scott wrote:
>>  As for the article you linked, I really don't understand why so many
>> companies are voting pro this standard.
> 
> Probably because they have either already invested a lot of money in 
> developing code based on the standard, or they want to keep/improve 
> their business relationship with MS.  Things like this are rarely free 
> from politics.
> 
> 

Or they have been offered some 'part' of the MS pie as a result ???

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> Denmark and several other countries are committed to using only open 
> standards for all government communication within a few years. That's both 
> internal government communication and communication between government and 
> citizen and organizations as far as I understand. Any electronic format that 
> isn't open would be banned. There are similar plans for the EU as a whole I 
> believe, though they're not as far progressed. Microsoft not using an open 
> format would lead to huge losses for them, so they fight as much as they can 
> to convince the deciding organs that their format is an open standard, even 
> though they have no interest in it being open at all.
> 

One of the many reasons that MS is pushing in this direction.  To be 
honest, I think they will succeed.  They have become experts at lobbying 
and turning things to their favor.  There have been very few cases where 
they have not succeeded.  To be honest, I don't really care to see MS 
get stomped - I only would like to see more true competition based on 
quality, not money.  It was nice being able to choose between Quattro 
and Excel or Word and WordPerfect.  In a mono world you are forced to 
eat what ever crap is fed your way.





Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I wonder if this will hurt the ISO and its credibility.
> 
> I doubt it.
> 
>> If one can 'stack' the deck with voters as it seems MS is doing, then 
>> can the 'statements' and 'recommendations' that are made by the ISO be 
>> taken as seriously?
> 
> Well pretty much all of what the ISO does is based on requirements from 
> industry.  The large companies get to drive the direction of ISO just 
> because they usually have so many suppliers/customers around the globe. 
> It's not just PC software, Nokia and car manufacturer consortiums do 
> exactly the same thing to get their standards recognised by ISO.
> 

Which is exactly what makes it hard for anyone to cry foul.  They are 
playing by the rules - likely not within the spirit of the rules, but 
still by the letter.  So they are legit and have maneuvered another pawn 
closer to the other side of the board.




Tom

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> It's not just PC software, Nokia and car manufacturer consortiums do exactly 
> the same thing to get their standards recognised by ISO.

  "The good thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> it's not as "open" as it claims to be. This is because it contains
> things like "this is rendered like Word 95 renders it", without any more
> instructions nor specifications which would explain how "Word 95 renders it".
> Only Microsoft itself knows exactly the algorithm inside Word 95 which
> renders that item, and MS is not going to make it open.

Debatably, even M$ doesn't really know how the old code they kludged 
together actually works. But they just cut and paste it into each new 
version of Word to ensure backwards compatibility...

>   Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
> Microsoft is doing this.

Certain people have declared "from now on, we will only use open 
document formats". So M$ responded by creating an "open" document 
format, to encourage these people to keep using it. (Oh yeah, it's not 
actually "open" at all. But it does *say* "open" on it... that's good 
enough, right?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Which is exactly what makes it hard for anyone to cry foul.  They are 
> playing by the rules - likely not within the spirit of the rules, but 
> still by the letter. 

And, technically, if Microsoft *did* do something that required you to 
stop using Microsoft software, you *could* reengineer something to 
maintain or convert your old documents. Probably easier than 
reverse-engineering the binary Word formats. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:54:14 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Or is this some kind of PR stunt?

Bingo.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   As for the article you linked, I really don't understand why so many
> companies are voting pro this standard. Why would it be of their interest
> to give MS yet another weapon against other companies? Aren't they simply
> hurting themselves in this process? Strenghtening their dependency on MS?
> 
>   Perhaps it's some kind of battered-wife-syndrome, or stockholm-syndrome.
> "My mighty big husband hits me, but I deserve it, and he knows what's good
> for me. I am the guilty party here. He commands, I obey, because I deserve
> to be punished."

Probably not exactly like that but quite similar.  A large number of 
companies in the IT sector completely *depend* on Microsoft.

Most important all companies using an MS IT infrastructure (Windows on 
all desktops anyway but especially Office for all company documents and 
communication) are in the same situation.  If non-MS formats are 
required by the government and especially if they are required for 
quality management certification they would be in serious trouble.  Even 
if MS would eat the pill and offer ODF support the task for converting 
all legacy files using all those "rendered like Word 95" features would 
be a nightmare.

So if ISO was a democracy you could bet OOXML will get ISO certification 
with overwhelming majority - even without any direct influence from 
Microsoft.

The fact that this attitude is extremely short-sighted does not change 
anything about this - just have a look at politics, people act extremely 
short-sighted in elections as well...

The whole issue is a very nice demonstration that "No one ever got fired 
for choosing Microsoft" is not only right, it is also a self-fulfilling 
prophecy.

Christoph

-- 
Views of the Earth: http://earth.imagico.de/
Images, include files, tutorials: http://www.imagico.de/
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/

Post a reply to this message

I'm happy to say that Denmark did not vote yes to the OOXML specification 
despite a majority of Microsoft partners being in the committee. They 
recommended "No, with comments".

What this actually means is that they made a list of criticisms of the 
specification, and will approve of the specification provided that all 
points of critique are addressed.

This might sound worrying at first. However, when you read the comprehensive 
list of criticisms, it becomes clear that what is actually called for is a 
complete reworking of the specification before Denmark is prepared to 
recommend it as a ISO-standard. Basically they cover all those arguments 
against the format that are out there, plus several I haven't heard before.

The 64 pages of criticism can be read here:
http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791

Rune
-- 
http://runevision.com

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> The 64 pages of criticism can be read here:
> http://www.ds.dk/_root/scripts/getmedia.asp?media_id=2791

Rest now, mightly OOXML, for you have been 0wned.

http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2006-04-14

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/

Post a reply to this message