Rick Jelliffe the ever surprising OOXML advocate asks three questions in his O'Reilly Blog to the "anti-OOXML mob"
Here are three questions: they are not the same:
Does being pro-ODF require you to be anti-OOXML?
Does being pro-ODF require you to be against DIS29500 mark II being accepted as an ISO/IEC standard?
Does being anti-Microsoft require you to be anti-DIS29500?
A lot of the FUD over the last year has based on the idea that if you are anti-Microsoft you must be pro-ODF and if you are pro-ODF you must be anti-OOXML and if you are anti-OOXML you must be against the acceptance of DIS29500 mark II. It is George Bush-like simplification Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists that tries to excluded any middle ground.
It is difficult to speak on behalf of a mob (don't know how many of our signatories feel mobby) but I will try my best to explain:
1. Does being pro-ODF require you to be anti-OOXML?
Nay, Sir. I am personally not too supportive of ODF as the format has issues as well. However, ODF aka ISO 26300:2006 is the international ISO standard for document formats, and it was developed under the usual ISO procedure and received thoughtful review. I do believe that the format is technically superior and a solid architectural foundation for the future. Open XML makes things unnecessarily different, its architecture is incompatible.
The move of Microsoft to channel an immature specification of its own proprietary format through ISO using the fast-track was a catch-up game with ODF. The ISO standardisation of OOXML aka DIS 29500 has the aim to undermine the existing international standard, ODF and its adoption by governments. DIS29500 is an anti-ISO 26300 tank gun. Here Microsoft knows very well that the Highlander principle applies: The argument for multiple standards contradicts common sense of international standardization. OOXML Chief evangelist Doug Mahugh was very blunt and we have no reason to buy into naive alternative interpretations:
When ODF was made an ISO standard, Microsoft had to react quickly as certain governments have procurement policies which prefer ISO standards. Ecma and OASIS are "international standards", but ISO is the international "Gold Standard". Microsoft therefore had to rush this standard through. Its a simple matter of commercial interests!"
It's the weaknesses of the OOXML format, the patent conditions, the implications on the market's ability to implement it - all these technical weaknesses were not invented by the community but rather exposed.
So the answer is: every reasonable technical expert should be against OOXML ISO standardisation because it is not ready. Everyone else is free to use the ECMA 376 specification and gets absolutely no advantage when it would be upgraded as an ISO/IEC standard. It is a simply game, quid pro quo. No party except Microsoft gains when OOXML gets its ISO stamp. It is completely irrational to be pro-OOXML without incentives.
In particular no one should feel to do a favour to a party that would not respect donations. The party is not very responsive to public input, it negotiates very hard and when you want improvements to OOXML you need to negotiate as least as hard. That negotiation process extends beyond the DIS29500 process and may comprise issues like Office native support for ODF, Office licensing fee schemes, specifications, patent conditions, open standard commitments, standard compliant implementation and so on. This negotiation process will not terminate after a potential adoption of OOXML but of course the market has some powers here over the party and needs to exercise it.
2. Does being pro-ODF require you to be against DIS29500 mark II being accepted as an ISO/IEC standard?
No, for sure. Your personal support of ODF is totally irrelevant here. DIS29500 achieves it on its own to make it unacceptable for simple technical reasons and flaws of the review procedure.
Patrick Durusau wrote:
OpenXML (OOXML) has issues in its latest version but the profitable strategy is to help isolate those problems and fix them.
I guess this strategy, profitable for persons as Rick Jelliffe, was furthered by the opposition to the format. Still the resistance to apply changes was very strong and the procedure unable to ensure reasonable technical fixes. The BRM result does still not resolve all objective issues in a satisfactory manner. Durusau's argument is right but his conclusions as of a support for the BRM mended version are wrong.
As OpenXML (OOXML) has issues in its latest version it is not ready for becoming an international standard now and ISO/IEC has no need to hurry. As ISO announced:
[fastrack disapproval of OOXML] would not preclude subsequent re-submission under the normal IEC and ISO standards development rules.
In fact a prolongation of the process would be:
- profitable for NB and experts that want OOXML
- give the format more thoughtful review as to fix all the technical issues identified in the BRM process
- make the process less noisy
- help harmonization with ODF and conformance to other international standards, cmp. French proposal
- would ensure that Microsoft offers more to the market and opens up,
- in particular provides better patent conditions and invests in real third party implementations.
- and ensures compliant implementation of its own ISO standard
When you have no general reservations against a double ISO standard and support the idea of OOXML as another standard you should oppose the adoption of the BRM mended version. Your strategy is to help isolate those problems and fix them. Adoption stops that review process of the half-baked OOXML. Adoption now bears the risk that Microsoft will not seek further input, fail to implement it and abandon the ISO project, you know they just want the ISO stamp as a sales feature for the public sector. All participants satisfied with the ECMA-376 version of the standard can implement the ECMA version that will hopefully quickly adopt the useful input of the BRM.
3. Does being anti-Microsoft require you to be anti-DIS29500?
The question is posed in the wrong direction. Does following the DIS29500 process make you anti-Microsoft? I am personally not anti-Microsoft but of course I am fed up with its advocacy for software patents on foreign soil. The strength of criticism to DIS29500 is the reflection of the past bad habits of the company, and it made it easy to criticize the format because of the objective weaknesses and flawed procedure to which the submitter reacted using an aggressive campaign without any reasonable compromise. If a party responds to pressure and only to pressure you need to forget your Summerhill pedagogical ideals and apply appropriate teaching methods.
The speed with which any differing opinions to the party line on OOXML are labeled corrupt should ring alarm bells. As my dear old Dad used to say about political speeches: “Argument weak: shout like hell!” Some of these guys will say anything.
True. However, rational analysis will reveal that no market player except Microsoft gains from ISO/IEC standardisation of ECMA 376. The whole OOXML support community consists of clients that implement OOXML prototypes for them, conduct OOXML studies, write Wikipedia articles. This is not corruption in the narrow sense but it corrupts ISO procedures. And now take the usual business practice of hiring former officials. This is not corruption in the narrow sense but it stinks.
It is of no use to "criticize" the Mafia of killing business partners. It's their usual practice. But according to the penal code it's murder and will be prosecuted as murder and an organization that applies such practices is considered organized crime.
Dog bites man vs. man bites dog
Microsoft is used to play hard without any conservatism in terms of reputation. Other companies that were in a weaker market position adapted to a changing market environment and they are responsive to the public. The lack of care for reputation clearly plays in the hands of every campaigner. It's your favourite opponent because they will deliver you the lethal action you need to entertain your community. In a crime fiction about the Mafia no one is shocked by their killings because you expect it as natural. In the case of Microsoft this may result in the attitude of some bloggers to cry louder about foul play. I don't think this is the right approach but the economics of it is well understood.
For instance: Firing your own employees if they don't deliver a national YES.
Rick Jelliffe:
If you are happy to see people’s careers ruined due to differences of opinion on a file format, where are your heads at?
It is known that certain employees were fired because they didn't achieve a Yes-vote. This demonstrates the whole perversion behind the standard process and impartiality of experts. The problem lies here among the company that applies these practices. If getting an specification through ISO standardisation is approached like sales, with targets, then its no wonder that YES-men flood the committees and approve an immature spec. In any other case the party should be interested to find the bugs, and get everyone involved to improve the text and address concerns of critics in a civilized manner.
No right of "fair bribe" but for most supporters of the format their support was personally profitable. It will be difficult to find a OOXML enthusiast who doesn't get a cheque. And when you were really 'just corrupt' you should give the OOXML standard more time because more time translates into more cash.
I see that the Norwegian standards body has come out to the European Union investigation and said We have not experienced any irregular behaviour that has compromised the process or the voting.
Norwegian is a cold nation with a very small population and the luxury of two writing systems, no place to hide the truth, but additionally it is not part of the European Union. Why not get another amicus letter from Fiji?