Document Wars

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

The blog itself really sucks, but the comments are explosive and well worth reading. Especially Stephan's summary response. It's clear that Microsoft's entire justification for OOXML rests on the billions of binary documents that only Microsoft knows th

The blog itself really sucks, but the comments are explosive and well worth reading. Especially Stephan's summary response. It's clear that Microsoft's entire justification for OOXML rests on the billions of binary documents that only Microsoft knows th

The blog itself really sucks, but the comments are explosive and well worth reading. Especially Stephan's summary response. It's clear that Microsoft's entire justification for OOXML rests on the billions of binary documents that only Microsoft knows th

Excellent summary from Edward Macnaghten. It all comes down to this: OOXML is designed entirely to extend the Microsoft Desktop Monopoly, leveraging that monopolist control into server systems, devices and the future of the Internet

Excellent summary from Edward Macnaghten. It all comes down to this: OOXML is designed entirely to extend the Microsoft Desktop Monopoly, leveraging that monopolist control into server systems, devices and the future of the Internet

Excellent summary from Edward Macnaghten. It all comes down to this: OOXML is designed entirely to extend the Microsoft Desktop Monopoly, leveraging that monopolist control into server systems, devices and the future of the Internet

The legendary XML blogger Bob DuCharme has written an excellent summary of RDFa including a how to explanation of XHTML with RDFa metadata. As some might know, the OASIS ODF Metadata Sub Committee is adopting a RDF/XML RDFa approach. Sun representatives

The legendary XML blogger Bob DuCharme has written an excellent summary of RDFa including a how to explanation of XHTML with RDFa metadata. As some might know, the OASIS ODF Metadata Sub Committee is adopting a RDF/XML RDFa approach. Sun representatives

The legendary XML blogger Bob DuCharme has written an excellent summary of RDFa including a how to explanation of XHTML with RDFa metadata. As some might know, the OASIS ODF Metadata Sub Committee is adopting a RDF/XML RDFa approach. Sun representatives

No mention here as whether or not ODF was part of the settlement. Surely after all the anti trust trials, class action suits, and settlements that have taken place, litigants might realize that a monetary fix isn't a fix. What needs to be done is twofol

No mention here as whether or not ODF was part of the settlement. Surely after all the anti trust trials, class action suits, and settlements that have taken place, litigants might realize that a monetary fix isn't a fix. What needs to be done is twofol

No mention here as whether or not ODF was part of the settlement. Surely after all the anti trust trials, class action suits, and settlements that have taken place, litigants might realize that a monetary fix isn't a fix. What needs to be done is twofol

Microsoft's bid to get its Open XML formats recognised as an international standard faces a delay for at least three months and could fail altogether, it emerged today.

Microsoft's bid to get its Open XML formats recognised as an international standard faces a delay for at least three months and could fail altogether, it emerged today.

Microsoft's bid to get its Open XML formats recognised as an international standard faces a delay for at least three months and could fail altogether, it emerged today.

Alist of news stories i'm tagging at DiGG

Alist of news stories i'm tagging at DiGG

Alist of news stories i'm tagging at DiGG

hey great comment!

hey great comment!

hey great comment!

Wow, Outlook and Web OutLook eMail hit Infocon 4 and are banned by the DOD. The MS Exchange/ShrePoint Hub has been on a tear, with governments worldwide leading the way. And now this? Government mandates to use ODF on the desktop did not stop governmen

Wow, Outlook and Web OutLook eMail hit Infocon 4 and are banned by the DOD. The MS Exchange/ShrePoint Hub has been on a tear, with governments worldwide leading the way. And now this? Government mandates to use ODF on the desktop did not stop governmen

Wow, Outlook and Web OutLook eMail hit Infocon 4 and are banned by the DOD. The MS Exchange/ShrePoint Hub has been on a tear, with governments worldwide leading the way. And now this? Government mandates to use ODF on the desktop did not stop governmen

Wrack up another loss for the forces of freedom. Birmingham is lucky to get out cheap. Munich raced by the $3,000 per PC mark with no end in sight. Massachusetts is lost in never never land. Sowhat's going on? Why is it so costly to move off the Wind

Wrack up another loss for the forces of freedom. Birmingham is lucky to get out cheap. Munich raced by the $3,000 per PC mark with no end in sight. Massachusetts is lost in never never land. Sowhat's going on? Why is it so costly to move off the Wind

Wrack up another loss for the forces of freedom. Birmingham is lucky to get out cheap. Munich raced by the $3,000 per PC mark with no end in sight. Massachusetts is lost in never never land. Sowhat's going on? Why is it so costly to move off the Wind

A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes".  Lots of comments, pro and con, as to whether or not the applications specific tags used so extensibvely by MOOXML are needed, or not.

Many argue that the application bound tags should have been fully described.  That every tag in the specification should also include the informaiton needed to implement it.  Agreed!  Otherwise, the specification does not qualify as a standard.  It's simply a vendor specific, and in this case highly proprietary and encumbered file format.

Others argue that the app bound tags are the only way for Microsoft to provide backwards compatibility with the billions of binary documents bound to MSOffice through proprieatry and secret binary file formats.  These people argue that embedding an application specific binary in the XML file format, instead of converting it to proper XML, is the only way to insure backwards compatibilty.  BS.  There is no technical reason not to convert it to proper XML.  But that would mean fully describing the binary objects, including the nature of their application dependency.  Something Microsoft is quite reluctant to do.

The truth of the matter is that if the binary object is to be part of a specification submitted to ISO for standards consideration, then it should be fully described, including how to implement it.  Otherwise, MOOXML is just a standard for one.  A standard for Micrsoft only since they are  the only ones with the secret blueprint as to how to implement these binary objects.

A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes". Lots of comments, pro and con

A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes". Lots of comments, pro and con

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

OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship

OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship

OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship

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?

Exellent introduction to RDF and the Semantic Web!

This makes me sick. The indemnification nazis are driving a patent wedge right through the heart and soul of open source.

This makes me sick. The indemnification nazis are driving a patent wedge right through the heart and soul of open source.

This makes me sick. The indemnification nazis are driving a patent wedge right through the heart and soul of open source.

The marbux comment:

See particularly section 6.8 and its discussion of "etiquettes," which sounds like CDF profiles to me.

This 1998 academic paper on open standards could give us a solid foundation to build our arguments for Universal Interop from. I may have forwarded this link before, roughly a year ago. Here is the abstract of the paper:

This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all.

It builds upon a previous work by Bruce Perens. Well worth the read.