...most of them were not discussed. "There were many technical changes the delegates made to really get consensus on some of the more challenging issues, but all of these passed overwhelmingly once they were updated," said Microsoft Office programme manager Brian Jones, who was a US delegate.
Tim Bray, one of the original creators of the XML specification on which OOXML is founded, and a Canadian delegate for ISO, suggested ISO should never have been proposed for the fast-track route. "The process was complete, utter, unadulterated bullshit," said Bray in a blog post. "This was horrible, egregious, process abuse and ISO should hang their heads in shame for allowing it to happen.
"I'm not an ISO expert, but whatever their 'Fast Track' process was designed for, it sure wasn't this," added Bray, who is now director of web technologies at Sun. "You just can't revise 6,000 pages of deeply complex specification-ware in the time that was provided for the process."
Microsoft now has one month to persuade enough national delegates to vote in favour of the specification, but Bray thinks this is very unlikely: "I totally don't believe that ECMA/Microsoft is going to be able to pull together a revised draft of this Frankenstein's monster in that timeframe."
Read this
Leader: World not open to Microsoft promises
Microsoft has promised more openness, more freedom. It looks like more of the same...
Microsoft Office itself does not comply fully with OOXML, according to ZDNet.co.uk member Goldie Simmons: "Many are worried about the line which separates the OOXML 'standard' from the MS-OOXML 'reality', where features such as scripts, macros and DRM are used but not documented in the OOXML specification."
Other ZDNet.co.uk members claim ODF and OOXML are fundamentally flawed standards, as they were proposed to ISO from vendor consortia (ODF came through the Oasis group).
Gary Edwards, former president of the Open Document Foundation, an industry group that promoted ODF but then rejected both approaches and closed itself down in November 2007, said: "Ecma and Oasis are vendor consortia where the rules governing standards specification work favour vendor innovation over the open and transparent interoperability consumers, governments and FLOSS efforts demand... Shutting that door on Ecma OOXML is proving very difficult exactly because the primary and fundamental rule of ISO interoperability requirements has been breached."
Talkback
That ISO credibility teeters on the brink of corporate vendor takeover is hardly something new. This was a theme of Martin Bryan’s recent <a href="http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0940.htm">fairwell report</a> as chairman of the ISO CS34 WG1. His memorable phrase, <b>standardization by corporation</b>, is a warning to the world that ISO has been compromised.
Closing down the Ecma <i>fast track</i> and OASIS <i>PAS</i> channels will go along way towards limiting the undue influence corporate vendors now have on determining international standards. That they use this influence to limit <i>interoperability</i> at the expense of application and system specific vendor <i>innovation</i> is an allegation the vendors will no doubt contest with great vigor exactly because it goes to the heart of the matter; vendors use ISO standardization as cover for the vendor controlled work that takes place at Ecma and OASIS consortia.
The proof is in the pudding. ISO standards are all about <i>interoperability</i>, so show us the
Sorry about that. The complete comment can be found here: <a href="http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dghfk5w9_95dv9w5wnt">Standards by Corporation</a>.
~ge~