothing to do with it.
ODF isn't just word processing either.

>> Then there's the argument that the point of having more than standard
>> defeats the purpose of a standard, and that a standard is to have a single
>> way of doing things, which is so far from the truth as to be laughable.
>> Standards are there to document a specific thing, not to insure there are
>> no other competing things.  If there are two very common ways of doing
>> things, then both ways should be defined as standards so that both can be
>> fully implemented by multiple vendors.  The reasons for doing things in
>> two different ways don't change just because one of them gets
>> standardized.
> 
> Given Microsoft's clear belief that what ever they do is the standard,
> simply because they control the most commonly used platform for desktops,
> there is the clear belief by others that any standard with which Microsoft
> is associated will ultimately be Embraced, Extended and Exterminated.

Who cares?  If Microsoft deviates from the standard, their documents will
no longer be considered as compliant with the standard, and no longer
eligable for purchase from organizations that demand compliance.  

Your argument makes no sense.
 
> Microsoft has repeatedly shown that where it is not able to create a
> monopoly by leveraging one of its existing monopolies it is not very
> successful. I am sure that Balmer and Co. are well aware of this situation.
> This is why others are so wary of Microsoft creating an ISO standard.

Oh, yesah, MSNBC is so unsuccessful.  The XBOX is so unsuccessful.
Microsoft's mice and keyboards are so unsuccessful (even among people who
don't use Microsoft's software).  That's an invalid argument.

>> Another argument is that Microsoft controls the format.  No, they don't.
>> ISO would, and ECMA does.  That's the entire point of standardizing.  It
>> cannot be changed and still be a standard.  Further, Microsoft isn't the
>> only member of the ECMA committee, many other organizations took part in
>> the development of OOXML.  This also ignores the fact that Sun is the
>> primary driver of ODF, and they basically have full control over the
>> committee.
> 
> As much as Sun would like to be in this position, it is not. Others such as
> IBM have a lot of say into the ODF standard.

Say is not the same thing as control.  The same is true with Java, though
of course now that it's GPL'd it could be forked.

>> Many respondants seem to use almost identical language.  This would
>> indicate that the responses may all be coming from a single source who's
>> stuffing the response, or that they're coming as the direct result of a
>> single lobbying group telling them what they should say.
> 
> I guess that it has never occurred to you that people outside of your
> Microsoft world have a common mindset based on their common experience with
> Microsoft.

Sure, that's possible, but it's highly unlikely they would use identical
language, phrased in very similar ways, without any additional arguments.

>> And here we have the REAL reason ODF proponents are so hysterical about
>> this, willing to repeat the same disinformation over and over to whoever
>> will listen.  They're afraid that if OOXML is allowed to become a
>> standard, then there's no reason for ODF to exist, since most users will
>> prefer a format that allows them to keep their documents unchanged when
>> converting to a standard format.
> 
> Actually, people are afraid that what is currently common place will be
> officially sanctioned. That is that documents are stored in a format that
> is so complex and so tied to Microsoft Word that no other company is able
> to implement a compatible wordprocessor. So, even though there are a number
> of other very good word processors around, they all get the same comment:
> The don't read and write Word documents very well. Hence, they can't be
> used.

That's the purpose of the standard.  To allow them to do so.  This is an
illogical argument.

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