totally biased M$ Propaganda in the Dominion.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Jonathan Walker, Aug 28, 2007.

  1. http://it.gen.nz/ooxml/msnzopenletter.pdf

    START QUOTE
    Along with many others in New Zealand, we believe having Open XML
    approved as an ISO standard will help:

    + Protect our heritage and enable ongoing access to documents that are
    already in existence now and in the future.

    + Provide choice about which software we use to exchange documents.

    + Secure our future when storing and formatting information without
    requiring the use of any specific organisation, machine or system.

    + Foster innovation and enable the New Zealand IT industry to develop new
    and innovative software for markets locally and worldwide.

    + Give confidence that Open XML can continue to evolve under the
    supervision of the International Standards Organisation (ISO).
    END QUOTE


    Several points to completely refute this steaming pile of propaganda:

    1/ OpenOffice can ALREADY open most M$ Office files without problems.
    Also, if M$ was truly interested in faithfully preserving these "heritage"
    documents and maintain ongoing access to current documents then it could,
    and should simply open up and publish the specifications for the current
    legacy formats so that all developers of office productivity software
    could faithfully and accurately open these documents without any fault.
    Lets face it - not even M$ Office 2003 can even open a document created by
    an early version of M$ Word.

    2/ There is already a published and agreed ISO standard for enabling
    interoperability between office productivity suites - and that is known as
    the Open Document Format. That standard underwent more than 6 years of
    minute examination by Oasis and the ISO in order to develop a robust
    standard that was commonly agreed upon by multiple independent parties.
    When using ODF documents the public is not tied to any one particular
    office productivity suite - and there are multiple existing office
    productivity suites that have already fully implemented the ODF standard.
    One of the few exceptions, if not THE exception is that M$ Office has not
    yet implemented ODF.

    3/ There are already several implementations of the Open Document format.
    However, there is currently not even one implementation of the proposal
    for Office Open XML as a standard as MS Office 2007 does not completely
    conform to the OOXML proposal. Also, there are substantial portions of the
    OOXML proposal that are not specified and software developers would be
    unable to implement those aspects both for patent reasons and for a
    complete lack of a published specification for those aspects of the
    proposal.

    4/ I don't understand how requiring developers to implement a 6000 page
    incomplete specification that is known to have defects will foster
    "innovation". Most of those developers already can open the legacy M$ file
    formats in their productivity suites.

    Also, OOXML was not developed by multiple vendors working together - it
    was developed by Microsoft, and then effectively rubber-stamped (with
    effectively NO changes to Microsoft's submitted proposal) by the European
    Computer Manufacturers Association. Then it was "fast-tracked" through the
    ISO despite protests from several member organisations of the ISO who
    strongly suggested that the proposal was flawed and required intensive
    review and revision before it could be considered for adoption.
     
    Jonathan Walker, Aug 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jonathan Walker

    Fred Dagg Guest

    When was the last time a Linux group released something pro-microsoft?

    Of course it's biased. You say it as though it's a bad thing.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jonathan Walker

    peterwn Guest

    Microsoft seem to be having trouble stacking the NZ Standards
    Association groups (as they have been in other countries), so they have
    had to resort to misleading newspaper advertising.

    The .doc heritage will not be lost just because the world does not
    endorse OOXML. In any case in the great order of things, the present
    ..doc (and other MS Office formats) would only have a lifespan of 15
    years or so, which is a minor 'blip' in the archiving world.
     
    peterwn, Aug 28, 2007
    #3
  4. Jonathan Walker

    Steve Guest

    I really don't give a flying whatsit who wrote the standard. It contains
    the word open, but requires the use of closed Microsoft Office formats.
    People are also trying to force it through ISO in record time,
    intentionally attempting to leave no time to even read the proposal
    between it's publishing and the deadline for comments.

    I'd be just as anti this standard if Linus was proposing it. It's a pile
    of poo.
     
    Steve, Aug 29, 2007
    #4
  5. Jonathan Walker

    peterwn Guest

    Linus AFAIK has no position on such applications software - he
    concentrates on the Linux kernel.

    The ODF standard (ODF, ISO/IEC 26300, full name: OASIS Open Document
    Format for Office Applications) was a multi-party development and went
    through usual ISO processes without committee stacking, people being
    locked out of meetings, high level political lobbying etc. Microsoft,
    for its own reasons, chose to stay away. Microsoft is hoping that by
    not supporting it, or supporting it in a grudging and inconvenient
    manner, it will just go away.
     
    peterwn, Aug 29, 2007
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.