OSNews

The only reason MS wants OOXML to have the ISO impramature is to undercut IBM's lobbying effort...

Is this the lobbying effort that is flooding ISO's international committees with new members in order to get its format approved come what may? Oh sorry, that's Microsoft.............

And that's why the FOSS community doesn't like OOXML, because it undercuts that grand strategy to get governments to ban MS Office and/or codify into law a format that lacks certain MS Office features...

No one needs to ban Microsoft Office (which created this unfair trade, monopoly situation in the first place). If it conforms to an internationally recognised standard that everybody can implement, no problem! That's Microsoft's problem, no one elses'.

Many standards are mandated worldwide that companies in many industries have to conform to, and they all can equally. I know of no company that has whined at an internationally recognised and implementable standard, there to promote equality and fair trade that everyone can implement, because they couldn't go off and invent their own. The childishness and foot stamping is beyond belief.

They don't want to do that for two reasons: 1.) ODF went through the fast-track process, in fact being virtually rubberstamped...

ODF was around within the OASIS committee for four years before it got near the ISO. Track record is everything, and OOXML just doesn't have that.

Two, if OOXML goes through the slow rather than fast track, it's shortcomings will be addressed and will have all the more credibility at the end.

Wishful thinking. Microsoft will not address any concerns with OOXML because:

1. It is out in the world as part of Office 2007.

2. Microsoft is flooding ISO committees all over the world in order to make sure that the comments are glossed over, giving it an apparent air of credibility.

3. Technically, many of the shortcomings cannot be solved unless large parts of the standard are junked and started again.

Yes, that's a very cute attempt to pre-emptively dismiss my arguments (easier to do that than to address them directly)

I have done, and you've never addressed mine because you've been taken to the cleaners every time. So has Rick Jelliffe, but I admire you both for soldiering on - no matter how much you've been paid. Can't be easy ;-).

I'm well aware of Stephen Rodriguez' writings. He regularly trolls OOXML lead Brian Jones' blog, using all kinds of personal insults against him.

Rick Jelliffe uses the same tactic. When you have no arguments left, wheel out the personal insults and attacks card. Can Microsoft's strategy department not give you anything better?

Just because a format is stored as XML text doesn't mean a user can blithely alter any portion of that XML text without regard to how it might affect the rest of the file.

Sweetheart, the whole point of XML (supposedly) is that it is human readable and editable text. It should be editable and parsable by other applications. If Microsoft Office throws a wobbler because you've put in what should be a valid element then you've got a problem.

Miguel (of Mono fame) completely destroys nearly every one of his arguments here

Ahhhh, Miguel. His credibility just keeps diving through the floor. First of all he dismisses the exploding spreadsheets point by saying that Stephane hasn't read the schema. However, all he has done is insert a value in a cell that is consistent with all the other XML for doing the same thing. They are not indexes to other parts, just regular data consistent with other XML elements in the same block.

He then tells us that entered versus stored values are different because of double format precision. That's great, apart from the fact that this is supposed to be a human readable format and shouldn't need to be shoved through an application to get the right value without the execution environment being described. What is a dumb XML parser supposed to do with this? It will take it as-is. Microsoft, and Miguel, just don't get this it seems.

Miguel then helpfully tells us that VML is deprecated, just as Rick Jelliffe tells us that the word95 elements are deprecated. Well thanks very much, but quite what deprecated elements are doing in a completely new format, I really have no idea. Presumably all those old Microsoft Office documents that get converted will be continuing to use these deprecated extensions, so Miguel is wrong, VML is very much still in use - which is kind of the point ;-).

OSI is a self-appointed group that takes it upon itself to decide what constitutes an open source license. They have no *inherent* credibility or authority

Microsoft doesn't seem to agree with you.

If they want to start playing favorites or being moral police then they need to publicly change their mission statement accordingly.

They are no different to any other collaborative group. You get along with your peers and contribute. If you don't then they owe you nothing Don't pull the moral or equality arguments, because they mean nothing in such organisations. It's about building your reputation within the group.