We’re starting to hear about how Microsoft (under ECMA’s name) is resolving the technical comments on OOXML. What do you need to know about this?
- Where are they? If this is a transparent process, we need to see the comments as well as all the proposed resolutions. What is there to hide? Have all members of all national standards bodies seen these? Everyone needs to have open links to see all this information, and now.
- These are proposed resolutions, not resolutions. They might be brilliant, they might be absolutely stupid, but they are by no means final. They are suggested fixes from the people who brought you this huge and problematic OOXML product-specification-disguised-as-an-open-standard. Therefore, do not in any way think that the problems have vanished at this point. The Ballot Resolution Meeting will come to some agreements, and only after that will things start to firm up so that we can better see the future.
- If these are Microsoft’s planned fixes, when will we see these fully implemented in Microsoft Office? Ever? As I have said, these are not final, but as the only application provider of note that implements some approximation to OOXML, we need guarantees from Microsoft that they agree to fully implement their recommendations, if accepted, and we need to know the timeline.
There is a long way to go before OOXML is ever put in an acceptable form to gain what should be a very important certification as an ISO standard, if it ever does. We must keep the originators’ “feet to the fire” so that we are not left with a bunch of empty promises instead of a high quality specification that somehow advances the state of the art. In the meanwhile, understanding progress is fine, but understand that nothing is a done deal today.
Where are the comments? That’s a rhetorical question, right? Rob Wier knows where they are
The problem is, does your National Body know where they are, and realise it has to ask for the password? Do you have a friendly insider on your National Body? What’s the NDA? While you’re sorting all that out you won’t have time for holding anyone’s feet to the fire….
You missed (at least) one:
* Are these the only textual changes that will be allowed on the agenda in February?
As for whether they’re Microsoft’s planned changes: to the extent that they’re strictly editorial (per Rob Weir, most if not all are) the question is moot. To the extent that they’re not, I don’t believe that the ECMA committee has the authority under their charter to make any changes that aren’t compatible with Microsoft’s products.
Whether that includes unreleased products, I wouldn’t know. After all, the ECMA group meets behind closed doors.
Hi Bob –
I realize we are not in any way going to agree on many points, but I think it is important to note that your spin on the “secrecy” issue is really off base. There was a decision taken in Brisbane at the ISO/IEC meeting that has resulted in the current protected status of the proposed dispositions for the national bodies. I am sure you guys know this, but you persist in going after it. Check out Alex Brown’s blogged comments on this – http://adjb.net (for those of you who don’t know, he is the convener of the BRM).
BTW, I completely agree that untill the BRM is finished and the NBs decide what their opinion is of the prosposed dispositions – they are not final. That is the whole point of the process.
Thx,
Jason
Having made a decision to keep the resolutions private, whether it be Microsoft, ECMA, ISO, or the IEC does not mean it is the right decision in the interests of openness, community-based discussion, or generally creating a higher quality standard.
Bob hi
Whether or not the process is sufficiently “open” is a perfectly good question to ask. However, for the current process it is especially important that everything is done by the book and that MS/Ecma do not get special treatment of any kind. Surely?!
- Alex.
Note that my first bullet is not about Microsoft/ECMA per se. If the comments and their proposed resolutions are not easily available, then there is something wrong with the core process, even if it is the “book.” This is something that, in my mind, needs fixing.
I’m not sure that the ISO core process is definitely wrong : ISO never claimed to be an “open” organisation, nor to produce “open standards”.
What is definitely wrong is that Microsoft claims that OOXML is an “open standard”, and is making use of the ISO process as a proof of it.
One of the criteria of the European Commission for “open standards” is as follows :
“The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).”
According to this definition, and given the way of working of both Ecma and ISO/IEC JTC1, OOXML cannot be considered as an open standard, despite the spin made by Microsoft.
It is not wrong to use close processes to produce a standard, it is wrong to use a close process and then pretend the resulting standard is open.
So, the blame should not be on ISO, but on Microsoft (once again…)