ISO/IEC JTC1 Revises Directives, Addresses OOXML Abuses

"On July 1st, 2010 a new set of rules (directives) took effect in ISO/IEC JTC1  including new processing and voting rules for JTC1 Fast Track submissions.  If these rules had been in effect back in 2007, OOXML would have died after its initial ballot."


http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/07/iso-iec-jtc1-revises-directives.html

Microsoft Fails the Standards Test

"If Microsoft ship Office 2010 to handle only the Transitional variant of ISO/IEC 29500 they should expect to be roundly condemned for breaking faith with the International Standards community. This is not the format “approved by ISO/IEC”, it is the format that was rejected."

"In short, we find ourselves at a crossroads, and it seems to me that without a change of direction the entire OOXML project is now surely heading for failure."

Read more: http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx#ixzz10rImBMKl

The Final OOXML Update: Part I

"This is essentially how Microsoft hacked ISO. Now that the flaw has been demonstrated, any large international corporation with sufficient funds and interest can exploit it as well. So long as the rules remain as they are, ISO is vulnerable. ISO defends this criticism by pointing out what good work they've done in the past, and how they rarely have problems of this kind before. But this shows little appreciation for the nature of the problem which have been demonstrated. It is like arguing that a newly discovered (though long latent) security flaw in an operating system is insignificant because you've never had an attack before now. Of course, this misses the point entirely. Once the vulnerability is known and publicly exploited, you're living on borrowed time until you can secure the system. Today ISO is living on borrowed time and is very close to becoming a Microsoft-infested zombie committee."

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-i.html

OOXML - Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

"We are coming down to the last week for JTC1 to decide on whether to hear the four NB appeals concerning various claimed errors in the processing of DIS 29500 (OOXML), or whether summarily to dismiss these appeals without hearing them. The decision lies with two committees, the Technical Management Board (TMB) in ISO and the Standards Management Board (SMB) in the IEC."



"Dismissing an appeal with so many open unresolved issue is not expediency. It is merely creating more dissent, more distrust and more trouble that we'll all need to deal with next time around. It is better, I think, to hear the appeals, get to the bottom of this, seek resolution, consensus and closure, and then to move on. Ignoring mistakes will not make them go away."



http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/07/sed-quis-custodiet-ipsos-custodies.html



Also





http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2428

Alex Brown: OOXML will be second to ODF

"I think what OOXML really represents is a mistake, but one that will force valuable change on the way standards are created and understood."

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2412

“Commiserations to my successor” - OOXML Strikes Again!

"The influx of P members whose only interest is the fast-tracking of ECMA 376 as ISO 29500 has led to the failure of a number of key ballots. Though P members are required to vote, 50% of our current members, and some 66% of our new members, blatantly ignore this rule despite weekly email reminders and reminders on our website. As ISO require at least 50% of P members to vote before they start to count the votes we have had to reballot standards that should have been passed and completed their publication stages at Kyoto."

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/

Microsoft: 'ODF Has Clearly Won'

"ODF has clearly won. We sell software for a living. The ability to implement ODF in the middle of our ship cycle was just not possible. We couldn't do that during the release of Office 2007. We're looking forward and committed to doing more than [ODF-to-OOXML] translators."

http://www.osnews.com/story/19893/Microsoft:_ODF_Has_Clearly_Won

New doubts about ISO's fast-track standardisation of Microsoft OOXML

"An internal document of the International Standards Organization (ISO) that found its way late last week on to the Wikileaks whistle-blower platform raises further questions about the choice of a fast-track certification for Microsoft's OOXML document format. The paper, by Joint Technical Committee No. 1 (JTC 1) of the Geneva standards organization, which dates back to July 2007, says the fast track procedure chosen for certifying Microsoft's document format is only intended for the acceptance of unaltered standards and that a standard not accepted in its original form, while not to be regarded as "2nd class" or illegitimate, should be put through the normal five-stage standardisation process, should necessary corrections be identified in advance."

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/New_doubts_about_ISO%27s_fast-track_standardisation_of_Microsoft_OOXML

Update on ISO/IEC appeals regarding OOXML

"As OOXML continues to move to being no more than a footnote in the history of IT standardization, I hope that ISO and IEC will ultimately stand up, admit that there were clear flaws here, fix the process quickly, and avoid fading into the background for those looking to create and use first class open IT standards in the twenty-first century."

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2399

ISO puts standard for Microsoft's OOXML document formats on hold

"After member states filed four complaints against the standardisation of Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) document format, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in Geneva have responded by postponing publication of the revised specification. As the ISO announced, the planned ISO/IEC DIS 29500 cannot be published until these complaints have been heard. Procedure requires that they be dealt with by the end of June, when the ISO and IEC have to hand over their comments on the complaints to two management committees for a final decision."

http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/ISO-puts-standard-for-Microsoft-s-OOXML-document-formats-on-hold--/110892

Technical Distinctions of ODF and OOXML

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/618667/Technical-Distinctions-of-ODF-and-OOXML

OOXML: “Dead Format Walking”

"Since most Office users would be happy to continue using Microsoft’s old binary formats, and since those for whom open standards are important would probably prefer ODF or PDF formats anyhow, I won’t be surprised if OOXML quietly dies before that future Office iteration ever sees the light of day."

http://www.michaeldolan.com/1199

Good bye, British Library

"Microsoft announced a project to digitize 100,000 rare and out-of-print books from the British Library collection. …Farquhar says that that effort is not directly related to the Open XML announcement"

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-61777/good-bye-british-library

ODF/OOXML technical white paper

"I was asked by the UK Action Group of the Open Document Format Alliance to write a white paper on the technical differences between ODF and OOXML. After much agonizing, correcting, having others correct my mistakes, suggestions, changes and drafts I still have got something that may be alright to be previewed by all."

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/odf_ooxml_technical_white_paper

What Microsoft’s track record tells us about OOXML’s future

"If the discussion on OOXML was purely technical I don’t think there would be much debate. Apart from Microsoft employees and a few lost souls, for whom we can only wonder about their real motivations, I have yet to meet any technical person arguing that OOXML is a good specification."

[...]

http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/what-microsofts-track-record-tells-us-about-ooxmls-future/

OOXML ISO-Vote

"This site is a service for those wanting to try various voting scenarios on the proposed ISO standard OOXML (aka DIS 29500, aka ECMA-376)."

http://iso-vote.com/

What Just Happened? An OOXML BRM Resource Page

"On February 29, about an hour after the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting closed, I posted this blog entry, based on information available at the time. Corrections were made over the next two days to take further information into account as it became available; those corrections are duly noted in the text. Due to the extent and energy of the debate that has erupted around the BRM, I turned that blog entry into an ongoing resource page, adding first-hand accounts of many delegates to the BRM, the views of selected non-attendees, the text of public statements and press releases by ISO/IEC JTC1, Ecma, various National Bodies and other interested parties, and more. "

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080309054524379

A renewed wish for open document standards

"Google believes OOXML would be an insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/renewed-wish-for-open-document.html

The OOXML BRM: Secrets and statistics

"Of all the “condensed” resolutions from ECMA, approximately 82% were not discussed at all, including counter proposals for these same issues. That leaves about 18% that were either discussed and voted on or else voted on early in batch. (I’m fine with batch votes for minor typographical fixes.)"

http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=2090

"If this were a plane, would it even leave the ground?

If this were a medical device, would a patient survive its use?

If this were a car, would you drive it at highway speed?"

Big Blue on OOXML

"OOXML should not, and must not become an ISO standard. It is, as we have been saying all along, a proprietary vendor’s implementation of their proprietary document format. There will be only one beneficiary if this becomes a global standard, and it isn’t you or me…"

http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/02/20/big-blue-on-ooxml/