Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Sep 2007 21:40 UTC, submitted by archiesteel
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 268719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Miguel de Icaza's take
by n4cer on Wed 5th Sep 2007 06:12
in reply to "RE[7]: Miguel de Icaza's take"
Member since:2005-07-06
This is utter fantasy. It is just more FUD along the lines similar to "ODF doesn't support formulas". Utter lies.
ISO ODF does not support formulas.
It's useless if it isn't in the spec.
There is no consensus in OOXML. There are bits (or dependencies) that you legally may not do. It CANNOT be a standard, by definition.
Like?
I seem to remember 20+ entities reaching consensus and creating ECMA OOXML.
RE[9]: Miguel de Icaza's take
by lemur2 on Wed 5th Sep 2007 06:46
in reply to "RE[8]: Miguel de Icaza's take"
Member since:2007-02-17
ISO ODF does not support formulas.
It's useless if it isn't in the spec.
It's useless if it isn't in the spec.
Sigh!
Yes, ODF 1.0 (which you call ISO ODF) does support formulas. So does ODF 1.1 (which is the current version).
It is in the spec. Go and read the spec if you disbelieve.
The precise complaint with respect to OpenDocument ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 formulas is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opendocument#Criticism
The OpenDocument ISO specification does not contain a defined formula language. This means that ISO conforming files do not have to be compatible. OASIS is working on creating a standard formula language (OpenFormula) for OpenDocument v1.2 due later in 2007.
There was not a precise definition of the formula language. This allowed different applications to have differences in their formula language for some things that are supposed to be the same formula. It is not a problem for the vast bulk of formulas, because the syntax (or formula language, if you will) is common sense. But it was a problem for some complex escoteric functions.
Fixed in ODF 1.2. OpenFormula is the agreed, consensus, detailed formula language. Virtually all the ODF applications use this now. OpenFormula is consistent with ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1, it just ties down formally the formula language to an agreed standard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula
It is just a matter now for the formal approval process to catch up with the reality.
Like?
A partial list can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ooxml#Criticism_by_competitors_and_fre...
Scope of the Patent Licensing does cover only required features of the standard, but not the entire standard. Specifically Microsoft's Covenant not to sue grants patent use "that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification." Also Microsoft's Open Specification Promise only protects what is explicitly specified in the standard.
- Reliance on application-defined behaviors to support important functionality that should be documented or supported via existing standards.
- Use of DrawingML and VML instead of SVG, and of a new mathematical format instead of MathML. MathML and SVG are W3C recommendations.
- Legacy document rendering compatibility is identified using (deprecated) tags. For example, book 4 section 2.15.3.6, "autoSpaceLikeWord95", “useWord97LineBreakRules”, “useWord2002TableStyleRules", and book 4 section 2.15.3.31, "lineWrapLikeWord6", and "suppressTopSpacingWP" for a 16-year-old version of WordPerfect
- Use of DrawingML and VML instead of SVG, and of a new mathematical format instead of MathML. MathML and SVG are W3C recommendations.
- Legacy document rendering compatibility is identified using (deprecated) tags. For example, book 4 section 2.15.3.6, "autoSpaceLikeWord95", “useWord97LineBreakRules”, “useWord2002TableStyleRules", and book 4 section 2.15.3.31, "lineWrapLikeWord6", and "suppressTopSpacingWP" for a 16-year-old version of WordPerfect
... and here:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Undisclosed_prop...
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_require...
There is a long list of objections to OOXML, primarily about the lock-in nature of the specification ... where have you been for the last year or so?
Edited 2007-09-05 06:49
Member since:
2007-02-17
This is utter fantasy. It is just more FUD along the lines similar to "ODF doesn't support formulas". Utter lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula
OOXML will not be fixed to the point it can be acceptable as a standard until such time as its dependencies on MS proprietary technologies are removed.
Since the whole point from Microsoft's perspective is lock-in, this will never hapeen.
Therefore, it is utter fantasy to think that OOXML will ever become "a more complete standard than ODF".
There is no consensus in OOXML. There are bits (or dependencies) that you legally may not do. It CANNOT be a standard, by definition.