Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 24th Nov 2007 23:31 UTC
Gnome "The GNOME Foundation has issued a statement in response to recent accusations that it has been supporting the acceptance of Microsoft's Office Open XML format as an ECMA standard at the expense of the Open Document Format, the open standard used by OpenOffice.org, KOffice and other free software office applications. However, whether the statement's attempt at logical rebuttal will do anything to reduce the emotions or altruism behind the criticisms is anybody's guess."
Thread beginning with comment 286616
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Orwellian naming
by chrono13 on Sun 25th Nov 2007 09:52 UTC
chrono13
Member since:
2006-10-25

"Open" Office XML is political naming at its finest. It has even fooled a couple of you into believing that it is even *somewhat* open. It isn't.

"autoSpaceLikeWord95" and "lineWrapLikeWord6", these are actual parts of this "open" specification.

And that isn't even the best parts.

If you actually read the specification it's a clear cut case that no-one else but Microsoft can implement it.

Despite the bribes, despite the corruption, and despite causing ISO to "grind to a halt" with deadbeat members ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/16/207205 ) why do you think it still lost its ISO fast track?

It lost because it is not a real standard, it is not open, and it can't be either until it loses the Microsoft hook - which won't happen.

Microsoft's goal with OOXML is very clear, and it was never freedom from vendor lock-in or collaboration.

The Danish ISO "No", with comments - a very good, even funny, read (390k PDF):
http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791 )

(with thanks to Matzon: http://osnews.com/read_thread.php?news_id=18686&comment_id=274777 )

Edited 2007-11-25 09:56

Reply Score: 17

RE: Orwellian naming
by SomeGuy on Sun 25th Nov 2007 19:29 in reply to "Orwellian naming"
SomeGuy Member since:
2006-03-20

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop, then we've got a problem on our hands.

Really, the two-proged approach is the way to go:
1) Try to prevent OOXML from taking over. Promote free, and truly open, document standards and try to make them win.

2) Make sure that if OOXML does succeed then it's possible to implement it without too much guess and check.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Orwellian naming
by segedunum on Sun 25th Nov 2007 20:34 in reply to "RE: Orwellian naming"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

What specification of OOXML? Since it's a woeful dump of Microsoft's existing Office features, what makes you think anyone will have any bearing on it at all?

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop...

OOXML, as implemented by Office 2007, is already live and out there. There will be no changes made to it. It's not worthy of anyone's time or promotion.

Reply Parent Score: 2