"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:2005-06-30
Personally I can see your point. However, there is a fundamental difference between the ODF/OOXML debate and the RPM/DEB problem. I think that this fundamental difference, which may have been otherwise stated (I'm neither an expert nor an historian on this matter), is that the RPM/DEB problem is about variety in composing the standard ELF file format and LSB system structure into a package, whereas the ODF/OOXML debate is about the standard itself. Or in simple terms, RPM/DEB works at a much higher level, and with much interoperability compared to ODF/OOXML.
Although ODF and OOXML are basically zip-ed XML files, the crucial need for the document saved to be sufficiently reproducible by their implementations makes the argument a lot lower level than RPM/DEB. Additionally, the similarity between the role of both ODF/OOXML and RPM/DEB as containers of data do not correlate sufficiently since ODF/OOXML encapsulate so much crucial metadata that basic functionality will be lost if even the syntax of the metadata is changed. RPM/DEB, on the other hand, are so similar, converters exists that preserve all data and sufficient metadata for most functionality to survive conversion. This is simply due to the fact that RPM/DEB are constructed out of ELF and LSB that are high level enough for a common playground of innovation be viable, whereas XML is simply too implementation-specific and mission critical for them to coexist.
This is the reason I urge you to treat the discussions differently. Please do note that this discussion has begun to oppose OOXML before even touching on technical merits. Which is where the rest of the discussion will dwell upon.
As a simple google will verify, many people have stated that OOXML is not a viable standard because of various issues. Its documentation may be huge, but its size is self-detrimental -- it is huge but has little content, and the rest of the bulk is simply there to cloud judgement, as some point out.
Well, if content is little, at the least it should be implementable. However, with just the documentation alone, it is not possible since much of the documentation allows for binary blobs of older, proprietary technology and references to Microsoft Office (where behaviour is supposed to just mimic Microsoft Office, with no indication of what it might be, especially if access to Microsoft Office is not possible)
Moreover, ODF is an extensible standard which has shown that it can make up for shortcomings by revisions. The only example known to the author is ODF's Formulas, which are a later addition to the standard after much complaints from the Microsoft camp. Outrageously, since Microsoft was originally in the OASIS, they could have simply made improvements to the standard instead of competing with the standard in a lose-lose situation.
Last but not least, OOXML is so obviously an attempt by a monopolist to defend its monopoly through lobbying and the spreading of misleading terms (regardless of whether it is intentional, most notable in the example of Office Open XML which is confused with OpenOffice, the rival using ODF). A convicted monopolist trying to lobby for itself will surely hurt the consumer if allowed.
Member since:2005-07-08
Blehh... Enough of this. The subject here is electronic document format standards, not package managers, package formats, or anything else. Please don't try to confuse the subject of this discussion.
If you want to compare the behavior of the open source camp to that of some others, by all means, do so, and criticize the open source camp as much as you want, as long as the criticism is well-based, but concentrate on the real topic of the discussion.
There's no point comparing apples to oranges, however, if you want to know what kind of an apple is good or not. Compare apples to apples and it makes some sense.
So, is OOXML really so much better in some sense or other than ODF that we need it besides of ODF? In what ways? Could it be the other way around, but there were some other reasons why some people wanted to force OOXML to become an ISO standard as soon as possible, and despite hundreds of problems in it?
Member since:2008-04-04
"
- Having 10 package managers using 1 standard package format = good
- Having 10 package managers using 10 different package formats = bad
"
Hello ? Since when packages format are ISO 'standard' ?
When that happen I sure hope that there will be just ONE.
well, one, based on merit, for the world and certainly just after, one from microsoft, by microsoft, for microsoft that they'll buy from ISO.
Member since:
2005-11-13
When talking about package managers we are talking about software alternatives.
Except that, as I pointed out, I was talking about package formats, not package managers.
So, what I am saying is:
- Having 10 office suites using 1 document standard = good
- Having 10 office suites using 10 different document standards = bad
- Having 10 package managers using 1 standard package format = good
- Having 10 package managers using 10 different package formats = bad
To me, it is the same kind of deal. The same goes for GUI toolkits, sound frameworks, directory layouts, and everything else I mentioned, plus several things I didn't. Before the FOSS crowd starts hurling sh*t at MS for introducing more than one standard, they need to practice what they preach. As the old saying goes, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
And for the guy who said rpm was the standard, if that is the case, how come Linspire with its 'Click n Run' and other Debian-based distros (along with others) don't use it as their default?