Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Office_Open_XML/Archive_3

Please show us, where in the 6000 pages of the 'specs' did you get that 'superior performance' claim ?

A minor point really, but to be fair: this has been heavily emphasized in MS marketing, and it is mentioned in passing in the market-speak in the "overview" informative sections of DIS 29500. Recently Doug Mahugh stated that OOXML's short tag names, shared strings and formulas and its supposedly "sparse markup" gives performance advantages. However, as this is not backed up by any kind of proof or use case, even after months of dispute, that argument is very likely to be invalid.

The thing that strikes me the most in all this is that Microsoft is never trying to present anything remotely similar to evidence or verifiable support for their claims. The unavoidable impression I get from their tactics is that they have no proof or support, it's just guesswork behind some bad design decisions, and in retrospect they can't justify it, so they have to pretend it is a performance advantage of some sort. If no support for their claims is presented, as a scientist I must assume they have none.

In software design, the infamous BFI method ("brute force and ignorance") does tend to give some results. Microsoft has been using that method at least in part for quite a few products which have been successful in the marketplace. In standards design, however, the BFI method fails miserably. Standards are explicitly supposed to represent good ideas and best practice. OOXML contains many examples of the opposite.

A person employed by one of the sides in a conflict is a poor choice of editor when it is time to document that conflict. Yet a person that is not employed, but have a strong bias for one of the sides is even worse because that hidden bias might trick a casual reader to get the wrong opinion.

Somebody using your nickname have on this page posted attacks on why ODF is not open, worse than OOXML and lots of other opinions that most certainly are not of encyclopedic quality but personal opinion and part of the actual conflict. If it indeed is the true hAl that post here it proves that you are not a good choice to be editor at all about this subject. (Actually the talk on the wikipedia page indicate most people involved are not suiting to be editors even without taking into account what is written here.)

The hAl writing here use the fact that he is not employed by Microsoft as defense to why hAl's participating in the wikipedia article is objective. Yet to be objective you must give both sides equal timeshare in spotlight. You can't assume Microsofts press releases are inherently more filled with truth that what can be found on this site without having a strong bias towards Microsoft. By nature the noooxml site is trying to give the reasons why OOXML is a really bad idea. By nature microsoft tries to twist facts so that it sounds like OOXML is a brilliant idea.

In both cases it is imperative that wikipedia treat both camps in the conflict equal and for every contested opinion clearly show that this claim come from one of the camps and crossreference to what the other camp has to say about the claim. Until wikipedia does that there is nothing enclocypedic about the wikipedia article.

Sorry, but Wikipedia's guidelines about sources that are notable are not a good way to determine sources value when there is a active conflict about technical details and one of the sides buy votes instead of addressing problems. Main stream newspapers are not a relieable to have a educated opinion in such complicated matter, they just report what the experts say. Experts are bound to be found in companies like IBM, Google and Sun….and wikipedia fails its mission totally if the editors have a bias that say only Microsoft have any experts. If this site in truth is a cover up for IBM it becomes even more vital that the information here is refered in the wikipedia article….

"Office Open XML graphics have much more capabilities then opendocuments"
Sure, no doubt that you can stuff MS-XML with a bunch of binary format that only MS can legally read/modify

"Office Open XML has far superior performance features"
Euh ??? How exactly is that part of a standard ? Please show us, where in the 6000 pages of the 'specs' did you get that 'superior performance' claim ?

"Office Open XML has much better support for legacy conversion of current MS Office documents"
You think ? no kidding… wait isn't that the ONLY thing it was created for. The whole mission statement of ECLA 376 was exactly THAT and ONLY that.
To create a 'standard' out of whatever implementation Office had, including specifying the bugs….

In the lat 80s early 90s there was a light bulb joke that surfaced about microsoft:
How many Microsoft Enginners does it take to change a light bulb ?
None. Bill Gates will just redefine Darkness as the new industry standard.
Almost 20 years later, nothing new….

[OpenDocument does have a much cleaner spec but that does not make it better on all fronts.]
On 'all front' no. but on the front of being a god international standard, that makes it better by a large margin, and that make MS-XML fail the basic test about what a standard should be to start with.

[This is why I support the standardization of Office Open XML and consider your campaing to be a total joke.]
This is why you are not an engineer, and are not on any technical review board, unless Microsoft bought you a seat - but that's another story)

[There is room for a second standard]
Even if it was desirable (and it is NOT), even if ODF didn't exist, MS-XML would still be a crappy candidate for standardisation… but it's an academic debate since IF ODF did not exist, MS would never have wanted to get the label on his own private stuff..
There is no more room for 'a second standard' than there is room for yet another standard for abbreviating countries' name… oh wait, that is exactly what MS-XML is trying to slide in…
What is needed is many implementation of a sane and clean standard… not that every Microsoft out there get their own 'standard' that only them can support (see, Apple has officially support for MS-XML… but it just doesn't work - see article referecne somewhere on this site for details)

"a person frequently using Office documents in application development for me the nescesitiy of an open standard that is easily usable with full MS Office capabilites"
That's an oxymorons. You choose to go in bed with microsoft, good for you, But you can't have your cake and it it too. You can' t look in your costumers and then paraded in a 'open standard' suit.

[I want proven tech and compatibility. ]
me too, MS-XML is proven to be compatible with what already ???.

[Not just a standard for the sake of having a standard !!]
Then keep using looked in solution, and pray that your costumers won't care to be taken hostage… In the mean time , tax-payers all over the world are less and less likely to accept that situation.

[If Opendocument is truly superior I have little doubt it has potential for the future.]
ODF IS a standard. it's future is there already… why do you thing MS scrambled to try to get in the standard wagon ? literately at all cost.

Note that a lot of that criticism applies to both sides. Use your brains, people. I know you have them.

Learn from lawyers and politicians (the good ones, at least): don't make this your personal war, try to act like professionals and keep it polite. It's really not that hard. I can see at least hints of real arguments from both sides, so please, try to actually talk and listen, will you? If you don't even try, there is absolutely no use having a public debate. Talking and listening will make the conversation worth reading for other people.

Can you send me the RFRAND patent licence? McGibbon said that if you don't trust the CNS/OSP, then you can take an RFRAND licence. My email is gro.vedu|hb#gro.vedu|hb. Thanks

Some people just don't realise that. Anyone can claim they are impartial behind a pseudonym but their actions do not justify that.

between Microsoft editors like hAl

Again I must say you are a sad little git.
Just because people do not follow your line it does not mean they work for Microsoft

But to make it clear.
A) I do not work for Micrsoft or have ever worked for them
B) I do not know anybody working for Micrsoft or who has worked for Microsoft (quite amazing actually as I do know a lot of people who worked for IBM)
C) I do not work for a partnercomapany of Microsoft
D) I do not have any other interest in Microsoft

Strangely enough I seem to know the same does not apply to you and the big opponent of Micrsoft in this Office Open XML standardization proces. You are making nice with IBM whilst on the other hand accusing people incorrectly and without any proof that they are related to Microsoft.

I call that rahter stupid.

hAl

p.s. Veeg eerst je eigen straatje schoon voordat je klaagt over dat van een ander !!!

Allthouhg ODF has certainly some value it has also got quite a few points where is is severley lacking or a lot worse than OOXML.

For instance:
Office Open XML packaging is far superior then OpenDocument packaging
Office Open XML custom data integration is much easier than OpenDocument
Office Open XML has a far superior extensibility model
Office Open XML graphics have much more capabilities then opendocuments (that does not support true SVG but an openoffice specific SVG subset and some openoffice specific addons allthough some pro-odf supporter like to declare is is realy supporting SVG)
Office Open XML has true support for the most commenly used spreadsheet capabilities.
Office Open XML has far superior performance features
Office Open XML has much better support for legacy conversion of current MS Office documents
and some more but this is just what I can come up with quickly.

OpenDocument does have a much cleaner spec but that does not make it better on all fronts. In quite a number of cases the Opendocument model is less than Office Open XML even allthough that spec has still a lot of little flaws in it.

This is why I support the standardization of Office Open XML and consider your campaing to be a total joke. There is room for a second standard and as a person frequently using Office documents in application development for me the nescesitiy of an open standard that is easily usable with full MS Office capabilites has a lot of preference to an Open standard that does not have that.

For Opendocument to be usefull for people like me, I would like it to be in use fully for at least 5 years in main line software (of course with formulae and not this current semi ready spec).

I want proven tech and compatibility. Not just a standard for the sake of having a standard !!
If Opendocument is truly superior I have little doubt it has potential for the future.

Firstly Office Open XML is as open as ODF and does comply with the EU rules for an open standard. Also you might have noticed that other companies, even competitors like apple, that are willing to implement OXML have no problem whatsoever with the Microsoft OSP and/or CNS. We even saw that IBM already have support planned (allthough they quickly removed those plans from their site a few month ago)

On the other hand I do have some serious doubt about ODF openness as regard to their covenant not to sue.
It states that it only applies to version of the format that it has contributed to to the point of occuring an obbligation.
Could you please show me how much Sun has contributed to the version 1.0 second edition (ISO)version compared to the v1.0 version ?
And could you tell me if that was enough to occur an obligation ?

Secondly I am what surprised that the FFII is so keen on fighting Microsoft that is giving up patent rights on their main office formats. As an organisation that is against patent rights any company irrivocably giving up patent rights should be applauded rather than being attacked.
Mayby Peiter, you lost the way a bit when you were joined in your IBM sponsored committee. Why would a president of the FFII join forces with the biggest software patentholder and patent applicant in the world.
Stangly just when IBM is mounting a big campaign against Microsofts Office Open XML and themselves releasing a competing Office product suite namely Notes 8.
Have you asked your IBM co-committee members already if IBM has all their patents rights surrounding Notes 8 released for everybody to use freelly ?

hAl

Your post here makes it very clear that this site does not belong on wikipedia and I'll makes sure that the wikipedia article stays clean of your site.

hAl

On a less emotional note, Wikipedia is simply not meant for commentary on current events. Proper encyclopedic writing requires some distance to the subject. Clearly, everyone involved right now have strong opinions. As long as there is argument over what should be considered as facts, Wikipedia has a big problem with finding the middle ground. There simply is none yet. In a year or two that article will have a fair chance of being written without improper bias either way. Until then, we have to look to both sides and make our own decisions on whom to trust.

Information on current events should be sought from first hand sources and applying actual critical thinking, not by reading distilled, bite-sized chunks of information from a web-based encyclopedia. Imagine this was about voting in an election. Would you even dream of looking up in an encyclopedia who you should vote for? Wikipedia is good for many things. This is not one of them.

This is the statement of support of 69.73.191.92 for hAl,

==== Statement by [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] ====

I support hAl and request that [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] is blocked himself. All his edits are only to dimish the value of the Office Open XML wikipedia article. This user reverted both my edits and hAl's edits for more than ten times. That is against wikipedia rules. hAl representatin on the EU standards is not misrepresentation as the article is fully correct in stating that Office Open XML conforms to the EU definitions of an open standard. Actually I suggest it is altered in ''fully conforms to the EU definition of an open standard'' OR in ''supports all characteristics of the EU definition on an Openstandard''.

Get rid of this twat [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] that is fucking with the article. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 07:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=153703204

EU definition of an Open Standard
With Ecma International publishing the specification for free and patents made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis, Office Open XML conforms to all characteristics of the European Union's definition of an open standard.

All characteristics, that is, except for being 'open'. Well, words are made to play with. If language could not evolve, we'd still be speaking UGH, right? On the comments page, regarding NoOOXML.org, an anonymous contributor explains why he is so scared he logs out before making yet one more revert:

"And I have seen on this page before how people are treated by anti-ooxml campaigners so I expecially log-out of my account on wikipedia especially before coming to this page !!! I do not wish to expose myself to the anti-ooxml fanatics. I would suggest everybody that edits in remotly neutral or ooxml favourable edits do this anonomously"

Rick Jelliffe, the guy who accepted Microsoft silver to edit Wikipedia explains his (or his employers?) views on NoOOXML.org:

On the contrary, it is a crackpot site. There are constant claims of bias, with no evidence. For example [3] is entirely scurilous, if not outright racist. It repeats rumours such as [4] then treats them in aggregate as if they have any substance. Rick Jelliffe 07:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

69.73.191.92, carefully logged out to avoid the hateful anti-OOXML crowd no doubt seeking to impose free competition and ethics on him, writes from his room in Texas (yes, I can do a reverse IP lookup… does this make me racist?):

The site is a pure slander campaing on OOXML. Allthough I have no doubt that MS tried to influence the voting to approval, on that particular site every country that voted for approval is looked upon as corrupted. Probably they have such a narrow view on things that cannot even imagine that anyone would vote for OOXML out of their own free choice. They suggest that the late additions to sweden is a sign of corruption trying to influence the vote by all entering the committee as late as possible but also call the refusal of the late addition of opponents to the portugal proces as MS corruption. That the two incidents show similar tactics on both parties seems to completly escape their view. 69.73.191.92 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Slander… that's a hangin' offense, sheriff! Send the posse! Seriously, yes, we suggest that Sweden and Portugal were… how can we put this politely… corruption. Redmond, a piece of advice: if you can't take the heat, don't cheat.

The nooxml site is purely about votes and about sending letter to ISO member to make them change their vote. It relies on other sites to get its issues from and only bring new when it is about somebody voting no or kicing ar riot when someone doesn't. The sites on which most of its issues are based are already in the article and the protest campaing does not belong in wikipedia. I just noticed that the president of FFII actually made an article his own website. How pathetic are these people for getting some extra hits and gathering more petition votes ??? hAl 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To which WLD replied:

That is a severe mischaracterisation of the NoOOXML site and does not belong in a reasoned debate.WLDtalk|edits 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is great fun. The yesmen seriously need to slow down on the coffee, and install a decent spelchkr. I mean, seriously, hAl, you've been hacking pro-Microsoft text on Wikipedia for ages. Als je toch Engels gaat schrijven, gebruik dan een woordenboek.

Read the talk page on OOXML and laugh.