ODF Alliance posts documents about OOXML/OpenXML/whatever


  1. Bob,

    Stick to OOXML please. I know you got criticism for using it.

    Office Open XML format is already a bad name coz it create confusion with OpenOffice.org. OpenXML is even more meaningless. In fact, in my planned comment to BSI, I put both points in and ask for a name change.

    Your post comes just in time for me to modify my comments to BSI. The first section of the second document is useful and will be used in my comments. Thanks.

  2. I agree that “OpenXML” is a ridiculous name and also agree that I’ll stop using it.

  3. The name that is used should depend on the target audience. When talking to informed people, the name won’t matter much. When addressing people that need to learn, we must keep in mind Microsoft is using “OpenXML”. The audience must be given the mean to connect the dots between Open XML, OOXML and other variants. The merit of using OpenXML/OOXML/whatever like Bob did was it connected the dots.

  4. What strikes me about OOXML is that there is absolutely no reason for inclusion of Microsoft trade secrets (undocumented behaviours and formats) and Microsoft patents not covered by the covenant not to sue (the covenant does not cover Microsoft’s proprietary formats and behaviours that are described but not referenced in the OOXML standard) – none other than to ensure that only Microsoft or Microsoft licensees can implement it fully. The fact is that since these aspects that relate to Microsoft’s legacy formats can and are only be implemented by Microsoft applications, they can be left to the application to handle, and don’t need to be specified in the OOXML standard. The ACME376 plug-in and the Da Vinci plug-in for ODF1.2 which provide 100% fidelity for Microsoft legacy applications demonstrate this clearly.

    The ISO organisation has a mandate which it must comply with, and these include rules about how standards should not exist to prevent competition. If through some triumph of corruption over reason and fair play, OOXML is approved, can ISO be taken to court or taken to anti-trust authorities to reverse the approval? This would be on the grounds that ISO has stepped outside it’s rules and mandate by approving OOXML, or that ISO is acting anti-competitively by approving a standard that includes patents and trade secrets in order to stifle competition, when there is no good reason to do so. If such action were to be taken, what jurisdiction would the suits come under, since ISO is an international organisation?

  5. I don’t expect that court action would be appropriate.

    It’s more that ISO would tend to lose the support of those who fund it and look to it for guidance. People would tend to find some other forum for negotiating standards, and it would tend to fall into disuse.

  6. I generally use “Not-so-open XML” and OOXML. I feel that this is a better description of what it is and using it in tandem with OOXML tends to associate them in the reader’s mind. Plus, readers can easily figure out the marketized term from my usage.

  7. I think the reason that the OEMs bundle Microsoft Windows is that it reduces their warranty costs.

    You buy a Windows Vista, Microsoft fix all the security defects for the next 10 years.

    Then you buy a new PC with Windows Whatever-it-is-by-then.

    Some of use take the Windows off and put Linux on. Horses for courses.

Comments are closed