|
India Has Voted NO to OOXML - Updated - On Error Rates in Draft Standards |
|
Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 12:33 PM EDT
|
I'm very happy to report that despite all the pressure to get India to change its vote, India has stalwartly voted No once again to OOXML. That will, I hope, encourage others to vote what they truly believe is right. This will help you when you read the article on Arnaud's Open blog, "Let's be clear: The Apache Software Foundation does NOT support OOXML", written to counter all the stories Microsoft reportedly is telling governments and NBs about various companies and projects allegedly supporting OOXML.
Here's Arnaud: Indeed, in its desperate and last minute attempts to convince National Bodies around the world that OOXML is happening anyway so they might as well support it as an ISO standard, Microsoft is eager to claim support by as many companies and organizations as possible.
As evidence, in its latest OOXML propaganda open letter Microsoft lists IBM among other companies as having “already adopted (or announced adoption of) Open XML in their products”. This, despite a clear explanation of the contrary by Rob Weir, published two months ago! Does anyone believe they haven’t seen it or heard about this? I sure don’t. And if there was any room for misunderstanding Bob Sutor’s statement filled that in.
A colleague in a foreign country even reported that in a National Body meeting he had been confronted by a representative from Microsoft who was trying to silence him via intimidation and insistence that IBM supported OOXML contrary to what he was saying.
Microsoft’s oversight of IBM’s denials is clearly not accidental. It is part of a well crafted and continuous disingenuous plan to convince NBs at all cost. There is already so much evidence of Microsoft going far beyond what most would consider normal lobbying behavior it is sickening. For one, I’m not ready to forget the case of the NGOs in India. Talk about dirty practices.
But what really is at the bottom of Microsoft’s claims is that basically any software that handles XML supports OOXML. While technically this is true to a certain degree, such a bold claim without any further qualification is pure misinformation. There is a difference, in other words, between supporting XML, what you might call pro forma support, and supporting OOXML as a standard. For that matter, there is a difference between support for Microsoft Office 2007 and support for OOXML. They are not the same thing, so when OpenOffice.org announces native read and write support for Office 2007 documents, that is all it means. It doesn't mean OpenOffice.org supports OOXML as a standard. No matter what Microsoft folks try to tell you. It's pitiful if the only way to get people to vote for your format is by confusing them with half-truths. Or worse. Misleading people about what is capable of running your software can get you sued, after all.
Update: On Error Rates in Standards Drafts
Here's something worth highlighting too, a reply to Rick Jelliffe from Jim Melton. Jelliffe had written this, pushing the idea that defects in a standard don't matter since they can all be fixed in maintenance: I have blogged before On error rates in drafts of standards and I refer interested readers to that. Note that I give an estimate of the number of errors that your would expect to be caught (in one pass) at about 1,000, which was exactly what we have. In particular, note (ISO SQL Editor’s) Jim Melton’s comments, which I will repeat
Or perhaps most people were somewhat intimidated by the prospect of (thoroughly) reviewing a 6,000 page document. To put this in perspective for those who know SQL’s size and complexity, the sum of all nine parts of SQL is about 3950 pages. A ballot on SQL frequently receives several thousand comments, and we’ve been balloting versions of SQL for 20 years!
In fact, virtually every large spec I’ve ever had the “pleasure” to review leads to “thread-pulling”, in which every page yields at least “one more” bug, and following up on that one leads to more, and following up on those leads to still more, etc. I would personally be stunned if 30 dedicated, knowledgeable reviewers of a 6,000 page spec on its first public review were unable to find at least 3,000 unique significant problems and at least 40,000 minor and editorial problems. But that’s just me… Under that kind of criteria that our Big Blue friend is proposing, the ISO SQL standard which is one of the most widely implemented and important and mission-critical of all ISO IT standards would not be of high enough quality to make the grade! Melton replied in this comment: Whoa, there, Rick. If you're going to quote me, then I want to be sure that the context is available to your readers.
One relatively important fact that didn't show up in the words you quoted is that the standardizers of SQL weren't so arrogant that we thought we could rush (and it's hard to deny that the phrase "Fast Track" implies hurry) 6,000 pages in one go, without it having not been visible to the vast, vast majority of the world until it started its FINAL ballot.
So, it took the SQL world some 20 years to write 4000 pages of standard, to root out the serious bugs (and thousands of smaller, mostly editorial, bugs at the same time), and to reach a genuine consensus on the content. I don't know Rob Weir, but I think it's misleading and unfair to extend what he said by concluding that SQL is not of sufficient quality to "make the grade". I do not believe that anybody thinks that there are still 200 serious errors remaining in SQL's 4000 pages, must less a thousand or two. Why? Simply because we have taken the time...years of it...to carefully root them out and fix them, giving the world at large plenty of time to review our bug-fixing efforts.
What I see DIS29500 doing is exactly the opposite. You've written 6000 pages of specification largely in secret (and, I understand, recently added over 1500 more pages) and given the world five months to read, absorb, understand, review, critique, and establish informed positions on it. Worse, whether it happened because of unreasonable methods, pure random chance, or genuine and unexpected interest, the fact that the size of the JTC 1 Subcommittee that was to vote on the document suddenly exploded gives the appearance that somebody was trying too hard to stack the deck...almost as though it wasn't really desired to have too much real review. Please note, I don't know any facts at all about the membership changes in SC 34, except that it happened. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, merely stating what people have inferred from those facts.
In my not-so-limited experience, if a 5-month (or 9-month) review of a 6000 page spec revealed "1027 unique issues", then a truly open process in which the document went through the normal WD, CD, DIS, FDIS process would almost certainly reveal upwards of 5000 unique issues. Also in my experience, fixing even 1000 non-trivial bugs is a very daunting process that takes many months, perhaps two or three years (given a reasonably high frequency of meetings -- say, three 3-week meetings per year).
In short, I want to emphasize that I think a Fast-Track process for any standard of this magnitude is a monumental mistake and a serious perversion of the entire concept. I was wary of that process when it was introduced, but saw that (initially, at least) it was being used for moving well-established, very widely implemented specifications into the ISO world for maintenance and possible additional development. Speaking solely for myself (and I EXPLICITLY disclaim any intent to imply an Oracle viewpoint, a USA viewpoint, or a North American continent viewpoint!), I find the whole thing appalling.
Jim
P.S., Please note also that I have taken no position at all on the merits of standardizing the technology in the spec, nor even the merits of the technology itself. I am ambivalent about whether the world community would be better served by one standard in this space or two or more (I know that the world is a Better Place for having one standard for relational database management, and a Better Place for having more than one standard for programming languages). I object solely to the process by which this has taken place.
P.P.S., Again, without making accusations about anything, are you aware that the international standards community generally views ECMA now as a wholly-owned Microsoft subsidiary? I offer no opinion about the validity of that view, but almost everybody to whom I have talked about ECMA dismisses it as little more than Microsoft's bought-and-paid-for channel for submitting documents for pretend standardization. That sounds a bit harsh, but that's what I hear.
P.P.P.S., One last thought and I promise I'll close: You refer in your text to "IS29500". That's rather premature, isn't it? At the time of my writing this response, the standard has not been ratified. So it's still DIS 29500 at the moment.
Jim Melton | March 20, 2008 08:44 AM Maintenance is supposed to be for issues that come up *after* the standard is established, not to fix a bagful of problems no one had time to fix beforehand. If that is the "solution" to a Fast Track that ran off the rails, the proposed format wasn't suited to the Fast Track process, and it clearly needs more time and work.
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 12:37 PM EDT |
Please place your corrections here.
It may be helpful if the Title were a
short summary of the correction.
mitsake->mistake
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
The cannonical off-topic thread.
Any on-topic posts may be dissed.
Some people just love clickies.
If you want to please them, set post mode to HTML
and follow the example in the red text meant to remind you.
Thanks for following the comment policy.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Posts here please - Authored by: josmith42 on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:14 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:34 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Rob M on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: mupi on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- a vote AGAINST OOXML is PRO-business - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- North American Union - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:16 PM EDT
- "Fairness, openness and equality is socialism, and that's communist..." - Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- Not quite, a vote against OOXML is anti-monopoly..... n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:05 PM EDT
- A vote for ODF is good capitalism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-Microsoft's business - Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:28 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: rcweir on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- "This is not a troll...." - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Politics? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML only hurts MS - Authored by: rkhalloran on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Actually. . . - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- Mike, is that you? - Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- 3.5 - Authored by: RogerB on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- Hint, people, that was sarcasm/satire! - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Economy based on who? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 06:44 PM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is [pro]business - Authored by: AJWM on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 07:18 PM EDT
- You are all sheep - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- watch what happens to the country if Microsoft loses too much - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 09:32 PM EDT
- "What's good for M&M enterprises is good for the country" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 10:05 PM EDT
- Nice Troll - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 12:06 AM EDT
- How about one company for all products and services. Trillions$$$in profit. No competitors - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 01:46 AM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: mpellatt on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 03:28 AM EDT
- Crush the competition? - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 04:39 AM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: gtall on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 05:43 AM EDT
- the fun thing is - Authored by: abundantes on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 06:41 AM EDT
- Mafia also was pro-business (their own business). Don't need to buy another Word Processor! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 08:02 AM EDT
- But - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- But - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 26 2008 @ 06:49 AM EDT
- Microsoft's fault - Authored by: GLJason on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 26 2008 @ 06:54 AM EDT
- a vote against OOXML is anti-business - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 26 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
- Team Cringely update - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- 30 Coolest and Funniest Tux Icons - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- Clicking on a link could send you to jail - Yes, really ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- What about pre-fetching? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- Clicking on a link could send you to jail - Yes, really ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- Clicking on a link could send you to jail - Yes, really ! - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 05:05 PM EDT
- but, but, - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- but, but, - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 22 2008 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Clicking on a link could send you to jail - Yes, really ! - Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Clicking on a link could send you to jail - Yes, really ! - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- I'm surprised PJ - Authored by: GLJason on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM EDT
- did anyone here ever absentmindedly go to a website called groklaw.com? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Funniest statement - Authored by: GLJason on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 09:14 PM EDT
- Eligibility for President -- now we have lawsuits - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Precedent - Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Precedent - Authored by: snorpus on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Er... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 06:53 PM EDT
- Lincoln - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 07:42 PM EDT
- Precedent - Authored by: AJWM on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- Haven't you heard? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- Another Happy OLPC Customer - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- Browser Hijacking! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 09:40 PM EDT
- FLOSS - what floats your boat? - Authored by: Vic on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- German Court Decision Hands Big Win to File-Sharers - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 12:47 AM EDT
- Scientific peer review still confidential (so far) - Authored by: sciamiko on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 06:42 AM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
This may be a good place to put your comments on News Picks.
It may help others if you are explicit in specifying
which News Pick you are commenting on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
Yes, I would not be surprised if the Monopoly find themselves in court in
several countries soon. The laws about what you can and can't say about
competitors vary quite widely by country, but they have seemingly accused IBM
and others of taking positions that are just nonsense. I am told that in
Germany, in particular, such things are illegal and can be quite rapidly dealt
with in court. But regardless of the legal position, no-one trusts a proven
serial liar, which is what the Monopoly seems to have become. Sadly, only a
small fraction of computer users have seen what they have been up to, so far,
but they will not get away with behaviour like that for ever. I would not be
surprised if the very behaviour on which M$ were founded, which is now
firmly embedded in their corporate conscience, or lack thereof, is not the very
thing that destroys them in the end. Meanwhile, I think that the Indians have
done very well in the face of the most obnoxious pressure. Their vote is not
only required by the numerous unresloved technical problems with DIS29500, but
is also the correct thing morally, and indeed economically for their own growing
software industry, which needs real, workable standards to be able to grow into
worldwide markets, as well as being a win for plain common sense. Now who will
be next to do what is right? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Given the number of fatal flaws in DIS-29500 as currently before SC34 for
voting, I would strongly suggest that the worst thing that MS could have happen
would be its passage.
Why, you might ask? Because some evil party (naming
no TLAs, mind) might write a file validator according to the spec.
At that
point, any government that proposed to purchase software compliant with
(D)IS-29500 (Surprise! Only MSOffice qualifies!) would find themselves
challenged by the fact that MSOffice doesn't produce compliant files. At all.
In fact, it barfs on compliant files thanks to errors in the basic syntax of the
files defined in DIS-29500.
That would leave Microsoft arguing that the spec
is so loose on its compliance criteria that anything (including cp)
complies. Which some evil sort would respond to by petitioning that the bid be
reopened on the grounds that the criteria had changed, then submitting some
totally worthless application that meets the stated criteria.
Bottom line:
DIS-29500 conformance beyond the package-label level is either trivial or
impossible, pick one. If impossible, Microsoft doesn't comply. If trivial,
everyone else does too. If the RFQ contains enough detail to rule out everyone
but Microsoft, we're back to the same charges of bid-rigging that we have now,
without the fig leaf of file-format compatibility, AND the theatrical
benefit that all of this farce plays out in public. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Now wouldn't it be funny if every Windows computer in India suddenly stopped
working.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Yeah, but did they email everyone they had to (with emails from the right
person) and confirm it in writing as they're now required to?
Otherwise, I wonder if their new vote will count...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
It's pitiful if the only way to get people to vote for your format is by
confusing them with half-truths.
My church's sign currently says:A
half truth is a whole lie for whatever it may mean to anybody. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
When I check out the page about OO.o 3.0's new features, what really gets me
laughing to myself is the comments section. Did Microsoft put a request in for
all their shills to start whining about anything and everything they can related
to OpenOffice.org? I mean, how else can you explain 15 comments discussing how
supposedly hideous the interface is? And uh, these people think that Microsoft
Office has a good interface?
And of course, the one idiot who's obviously fallen for the Microsoft bundling
trick. Haphazardly throwing whatever you want into an office suite !=
"added value".
---
Please note that sections in quotes are NOT copied verbatim from articles, but
are my interpretations of the articles.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LuYu on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
What is "the case of the NGOs in India" to which the quote referred?
I am not sure I have heard this particular horror story (unless it was the one
about the Gates Foundation promising a donation if India did not buy Linux).
Does anybody know what this is?
---
"Proprietary software is an antisocial practice."
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
The European Commission that is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fjaffe on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
Apropos of defect counts, Rob Weir is continuing to do some very interesting
analysis which shows that the actual number of defects is likely to be quite a
bit higher.
See http://www.robweir.com/blog/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
One of the comments on Arnaud's article notes that Gianugo Rabellino, who
describes himself as "a member of the Apache Software Foundation" has announced a project in Italy to extend the
Apache
POI libraries to support Office Open XML. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
The relevant committee in India has shown itself to have either more
integrity, or more technical competence, or both, than the corresponding bodies
in several countries which consider themselves more advanced than India. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: digger53 on Thursday, March 20 2008 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
Hurrah for India! Brave action! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
The GNOME Foundation has been involved in OOXML's development, and here's what
they say in the
GNOME
Foundation Annual Report 2007:
"The GNOME Foundation’s involvement in ECMA
TC45-M (OOXML) was the main discussion point during the last meeting.... [the]
Foundation does not support this file format as the main format or as a
standard..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dwheeler on Friday, March 21 2008 @ 03:44 PM EDT |
Ini
go Surguy's "Technical review of OOXML" does a completely different
analysis, with the same result: Microsoft's OOXML is too buggy to be acceptable
for the "fast track". He examined just the WordProcessingML section's 2300 XML
examples. He wrote code to check for well-formedness and validation errors, and
found that more than 10% (about 300) were in error even given this trivial test.
Conclusion? "While a certain number of errors is understandable in any large
specification, the sheer volume of errors indicates that the specification has
not been through a rigorous technical review before becoming an Ecma standard,
and therefore may not be suitable for the fast-track process to becoming an ISO
standard." This did not include the other document sections, and this is a lower
bound on accuracy (XML could validate and still be in error). (He also confirmed
that Word 2007 does not implement the extensibility requirements of the Ecma
specification, so as a result it would be hard to "write an interoperable word
processor with Word" using OOXML.)
For more commentary about OOXML's massive
number of defects, see
Microsoft Office
XML (OOXML) massively defective
.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 22 2008 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
Microsoft sometimes tries to give the impression that OOXML is already widely
supported because it is XML, and lots of applications support XML. Non-technical
people do not really understand the relationship between OOXML and XML, and are
easily confused by this ploy. For example, PJ writes:
There is a
difference, in other words, between supporting XML, what you might call pro
forma support, and supporting OOXML as a standard
Actually the
difference is vastly greater than that.
XML is really very simple. You
don't have to be a programmer to understand it. There's a fairly complete and
clear definition of XML in about one page of text in
Wikip
edia's XML article.
The definition of XML describes how an XML
document is constructed. It's a bit like describing the Latin language like
this: "Latin text is composed of sentences. Every sentence ends with a period.
Sentences consist of words separated by spaces. A word consists of a string of
letters."
That doesn't enable you to read Latin, because it says nothing
about the meanings of the words, or about the grammar. It just tells you what
Latin text looks like.
That's really all XML does for XML documents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|