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

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Sun, 27 May 2007 03:16:06 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> Overwhelming opposition to adoption of OOXML as standard, Canada wants
>> ODF
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| The Standards Council of Canada is seeking comments on a proposal to
>>| adopt Office Open XML (Open XML) as an international standard. So far
>>| there are over 130 comments to this proposal and the message is clear.
>>| People don't want OOXML. They want a truly open standard that isn't
>>| controlled by only one company. People want OpenDocument Format.
>> `----
>> 
>>
http://digg.com/tech_news/Overwhelming_opposition_to_adoption_of_OOXML_as_standard_Canada_wants_ODF
>>
http://forums.scc.ca/forums/scc/dispatch.cgi/public/docProfile/100009/d20070501143554/No/t100009.htm
> 
> Lol.  First, 90% of the comments don't even know what it is they are
> arguing against.  They seem to think that it's a proposal for the adoption
> of OOXML as the only file format to use in Canada.  In reality, the
> proposal is merely to vote on acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard.
> 
> Second, the majority of arguments are based on the same bogus conclusions
> that groklaw came up with.  Nobody seems to have an original thought.
> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> Another common argument is that it's patent encumbered.  Microsoft offers
> the exact same sort of patent covenant that Sun offers for ODF.  The
> argument about Microsoft's covenant referring to a specific version
> ignores the fact that Sun's ODF covenant, while applying to subsequent
> versions, only applies if SUN themselves is participating in the
> subsequent version. In other words, as of today, ODF 1.0 is the only
> version it covers, and whether or not it covers subsequent versions is
> dependant upon whether Sun decides to stay involved with the development,
> thus no guarantee of subsequent versions being covered.
> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> 99% of the people responding have no clue other than what they read on
> groklaw about any of it, and they're just parroting what they've been told
> by people with a biased agenda.
> 
>> Microsoft playing three card monte with XML conversion
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation, a leading member
>>| of its technical committee, says Microsoft is playing proprietary
>>| games aimed at controlling XML file formats and preventing the
>>| Open Document Format from gaining a foothold.
>> `----
>> 
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=959
> 
> 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.

Until Microsoft are forced to compete, they will never fix the really
annoying faults in Word such as diagrams repositioning themselves to a
location between pages and then refusing to be put back in the correct
location. This bug is still not fixed with Word 2003 and it dates back to
Word 95. I haven't tried Word 2007, but it is quite likely that that bug is
still there.

> People with heavy investments in ODF (Sun, IBM, etc..) will say anything
> to prevent this.

Ian

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