ISO calls for end to OOXML 'personal attacks'

ISO allowed the working group to be stacked, just one week before the first vote in September 2007.

Countries with no capacity to make any contribution, simply voted Yes.

Here are some countries from the list of shame (Participating members with full voting rights):

# Azerbaijan
# Cote-d'Ivore
# Jamaica
# Kazakhstan
# Lebanon
# Malta
# Trinidad and Tobago

Even more countries from the Observer members joined at the last moment.

For the full list, see
http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/the-last-lap.html

"We the undersigned participants at this SC 34 meeting wish to make it clear that we deplore the personal attacks that have been made during the DIS 29500 standardisation project in recent months. We believe standards debate should always be carried out with respect for all parties, even when they strongly disagree."

As I said, if there is such strong disagreement about the fact that there are so many flaws, irregularities, and breaches of ISO's core mandate by OOXML, then OOXML shouldn't have been fast tracked.

"We call on all organisations and individuals involved in SC 34 standardisation to support this view, and to refrain from initiating or engaging in any such personal attacks."

It is interesting that they are trying to make out that there is some kind of personal attack involved. It is nothing of the kind - it's criticism of the process and of corrupt practices and irregularities by some of the members of the committee that has those members worried, and perhaps the EU investigation into irregularities in the SC34 committee.

Given (a) the numerous reports of national standards bodies forcing through an acceptance vote, (b) the EU investigation of same (see your own site's article on the subject) and (c) the sudden influx of full-voting-rights P members just ahead of this particular proposal, the inescapable conclusion is that the ISO approval process has been thoroughly gamed by Microsoft to get their de-facto standard an ISO stamp of approval. This allows them to compete "standard-to-standard" with the vendor-independent ODF format approved by ISO last year.

There is now a problem reported by the SC 34 chair that these new P members have sat silent on other items coming before the committee, causing roadblocks for lack of quorum, again giving the appearance of a manipulated result for Microsoft's favor.

This 'cease-fire' effort only seems to be an attempt to quiet the protests in the hope of them dying down with time. Given the numerous complaints raised, this matter is not likely to go away having been dragged out into the light without actively working to address the issues. ISO needs to sack up and deal with it, or watch their reputation decline.

I suggest that these folk with their "open letter" talk to the EC people who are investigating the allegations of dubious dealings. Or are they saying that the EC investigators are personally attacking them?

That being said, where's Microsoft in all this? Having got the standard approved they seem to have skedaddled (one of my favourite Americanisms!). Where are all their people making the standard work, fix the problems etc? Where now is their commitment to it?

Ah well, why would they care, I'm sure they were only ever going to support their "special enhanced version" of OOXML that has so many hooks to it that you could mistake it for a long line.

Even if Microsoft invents a ultra mobile spaceship for everyone, it will still be monster that wants to rule the world by it's evil tentacles and poison our brains with some destructive ideas.

OOXML is a good format that will soon be recognizeable by 90% of all word processors used in whole world. No matter how much you all hate Microsoft, OOXML is already a atandard.

First, I agree with most of what you say about standards in general, and even about Microsoft in general. I also agree with David Long, that Microsoft is getting a lot of bashing over this which other "currently fashionable" companies wouldn't get. That may or may not be deserved, based on previous behavior, but I would point out that if Apple tries a few more tricks like "bundling" Safari with iTunes, they are likely to be climbing into the same boat.

I could write a lot more about past behavior or manipulation of the standards process, but the bottom line is, things Microsoft has done in the past with C++, Java, WMF, PDF, Flash and now ODF do not cause me to have a lot of trust in their good intentions. However, you are right, a lot of people (including me) use Windows and Office because, for many years, they worked when nothing else did. I have said many, many times over the years that I would LOVE to switch from Windows to a Mac - but I couldn't, because I couldn't get the things that I needed on a Mac. Likewise, I have tried so many versions of Linux (and Minix, if anyone remembers what that was), and could never get one to work properly and provide the things that I need on my laptops. But just as past misbehavior by Microsoft doesn't mean that everyone should despise them and toss all of their products, past success should not give them license to do anything they want now.

There is a certain responsibility when you control the market and wield the power that Microsoft does, and the very questionable events around this ISO standard do not give the impression that Microsoft is respecting that responsibility.

The problem is that OOXML is a non-standard. Like each file format Microsoft brings out every three to four years, it is designed to be incompatible with other vendors and previous Microsoft products, in order to lock Microsoft's competition out, and force existing Microsoft users to pay for an upgrade.

That is the only purpose and function of OOXML, and the only reason why Microsoft hasn't included an ODF filter in MS Offife is that ODF really is a standard, and one that allows competing vendors to interoperate.

Your comment that MICROSOFT CAN DICTATE STANDARDS TO THEIR PRODUCTS is completely true.

What has happened, though, to all appearances, is that in order to get a "meets-international-standards" checkoff for said products to compete against ODF-based competitors, they have pressured national standards bodies to fast-track OOXML into an ISO standard. The political gaming has been documented in numerous articles, and the EU is now investigating the procedure to see if/how this approval process was subverted.

Other companies, interested in competing on common ground (ODF) based on their products' merit, have convinced ISO said cross-vendor, cross-platform format is a valid standard to hold them to. Microsoft has wrapped XML tags around their existing product's format and railroaded their de-facto standard through ISO by highly questionable tactics, so that 20 years from now we'll still be paying MS in order to read our own files. Which is more competitive, and more cooperative?

Microsoft, the company behind this "product", is definitely part the problem. But, I'm sure if OOXML was submitted anonymously, it would have been dumped, dumped, dumped.

Branding it with the Microsoft logo just makes it worse because there is a clear distinction between Microsoft and darling Apple and Google, and it is not that they are the flavor of the day. Apple and Google represent good design, and good thinking, Microsoft represents profit and devastation.

The reason so many people so deep in technology hate Microsoft is because Microsoft has ruined the potential of what computation could have been over the last 20 years. We are witnessing the uprising frustration of a generation of software developers who have witnessed slaughter and felt helpless to do anything about it.

To continue the comparison, Microsoft was built by a man and now a culture whose only focus was to beat the competition to death and take over market for the sake of profit, Google and Apple have, by actions and by words, served the public, created high quality products, and pro-actively adopted global standards and open source (Apple: Firewire, USB, IDE, Unix, Samba, MPEG, PHP, Apache, etc, and Google: SOAP, REST, etc).

What can be said said about Microsoft except that they do good business? They know how to create markets, they know how to make products that birth an entire new industry and workforce to deal with the bad design foisted upon unsuspecting CEOs and users (massive IT departments and MSCE garbage), they know how to put stuff in a box and sell it.

As a computer advocate, user, developer since I first time I heard buzzing and beeping coming from a cassette tape representing the amazing universe of software that would come, I am saying that there is a real difference between Microsoft and the quality of companies like Google and Apple. Microsoft took opportunity and bludgeoned their way into the void over the last decades. That doesn't mean they deserve to stay and be given "international welfare" and a position in history (as the company that wasted another 20 years of our computational and social evolution). Not this time!

I have suffered for too long with Microsoft products and I will not anymore stand idly by when future generations and our entire world depend on computers. Clarity and generosity is what is needed, not business and strategy. We're shooting for the moon, not trying to steal it.

Let's not pretend that Microsoft is anything other than the sum of their actions, and their actions suck to this very minute. OOXML shall not ever truly become a "standard" since that's an oxymoron as others have pointed out: Slippery, vague, unresolved, specs. That sounds like Vista, XBox Live, Zune, and lots of lawsuits to me...

We can all individually be hornswaggled into using Microsoft products and pay the consequences for our choices (and all the reboots required. I can't wait till people have to start rebooting their Lincoln Navigators with "SYNC" installed), but we must not allow that dilemma and the weight of bad design take our focus off demanding strong, robust, and truly universal standards.

On a side note, I feel somewhat sorry for some of the software developers who get their paycheck from Microsoft. I wish them the best. I sort-of see them as the victims of a mass delusion crafted by management, that they're building something great. All that talent, stuck in the mire that is disgusting code, and harsh business practices over doing what's right for the world of computing.

Microsoft will die, but it will be a horribly slow thrashing death. Preventing the foolhardy adoption of OOXML and all 6000 pages of its shifty spec as a standard will ease the world's pain and help the us get past this era when selfish businesses attempted to take control of something that needs to be in the public domain.

Well stated Chris, had this format gone through a normal presentation, and was as clean as ODF, then maybe it might have made it on it's own merits.
Unfortunately, this is not the Micro$oft way of doing business. Wait for a few years and watch OOXML, as it may be the only non-standard, standard available.

Don't loose site of the fact that even Microsoft's own products do not support O(O)XML at this point in time.

.docx is just another iteration of Microsoft's proprietry formats, but it is not O(O)XML compliant, although I think Microsoft would have the uninformed believe that their formats are now standards compliant.

I note that many comments appear to suggest an implied acceptance of .docx as compliant. I'm sure that's a fiction which Microsoft are extremely keen to promulgate.

I think you are confusing an ISO recognised 'standard' and a so-called defacto 'standard'.

Until Microsoft hijacked the ISO approval process to favour OOXML, ODF was the recognised standard. We now have the absurd situation where there are two ISO-recognised standards.

For more information about the issues around ODF/OOXML, please follow the link provided by Chris Rankin - http://www.noooxml.org/argu-brief

Microsoft is a 'standard' because they bludgeoned aside their competitors and got themselves a monopoly on the desktop. See CP/M-86, OS/2, WordPerfect, VisiCalc, etc. for the victims they left in the gutter.

The other sort of standard is the kind that is dictated by consensus by groups such as ISO, CCITT, etc. This is why your GSM mobile works between carriers, between countries, etc.

The 'other vendors' in the market (IBM, Sun, etc.) together came up with ODF, and AS A GROUP got ISO approval. Microsoft was a part of that group (OASIS) apparently until it became clear it wasn't going to just rubber-stamp MS-Office formats as their standard.

Now with MS facing competition for government contracts where "The Other Guys" could claim ISO compliance, Microsoft has resorted to their usual bully-boy tactics to get an ISO checkoff for their own products.

Especially with public documents, do you *really* want to be stuck subsidizing Microsoft? As if they need the extra money? Or should *public* documents be accessible by *publicly available*, vendor-independent, vendor-NEUTRAL software? Shouldn't a business have the choice of what office package works best for them, without worrying about document compatibility? Isn't that what competition is about? Microsoft's game is to lock you into their products with file formats only they can handle and make you pay forever to keep being able to read them.

Great points! Microsoft is a business. No gigantic monopoly deserves welfare! But more than that, because of their position as de-facto standard, we actually must do more. We must fight Microsoft's stranglehold on the world of computing. We must make it more difficult for their tools to pervade.

It will be painful, but it's that good kind of pain; the kind that says we're moving to a better, brighter future. Like working out at the gym, or spring cleaning, or well, using a Mac. How many hours would the world have saved if they weren't wasting precious processing cycles on virus scanning and reboots?

To accept OOXML is to live in the dank slimy hell of bureaucracy. To shaft ourselves. To fight it and push for clean and implementable standards is to boldly and generously begin an adventure into a brighter successful and enormously more effective future.

M3 is a size of nut/bolt thread. It is clearly and completely defined. There are no patent issues of any kind. Anyone with sufficient mechanical skill can design and manufacture parts that will accurately mate with those from any other manufacturer.

THAT is a standard.

OOXML is not completely (or even accurately) defined. It has a confusing mess of patent license conditions that specifically outlaw certain kinds of use. Only one organisation has been able to produce something with vague resemblence to the specification.

That is NOT a standard.