ISO Says No To Microsoft's OOXML Standard

qcomp writes "The votes are in and Microsoft has lost for now, reports the FFII's campaign website OOXML. The 2/3 majority needed to proceed with the fast-track standardization has not been achieved. Now the standard will head to the ballot resolution meeting to address the hundreds of technical comments submitted along with the votes." Here is yesterday's speculation as to how the vote would turn out.

It ain't over yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't over 'till the fat man throws a chair...

The Delivery

[Constantine XVI]

Faux standard was not certified.
[A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail?

Dr. Claw....

[petercruickshank]

I'll get you next time, Gadget! Next time!

Good for...

[Joseph1337]

The banks will be happy with the fresh large money transfers

MSFT promotes choice among certifying bodies

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

In a recent development MSFT spokesman said that, one standard specifying body meets all is not a viable workable solution for the whole world. Mr Tong'n Cheek said that Microsoft will promote an alternative standard specifying body Open ISO. He said that Microsoft wants its customers to have a choice in international bodies creating standards, choice in standards themselves too. This way users can have various choices like, OpenISO certified OOXML saving MSFT product, or ISO certified OOXML saving MSFT product or, uncertified OOXML saving MSFT product or unsupported ODF saving MSFT product or...

With Microsoft's History...

[eno2001]

...of fair business practices and open standards I don't see why there is all this backlash against OOXML. I mean, it's gonna be a de facto standard anyway. Why fight it? Imagine if the same kind of stance were taken with operating systems. Some boneheads out there decide that they're going to take on Microsoft which owns the de facto OS platform and they put together their own OS. How far would that get them? Especially if they tried to get people to actually use it! I'd say that it would probably take them a good forty or fifty years of work to break even. Why bother? I mean, just imagine if something that monumentally stupid was attempted. We'd probably have compatibility issues for decades before anything got better! I say, just let Microsoft do what it wants and everything will be a-OK.

Re:The Delivery

[jkrise]

Faux standard was not certified.
[A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail?

That is the DOS error message.. these are Vista days.

It appears Microsoft is polluting the ISO and offering gold to their 'Gold' partners...

Cancel / Allow ?

Re:It ain't over yet...

[jkrise]

It ain't over 'till the fat man throws a chair...

Interesting you should say that:
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070718060228231 [consortiuminfo.org]

OOXML is not to everyone's liking, with Sun Microsystems being denied a seat, and Microsoft holding the chair (President) ...

Re:Good

[reddburn]

Sir, your name is indeed well-chosen. I applaud you for making the worst analogy I have heard all day - which is truly an accomplishment, as I teach undergraduates how to communicate.

Re:The Delivery

[Xiaran]

Hi! I see you are trying to ram a ill conceived standard through ISO. Would you like me to

1. Bribe a bunch of guys to vote yes for you?

2. Provide a specification thats so incomprehensible the only Word will be able to fully implement it?

3. Make dubious FUD statements about OpenDocument?

Re:Good

[Penguinisto]

Could that imply that there are possibly also bad open-source programmers?

*shiver*

You've seen EMACS, right?

(I'm kidding you bastards!)

/P

Re:But now...

[bidule]

...Microsoft doesn't have the air of legitimacy that ISO approval would have bought

Here, fixed it for you!

You forgot

[ipb]

4. All of the above

Re:Wait

[Mick Ohrberg]

[A]bstain, [R]evoke, [F]lail

Re:The Delivery

[ozbird]

Cancel / Allow ?

Don't you mean "Yes / Yes, with comments"?