« OOXML is Unfaithful | Main | No OOXML »


Stephane Rodriguez

I hope everyone is reading the US ISO DIS 26500 comments that have been made public. (http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200706/)

I find those from June (the latest) the most damaging I have ever seen.

E V E R Y T H I N G in OOXML is wrong.

I simply hope that more national bodies have balls like that. Getting in touch with my French peers.

Sam Hiser


Looks like there's been an interesting discussion at INCITS -- the US standards body reviewing OOXML -- regarding the confusion brought about by the "Office Open XML" name with the original application name, "OpenOffice.org".

Some people are thinking this is out of scope, to talk about marketing plans. However, it's my view this is very much in-scope.

It's not about the intentions of Microsoft behind the name-scheme for OOXML but about the actual confusion; and real confusion is apparent: just Google the phrase 'Open Office XML' to see that this presents a meaningful problem -- which it's quite clear has confused at least the press since the name came up. Regardless of any intentions of any competitors, the problem exists and it's a problem for any national standards body to ratify a standard in this instance as such.

The reference comes up about the failure of C++/CLI in FastTrack, and that's all the more support for requesting Microsoft/ECMA to change the name of Office Open XML. They might appreciate the opportunity to elide that glaring redundancy ('open XML'), at the least.

My tuppence.

Stephane Rodriguez

By Microsoft own admission, their crap is just angle brackets around their 15 years of legacy. They don't use those words, but it goes around "a faithful representation of binary formats" which is the same thing.

By this admission alone, this thing should have "Microsoft" in the title since all it does is document its own DNA. I wonder why it is being sent to an ISO committee at all. Ironically, that's pretty much the question, around the scope, that the guys in the US ISO committee are still trying to answer, after all this time.

And, with no surprise, you'll read that a guy that goes by the name Doug Mahugh is doing his typical shit, that for instance this thing is immensely good and innovative (and therefore deserve an ISO standard: I wonder if the guy confuses a patent and an international standard), since it allows to store data using "custom XML". But it is not custom at all, it was already available in Office 2003 by storing the exact same stuff in OLE streams. One has to wonder why they did not make Office 2003 documents ISO standards too?

Have you noticed Doug Mahugh never disclosed on his blog that he is a voting member of the US ISO committee?

Disgustingly Microsoftish.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sam Hiser




This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from swhiser. Make your own badge here.

Locations of visitors to this page

Search PlexNex


View Sam Hiser's profile on LinkedIn

Powered by TypePad