<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Open as in Denmark
Buzz, buzz!</title>
		<link>http://noooxml.wikidot.com/forum/t-36001/open-as-in-denmark-buzz-buzz</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Open as in Denmark
Buzz, buzz!&quot; - Denmark&#039;s standard blogger Leif Lodahl made much fuzz about an invitation he received from Chris Capossela, Microsoft. Let&#039;s sit down and talk. The core matter of difference is the meaning of open. For instance we have &quot;open&quot; as in &quot;open to abuse&quot; (recently proposed by nasty bloggers). Denmark already has its own definition.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Aug 2026 16:22:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://noooxml.wikidot.com/forum/t-36001#post-93523</guid>
				<title>Open as in Denmark
Buzz, buzz!</title>
				<link>http://noooxml.wikidot.com/forum/t-36001/open-as-in-denmark-buzz-buzz#post-93523</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>arebenti</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>36024</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Leif Jodahl from Denmark was invited to a talk with <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/capossela/default.mspx">Chris Capossela</a>, corporate vice president of Microsoft Business Division Product Management Group. The meeting he had with him and few other Microsoft guys didn't move any chairs. According to Leif, Chris spent a lot of effort criticizing Andrew Updegrove for his blog articles. &quot;Well, in another audience that might work.&quot;, comments Leif. But Leif got a new understanding of the problem. The company simply interprets the word 'open' to suit their own business. <a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/01/minutes.html">Leif writes</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>I am beginning to understand why Microsoft is still claiming to be open. Basically it's a matter of how we interpret the one word open. Microsoft think that XML alone makes the standard open. I use another definition. The process has to be open and transparent and the organization must be protected from being hijacked by a singe vendor. I don't think he [Chris Capossela] agreed or even commented on that.</p> </blockquote> <p>You guys in Denmark have a legal definition of open standard, so every single player is forced to fit to it, right?</p> <p>Motion B103: <a href="http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/index.htm">http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/index.htm</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Open standards means that the standard is<br /> - well documented with its full specification publically available,<br /> - freely implementable without economically, politically or legal limitations on implementation and use, and<br /> - standardized and maintained in an open forum (a so-called standards organisation) through an open process.</p> </blockquote> <p>Leif Jodahl <a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/01/minutes.html">comments below his blog post</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>According to Chris Capossela [Microsoft] they are very well aware that OOXML doesn't live up to the definition of open standards that is a part of the Danish decision.</p> </blockquote> <h2><span>Danish motion</span></h2> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060602210610876">Groklaw: Denmark's Resolution on Open Standards - Updated</a></li> </ul> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>