Open XML Overwhelmingly Approved as an ISO / IEC standard (IS 29500): the end of the file formats war
I'm sure many folks have seen the news by now that Open XML has been approved as an ISO/IEC standard (IS 29500). Based on the numbers I've seen, looking at the P member countries there are now 24 who vote "yes", and only 8 vote "no". This puts the P member approval at 75% easily passing the 2/3 majority needed. Of the overall votes (both O and P members combined) 61 countries votes "yes" and only 10 voted "no" which puts the overall approval at 86% (so only 14% no). This puts us well below the minimum bar of no more than 25% voting "no". So on both criteria, Open XML now easily passes, which is a great indication of the general positive feelings amongst the national bodies of the progress made over the past 6 months.
Now that the voting over, it's time to move forward and start to work together in the ongoing development of these document format standards. There has been a lot of energy focused on the review period over the past year or two, and we need to use that same energy to move us forward. There is still a lot of work to do in order to make it even easier for developers to build solutions using these standardized technologies (new tools; test suites; labs; etc.). We also need to continue looking beyond traditional documents and identify the important innovations that will be necessary for the documents of the future. I may have been a bit premature last year when I declared the file format wars over. It was a couple days after we saw that Open Office was going to have Open XML support, and I thought at that point folks would start to move on to the more collaborative and mutually beneficial investments. Well, I was a bit premature I think, but now a year removed from my initial statements, I think we've reached the milestone that really will help put a lot of the
tension to rest. Open XML has been approved as an ISO standard, and we can now switch our energy back to the technical work that will continue to drive things forward. As we move into the next stages I'm excited to see the energy and knowledge that will be brought to the table as we begin to innovate and move both Open XML and ODF forward as important internationally standardized file formats.
Large numbers of implementations already support Open XML
Open XML has already been developed on numerous platforms, by hundreds (if not thousands) of different implementers. The approval of Open XML as an ISO standard gives those implementers a stable platform on which to build their tools and solutions. We've already committed in Microsoft that we will work on updating our products so that they support the ISO version of Open XML, and I'm sure we'll see others make similar updates to their solutions.
Choice in file formats will always be important
I know you've heard me mention numerous times that choice in file formats is an important thing. Whether it's XHTML, PDF, ODF, UOF, DAISY, DocBook, NLM, RTF, .doc, or Open XML, folks have needs that drive the file format they choose. Last year we sponsored a translator project that gave people the ability to read and write ODF files from Microsoft Office. Last month we announced that we would update the Office product so that the ODF translators could natively plug into Office and give people the same options they get from the other file formats. People will be able to set ODF as the default format in Office if that's what they want by simply installing the translators and then changing their settings. There will be people that take this option, just as there may be others who decide to switch over to the old binary formats as their default for the time being. I believe the vast majority of folks will use Open XML as their default format, but ultimately that's just my opinion. What's important is that everyone has the ability to decide.
The future of documents, and the ongoing development of IS 29500
I have to admit that what I'm most excited about is that we can now start to move beyond the basic discussions of file formats as they relate to what are essentially digital typewriters, and start to move into the future of document content. The custom schema support in Open XML is really just the starting point of semantic documents, and it takes a small step in the new voyage we need to help convince the rest of the world to take. For far too long, we've focused simply on how to present document content. How it's formatted, where page breaks are, and what styles are used. We've only begun to scratch the surface though in terms of the actual semantics behind the documents people create. There are brilliant folks out there who've been doing a lot of thinking around the semantic web, and how to really tie together all the important information that affects our lives. The next challenge is to really identify how you get the average document author to write content that is semantically structured. Most folks don't yet see the advantage in structuring their documents, so it's important to find ways of providing immediate benefit to those that take the time (or use the right software). There are a number of experts in this area on SC34, so it's very fitting that many of the same people that have helped contribute to this area will also participate in the future developments of Open XML. In ISO it's called "maintenance" but I think that term sounds a bit limiting to folks. It's not "maintenance" in the way that you maintain your car so that it runs properly. Of course some of the work will be around corrections and general improvements, but a lot of the maintenance work will be innovative and forward thinking. We need to continue to move document formats forward, and I couldn't think of a better group to take on that responsibility.
-Brian
Comments
Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
From Brian Jones blog: Open XML Overwhelmingly Approved as an ISO / IEC standard (IS 29500): the endAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Congrats with the result. All of your readers must know you personally have been working very hard both within Micrsoft but also as a technical expert in Ecma TC45 to get a big job done.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
My gosh... such gravity on April 1st! The least you could have done for the slashdot crowd is conceded defeat and announced Microsoft's imminent intent, having been thwarted at getting OOXML passed, to buy OASIS. :-D On a serious note, this is great news. I'm glad to hear that the political wrangling is over and look forward to getting my hands on ISO-conformant Word, Excel, and PowerPoint!Anonymous
April 01, 2008
After a lot of turmoil the ECMA Office Open XML document format has been approved as an ISO/IEC standard - IS 29500. The news came out a day earlier than stated, due to a leak which made ISO to go pu...Anonymous
April 01, 2008
You've destroyed ISO and everything it stands for.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
A few things are missing from the commitments Microsoft is giving, though:
- having Office support the ISO standard is good. But, it needs to output 100% conformant documents: is that guaranteed?
- open up the development of the format. Right now, I can get membership of OASIS, join the ODF TC and contribute. That's not possible with OOXML. Stop with the behind closed doors stuff; OOXML would have probably passed through ISO at the first time of asking if you'd had broader inclusion and addressed the obvious technical deficiencies when people identified them.
- choice in file formats: I honestly don't see why this is important. Innovate file formats, sure. But bring OOXML and ODF together. I'm not going to support two formats in my apps, and at the moment I'm choosing ODF because it's simpler. I don't want to have to choose, though. I doubt you're going to do this, but I can ask.
Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Congratulations Brian. I hope you get a well-deserved vacation along with a significant hazard bonus for working in this war zone for 2 years now. As a supporter of OpenXML, I hope that the Office group does not sit on its laurels after this accomplishment. While the opposition may have lost this round, they would be vindicated in the end if the next Office does not make solid progress toward eliminating transitional elements from new documents.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
"The custom schema support in Open XML is really just the starting point of semantic documents, and it takes a small step in the new voyage we need to help convince the rest of the world to take." Isn't that another name for smart tags? I'm sure Microsoft holds at least a dozen patents on that subject alone.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Von den 87 National Body Members (stimmberechtigten Ländern) unterstützen 87% die ISO/IEC Standardisierung,Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Congrats on OOXML... and in the process become one of the most despised tech companies in the world. No doubt you'll handle it just like you did with HTML: "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer"Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Congrats on getting the approval, and nice post for those who said you'd now abandon everything.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
@Anonymous "But may I ask for your help, were did you manage to find XML experts in Jamaica, Cyprus, Malta, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Cote-d'Ivore, Fiji to do a reveiw of OOXML and confince them to join ISO to vote." You´re quite racist, aren´t you?Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
I like to hear that Office will soon be able to open and save ODF-formats as well as Open XML! Don't forget Mac Office, though. And please consider making this available with the basic Office installation, not just with additional tools. THIS will show you're serious about choice. Having said this: Cheers.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Congratulations! Before a file format war, it was a technical and ideological war. You're a giant.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Sure it is not an april fool joke??? ;-) Congratulations.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Just want to say congratulations!Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Congrats, Brian. I know that you've already started working on the successor to Office 2007, but take some time off; as you deserve a long vacation (and huge raise). :)Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Here is ECMA's official announcement: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/ISO_and_IEC_approve_Office_Open_XML.htmAnonymous
April 01, 2008
@Mike Brown: Why do you waste so much time/effort writing such drivel? Can't you find something more constructive to focus on?Anonymous
April 01, 2008
>> @Mike Brown: Why do you waste so much time/effort >> writing such drivel? Just to annoy people like you, Tom. Mission accomplished, I think! Cheers,
- Mike
Anonymous
April 01, 2008
    The results are in.  Office Open XML , otherwise known as DIS 29500, has been approvedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Finally! Nice Work Brian! I know you've worked hard to get here!Anonymous
April 01, 2008
congratulations on effort well spent! The list so far:
- MS openXML - check
- MS openISO - check
- MS openHTML - being worked on
- MS openTCP/IP - planning stage
Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Brian you might what to start spreading the wonders of ooxml beyond this blog. It looks like ISO is rethinking their fast track procedure. It would be a pity if ooxml became known as "the standard that made ISO abolish the fact track process".Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Te ne avevo già parlato negli scorsi mesi . Microsoft Office 2007 ha introdotto un nuovo formato di fileAnonymous
April 01, 2008
A sad day for standards in general. This one's overcooked and under thought....Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Brian, First of all, congratulations. A lot of hard work payed off in the end. You said that Microsoft will be "updating our products so that they support the ISO version of Open XML". Would you elaborate on that statement? When and how will Office support IS 29500? Will it be via a soon-to-be released service pack? Or will we need to wait for the next version?Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Any list showing just how complete the 'support' is, or is MS satisfied with the checklist method of software evaluation? Gnumeric has this to say about (MSO)OOXML support - "Import filters also exist for Lotus 1-2-3, Applix, Sylk, XBase, Open Office, Quattro Pro, Dif, Plan Perfect, and Oleo files, but these import filters are less complete"Anonymous
April 01, 2008
As Steve Pepper, Chairman, SN/K185 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 mirror committee) wrote: "You will have been notified that Norway voted to approve OOXML in this ballot. This decision does not reflect the view of the vast majority of the Norwegian committee, 80% of which was against changing Norway’s vote from No with comments to Yes." When 80% against means "yes", that gives a whole new dimension to the meaning of "overwhelmingly approved."Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Forgive me my ignorance about the standards process but I was expecting a download of the final approvied specification to be available after the standard was approved. At the moment the ISO site knows nothing about 29500.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 01, 2008
I love it when people haul out the James Plamondon quote. First off, it dates from 1995 - 13 years ago. Secondly, if you read the context for the message, it was Plamondon pitching this idea as a part of a JOB INTERVIEW process! And Plamondon doesn't even work at Microsoft any more (as best as I can figure, he retired to Australia). There is no indication that Plamondon was writing for Microsoft or that his writings were anything other than the musings of a job seeker. And surprising as it might be to some people, the Microsoft of 2008 is not the same company as the Microsoft of 1995 - there are many things that Microsoft did in the mid to late 1990s that would never be tolerated at Microsoft today. How about we declare a moratorium on quotes that are more than 5 years old in this debate?Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Oh, yes, congratulations. You have shown that enough money will corrupt any process or organization.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Brian, congratulations to you and the team. The slings and arrows have been thrown, tales full of sound and fury have been told, and you maintained your cool professionalism throughout. It's amazing to think that you've finally done what detractors have requested for 10 years or more: document the formats as a standard. You've accomplished what the EU asked Microsoft to do, and still you're taking fire. Talk about moving the goal post! Anyway, I'm glad to see our work on the XML formats all those years is now out there for everyone to use and work can move on to improving the standard and having more implmentations of the format. And you are so right that the work is not finished. People will understand the power of those custom embedded schemas eventually!Anonymous
April 01, 2008
@ J David Eisenberg From what I've read, the "Norwegian committee" to which you refer presented their arguments to those making the decision for Norway. The 80% of the committee presented their arguments for NO, and the 20% presented their arguments for YES. The arguments for YES were simply better than the arguments for NO, regardless of how many people IBM bribed to be NO, so YES won. Anyway, Norway has suspended its decision for now, and it makes no difference, as OOXML was easily approved even without Norway's YES.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
@Reggie If you have documented proof that IBM bribed the Norwegians to vote NO, I suggest you present it to us and to the U.S. Justice Department -- I'm sure they'll be interested in it.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Ah good ol' Microsoft - capable of destroying everything it touches.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
It is fun reading the outbreaks of IBM apostles :) And, don't worry for the experts in Jamaica, Cyprus, Malta, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Cote-d'Ivore, Fiji etc. I am sure that there are better experts than you all.Anonymous
April 01, 2008
Érdemes elolvasni a Microsoft hivatalos közleményét és Brian Jones blogbejegyzésétAnonymous
April 01, 2008
Après le vote final de la procédure de normalisation pour le projet DIS 29500 Office Open XML, les NationalAnonymous
April 01, 2008
>> @Mike Brown: Why do you waste so much time/effort >> writing such drivel? > Just to annoy people like you, Tom. > Mission accomplished, I think! I suspect the grown-ups are mostly amused by your drivel, rather than annoyed. There's a long tradition of people acting the fool for the amusement of the nation, even if you're a clown by accident rather than by design.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Ironically, any gains associated with the acceptance of OOXML will be outweighed by the brand damage inflicted as a result of the process. All the soothing talk by Brad to the open source community the other week is completely discredited. So yes, Microsoft won but step back a little bit and look at the reactions outside of these blog comments of partners and Technet subscribers. Is it worth owning OOXML while being so thoroughly hated by everyone?Anonymous
April 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 02, 2008
Thailand, their initial vote and comment: "We disapprove the draft ISO/IEC 29500 for the reason that the time given by the fast-track processing is not enough for consideration of this important draft." Thailand voted YES for approval. So besides the more than likely "pay off", what other reason can there be?Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Another announcement involving Microsoft and another opportunity for embittered Microsoft-haters to stand online with plackards in-hand. Brian and his team have worked exceptionally hard to bring ooXML to this stage and they deserve praise. There will always be those who hate a winner. Had Microsoft failed to get the standard ratified then the same people on here would have been jeering at their defeat. For so long now, courts and consumers alike have been demanding that Microsoft become more standards-oriented. Various rulings, especially here in the EU, have forced Microsoft to freely distribute their proprietary code, which they pay hard-working developers to write, across to their competitiors in the name of standardisation. Those who write on posts such as this (NB: read any post on The Register with Microsoft in the title and you will see the auto-flames) are so obsessed with their hatred for the big, bad MS that they are blind to the quality of the products that they are producing. As someone who uses MS products for all of my job role I will be the first to admit that they don't always get it right and never get it perfect, but then if MacOS/Red Hat/SUSE etc were perfect then I imagine we'll see no need for any future product updates from these manufacturers.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
A single instance of bribery should disqualify any standard, or at least derail the "fast track". Seriously, Brian, this whole thing is as dirty as it can be. How do you sleep at night knowing you've corrupted this group?Anonymous
April 02, 2008
What's with everyone talking about "IBM apostles" or "IBM bribery"? Who came up with that? I find it insulting that anyone thinks my renewed distaste for Microsoft was inspired by anyone but Microsoft, and I'm sure everyone who voted "NO" feels the same. Just compare the number of IBM partners on the panels versus the number of Microsoft partners on the panels. That, or point to evidence of IBM bribery. There's already plenty of evidence for Microsoft-- and the EU already has an investigation going. Where's IBM's investigation? And for that matter, why would IBM care? It's Sun who's behind Microsoft's main office competitor, not IBM. On the other hand, I'm sure IBM feels proud to have everyone spooked without having to lift a finger. It's probably Microsoft employees villainizing them for so soundly handing SCO their collective hat.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Brendan: There was a standard. It was called ODF. Ever heard of it? But Microsoft decided an existing standard wasn't good enough. When you think of it that way, it was Microsoft who started the file formats war in the first place.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
As everyone who has followed this blog already knows, we introduced a new file format with Office 2007Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Deși la votul din vara trecută nu a trecut, Open XML a fost de data asta ratificat ca International StandardAnonymous
April 02, 2008
This is the funniest part of the Open XML standard quoted from Rob Weir: With this in mind, let's take a look at how OOXML and ODF represent a staple of document formats: text color and alignment. I created six documents: word processor, spreadsheet and presentation graphics, in OOXML and ODF formats. In each case I entered one simple string "This is red text". In each case I made the word "red" red, and right aligned the entire string. The following table shows the representation of this formatting instruction in OOXML and ODF, for each of the three application types: Format Text Color Text Alignment OOXML Text <w:color w:val="FF0000"/> <w:jc w:val="right"/> OOXML Sheet <color rgb="FFFF0000"/> <alignment horizontal="right"/> OOXML Presentation <a:srgbClr val="FF0000"/> <a:pPr algn="r"/> ODF Text <style:text-properties fo:color="#FF0000"/> <style:paragraph-properties fo:text-align="end" /> ODF Sheet <style:text-properties fo:color="#FF0000"/> <style:paragraph-properties fo:text-align="end"/> ODF Presentation <style:text-properties fo:color="#FF0000"/> <style:paragraph-properties fo:text-align="end"/> Open XML is so inconsistent within itself, I doubt anyone will ever be able to utilize it as a 'standard' unless it matures to the level of ODF over the next couple years. It's really quite astonishing Brian...Anonymous
April 02, 2008
If the "war" is over, I hope I can look forward to default, robust, support for ODF in MS products before long.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Brian, please explain something to me. The most widely used office suite cannot load ISO standard ODF documents by default. It is not a matter of technical difficulty or lack of resources or time for MS to develop an ODF importer for Office included by default. Considering those two facts, why should I trust MS's claims to be in favour of open standards and interoperability? Thanks.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Hey Rodd Ahrenstorff and Bruce and all the other open standard Zealots out there. It may be inconsistent but it is what the World will end up using because the World uses Office. The "ODF ISO Standard" was always a political ploy to derail Microsoft, we all know it. Microsoft reacted and won, good! Now lets all get over it and move on. Oh BTW I'm from Fiji :-)Anonymous
April 02, 2008
Jeśli jeszcze nie doczytaliście z innych źródeł - Open Xml jest standardem ISO. Poniżej oficjalnaAnonymous
April 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 02, 2008
@ Not IBM "There was a standard. It was called ODF. Ever heard of it? But Microsoft decided an existing standard wasn't good enough." And they are right. ISO ODF doesn't even support the most basic of spreadsheet functionality for goodness sake. How can you expect Microsoft to use that garbage? And that garbage wasn't designed from the ground-up, it's derived from OO.o 1.0's XML format. Why should the suite with 2% userbase get to dictate what format the suite with 95% userbase uses? Get real.Anonymous
April 02, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 02, 2008
Open XML has overwhelmingly been approved as an ISO / IEC standard (IS 29500) signaling the the end ofAnonymous
April 02, 2008
If IBM had spend the money they used in opposing OOXML to improve ODF likely ODF would have been a better standard for it. It is strange that it has been taking OASIS a lot longer to produce a spreadsheet formula format then it has taken to produce an entire office format specification. Mayby some people working on ODF should get their focus back on track and work towards improving standards in stead of blocking them.Anonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
Wow - this acrimony is kinda sad. All the loaded, unsupported charges and counter-charges, and yet I don't think anyone has really set forth what's going on. IMHO, it's really quite simple:
- IBM got ODF declared an ISO standard to help their efforts to sell hardware, software, and services to governments. The goal was not to so much to sell more Open Office software but to break the reinforcing loop between Office and Windows, and sell IBM linux PCs + IBM services.
- ISO standardization or not, it's not clear to me that documents in either ODF or OXML would really be unaccessible in 20+ years in any case -- but if you're a government CIO there's only upside to supporting ISO standardization, so IBM's strategy and lobbying was getting attention from government CIOs.
- Microsoft got OXML declared an ISO standard so they could continue to sell Office (and maintain a strong reinforcing loop with Windows) to governments. Microsoft hopes this will neutralize the advantage IBM had created with ISO standardization for ODF.
- IBM tried to block ISO recognition for OXML because they've spent a lot of time and money convincing government CIOs that ISO standardization is important for long term access to records (again, it's not clear that's actually true but that was their story). Now IBM has to figure out how to go back to those same CIOs and say "well, ISO standardization is not that important... really, you should think about [blah]" -- where [blah] is the latest reason they've come up to buy a linux clients.
- Out of all of this, perhaps the good news really is for customers? Regardless of the original motivations on either side, maybe the fact that the OXML specification is open, documented, and it's evolution is now controlled by ISO will reduce perceived risk for customers, ISVs, and others to create solutions that programmatically create, read, and manipulate OXML files.
Anonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
PLEASE SUPPORT THE COMPATIBILITY PACK ON WINDOWS 98 SE and WINDOWS ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymous
April 03, 2008
Please at least ship an unsupported version of the Compatibility pack on Windows 98 SE and Me.Anonymous
April 03, 2008
@S You might better comment on this kind of post Stephane http://blogs.code-counsel.net/Wouter/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=43Anonymous
April 03, 2008
Brian, would you care to update any of this post, now that reports of an Appeal of the vote is underway (and thus, the "approval" of 29500 is at least an asterisk)?Anonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 03, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 04, 2008
Stefan Word2k, Yes, that's true (except that this was planned all along; it's not a case of being "forced"). Microsoft formally announced that it will support IS29500. They have also said they are currently figuring out the amount of work, and when that estimate is done, they will announce it. None of this should be a surprise to anyone. When the ECMA changed the format during its work on it (which was during the beta phase of Office 2007), Microsoft of course updated Office 2007 and issued a new beta. That's what turning the control of the file format to an external body means. If anybody thinks otherwise, they've been reading too many anti-OOXML blogs.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
It is unlikely that MS Office will support the format before publication. So firste the ISO editor has to deliver a final standards text. Then either Ecma will ratify it in june/juli of december and publish it after, or ISO will publish it later this year. I would at least not expect MS Office 2007/2008 support in the next few months before an offically published spec is ready. So if the ISO editor is fast and Ecma is fast in picking up the new ISO version to ratify it and MS is fast in implementing the new version it could be juli at the earliest. But probably around the time ISO does an offical publication which could be 6 months away still is more likely.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
When will Office 2007/2008 support OOXML?Anonymous
April 04, 2008
@hAl, we all thought you were a MS shrill, leaving comments on blogs, editing Wiki pages in favor of MS, relentlessly 24/7 not stop for almost 2 years, spreading as much dis-information as possible. The Aljazeera of OOXML for MS. It would seem now, you actually work for MS. Atleast, you are an official spokesperson!Anonymous
April 04, 2008
@Brian & entire team - Good job. @john mullinax - Well said. @Anonymous vs hAl - The word is 'shill' not 'shrill'. Didn't you read the manual properly? You also missed the opportunity to write MS as M$. Amateur.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
Amusing. I seem to have missed some paychecks then.Anonymous
April 04, 2008
Does MS have any intention on including ODF support with Office?Anonymous
April 04, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 05, 2008
@Reggie: Taunting people is not polite. It does no good for your side of the debate.Anonymous
April 05, 2008
From the ISO directive, clause 13.2, pages 60 13.12 The time period for post ballot activities by the respective responsible parties shall be as follows: Immediately after the vote, ITTF shall send the results of the vote to the JTC 1 Secretariat and to the SC Secretariat, and for the latter to distribute the results without delay to its NBs, to any NBs having voted that are not members of the SC and to the proposer. As soon as possible after the distribution of the results of the vote to its NBs but in not less than two and one-half months the SC Secretariat shall convene a ballot resolution group meeting if required; In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance. The BRM was from February 25 to 29 so why is Microsoft not providing these documents? Brian, is there an explanation for this delay?Anonymous
April 05, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 06, 2008
Reggie, You got your info wrong. PAS and FastTrack (FT) are both quick ways to get something from the outside world into the world of ISO. But when they are approved, they both get the "IS"-stamp. The PAS-process is not as such shorter than FT, but contains a step less than FT. About quality of PAS vs FT I am not really sure you can say anything definite about it. It seems to me that PAS-specs (as they are entering the ISO system) carry an implicit "accept as is"-process whereas the FT-process carries an implicit "modify"-procedure. Having said that, the responsibility of reviewing and improving a PAS/FT-spec ultimately lies with the NBs and not the process itself. :o)Anonymous
April 07, 2008
@Jesper The PAS proces trough that step less and the implicit accepting consequenses seems to lead to a lot shorter process though: ODF PAS, 6,5 month between submission and approval OOXML fasttrack, 15,5 month between submission and approvalAnonymous
April 07, 2008
Wow. If the anger and vitriol in the comments on this blog-- from both sides-- prove anything, it's that this event has further widened the gap between the software freedom people and the Microsoft people. I don't see a peaceful resolution to this thing anytime soon, if ever. The war goes on.Anonymous
April 07, 2008
Brian, I might have even considered reading this pathetic excuse for a blog, had it given more than 1/3 of the screen area to it. It's not worth bothering with. I suppose this must be another brilliant microsoft "standard".it.Anonymous
April 07, 2008
@ first last Yours is typical of the quality of posts from your side. Thanks for demonstrating for all to see the complete dearth of content in posts from the anti-Microsoft peanut gallery. BTW, Rob Weir's blog allows for considerably less screen space for comments, and is quite boring since Rob Weir censors opposing views, unlike Brian. ;)Anonymous
April 07, 2008
@ Not IBM "Wow. If the anger and vitriol in the comments on this blog-- from both sides-- prove anything, it's that this event has further widened the gap between the software freedom people and the Microsoft people." IF that's true, then the blame lies at IBM's feet. Microsoft did nothing to block ODF, even voting YES for both ISO and ANSI certification of ODF, and NOT lobbying governments to ban use of ODF. IBM and its allies did the exact opposite wrt OOXML. The "anger and vitriol" is due to IBM's actions. If you can't admit that to yourself, it's because you refuse to.Anonymous
April 08, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 08, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 08, 2008
@ Dave S Microsoft lobbied in MA and the other states to not ban use of MSO formats, not to ban use of ODF. You're being totally intellectually dishonest by equating the two. Microsoft never lobbied governments to ban use of ODF. "I don't recall anyone wanting to ban MSO-XML. The anti-ratification group just wanted to avoid having MSO-XML as an international standard. " More intellectual dishonesty from you. IBM and its allies, by simultaneously lobbying governments to only use open standards as recognized by ISO and doing everything in their power to block ISO from recognizing OOXML means that they were lobbying governments to ban use of OOXML for government use. "They are a little tweaked that, with representatives of almost 2/3 of humanity voting against ratification, the standard still made it through with some several hundred critical comments not addressed." The votes against OOXML were largely IBM-backed. Microsoft, if they had chosen to try to block ODF, could've rallied its own allies to get lots of votes against ODF, but Microsoft, being more mature than the very petty IBM, didn't do so because they didn't want to get in the way of those that truly want to use ODF as an ISO standard. IBM just can't stand the thought of some entity wanting to use OOXML as an ISO standard, so tried to block it. "I don't want to use it as an ISO standard, so NOBODY can!!" That sums up IBM's and your attitude. The selfishness is like that of a 9-year old.Anonymous
April 08, 2008
I think that now is the begin of file format war... The money isn't all, and Microsoft has left a developer now.Anonymous
April 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 09, 2008
@ Not IBM You've stated your reasons for not using OOXML. Others disagree. Can't you get that through your thick skull? And you have some nerve to talk of "freedom" when you are in the "one format to rule them all" crowd.Anonymous
April 09, 2008
@Not IBM: OMG, GW, is that you?!!Anonymous
April 09, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemAnonymous
April 09, 2008
The hypocrisy of IBM and the anti-OOXML crowd: http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/2008/04/hypocrisy.htmlAnonymous
April 09, 2008
I'm heading home from Norway in the morning, but wanted to give a quick update on the progress made overAnonymous
April 09, 2008
@Not IBM: to claim you were attacked "ad hominem" you need to have some substance in your argument that was not addressed by the attacker. In the case of your argument there is nothing to it except empty claims and idle rhetorics. Which were addressed though in a humorous manner. Lighten up :)Anonymous
April 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 10, 2008
@Bruno - What do you mean 'we'? Unless you're Steve Ballmer using a pseudonym (sorry, false name) it's hard to ascertain which 'we' you might be part of. I for one, have seen no sensible explanation for seeking ISO approval on MS's part except to meet a check-off item on government procurement forms - "International Standard y/n" MS spokespeople have stated, in writing, the reason is to give their customers a hand in interoperability by preserving the content of MS-binary format documents. If I had a huge customer base and that goal in mind I would publish the format spec of the binary formats so my customers would not be stuck with my interpretation of what is important in their binary documents, assuring them that even if they no longer buy my products their data will be accessible. If workflow improvements using the new format was important I'd publish the mapping from the old format to the new one so, again, my customers could proceed with confidence that their old data could be melded into the new data stream as they wished. Were I interested in customer suggested options that would better my new format I'd investigate those that made the most sense, put them out for comments, and incorporate the best ones. After a couple of years experience with this product in the field, I'd then approach ISO for a thorough review process for release as an international standard, all dressed up with i's dotted and t's crossed. Instead of rushing through the process.Anonymous
April 10, 2008
@ Dave S I assume you're referring to my "... we're operating under the current rules ..." statement (that's the only use of "we" I can find in my post). In that case, "we" just means those involved in the tech community, plus those that merely follow the goings on in the tech world, and more specifically, those arguing on either side of this particular issue. The ISO rules under which "we" are operating when debating this thing do NOT take into account the population of each voting nation, so bringing an argument based on population into this is irrelevant to ISO proceedings.