 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I wonder if this will hurt the ISO and its credibility.
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?
From www.linux.org
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2810967760.html
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2810967760.html
I haven't been following this whole OOXML thing very closely, but as far
as I know the problem with Microsoft's OOXML is that regardless of being
"open" it's practially unimplementable as a whole by third-party software
because 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. Third-party software
could only emulate this behavior by external visual examination of Word 95
and guessing how it does it.
Thus this "open" format defines many closed algorithms which are not
specified nor explained.
Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
Microsoft is doing this. If their intention is to create a document format
which only they can implement fully, why make it open at all? Why not keep
it completely closed and proprietary?
Or is this some kind of PR stunt? "This is open, this is standardized,
this is not proprietary, this is thus good and you should start storing
all your official documents in this format. Don't fall for those third-party
open formats made by amateurs. True professionals only use formats created
by true professionals." Yet it's not as open as they claim to be. MS is
still in control because third-parties cannot fully implement the format.
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."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is
> why Microsoft is doing this. If their intention is to create a
> document format which only they can implement fully, why make it open
> at all? Why not keep it completely closed and proprietary?
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.
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Tom Austin <taustin> wrote:
>> http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2810967760.html
>
> I haven't been following this whole OOXML thing very closely, but as far
> as I know the problem with Microsoft's OOXML is that regardless of being
I have not been following it closely either, but it has been coming up
more and more - probably because it is so close to the voting.
>
> Anyways, and to my point finally, what I don't really understand is why
> Microsoft is doing this. If their intention is to create a document format
> which only they can implement fully, why make it open at all? Why not keep
> it completely closed and proprietary?
>
I think it is MS way of saying they are open and are an accepted standard.
people like you or I - and most of the other people using POV here - see
through it, but there are plenty who actually make decisions who don't
have a clue. Hold up a credential and - well, it must be the way to go.
> Or is this some kind of PR stunt? "This is open, this is standardized,
> this is not proprietary, this is thus good and you should start storing
> all your official documents in this format. Don't fall for those third-party
> open formats made by amateurs. True professionals only use formats created
> by true professionals." Yet it's not as open as they claim to be. MS is
> still in control because third-parties cannot fully implement the format.
>
> 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?
>
The article was my question - the voting is being stacked with companies
supporting this. I don't think it is a case of independent companies
deciding that it is a good thing to do - I think it is MS 'persuading'
companies to jump on the band wagon. Just look at one of the countries
- added 23 voting members to the existing 6 at literally the last minute
- all of the voted 'yes'.
My thought is that an organization such as the ISO has a lot of
credibility - I think that one company being able to stack the voting
like this can only hurt that credibility.
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] laptop com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
