Document Wars

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

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

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?

The primary difference between ODF and MOOXML is that ODF was designed to be a universal file format.  MOOXML was designed to be an XML file format for MSOffice, the Win32 API, and the Vista Information Processing Chain API (.NET 3.0). 

ODF is application and platform independent.  MOOXML is application and platform specific.  It's bound to the Windows - Vista platform. 

Microsoft's Brian Jones recently got caugh tup in a argument with the heavily armed WMD ODF expert and combatant Sam Hiser (WMD=Words of Massive Destruction).  In their exchange, Brian got confused over this very important distinction between ODF and MOOXML.  ODF allows specific applications to place their configurations and requirements in a settings file that is separate from the content, presentation and metadata containers.  MOOXML on the other hand makes no distinction whatsoever between application specific (MSOffice only) configuration, settings, processsing instructions and systemm dependencies and the rest of the file format contents.  Application settings are bound to content, presentation, and schema containers.  So bound that Brian is seemingly unaware of what ODF has achieved.  Sam caught him by surprise, as did many others posting comments:

Brian Jones on MOOXML support for older versions of MSOffice:  Coments by Sam the WMD Man are below.

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 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.

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

Very nice job Sam!

Very nice job Sam!

Very nice job Sam!

No, it does much more.  The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!

No, it does much more.  The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!

No, it does much more.  The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!

Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.

Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.

Hi guys,

There is an interesting discussion triggered by Tim Bray's "ongoing · Life Is Complicated" blog piece.  Our good friend Mike Champion has some interesting comments defending ISO/IEC approval of MS Ecma 376 based on many arguments.  But this one seems to be the bottom line;

<mike> "there is not an official standard for one that (in the opinion of the people who actually dug deeply into the question, and I have not) represents all the features supported in the MS Office binary formats and can be efficiently loaded and processed without major redesign of MS Office.

..... So, if you want a clean XML format that represents mainstream office document use cases, use ODF. If you want a usable XML foormat that handles existing Word documents with full fidelity and optimal performance in MS Office, use OOXML. If you think this fidelity/performance argument is all FUD, try it with your documents in Open Office / ODF and MS Office 2007 / OOXML and tell the world what you learn." </mike>

Mike's not alone in this.  This seems to be the company line for Microsoft's justification that ISO/IEC should have two conflicting file formats each pomising to do the same thing, becaus eonly one of those formats can handle the bilions of binary documents conversion to XML with an acceptable fidelity. 

This is not true, and we can prove it.  And if we're right  that you can convert the billions of binaries to ODF without loss of fidelity, then there was no "technology" argument for Microsoft not implementing ODF natively and becoming active in the OASIS ODF TC process to improve application interoperability.

<diigo_

There you go!  The Micrsoft plot to take over the Internet in a nutshell, with XAML and EOXML at the point of the spear.

Funny how everyone knows what Micrsoft's intentions are, even having identified the tehcnoliges to be used, but still no one can stop them.  How did this recidivist reprobate get so outside the rule of law and beyond the reach of good men?

EOXML (MS Ecma 376) must be stopped at ISO/IEC, if only to slow down this worldwide train wreck they plan for our beloved and open Internet.

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

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.