On Mar 28, 5:38 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> In Close Vote, Germany Stays in the OOXML "Yes" Column as More Reports Dribble
> in
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | 8 votes were in favour of "YES", 6 were in favour of "ABSTAIN", some pointing
> | out that they would have preferred to vote an outright "NO". 4 voted "abstain
> | to the DIN vote", i.e. on the vote between "YES" and "ABSTAIN" to ISO. 2 of
> | the 4 had initially voted for a German "ABSTAIN", but under pressure changed
> | within 48 hours their vote from a German "ABSTAIN" to "abstain to the DIN
> | vote"; one of the 4 was compelled by instruction to vote "abstain to the DIN
> | vote", even though he wanted to vote at least "ABSTAIN". That means: without
> | very strong pressure from Microsoft Germany would have voted "ABSTAIN", with
> | 9 to 8.
> `----
I think it has become very clear that OOXML is little more that a
"Standard" for "perpetuating the Microsoft Monopoly" and that any
pretense of OOXML as being a true and complete public and published
standard, is purely a fantasy on the part of Microsoft in it's
desparate attempts to derail the adoption of Open Document Format,
which meets all of the requirements for a true standard, including
complete public specifications with minimal license restrictions,
reference implementations in Open Source Software (OpenOffice), yet
fully implementable for proprietary products such as StarOffice, Lotus
Symphony, and WordPerfect, among others.
Because the ODF standard is fully documented and can be uniformly
implemented, and because it is so easy to download a free
implementation for reviewing ODF documents, the adoption of ODF as the
preferred standard for documents of public record is all but
inevitable.
OOXML on the other hand, seems to be destined for a less desirable
fate. Since it is not easily available without upgrading to Vista and
Office 2007, it's unlikely that it will be widely implemented within
any reasonable amount of time. It is more likely to suffer the fate
of OSI, where it's lack of completeness, lack of uniformity, and
dependence on proprietary binary formats, along with structures that
encourage the proliferation and distribution of malware, will make it
more of a standard to be avoided at all costs.
It seems that several of the standards bodies are now attempting to
adopt OOXML as a "Black Standard", essentially, encouraging the
adoption of the standard as a standard to be avoided. There are a few
such standards within the industry, which often help the industry to
know NOT to adopt particular standards.
> Swiss Cheese [for OOXML]
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The present spin doctors of Microsoft and ECMA managed to convince Mr.
> | Thomann to reject every serious technical and general concern we had
> | regarding OOMXL by pointing to compatibility reasons.
The point is that the entire standards process has made these
incompatibilities, vulnerabilities, and security issues public
knowledge. The open and public debate of these issues has now
resulted in direct liability for organizations who decide to formally
adopt OOXML as as standard. Before, the vulnerabilities were hidden,
unknown, or at least never formally acknowledged. As more notations,
reservations, and issues are identified and documented, the
formalization of OOXML also means formalization of the risk
acceptance. There are certain standards which have documented
liabilities, and when the standard is implemented by a company, both
the company implementing the standard, and the companies purchasing
and adopting the standard are accepting those liabilities and risks.
If Microsoft advertises that it has implemented the OOXML standard in
Office 2007, and it becomes a matter of public record that this
standard is known to be capable of easily distributing malware, the
next Melissa or NIMDA or Sky or Bagel virus would be directly liable
to those who purchased the standard compliant software as well as
Microsoft who had implemented it. Companies could be sued for
Negligence and Microsoft would share only a portion of the liability,
since the standard made public the malware spreading capabilities.
I'm not sure of these capabilities have actually been formally noted
as part of the standard. It's possible that they will be noted
formally as Microsoft continues to attempt to push for formal
adoption.
For years the use of PCB as a coolant for transformers was a formal
standard. Eventually, the carcinogenic properties were identified,
published, and directly associated with the standard. The same as
true of Asbestos and other documented health risks. Suddenly, brand
identifications associated with these standards became liabilities
rather than assets. In some cases, the sponsoring companies were
distrusted so severely that they became insolvant. A major asbestos
plant in Manville New Jersey was eventually bankrupted, putting most
of the town out of work. Eventually the plant was replaced with a
bunch of shopping centers. There is nothing left of the Asbestos
producing company other than a really bitter memory.
> | At the end we had a
> | majority against Microsoft but which (giving the unfair rules) results in a
> | Swiss vote for Microsoft. Mr. Thomann was fretting and fuming at the end of
> | the meeting how it can be that successful international companies (we had
> | representatives from IBM, Google, ...) vote against the best interest of
> | their customers and theirself!
Voting for OOXML is a vote against the best interests of these
companies, but on the other hand, the public documentation of the
debate and the concerns will make OOXML a very undesirable standard.
Microsoft may rue the day it attempted to shove this standard down the
industry's throat.
> | Yes, this is how the democratic system at SNV / ISO works. After the meeting
> | I could not eat as much as I wanted to puke...
> `----
If OOXML is adopted as an ISO standard, and then the standard is then
used as a means to attempt to circumvent the bidding system, used as
an means to force the adoption of OOXML in government and corporate
organizations, it would be a travesty. On the other hand, the
formalization of OOXML as a standard could result in it's formal
exclusion and unaccaptability as an option, especially when a bid is
stating that ODF is a requirement and that OOXML is not an acceptable
alternative. Such a directive pretty much excludes Microsoft from the
short list without excluding them by name.
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-15521/swiss-cheese
|
|
