Top Stories
|
US gives thumbs up to OOXML for ISO standard10 Mar 2008 11:41 Sticks to approvalWrong comparison?By Avi
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 11:51 GMT
“I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process, and the spec is much better now than when we started,” said Mahugh Much better than ODF, or just much better than MSOOXML was last time we saw it? If the former, why keep ODF? If only the latter, what's the advantage of MSOOXML over ODF? Better than awful doesn't make it goodBy Bruno Girin
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 12:00 GMT
"the spec is much better now than when we started" Well, it wasn't very good to start with so it can only have improved. But even then, is it fit for purpose? And even if it is, having 2 competing standards is like having no standard at all. The best way forward would be to add to ODF whatever features of OOXML it currently lacks but that would mean Microsoft cooperating with potential competitors. I expect it's more like...By Tom
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 12:30 GMT
The US delegation has voted to stay bought. Give the standard to Microsoft!By Ash
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 12:35 GMT
Keep setting standards by the whim of major corporations! YOU ARE FREE TO BUY WHAT WE SELL YOU! USA! USA! USA! The US DelegationBy Juillen
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 12:49 GMT
Knows that if OOXML gets a standard, MS gets to keep office locked in, and all the money that floods to MS from the rest of the world gets taxed, at a time when the US Economy is decidedly shaky and needs every tax dollar it can get. Something has to fund GW's latest thoughts of a new tax rebate to try to kick start the economy! What is the point?By Jamie
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 14:10 GMT
The US will always side with the big US corporations to the detriment of both it's own citizens and those of other countries. This will end up going the way of the big buck. Enough said. Sad thingBy Highlander
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 14:45 GMT
The sad thing is that the fix was in before they debated a thing, and no I don't mean that any money changed hands or anything. Anyone who thinks that the US delegation wouldn't side with MS has simply not been paying attention. The choice between the MS standard and the commie pinko Euro-standard is clear. Why would the US back a non-US standard controlled and specified by a non-US body? Anytime anything like this comes up, if you want to know who the US delegates will side with regardless of technical merit, look to the US side. Wow !By Anonymous Coward
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 16:22 GMT
Now there is a surprise. Well at least a dollar can't buy shit on the currency markets haha ! I know why.By Pierre
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 16:22 GMT
It's because ODF supports terrorism. Plus, it has Weapon of Mass Destruction. And it illegally shares files. And it is commie. Kill ODF! Give the moneyz to MS! MS is 1337. They pay good moneyz to the people siding with them. USA against the rest of the world, part two: how to make standards useless. How do MS know that they comply with their doc?By Bruce
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 16:25 GMT
Given that, from previous articles, we know that MS are expecting adopters of the standard to re-create obscure Word6 re-pagination bugs and the like, how do we know that MS have even documented the bugs correctly? How ironic if they were found not to be compliant with their own standard. Composition of the Delegation.By davcefai
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 16:37 GMT
According to: http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/conflict-of-interest/ , Microsoft and 11 of its business partners voted yes. From the horses wotsitBy Elmer Phud
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 16:48 GMT
"I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process," Yeah right, I think we understand perfectly. Not a voteBy Martin Owens
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 18:38 GMT
This isn't the vote it's self but the recommendation committee. Given the way the USA NB delegation was talking when they left Geneva I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their vote to "F*ck No!", no because of the standard just because civil servants don't like to be gamed and abused in such a glaringly obvious way. If I was as pissed at Microsoft as most of those NB's I'd be changing my vote. Besides the process should have stopped, the votes were tied 4-4 and a tied means failure in JTC-1 rules. "I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process,"By OldGreeeeeg
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 19:11 GMT
After all... it is MSUSA. When is ISO not ISO?By B Gracey
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 20:21 GMT
When it's incorrectly called 'International Standards Organization' is when. Admittedly, it really does not make sense that ISO actually stands for International Organization for Standardization, given the order of the letters, but it's true! Go to their website and find out for yourself... and then, please get it right when publishing! What has changed?By Henry Wertz
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 20:44 GMT
"the spec is much better now than when we started" What has even changed in the OOXML "standard"? I didn't think they had made very many changed to it at all, just planned to re-vote and see what happens? We need backward-compatible _applications_, not _formats_!By Ted Powell
Posted Monday 10th March 2008 21:04 GMT
The idea of a standard format that incorporates a whole raft of older formats is just plain silly. For years we have had applications, e.g. ApplixWare, AbiWord, OpenOffice.org, that have their own native format but also recognize (automatically or with user direction) various other file formats and deal with them. In particular, OO.o and its fellow ODF-implementers quite adequately deal with files in various foreign formats, _despite_ the fact that these formats have not been incorporated as part of the ODF standard. Having multiple formats as part of the same standard might make sense if one wanted to be able to handle documents where each paragraph was in a different format (various versions of MS-Word, WordPerfect, etc), but let's not go there. If it's true that for most MS file formats and communications protocols the only defining document is the source code of a specific (MS) application, this would go a long way toward explaining why they have come up with the kitchen-sink attempt at a standard that they have. (Speaking of kitchen sinks, how about we have an alternative standard for pipe threads, so plumbers have a choice? Ugh.) MicroshaftBy Anonymous Coward
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 00:31 GMT
“I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process, and the spec is much better now than when we started,” said Mahugh Fu#k the US of A. What about the rest of the world's desire for an open interoperable standard ?????????? Re: When is ISO not ISO?By Tim Bates
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 05:59 GMT
Maybe Cisco had already trademarked the term "IOS" ;-) On a more serious note, "Yay capitalism!" Clearly the US delegation is made up of biased or stupid people. The MS spec was (and as far as I can tell still is) broken. You can't put such a pathetic spec before ISO and expect to even get half the votes agreeing, especially when a spec of similar purpose was approved recently. The whole point is silly and pathetic. What is it about the ISO standard ODF that MS don't like, apart from it being the default in Open Office? Expected really.By yeah, right.
Posted Tuesday 11th March 2008 06:27 GMT
The US delegation was bought from the start, so no surprises there. Sad part is, even a no vote will mean that OOXML isn't rejected. It will only mean that it won't be allowed to go through fast track. Then Microsoft gets another kick at the can and a lot more time to buy votes with the normal ISO process. I wonder how much Microsoft paid for the ISO organization? Or did they just buy some of the key decision makers? The period for commenting on this story has finished |
Breaking Hardware News
Intel has been ordered to hand over secret employee interviews from an internal investigation looking into documents and e-mails that went missing during its antitrust trial with AMD.
Newsletter |