Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Sep 2007 21:40 UTC, submitted by archiesteel
Features, Office Microsoft has failed in its attempt to have its Office Open XML document format fast-tracked straight to the status of an international standard by the International Organization for Standardization. The proposal must now be revised to take into account the negative comments made during the voting process. Microsoft expects that a second vote early next year will result in approval, it said Tuesday. That is by no means certain, however, given the objections raised by some national standards bodies.
Thread beginning with comment 268619
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ok
by WarpKat on Tue 4th Sep 2007 23:37 UTC in reply to "Ok"
WarpKat
Member since:
2006-02-06

It's easier to read 600 pages as opposed to reading 6000 pages.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ok
by Almafeta on Wed 5th Sep 2007 00:10 in reply to "RE: Ok"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

It's easier to read 600 pages as opposed to reading 6000 pages.


When it comes to specifications, the standard has to be at least as large as it needs to be, and not one page shorter. Larger is usually better, especially when there's more room for explanation (and less room for uncertainty).

Ever browsed the POSIX standard or the C definition, or the Java specification?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Ok
by Beta on Wed 5th Sep 2007 08:38 in reply to "RE[2]: Ok"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Except... the 6,000 pages of the OOXML spec. don’t contain everything the spec. needs for one to implement it.

Can you guess how big it should be?

(Yes, ODF is still shorter after including referenced standards)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Ok
by sappyvcv on Wed 5th Sep 2007 00:12 in reply to "RE: Ok"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry but that's a poor excuse.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Ok
by DrillSgt on Wed 5th Sep 2007 00:53 in reply to "RE: Ok"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"It's easier to read 600 pages as opposed to reading 6000 pages."

It's also easier to ask on a forum then to RTFM. However a good chunk of responses on questions will be RTFM. So, read the novel and enjoy it ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ok
by MollyC on Wed 5th Sep 2007 01:05 in reply to "RE: Ok"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"It's easier to read 600 pages as opposed to reading 6000 pages."

This is true, but I read yesterday that the Java spec had 8000 pages.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/08/28/Retired-Ecma-chief-expect...
"Regarding objections to the Open XML application because of its length, Van Den Beld said that when Sun Microsystems submitted the Java programming language to ECMA in 1999, the application -- which was eventually withdrawn -- was more than 8,000 pages long."



Also, the OOXML spec actually used a larger font than is standard practice, which increases the number of pages, and has lots of tutorial documentation.
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/last_days_for_office_ope...
"Behind the scenes, Patrick Durusau (the ISO ODF editor) has been working on a really interesting and useful project. While he is not keen that people use ISO Open XML, he is keen that the quality of ISO standards should be maintained and he sees OOXML as a way to get MS’ technical requirements on the table to help future ODF improvement (whether by cherry-picking, mix-n-match or knowing what to avoid.) I suggested to him a time ago that one approach to fixing DIS 29500 would be radical surgery: removing all the explanatory and non-normative material. At the moment it is far too tutorial. That is fine for the Ecma version, but gets in the way of an ISO-quality standard. I had also suggested that the schema fragments were otiose too, and that the 11pt body text should be 10 pt. . So Patrick has gone ahead and stripped out the fluff from the WordprocessingML chapter and with tighter formatting he was able to go from 1874 pages to 607 pages without altering the technical content!"

So it may be that during the next phase, they'll use 10pt font rather than 11pt, and remove all of the tutorial material (which would become a supplementary document, but not part of the spec itself). That would address the complaints about "too many pages!" ;)

Edited 2007-09-05 01:05

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Ok
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Sep 2007 01:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Ok"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That would address the complaints about "too many pages!"


There is really one one complaint that needs to be addressed. That complaint is that OOXML is just "Not Open".

If Microsoft are prepared to make it so that OOXML and all the enabling technologies it relies upon are fully defined and able to be implemented royalty-free by any party on any platform, then it can become a standard format. Not otherwise (because it will have no consensus).

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Ok
by MiliTux on Wed 5th Sep 2007 06:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Ok"
MiliTux Member since:
2007-05-16

So it may be that during the next phase, they'll use 10pt font rather than 11pt, and remove all of the tutorial material (which would become a supplementary document, but not part of the spec itself). That would address the complaints about "too many pages!" ;)


Then they could switch to 8pt font, strip out all the stuff describing the spec, and they'll be left with one page! Wow!!!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Ok
by Beta on Wed 5th Sep 2007 08:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Ok"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

:D
I never would have thought the defence for “OOXML spec. is just too damn big” would be “look at Java!!!”.

You would think, while preparing a specification for ISO, the editor would select the recommended font size.

After font reduction, culling ‘tutorials’, how big would it be? 3,000 pages possibly?
That’s still 5x the size of ODF.

Reply Parent Score: 2