Linked by David Adams on Sat 17th May 2008 03:35 UTC, submitted by fsmag
Microsoft Peter Hintgens, writing at Freesoftware Magazine, explains why the adoption of Microsoft's OOXML as an ISO standard is a dreadful development, and explains how some open standards partisans are organizing to combat insufficiently-open "open" standards.
Thread beginning with comment 314590
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Quality
by Jezza on Sat 17th May 2008 06:54 UTC in reply to "Quality"
Jezza
Member since:
2005-10-13

While I agree with the sentiment of this (and I doubt MS will ever correct this problem)

OOo doesn't implement ODF correctly either.

I'm sure Koffice and OOo etc... will implement the OASIS standard fine in future, but neither of the "standards" have a fully working implementation anywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Quality
by segedunum on Sun 18th May 2008 08:56 in reply to "RE: Quality"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

OOo doesn't implement ODF correctly either.

I here this oft repeated, daft remark time and time again, and it's usually used as some kind of bizarre justification for Microsoft to go off and implement their own OOXML format in Office, and it makes it all OK. It's quite funny as well, because it's an admission that Office 2007 is not OOXML compatible as the specification is now.

With ODF, people involved with Open Office, KOffice and other software are continually contributing to successive versions of ODF, and no, they're not going to have all of it implemented right now. However, there is an awful lot that has been implemented that is common between different implementations of ODF, and there are test suites and coverage reports available so you can verify how far they have got.

Can Microsoft provide that? Is there a coverage report and test suite for OOXML and Office? Considering that OOXML has been set in stone before it was ever submitted to the ECMA, and no changes have ever been made to it and no successive versions have ever been made, one would have thought that Microsoft would have had a fighting chance of implementing OOXML in Office, per their own specification, properly, no?

Edited 2008-05-18 08:57 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Quality
by tomcat on Mon 19th May 2008 04:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Quality"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I here this oft repeated, daft remark time and time again, and it's usually used as some kind of bizarre justificattion for Microsoft to go off and implement their own OOXML format in Office, and it makes it all OK.


I don't see it as a justification. It's just an interesting footnote in illustrating how difficult it is to live up to published standards. Anybody who doubts this should consider the history of Acid2/3.

With ODF, people involved with Open Office, KOffice and other software are continually contributing to successive versions of ODF, and no, they're not going to have all of it implemented right now.


Ditto, Microsoft.

However, there is an awful lot that has been implemented that is common between different implementations of ODF, and there are test suites and coverage reports available so you can verify how far they have got. Can Microsoft provide that? Is there a coverage report and test suite for OOXML and Office?


I'm not sure that I'd trust anybody's coverage reports without independent verification.

Considering that OOXML has been set in stone before it was ever submitted to the ECMA, and no changes have ever been made to it and no successive versions have ever been made, one would have thought that Microsoft would have had a fighting chance of implementing OOXML in Office, per their own specification, properly, no?


If you want to promote standards compliance, the best way to do it is to establish an independent test (akin to Acid2), and then hold the vendors' feet to the fire.

Edited 2008-05-19 04:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4