Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Semi-protection

As the article is semi-protected and I'm not going to create an account maybe add this info where it fits:

In a letter published 2008-03-14 Christian Uhde, the mayor of Munich, asked the German government and DIN to reject OOXML. [1].

217.184.142.19 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC) don't use the talk link

mergefrom Office Open XML Ballot Results

I've proposed to merge the rather incomplete page Office Open XML Ballot Results to this article, please add the corresponding mergefrom template. Apparently Template:editprotected isn't used for semi-protected pages, and Template:mergefrom isn't designed for Talk pages of the affected article. 217.184.142.38 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) don't use the talk link

I suggest the whole ballot result article is deleted as there is no reliable source for the information in that article as the ISO/SEC proces is not public. There is no wpVER on that info. hAl (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this possibly an example of you talking to yourself Hal? Hmmmm... past behavior does not necessarily guide present and future, but it's a guide isn't it? - jonathan888 not signed in because I'm very busy at the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.50.4.4 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweedens approve to abstain change

Sweden invalidated its vote as one company cast more than one vote, which is against SIS policy.[19]

Common misconception in english press. SIS (NB for Sweeden) press release says vote was invalidated because a company had had more than one "röst". Röst in sweedish has dual meaning of voice and vote and therefore in all likelihood refers directly to Microsoft bribes/threats of business partners. Ensuring no one votes more than once and each vote is only counted once is so basic that it is absurd to imagine SIS would make such a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.200.24 (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Less absurd if you consider the chairman of the committe being strongly opposed to the Office Open XML standardisation. Also the article has a direct quote from the SIS president to IDG Sweden (who should able able to translate a direct quote) stating: "It appears that one of the organizations that took part had two votes. Since the rules weren't followed, the decision made earlier is void," SIS president Lars Flink told IDG's Computer Sweden. ""The vote has been criticized, but that is not the reason for our decision," he said. "The sole reason is that one of the companies that voted cast more than one vote. No member company has more than one vote."

That statement specically states two votes by one company and not more than that and apperantly MS had more than one representative at the meeting which might have caused the vote confusion but I find it hard to believe a more neutral chairman would not have noticed the wrong vote number because I agree that it is absurd to make suvch a mistake. hAl (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to OOXML/DIS29500 Section

In the opposition complaints, one of the primary complaints I've heard leveled at DIS29500 over the past few months seemed to be lacking... That the standard itself is completely unnecessary and succeeds primarily only in confusing the market it was designed to serve. I simply don't have the energy required to add or state the idea properly now, but the part I was going to post runs something like this. Would there be anyone who might help me clean it up and remove any weasel words before posting?

One of the primary criticisms of the OOXML standard is that it is a completely unnecessary standard in the first place, as it is redundant with the ODF standard[cite]. Supporters of this view suggest that OOXML be harmonized with ODF and made as an extension to ODF where OOXML adds additional features not originally contained in OOXML. Such multiple standard situations only serve to divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve (see the HTML/web-browser war of the 1990s, UNIX wars of the 1980s, etc)...

Thanks. MyOwnLittlWorld (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The situation is actually much more complicated than you make out. The purpose of ISO is to create standards. Often it has multiple overlapping standards. ISO does not attempt to decide the one "true" standard. In this case Microsoft and its allies allowed the ODF standard to go forward without opposition. However, IBM and its allies have opposed OOXML in order to further their commercial and ideological interests. It is not practically feasible at this point to "harmonize" ODF, OOXML, PDF, etc.--76.126.127.184 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proving "Such multiple standard situations only serve to divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve" would be pretty darn hard.

You seem to be familiar with technology, mentioning the UNIX wars, so here's some food for thought.

As you note, HTML is another document standard. SGML, on which HTML is based, was standardized in 1986 - before the web (and therefore HTML) was even created. Were the inventors/supporters of HTML attempting to "divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve"?
Consider the number of programming languages standardized under ISO. Ada (programming language) became an ISO standard in 1987. C++ was accepted as a standard a year later. Were the C++ supporters attempting to "divide and confuse the communities they purport to serve"? Should C++ not be used, because Ada was standardized previously?

WalterGR (talk | contributions) 00:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it argued before that multiple ISO standards should only be accepted when the newer standard has a clear advantage over the older standard (in other words it's meant to succeed the older standard) or clearly serves a different purpose as to the older standard. In the case of HTML, it seems clear that it was intendeed to succeed SGML. In the case of Ada it seems to be they serve different purposes. I think it's clear that OOXML is not intended to succeed ODF. Whether OOXML truly serves a different purpose from ODF that I don't know. And whether the oft made claim that there are no competing standards which weren't either intended as successor or to serve different purposes in the ISO that I also don't know. I would be quite interested in knowing so it would be good if people can find reliable sources and add it to the article as I am sick of the rheoteric from both sides Nil Einne (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft and its allies did not allow the ODF standard to go forward without opposition. They did all they could to derail it.
However, IBM and its allies have opposed OOXML in order to further their commercial and ideological interests.Can you please add detail, as this seems like a rant.
It is not practically feasible at this point to "harmonize" ODF & OOXML, why not? OOXML does not add anything that ODF does not already cover. If you do have a point, add it to the "Pro's" list in the article, please do not try to censer valid comments.
Even if any of the above was true, the original post should still be added for a balanced viewpoint.
Laughton.andrew (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Very well worded and does not need cleaning up. Laughton.andrew (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to NoOOXML site

The addition of this site has been discussed ad nauseam previously. Please read the discussions above, and the discussion archives on the Office Open XML article. In brief:

the link has been added, removed, and discussed many times before
the link has been removed before by a couple admins who were called in about the issue
adding links to rabidly anti-OOXML sites with no editorial oversight opens the door to adding links to rabidly pro-OOXML sites with no editorial oversight.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose 2nd ballot section

Korean member body looks to vote for favor, judged by KAT(standard body of Korea)'s recent announcement. That is the committee had the internal ballot resulting 7 favors and 4 againsts. --Cheol (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

references and technical critisism

If added some of the references lacking from the technical arguments. Someone should add a reference to the spreadsheetML performance feature, or this item should be removed.

About the crisism section, it's very badly written and needs to add references. Furthermore, some arguments are classified as technical arguments, but in fact are not. Use of Office Math ML instead of W3C recommendation MathML.[56] for example cites a article stating that Office Math ML and MathML are not the same. That OOXML should use the W3C MathML is not a technical argument, as it does not relate to a technical flaw in OOXML.

About the other two arguments without references, I really don't understand a thing what is meant here. Please revise this (consise and clear) and add references or this has to go. Maybe more _real_ technical flaws can be added...

WP:SOAPBOX an WP:NOR. It doesn't matter if the criticism that the use of Office MathML over MathML is personally compelling to you. This isn't an editorial. If some WP:RS states that others have made this criticism, it meets the WP:V threshold to be included. The same goes for any praise for the format. --Karnesky (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Microsoft key benefits arguments" and "Technical arguments" are not relevant to any other standard.

The "Microsoft key benefits arguments" and "Technical arguments" are not relevant to any other standard. They only apply to previous Microsoft formats. Shouldn't they be comparing against either other standards such as ODF, or earlier versions of the same standard such as the Ecma version ? If there are no such benefits I feel the text should be changed to show the benefit of moving to any standard, not specifically "Office Open XML". Laughton.andrew (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Norwegian demonstration

This should be definitelly addressed in the article:

--Kozuch (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest creating "Afterwards" or similar section for information regarding post-standardization.--Kozuch (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cynics might think it was mainly a march of Opera employees photographed by Google employees. :-) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think there will always be more people demonstrating against something they don't like than in favour of something that they do like. I, for one will take pictures in case I ever see a demonstration in favour of the standardization of Office Open XML. :-) Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There used to be an image of the demo, in this version of the article, however someone deleted it in this edit. I think it should be restored.--Lester 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about a different article, not this one. Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"EU: Irregularities" :
- .
- {{cite web |url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7183/469 |title= EU: Irregularities reported in OOXML ISO process | publisher=IDABC | date=[[August 28]], [[2007]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed essay

A long and interesting essay by an active participant in the standardization effort was added to the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles aren't the right place to publish interesting essays - Wikipedia is a place to summarize information published elsewhere in reliable sources. So, with regret, I removed it again. The text is recoverable from the article history if the author wants to retrieve it for publication elsewhere. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)