Skip to main content

Home/ IBM: Standards and Double Standards/ Group items matching "OOXML" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

An Antic Disposition: Compatibility According to Humpty Dumpty - 0 views

  • But none of that is really 100% compatibility with legacy anything. That is really just saying that OOXML is compatible with code that Microsoft is writing months after OOXML was standardized by Ecma. But the qualities of the format were set the day the standard was approved by Ecma. The standard does not gain capabilities by Microsoft writing code. Microsoft applications may gain capabilities, but the standard is what it is, and is as compatible as it is going to get the day it was standardized. If OOXML was really compatible with legacy binary formats then they would work without requiring code changes or customer upgrades.
  •  
    In 2007, IBM's Rob Weir roundly criticized OOXML because the principle justification for having a largely duplicative international standard was compatibility with the billions of extant legacy Microsoft Office documents in binary formats, yet the specifications for the binary formats were not included in the OOXML specification. Just how committed IBM management was to that position may be seen in the fact that IBM later instigated an antitrust investigation of Microsoft Office by the E.U.'s DG Competition through the European Committee on Interoperable Systems, alleging monopoly abuse by Microsoft on the same grounds, an investigation still ongoing. \n\nIn this blog post comment, IBM's Rob Weir takes a hard line position that the sufficiency of the OOXML standard's specificity must be determined on the basis of what is stated in the standard itself, as opposed to Microsoft's subsequent recoding of Office to remove compatibility defects between Microsoft's implementation of OOXML and the binary formats.\n\nThe quoted passage may be usefully compared to later IBM arguments and actions in regard to the OpenDocument.standard that will be included in later bookmarks. For example, Weir has been unyielding that vendor-defined extensions to the ODF standard must be classified as conformant in ODF 1.2, yet their specifications are definitionally not part of the ODF specification. As another example, in 2009 Weir attacked Microsoft for having implemented ODF 1.1 using formula markup different from that used by OOo, despite ODF 1.1's lack of specifications for spreadsheet formulas. Weir's rationale: that vendors must collaborate to code around holes in the standard. He came very close to arguing that data gaps in a standard are irrelevant. See e.g., http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/battle-for-odf-interoperability.html \n\nHypothesis: IBM's treats ODF as a double standard rather than a standard. What IBM argues in effect is that what is required for OOXML does not apply
Paul Merrell

No one supports ISO ODF today? - 0 views

  • In particular, Rob takes issue with a statement that he condemns as “Microsoft FUD […] laundered via intermediaries”: There is no software that currently implements ODF as approved by the ISO Now Rob Weir is a great blogger, a much-praised committee chair, and somebody who can, on occasion, fearlessly produce the blunt truth like a rabbit from a hat. For this reason, I know his blog entry, “Toy Soldiers” of July 2008 has enjoyed quite some exposure in standards meetings around the world, most particularly for its assertions about ODF. He wrote: No one supports ODF 1.0 today. All of the major vendors have moved on to ODF 1.1, and will be moving on to ODF 1.2 soon. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.
  • So, far from being “Microsoft FUD”, the idea that “No one supports ODF 1.0” is in fact Rob Weir’s own statement. And it was taken up and repeated by Andy Updegrove, Groklaw and Boycott Novell, those well-known vehicles of Microsoft’s corporate will. Today however, this appears to have become an inconvenient truth. The rabbit that was pulled out of the hat in the interest of last summer’s spin, now needs to be put into the boiler. Consequently we find Rob’s blog entry of July 2008 has been silently amended so that it now states: Few applications today support exclusively ODF 1.0 and only ODF 1.0. Most of the major vendors also support ODF 1.1, one (OpenOffice 3.x), now supports draft ODF 1.2 as well. No one supports OOXML 1.0 today, not even Microsoft. No one supports interoperability via translation, not Sun in their Plugin, not Novell in their OOXML support, and not Microsoft in their announced ODF support in Office 2007 SP2.
  • The pertinent change is to item 1 on this list, which now has a weasel-worded (and tellingly tautological) assertion that might make the unsuspecting reader think that ODF 1.0 was somehow supported by the major vendors. Well, is it? Who is right, the Rob Weir of 2008 or the Rob Weir of 2009? Maybe I’ve missed something, but personally I’m unaware of an upsurge in ODF 1.0 support during the last 11 months. My money is on the former Rob being right here.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • As a general rule, when making substantive retrospective changes to blog entries, especially controversial blog entries, it is honest dealing to draw attention to this by striking-through removed text and prominently labelling the new text as “updated”. Failing to do this can lead to the suspicion that an attempt to re-write history is underway …
  • You have the unique opportunity now to prove wrong my assertion, and the widespread belief, that you are a Microsoft lackey.
  •  
    Rob Weir gets caught in another deceit and an apparent attempt to rewrite history. He condemns as Microsoft FUD what turns out to be his own statement, since removed from his web site but still preserved on other sites that quoted his article including Groklaw, which republished Weir's later article and called for an antitrust investigation of the Microsoft FUD Weir complained of. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009061001520015 That call is somewhat problematic when Weir and Groklaw were the original sources of the information. Dare the world hope for retractions?
Paul Merrell

How Microsoft Ratted Itself Out Of Office | BNET Technology Blog | BNET - 0 views

  • Also, you have the problem that OOXML does not define details like scripts and macros, the very essence of integrating documents with business processes. So although you may now know how Office stores bold and italics, but these are not exactly the crown jewels of Office compatibility.
  •  
    Here, IBM's Rob Weir takes OOXML to task for not specifying scripts and macros. But nary a mention of the fact that OpenDocument suffers from the same weakness. Yet another IBM double standard. He also tacks on an ad hominem attack against Gary Edwards, in lieu of addressing the merits of what Edwards said.
Paul Merrell

An Antic Disposition: Those who forget Santayana... - 0 views

  • Those who control the exchange format, can control interoperability and turn it on or off like a water faucet to meet their business objectives.
  •  
    Here we learn that when it comes to OOXML IBM's Rob Weir says that it is those in control of the data formats who control interoperability. But one may usefully juxtapose that view with Weir's statements that it's Microsoft's fault for breaking interoperability in its implementation of ODF 1.1 formulas. Weir had it right the first time; it's those who control the data formats who control interoperability. And that places the responsibility for the ODF 1.1 interop mess squarely at the feet of the IBM and Sun-dominated ODF TC. So we have yet another IBM double standard. One truth when it's OOXML being discussed but its opposite when it is ODF subjected to examination.
Paul Merrell

Twitter / Rob Weir: @jackschofield Sorry you m ... - 0 views

  • @jackschofield Sorry you missed the postscript with the OOXML data. ODF still smaller by 18%. Calling names is boorish and unprofessional. 8:32 AM Oct 4th via TweetDeck in reply to jackschofield rcweir Rob Weir
  •  
    Now we learn that IBM's Rob Weir can't stand the heat of his own most frequently deployed weapon in debate with those who want less interop talk from IBM and more interop walk. See other quotes and links in this group."Calling names is boorish and unprofessional," he pronounces. A great quote to replay the next time Rob wilds the ad hominem fallacy as his weapon.  
Paul Merrell

Schematron-Report patented? - O'Reilly Broadcast - 3 views

  • Were you in that public benefactor frame of mind when Microsoft offered you money to edit Wikipedia pages for their standards, or when they were paying you to promote their disgraced OOXML standard?
  •  
    IBM's Rob Weir does it again. What's to be done when your company is caught patenting methods implemented in an open standard for years? Change the subject in an attempt to kill the messenger who bears the news. Score another vitriolic ad hominem attack for Rob Weir. 
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20 items per page