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.

Re:How bad is this?

[mpapet]

If Microsoft did force their "standard" on people, how much would it cripple the marketplace?

It wouldn't cripple a market but their monopoly status continues to destroy wealth, eliminate efficiency through interoperability, and chill innovation. Your story clearly highlights the lack of interoperability and inefficiency achieved through forcing upgrades.

This issue is critical and I don't count Microsoft out for the count. It will not surprise me when they play more parliamentary tricks. It remains to be seen how much money it takes to buy an ISO standard.

Some details...

[frakir]

breakdown by country votes: http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/09/03/ecma-37 6-dis-29500-ooxml-the-voting-so-far/ [theopensourcerer.com]

Note 7 countries ( marked *** ) just recently updated their status within ISO from 'O' (observer) to 'P' so they could vote. Those are mostly small countries and likely to be Microsoft puppets within ISO body. Which means MS can now actively block *any* new proposed standard and promote their own more easily.

ISO press release

[eknagy]

Press release:
http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1 070 [iso.org]

eknagy

more info

[qcomp]

Microsoft puts its own spin on the result in this press release [cnn.com].

More information on the upcoming proceedings at ISO are explained in this discussion [noooxml.org] on the currently slashdotted noOOXML site. (my apologies for poor HTML in the original post that made <no>OOXML come out as OOXML.

Groklaw also has some commentary and more links [groklaw.net].

It's clear that this is far from over. Microsoft will convince more countries to become O or P members in the respective committees and Further effort (exposing fraud, convincing your national bodies) is required to prevent OOXML from being accepted as a standard. But it is encouraging to see that resistance is not futile ;-)

Re:It ain't over yet...

[Macthorpe]

Actually of the 26 latest P-members, 21 voted 'YES', 1 voted 'NO' and 4 abstained.

You could have said that and people would have believed you, so why lie?

Re:OOXML and ODF both suck

[JimDaGeek]

ODF is open so anyone 50 years from now can read the specs and write a converter. OOXML is not an open spec. Minor parts are open, but there are still a lot of proprietary, binary blobs (.bin) in a OOXML file. The OOXML spec makes no mention on how to interpret these proprietary binary blobs. So 50 years from now with "open" Office XML, you will be screwed if you try to convert anything more than a simple text-only MS Word document.

I would rather have my documents in a a format that I can get the spec to so I can at least convert the files vs. Microsoft's OOXML with all of its still-proprietary, closed, undocumented parts.

Re:Still not official

[Sesostris III]

The linked article above states the presumed "No" vote to be unofficial and according to unamed "sources". This could well go the other way and in fact be approved. Any celebration should wait until ISO offically releases the voting results.

Like here? [iso.org]

Sesostris III

Re:Wait

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Older versions of DOS were Abort, Retry, Ignore. Fail replaced Ignore around DOS 4, I think. Later versions (5 or 6?) had all 4 of them, at least for some commands.

Re:WTF? This is insightful?

[Cato]

Yes, there's inertia, but if you don't like Microsoft it's quite possible to buy alternatives - like a Mac for the less techie, or the various pre-installed Linux options for the more techie. Or you can just use OpenOffice at home, as a very easy step that saves money and promotes open document formats.

Re:OOXML and ODF both suck

[thephotoman]

It's because the vast majority of documents aren't really meant for publication. For example, research notes may wind up in a publication (where TeX and PDF would be appropriate), but the bulk of such notes will eventually be edited out of the end publication. Instead, they need to be in an easily editable format so that changes can be made when they occur in the lab. 50 years from now, those research notes may still be needed for one reason or another.

This is where word processing comes in to fill the gap between text editors (which don't have support for rich text or images) and desktop publication (which put out formats that aren't intended to be edited).

familiar scenario

[IronyChef]

This is also how the International Whaling Commission [wikipedia.org] membership has been manipulated toward ending the ban on whaling:

Since the moratorium was adopted, the support for it has dropped from a 75% majority to a 50-50 split, with many of the countries initially recruited by the anti-whaling side now voting with the pro-whaling block. (A 75% majority is needed to overturn the moratorium.) Anti-whaling campaign groups and some governments claim that the Japanese Fisheries Agency has carried out a programme of "vote-buying" - i.e. offering aid to poorer countries in return for them joining the IWC and supporting Japanese positions on whaling. Specifically, Japan has given US$320 million in overseas aid to Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Morocco, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis and the Solomon Islands.

Re:It ain't over yet...

[HermMunster]

The issue is with the proprietary components that will make the standard a whole lot less than open and standard. What Microsoft is doing is like trying to get their own chess game standardized. They have agreed to the board and most of the rules but they also retain the right to insert their own game pieces and only they can manufacturer them and move them around the board. So you can't defend against it and you can't implement it fully on your side. That's what they are lobbying against.

Microsoft also tends to use their proprietary formats as a locking mechanism to keep you using their programs and hence their operating system. The end result is these mechanisms are used to establish and prop up their monopoly. Apple used DRM to lock you into the iPod. If you bought your music from iTunes you were locked into the iPod. It is that simple. Try to play that music on another player and you couldn't. You either gave up that content or stayed with Apple, even if you grew to despise them.

It isn't to say that Apple is a monopoly but it is to say that Microsoft has used that tactic for years. We all recognize it. What's happened recently is that a very viable alternative is out there now that has standards approval. Governments all over the world are insisting on standard file formats. If they just settled on Microsoft's proprietary formats then we'd have a tacit imposition of Microsoft's Monopoly on businesses and individuals. With open standards we don't have that. People are free to use any program and OS they want.

Microsoft doesn't like this idea since it is a ball buster to their lock-in mechanism. So, instead of just going with the standard they are trying to get their formats adopted as a standard. Since they are known to have proprietary components that still lock you into them as the vendor the only right minded individual voting on, or even examining such issues would/should vote no. And only through lobbying can that awareness be brought to people, countries, governments and their representatives.

The end result is a no vote until you rid your format of the proprietary vendor lock-in.

Re:It ain't over yet...

[fritsd]

Netherlands [isoc.nl] (translation/summary: they worked very hard to stay professional and to stay away from all the turmoil and study the document, and then came to a almost consensus decision to vote "disapproval with comments". Almost consensus because Microsoft alone decided to vote "yes" (with no technical reasons given) so there was no consensus, so in effect the vote of the Netherlands was vetoed. According to the NEN rules, the Netherlands had to abstain, without comments, in this case. [N.B.: I think this means also that all of the dutch technical comments (5 months of work) will not be permitted to be sent on to ISO for review - me]

The article goes on to explain that this one member isoc.nl (who is the longest sitting member of that NEN committee and voted no) finds that it would be appropriate for the submitter of a standard to refrain from voting this actively, especially because Microsoft had already given out a press release that the result would become "abstain" before the vote was actually being held. In other words, they knew they were going to sabotage(*) the dutch "no with comments" vote and told the press in advance.

Please correct any inaccuracies in my post; I really do not want to misrepresent this article, which speaks volumes for itself IMHO.

(*) original meaning of sabotage: to throw a wooden shoe into a machine to prevent it from working properly.

Re:WTF? This is insightful?

[AJWM]

Non sequitor. So what if Windows comes preinstalled on most PCs?

We're talking office document formats, and Open Office (among others) works just fine on Windows. A lock-in to Windows != a lock-in to MS Office.

This is insightful?

Re:Think man, just think!

[nine-times]

Why would you have the need to open Word documents? Just tell your clients to stop sending 'm in that format. They will do that. Really!

Ummm.... yeah, you don't run a business, do you? Do you even have a job that deals with real clients? You have no control over your clients, you can't be rude, and you have to make things easy for them. If all they will run is Word, or all they can run is Word, then you can't just refuse their documents because it's in the wrong format. You'll lose clients that way.

Wiki, wiki, wiki (shut up)

[tepples]

I think PDF is great, for viewing, but is a crappy format for collaborating with others.

Is .doc a collaboration format, or is it a publishing format? These goals are at odds with each other for several reasons, which I'm willing to describe in detail if you insist. To collaborate with others, use a textual format suitable for revision control, such as pages on a wiki [youtube.com]. Then you have the working group's editor pretty it up into a PDF when preparing it for public consumption.