"...Our engineers conducted an *independent* analysis ..."

No, really, that's right, the engineers of one of MS' main rivals carried out an *indipendant* examination of MS' specification.

I was once tasked with implementing the "open" FlashPix format.

Anyone remember that?

http://www.i3a.org/i_flashpix.html

Ah...how the mighty have fallen.

Interesting format, but it required that you install MSSS on your system.

For the Mac, it was an enormous boatload of spaghetti that destabilized the entire system, and slowed it down to a crawl.

If that is a demonstration of how MS plans to support "open" standards, then I certainly don't want this fasttracked. It's WAY too important.

Impressive. 2 spelling mistakes when repeating a word which you'd not only quoted, but also highlighted.

He had a good stab at the apostrophe though....shame it was wrong also.

"Technical standards should be arrived at transparently, openly, and based on technical merit"

Nobody, not even Microsoft, should be able to find fault with that statement and whether or not it came from a competitor isn't particularly relevant.

Far more important is that ODF already EXISTS and is already THE ACCEPTED STANDARD.

ISO should insist that any "new" standard be BASED on the previous standard with only genuine TECHNICAL features that have MERIT added to it.

As everybody can see, MS coming out with a "standard" thats purely different and has no particular technical merit that could not also be achieved starting from the existing standard is MS poking its fingers up at the whole standards process and, effectively, making nonsense of the idea of standards altogether.

Not only should this "standard" NOT be fast-tracked, it should also be vociferously and unceremoniously THROWN OUT the moment that it IS considered.

Well put!

Jesus the sleepless nights I spent trying to get that piece

of dog excrement to work!

As for the poster pointing out peoples spelling mistakes,

seriously that is the ultimate in net Geekdom.

Make an English sentence out of the following words :

a Get Life :D

Yep, even by my piss-poor standards that is pretty bad. A curse on my dyslexa*.

*Actually, it's not dyslexia, I'm just lazy.

Perhaps it was debilerate!

Efros

And please stop using 'generic title' as your subject header. It's annoying.

I feel I may be leaving myself open to the pedants' revolt but, strictly speaking, MS' is just as correct as (presumably the expected) MS's. This is similar to wanting to show the possessions of James with James'. This does not mean several Jameses and in most contexts is adequate and most importantly unambiguous. Similar complaints have been levied at the use of women's instead of womens' but the plural removes all necessity for the latter usage.

I agree that the spelling mistake is tragic.

Don't even get me started on stadiums vs stadia!

"And please stop [pissing and moaning about typos and subject headers instead of making useful, substantive comments]. It's annoying.'

M$ will not 'learn' from this episode; they have a "perverse economic incentive" (thanks to Bruce Schneier for that piece of terminology) NOT to adhere to truly open standards and to do their utmost to impose their kludgeware on the World.

The entire M$ ethos is to sell their wares based not on their technical merit, rather on their ease-of-use; to the vast majority of end users, the underlying technology is uttterly irrelevant.

I do not intend the foregoing statements to mean that all efforts to prevent any M$ 'technology' being adopted as any standard may as well be adandoned - the fight must go on!

How the hell you conduct an independent review of something you're a rival for is beyond me.

Actually, my main point is Google might want to keep quiet about open standards until it opens up its search engine as it continues to make money on the back of open source software. The cost of "developing" the open source software it does give away is chump change compared to the billions it currently trousers. You must be deluded if you think Google is some kind of workers co-op.

"...Our engineers conducted an *independent* analysis ..."

Well, actually, they are independent of Microsoft, so in that sense, it's correct.

But what's important is that anyone who is not an MS flunky can examine the proposal and determine that it is flawed, deliberately proprietary, and designed to lock in MS users to a format which cannot be used by software which does not do things "the Redmond way." Which usually means no software which is not generating revenue for Microsoft will be allowed to use the "standard."

The fact of the matter is tat anyone big enough to conduct a few reveiw of the proposed standand and then to get their views out there for all to read in the press are going to be in one camp or another.

It's is up to the person who is reading the analysis to determine if it is leaning for or against the proposal unjustly. Anyone of us can/do look at these things but do not have the backing to make it news worthy.

ISO has not rejected OOXML. It's just taken an interim position and will decide finally at a ballot resolution meeting in February. MS knows this full well and is lobbying national boards to send their weakest and stupidest "engineer" to Geneva where they will be wined and dined and probably whored by MS yesmen and gals galore.

We're talking about a megabusload of money riding on this eventual decision. It ain't over, the fat ladies are not yet singing, and Google is stupid to claim this as any kind of victory, if that's what they're claiming.

The Fasttrack is completely on track.

You mean Open Document Format! D'oh!

As to the independence of this particular report, that's irrelevant - anyone applying intelligent thought to the matter cannot avoid the obvious: "MS Open Office XML" is NOT an open standard, by any stretch of the imagination. To claim otherwise is laughable. Even the name smacks of desperation - no less than the BSI states that it is deliberately designed to create confusion with ODF and its name should be changed (as well as that the format should be redesigned from the ground up, based on ODF).

Let us not forget that ODF is already an approved ISO standard, and that however much Microsoft moans about it not having the correct features to support Windows applications, the glaring irony is that Microsoft was always at liberty to take part in its formulation and standardisation process, yet refused, and (as the standard evolves) still refuses to do so.

You mean Open Document Format! D'oh!

As to the independence of this particular report, that's irrelevant - anyone applying intelligent thought to the matter cannot avoid the obvious: "MS Open Office XML" is NOT an open standard, by any stretch of the imagination. To claim otherwise is laughable. Even the name smacks of desperation - no less than the BSI states that it is deliberately designed to create confusion with ODF and its name should be changed (as well as that the format should be redesigned from the ground up, based on ODF).

Let us not forget that ODF is already an approved ISO standard, and that however much Microsoft moans about it not having the correct features to support Windows applications, the glaring irony is that Microsoft was always at liberty to take part in its formulation and standardisation process, yet refused, and (as the standard evolves) still refuses to do so.

"Independent" does not mean "unbiased".

I do believe that the name was chosen specifically to be confused with ODF, a tactic Microsoft is well known for.

Though, according to Wikipedia [1] and other sources it's "Office Open XML" not "Open Office XML".

I agree with everything you said in your comment.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML