Group items tagged

Contact: Gerd Schürmann Fraunhofer Institute FOKUS Tel +49 (0)30 3463 7213 gerd.schuermann@fokus.fraunhofer.de Berlin

At a recent meeting in Berlin, The DIN Fraunhoffer Institute pushed forward with the EU project to harmonize ODF and OOXML. Microsoft and Novell attended the harmonization effort. Sun and IBM did not. This in spite of invitations and pleas to cooperate coming into Sun and IBM from government officials across the European continent. We've long insisted that inside the OASIS ODF Technical Committee walls there have been years of discussions concerning ODF compatibility with the billions of MS binary documents, and ODF interoperability with MSOffice. Sun in particular has been very clear that they will not compromise OpenOffice application innovations to improve interoperability with MSOffice and MSOffice documents. The infamous List Enhancement Proposal donnybrook that dominated OASIS ODF discussions from November 20th, 2006, to the final vote in April of 2007, actually begins with a statement from Sun arguing that application innovation is far more important than market demands for interoperability. The discussions starts here: Suggested ODF1.2 items The first of many responses declaring Sun's position that innovation trumps interop, and that if anyone needs to change their application it should be Microsoft: see here DIN will submit a "harmonization" report with recommendations to ISO JTC1. I wonder if IBM and Sun will continue to insist on government mandated "rip out and replace" solutions based on their ODF applications when ISO and the EU have set a course for "harmonization"?

Public posturing in overdrive.  Warp speed overdrive. 

This commentary, based on Tim Bray's "Life is Complicated" blog and comment section, was published by Lxer.  Well worth the examination.

The fast track problem may be more serious than most think.  NB's such as the USA Department of Commerce NiST authorized ANSI/INCiTS group, who have opted to keep Ecma 376 on the fast track, may have compromised their legal standing with sponsoring governments. 

As it sits, an ISO/IEC ratification of Ecam 376 would violate International Trade Agreements.  Without a diligent and careful review / amendment of Ecma 376, ISO/IEC is going to find itself in a difficult to explain position.

A wide array of Microsoft sponsored and business affiliated technical punditry has weighed in arguing on behalf of fast tracking Ecma 376, even though the contradictions with existing ISO/IEC product 26300 are <b><a href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections"&gt;legion&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.

Marbux is one legal expert quite familiar with International Law and Trade Agreements, and their impact on International Standards.  He has researched the Ecma 376 ISO/IEC contradiictions and fast track process with such thoroughness that his commentary, <b><a href="http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org/node/303"&gt;What is a contradiction at ISO?</a></b> has become a must read. 

~ge~

The fast track problem may be more serious than most think. NB's such as the USA Department of Commerce NiST authorized ANSI/INCiTS group, who have opted to keep Ecma 376 on the fast track, may have compromised their legal standing with sponsoring govern

The fast track problem may be more serious than most think. NB's such as the USA Department of Commerce NiST authorized ANSI/INCiTS group, who have opted to keep Ecma 376 on the fast track, may have compromised their legal standing with sponsoring govern

Looks like the road to open standards now detours through Redmond, Washington.  Can we still call the destiny "open standards" if proposals have to be filtered through the Microsoft business plan for world domination?  This is not a good day for America.

The British Standards Institute, which represents the UK with the International Standards Organization, has issued a " contradiction" to Microsoft's specification.

The British Standards Institute, which represents the UK with the International Standards Organization, has issued a " contradiction" to Microsoft's specification.

Well, this is interesting.

What part of "Executive Board" makes you think they read 6,000 page XML specifications? <ge>

I think, in the best bureaucratic tradition, they argued definitions until they convinced themselves that they didn't need to do anything.  They decided that one standard contradicts another standard only if the proposed standard causes the existing standard not to work.  This is from analogy with the Chinese WAPI WiFi networking standard last year that was defeated because the protocol caused radio interference with existing 801.11 networks.  So they said that OOXML did not contradict ODF because both files could exist on the same disk without interfering with each other.   You will note that thiss argument can be used for every XML format, every programming language, every operating system, in fact every software standard, since software is ultimately data, and data can be segregated on disks.  So they essentially chose a definition so narrow that it nullified the concept of "contradiction" for most of what JTC1 has authority over.<!-- D(["mb","<div><br><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><ge>  Wait a second.   You cannot have a OOXML document and a ODF document sitting on the same disk without having them interfer with each other.  We just proved that with our tests of both ACME 374 and ODF Da Vinci plugin on the latest release of MSOffice Word 2007.\n</span><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\">OOXML clearly does interfere with the loading of an ODF file into MSWord 2007.  In prior versions of MSWord (98, 2000, XP, 2003