Group items tagged

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue.  Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected.  Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of the ISO/IEC JTSC1 committee that reviewed ODF and will be responsible for MS Ecma 376, requested the clarification.

Rick J provides a nice framework for approachign the "contradiction definition" issue, but fails to provide an expert opinion on MS Ecma 376. 

Anyone familiar with Rick's comments in the past will come away from this article much surprised.  He went all wobbly when it came time to make the call on MS Ecma 376.  This kind of wishy washy opinion is hardly what we've come to expect. 

I guess the shill contract incuded much more than pasting up Wikipedia to make Microsoft look like an honest broker of information technologies. 

~ge~

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue. Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected. Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue. Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected. Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of

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.

The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out.  This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs.  Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007.  The submission triggers the critically important ISO Contradiction Review Phase, where ISO members have 30 days to review the 6,000 page MEOOXML submission and post any allegations of possible contradictions or inconsistencies.

If MEOOXML (Microsoft-ECMA Office Open XML) can pass through the contradiction without complaint,  the 6,000 page specification describing XML encoding of MSOffice specific binary processes gets to move on to the fast track phase.

This is very sneaky stuff.  Micrsoft tried to submit MEOOXML to ISO in mid December.  Perhaps in hopes of catching an extra 20 or so days of holiday right in the midst of the critical 30 day contradiction review period.  Apparently the USA representative to ISO JTSC1 refused the submission until after the hollidays.  Still, with near zero publicity, and 6,000 pages of crap to sludge through, the review phase has begun. 

IMHO, only the ODF experts can effectively point out the ocntradictions and inconsistencies with the MEOOXML submission.  So this is a call for Rob Weir, Florian Reuter, Patrick Durusau, Sam Hiser, David A Wheeler, Bruce D'Arcus, the legendary Daniel Vogelheim, and the infamous Marbux to step forward with the full force of their expertise. 

Since Florian has the most experience with the hapless and tragically deceptive MS-Novel-CleverAge Translator Project, where the glaringly obvious contradictions and inconsistencies are being hastily pasted over, i'm anxious to see where his blog takes us:
http://florianreuter.blogspot.com/

~ge~

The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out. This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs. Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007. The submission triggers the critical

The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out. This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs. Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007. The submission triggers the critical

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

There are the technical arguments for ODf vs. EooXML.  Then there are endless discussions concerning the discovery and disclosure of volumes of contradictions between ODF and EooXmL  And how about all those legal-patent-licensing-DRM restrictions on EooXML which shatter in comparison to the truly open and un encumbered ODF.  Even the comparison between ECMA the great rubber stamp standards for sale org vs OASIS, the everyman's consensus community standards mill where ODF flourishes.  All interesting.  but this blog is about the reality of migrating information and information processes to ODF.  It's not easy!

There are the technical arguments for ODf vs. EooXML. Then there are endless discussions concerning the discovery and disclosure of volumes of contradictions between ODF and EooXmL And how about all those legal-patent-licensing-DRM restrictions on EooXM

There are the technical arguments for ODf vs. EooXML. Then there are endless discussions concerning the discovery and disclosure of volumes of contradictions between ODF and EooXmL And how about all those legal-patent-licensing-DRM restrictions on EooXM

ANSI/INCiTS has completed their review of Ecma 376, and is ready to cast their ISO/IEC Contradiction Review Phase Fast Track Ballot in favor of Ecma 376 being rammed through ISO. Guess who's carrying Microsoft's water?

ANSI/INCiTS has completed their review of Ecma 376, and is ready to cast their ISO/IEC Contradiction Review Phase Fast Track Ballot in favor of Ecma 376 being rammed through ISO. Guess who's carrying Microsoft's water?

ANSI/INCiTS has completed their review of Ecma 376, and is ready to cast their ISO/IEC Contradiction Review Phase Fast Track Ballot in favor of Ecma 376 being rammed through ISO. Guess who's carrying Microsoft's water?

Microsoft ECMA Submission, Covenant to Sue, and FAQ. FAQ clearly contradicts the covenanant to sue?

Microsoft ECMA Submission, Covenant to Sue, and FAQ. FAQ clearly contradicts the covenanant to sue?

Microsoft ECMA Submission, Covenant to Sue, and FAQ. FAQ clearly contradicts the covenanant to sue?

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

Marbux has done some heroic work here, using the GrokDoc Wiki.  The Title is "EOOXML Objections", and it's primary purpose is to help ISO National Body Memebers evaluate the 0ver 6,000 pages of the Microsoft - ECMA Office Open XML Specification for MSOffice. 

On January 5th, 2007, Microsoft officially submitted EOOXML to ISO under the fast track rules.  Before EOOXML can hit the fast track though, ISO provides members with a 30 day "Contradition Review Phase".   During this brief phase, ISO NB's (national standards body members) muct evaluate the proposal and post their allegations concerning contradictions and inconsistencies with other ISO products - like ODF.

What Marbux is assembling here is a one stop shop for ISO NB's strugglign to understand the issues at stake.  It's incredible wha the has accomplished in such a short time.  But then, the clock is ticking.  February 5th is a hard and unmovable deadline. 

The basic contradiction is thatt EOOXML is a subset of ISO existing product, ODF.  Both attempt to do the exact same thing:  provide an XML file format for desktop productivity environments such as MSOffice, OpenOffice, and WordPerfect Office.  What seriously differentiates the two is that ODF was designed expressly to be a universal file format, application and platform independent, able to transition across many different information domains connecting the legacy of desktop productivity to near everything else.  MOOXML on the other hand was designed for MSOffice and the legacy of billions of binary documents that only Micrsoft knows the secrets to converting to XML.  As such, MOOXML is designed to be application and platform bound, with these proprietary dependencies written right into the specification.

One of the more important elements of the Marbux arguments is that the OpenDocument Foundation's daVinci Plugin and InfoSet Engine - API prove conclusively

The FAA issues their "NO ViSTA" mandate, hinting that it might be permanent if they can come up with MSOffice alternatives.  They are looking at Google Apps!

Okay, so plan B does have legs.  The recent failure of ISO/IEC to stand up to the recidivist reprobate from Redmond is having repercussions.  Who would have ever thought ISO would fold so quickly without ceremony?  One day there are 20 out of 30 JTCS1 national bodies (NB's) objecting to Micrsoft's proprietary XML proposal, the MOOX Ecma 376 specfication, and the next ISO is approving without comment the placing of MOOX into the ISO fast track where approval is near certain.  With fast track, the technical objections and contradictions are assumed to be the provence of Ecma, and not the JTCS1 experts group.

Apparently the USA Federal Government divisions had a plan B contingency for just such a case.  And why not?  Microsoft was able to purchase a presidential pardon for their illegal anti trust violations.  If they can do that, what's to stop them from purchasing an International Standard?  Piece of cake!

But Google Apps?  And i say that as one who uses Google Docs every day.

The problem of migrating away from MSOffice and MOOX to ODF or some other "open" XML portable file format is that there are two barriers one must cross.

The first barrier is that of converting the billions of MS binary docuemnts into ODF XML. 

The second is that of replacing the MSOffice bound business processes that drive critical day to day business operabions. 

Google Apps is fine for documents that benefit from collaborative computing activities.  But there is no way one can migrate MSOffice bound business processes - the workgroup-worflow documents to Google Apps.  For one thing Google Apps is unable to facillitate important issues like XForms.  Nor can they round trip an ODF document with the needed fidelity a

Recently IBM held a ODF Interoperability Workshop at the OpenOffice annual conference in Barcelona, Spain. The Workshop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. In this blog, uber document processing expert Florian Reuter opens the lid for a peek at what really happened at the Workshop. And it wasn't "interoperability". As a Novell employee, Florian is unable to comment publicly as to what really happened in Barcelona. But to those who are not under IBM's oppressive thumb, the results of this fiasco are laughable. Sure IBM and Rob Weir are busy threatening individuals, and bribing the press to suppress the reality of this horrific ODF ZERO Interop demonstration. But that doesn't mean those who really care can't talk about it. The OpenDocument Foundation has of course been screaming about the ODF interop problems. But we've been focused on the big picture of world wide market requirements; the need for ODF to be compatible with existing file formats and interoperable with existing applications - including Microsoft documents and applications. Of course, this level of interoperability was outside the scope of ODF purpose and work. We apologize for daring to suggest that real world implementation issues are important and ought to be considered. but there remains the issue of ODF interoperability which also sucks beyond belief. The exact same principles apply. ODF interop depends on complete application independence, and ODF remains bound to OpenOffice. Now i'm someone who has publicly championed ODF interoperability. I've spent years championing the fact that ODF can meet all market requirements for interoperability. And whatever credibility i thought i might have is now destroyed by that very public and very in your face lack of interoperability.

So here i am, with any credibility i might have ever had resting on the pretensions of a self proclaimed clown (a hef="http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=antic">his description not mine). Can R

Let's do this again:

Recently IBM held a ODF Interoperability Workshop at the OpenOffice annual conference in Barcelona, Spain. The Workshop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. In this blog, uber document processing expert Florian Reuter opens the lid for a peek at what really happened at the Workshop. And it wasn't "interoperability".

As a Novell employee, Florian is unable to comment publicly as to what really happened in Barcelona. But to those who are not under IBM's oppressive thumb, the results of this fiasco are laughable. Sure IBM and Rob Weir are busy threatening individuals, and bribing the press to suppress the reality of this horrific ODF ZERO Interop demonstration. But that doesn't mean those who really care can't talk about it.

The OpenDocument Foundation has of course been screaming about the ODF interop problems. But we've been focused on the big picture of world wide market requirements; the need for ODF to be compatible with existing file formats and interoperable with existing applications - including Microsoft documents and applications.

Of course, this level of interoperability was way outside the scope of ODF purpose and work. We apologize for daring to suggest that real world implementation issues are important and ought to be considered. But there remains the issue of ODF interoperability which also sucks beyond belief.

The exact same principles apply. ODF interop depends on complete application independence, and ODF remains bound to OpenOffice.

Now i'm someone who has publicly championed ODF interoperability. I've spent years championing the fact that ODF can meet all market requirements for interoperability. And whatever credibility i thought i might have is now destroyed by that very public and very in your face lack of interoperability.

So here i am, with any credibility i might have ever had resting on the pretensions of a self proclaimed clown (http://wordnet.princ

I've got to give this one extra points for creativity!  All anyone has to do is visit the W3C web sites for CDF WICD Full 1.0 to realize that there is in fact a CDf profile for desktops.  CDF WICD Mobile is the profile for devices.

My guess is that Chris Lilley is threading the needle here.  IBM, Groklaw, and the lawyer for OASIS have portrayed the Foundation's support for CDF WICD Full as a replacement for ODF - as in native file format for OpenOffice kind of replacement.  Mr. Lilley insists that CDF WiCD Full was not designed for that purpose.  It's for export only!  As in a conversion of native desktop file formats.

Which is exactly what the da Vinci group was doing with MSOffice.  The Foundation's immediate interest in CDF WICD was based on the assumption that a similar conversion would be possible between OpenOffice ODF and CDF WICD.

The Foundation's thinking was that if the da Vinci group could convert MSOffice documents and processes to CDF WICD Full, and, a similar conversion of OpenOffice ODF documents and processes to CDF WICD could be done, then near ALL desktop documents could be converted into a highly interoperable web platform ready format.

Web platform ready documents from OpenOffice?  What's not to like?  And because the conversion between ODF and CDF WICD Full is so comparatively clean, OpenOffice would in effect, (don't go native file format now) become ahighly integrated rich client end user interface to advancing web platforms.

The Foundation further reasoned that this conversion of OpenOffice ODF to CDF WICD Full would solve many of the extremely problematic interoperability problems that plague ODF.  Once the documents are in CDF WICD Full, they are cloud ready and portable at a level certain to diminish the effects of desktop applications specific feature sets and implementation models.

In Massachusetts, the Foundation took

Nice catch by Stephan Jaensch.  He caught Brian Jones trying wriggle out of corner Rob Weir has trapped the mighty Microsoft Blogmeister in.  The last line of Stephan's question to Brian Jones says it all; the incompleteness and undocumented aspects of the EOOXML specification give Microsoft an incredibly unfair competitive advantage regarding the billions of binary MSOffice documents in circulation and vital to critical day to day business operations the world over. 

The quote from Stephan:  "I still haven't seen any answer to this valid criticism. It's a competitive advantage for Microsoft since the standard is incomplete and your company is the only one that has the missing parts."

The response from Brian?  We're waiting.  We've been waiting.  With each passing day the EOOXMl specification looks more like a monopolist endagered species protection order than the open standard Microsoft is trying to palm it off as.

referred from http://identi.ca/notice/14365521