OOXML Debate - Something I don't get.... | The Coffeehouse

rdaJay
Ya best look out when Omar come callin', yo.

I was wondering whether or not anyone can shed some light on the OOXML controversy for me. Specifically, why are many people against Microsoft's submission to the ISO? It seems to me that, standardized or not, no company really HAS to support it unless they choose to. I see what Microsoft has to gain (ISO Standards might well be required in some businesses), but why are so many people against standardization? Especially when standardization opens up the format, legally, for many developers?

The only reason I can think of is basically one that supports the ABM crowd. You know... "WINDOZE IS 4 TEH SUXORS... OMG ROFL!!!111!!!"

There has GOT to be something more to it than that. I can kind of see a company like IBM against it: they have competing products and it's their job to make things as hard as the competition as possible. But many of the open-standards crowd should be behind it..

What don't I get??

Isshou

Because of the ODF format, which is a (like) competitor to OOXML pushed by a number of other companies (Sun mainly) and aimed for FOSS type of distribution.

The reason for getting it ISO approved standard is that governments and businesses that restrict to approved standards now don't have that issue preventing them from using MS Office and OOXML.

This of course makes the others (who have been an approved open standard) disappointed because it removed one of the reasons why ODF could surplant OOXML as the main office standard (and thus OpenOffice would be more popular than MS Office, etc)

rdaJay
Ya best look out when Omar come callin', yo.

I hear what you are saying.

But I guess my issue is that for years the (F)OSS community(ies) have been after Microsoft to standardize and "open up". Now, when Microsoft is standardizing, it's "wrong".

I guess, what I'm understanding, is that real motiviation here is to minimize, if not Eliminate, Microsoft from Office-like applications and Microsoft's non-adherence to standards was a "(point point) see what they're doing!!!!!" Now, that Microsoft is attempting to eliminate that example, they're trying to block it so they still can point and wag their fingers.

Ok... it just seems to me that the (F)OSS communities should be supporting attempts at standardization, since it is something they profess to champion.

Guess that is Everyone But Microsoft.

Thanks for the input.

wisemx
Live it

Here's a true story showing just how mixed up this debate is...

A developer friend of mine works for IBM.
Yes I dislike IBM (and Oracle!) but let's get past that for now...

For years now this friend goes to Microsoft events with me.
He collects everything then crawls back to Home base.

Never fails I'll ask some crazy question later like:
"Hey..did you check out the new features?"

Then there's always a senseless crazy response:
"No, IBM won't let us install it."

I am not making this up...
The standards in the business world are still being...
Well...Fought over like little kids.
Signed,
#1 Microsoft fan Wink

wkempf

1. The MS bashers have the obvious reason.

2. Some think the standard, as presented, is "broken" for one reason or another. The don't want to standardize it for technical reasons.

3. Some don't have any issues with standardizing it, but have great issue with fast tracking it. They may not have anything specific they consider "broken", but they fear that there is something lurking in the spec that hasn't been uncovered due to the time lines of fast tracking and the sheer volume of the specification.

4. Some folks don't like having multiple standards that cover the same space, and they have preferences for ODF for one of the other reasons given here.

Many people fall under multiple categories here. Some of these are reasoned objections, while others are not. My opinion doesn't count for much, since I've not attempted to read the specs and I'm not involved in the standardization process in any way, but I'd love to see OOXML passed while still falling in line with point 3 above.

j0217995

because its from Microsoft and the Free Products like OpenOffice suck compared to Office 2007. seriously try using it on a big project with reviewers and comments setup through out it.

Soviut

wkempf wrote:

4. Some folks don't like having multiple standards that cover the same space, and they have preferences for ODF for one of the other reasons given here.

It seems strange to me that this could be an issue. Typically there's no problem with having multiple standards for a similar format. For example, Genshi templates or Smarty templates or Django templates. They all do the same thing, but each has their own way of doing it that can have any number of reasons to be prefered by a developer.

That said, they're all standardized in the sense that a Genshi template will work the same on Windows, Linux, OSX, and will work the same whether its being used on its own or embedded in a Django project or Drupal, etc.

If the ODF format is simpler than the large OOXML spec, then it will have its own niche, just like RTF occupies the "simpler than doc" niche.

wkempf

Soviut wrote:

wkempf wrote:
4. Some folks don't like having multiple standards that cover the same space, and they have preferences for ODF for one of the other reasons given here.

It seems strange to me that this could be an issue. Typically there's no problem with having multiple standards for a similar format. For example, Genshi templates or Smarty templates or Django templates. They all do the same thing, but each has their own way of doing it that can have any number of reasons to be prefered by a developer.

None of those are standards. A better example would be to point out the standardized languages that all compete in basically the same space, for example: C, C++, C# are all standards.

This specific case, however, is a bit different. The standard is meant to facilitate document interchange, and multiple standards in that space would cause more problems than any advantage any given format might have over another. Imagine if the Web had several radically different formats for page presentation (the argument that it already has MathML and other such languages isn't the same thing).

I'm not agreeing with this point, but there is a reasoned argument that could be made for it.

Tokter

I don't know how valid those reaons are, but here are some...
http://www.noooxml.org/open:rejectooxmlnow

wkempf

Tokter wrote:
I don't know how valid those reaons are, but here are some...
http://www.noooxml.org/open:rejectooxmlnow

Given that the first 3 reasons given there directly apply to the reasons given here...

There's a few other reasons not given in that list, though the majority of them fall under the reasons I gave.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Tokter wrote:
I don't know how valid those reaons are, but here are some...
http://www.noooxml.org/open:rejectooxmlnow

I am sure they are completely unbiased and careful to take in account the needs and desires of all the parties involved...

Expressionless

JChung2006

wisemx wrote:
Then there's always a senseless crazy response:
"No, IBM won't let us install it."

There's good legal reason behind this policy which has little to do with the platform zealotry surrounding these debates.

elmer
I'm on my very last life.

The evil OSS community has been using its Monopoly of the ISO document standards to manipulate the "standards-required" office market, and MS is the white knight hero charging in to free the oppressed from their technological imprisonment... LOL.

Bass
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

I think the main reason free software advocates are against OOXML is that it eliminates one of the major advantages Open Office has over MS Office, which is a certified standardized document format. While that doesn't matter much to individuals, it is a big deal to large governments and corporations, a few of which mandated the use of the OpenDocument format already because of this. So the adoption of OOXML as a standard is a setback for the adoption of Open Office.