"Microsoft's embattled Office Open XML document format received ISO fast-track approval after receiving support from approximately 86 percent of the national bodies that participated in the vote. ISO approval will be broadly perceived as a sign of validation for the document format which has received widespread criticism from technical experts and standards advocacy groups."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
Well, to answer that question with another question, when it comes to package managers, why isn't .rpm or .deb enough? Why can't we just have one standard for package management? Along those same lines, why not build just one solid toolkit for GUIs, one sound framework, and why do we need multiple distros, some with their own directory layout and startup procedures?
Look, I agree with you.. maybe ODF needs a little bit of work, bit it really should be enough.
But ODF is mainly a FOSS thing (which is why I bring up all those other examples above), and it seems that if the FOSS crowd wants only one standard for formatting documents, it should put its money where its mouth is and come up with one standard for everything else as well. Afterall, wouldn't that be better for everyone in the end?
For example, every time I suggest that maybe there should be a single way to build packages (well, maybe one binary and one source) that works across all distros that everyone standardize on, I am immediately rebuked for having the nerve to even utter such an abomination. (Note: I'm not talking about package managers, but rather a specific way packages could be built so that any package manager that supports the standard could use.)
Apparently, it's ok to have several dozen variations of everything else, but when it comes to ODF, that should've been enough.
Personally, I think people are just pissed because this is a Microsoft thing. I'm sure they had their reasons for inventing OOXML and I'm also reasonably sure that it had more to do with business reasons than technical. But hell, at least it's a stanard, which means that for the FOSS crowd, it is better than it was before, no? You didn't really expect MS to implement ODF did you? It might've been a great service to mankind, but it ain't going to earn them more bankroll.
Edited 2008-04-02 22:33 UTC
Member since:2005-07-08
I think you are mixing completely different scale things.
When talking about package managers we are talking about software alternatives. There's nothing wrong in having lots of software alternatives in package management, or also in the world of office software, like word processors.
When talking about electronic document format standards, we are talking about an aim to have a common open document standard that could support not restrict the existence of competition and alternatives in the software world. So that an electronic document could be opened and edited as well as possible in all alternative apps now and in the future.
Now, having two main standards for electronic documents is not too much, and in itself might be quite ok. The potential problem with OOXML is, however, what kind of a standard it is. Is it really an open standard that supports and not restricts interoperability and competition in software? Maybe it will be and we may hope so - but lots of experts have had serious doubts about it so far, however.
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually, when it comes to Linux package managers, the standard (as in Linux Standard Base) is that compliant distros should be able to handle rpms.
So, yes, there is ONE standard, and there should be ONE standard for document management as well. It could be ODF or something else. Now we already had ODF, so why was it so impossible to improve on that instead of making a new incompatible one, especially as Microsoft had all possibilities in the world to have add to it when it was made.
Member since:
2005-07-08
Having more than one HTML standard would be a bad thing too, wouldn't it? Why should we need more than one good electronic document standard, and hopefully an open standard that is developed together by several companies and non-commercial entities? That is what ODF - an already accepted and truly open ISO standard would be.
The important question we should ask is why ODF wasn't enough? There might be some small technical issues, why some people would rather prefer OOXML. But more likely this is mostly just the result of enourmous amounts of Microsoft lobbying. Read Groklaw to find out more about all the odd politics and lobbying related to this whole process: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20051216153153504
Besides, there are many technical reasons why ODF is a better, and more open choice than OOXML. Now it is possible that the monopolistic position of Microsoft allows it to practically kill ODF, an already approved ISO standard for electronix documents. Great, just great...
For example, the president of the European Academy for Standardisation, Tineke Egyedi, "doubts whether ISO should have a taken into consideration a second standard for electronic documents at all. ISO approved the Open Document Format ODF in 2006, says Egyedi: 'What are we to do with a second standard, which is overlapping the first? This conflicts with rules of the World Trade Organisation.'"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327170359776