Responses now complete for all 3,522 comments


Yesterday night Ecma TC45 and the Editor of DIS 29500 were able to publish the final drop of our responses to the 3,522 national body comments. The Ecma status report just went live today, and you can access it here: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Proposed%20dispositions%20for%20National%20Body%20comments%20on%20DIS%2029500%20complete.htm . Many of the national bodies have already been following along with the progress over the past couple months, as Ecma continued to post the latest responses; and I think they’ll all be happy to see the final draft ready.

It’s been a ton of hard work over the past several months, and it really feels great to move onto the final stage of this process (I need some sleep). It’s unbelievable how much work we’ve been able to accomplish within TC45. Similar to how we moved from a 2,000 page spec to a 6,000 in 2006, in 2007 we were able to respond to 3,500 comments and generated a 2,300 page document (a bit less that a page per comment) where I believe we were able to successfully handle the national bodies comments.

The most impressive part about TC45 was the diversity of skills and experience we had on the group. We had a large number of conference calls and a week long meeting in Japan to get to this point. Many people on TC45 actually worked through the winter holidays and through their own personal vacation time (thanks again everyone!). There were folks like BP who have huge amounts of documents in the corporation and their key concern is access to those documents and ensuring that they could use different tools on different platforms to access those documents. The US Library of Congress had a huge amount of experience in document archival, and the level of detailed review they brought was huge. The folks from Novell and Apple were both really helpful as they had already built Open XML implementations and they were able to provide the point of view of an implementer. It’s not possible to name all the folks who helped make this happen, but I know that they are all as happy as I am with the results. We were able to help the editor pull together an even better specification, and we’re all excited to continue moving the standard forward over the coming years.

-Brian

Comments (45)

  1. Congratulations on completing this stage of the work.  Sounds like a huge job.  I have one question, which I know is probably premature because this is just a proposal, but how do you see the deprecated part working?  Not in the format so much as in MS Office.  In other words, if a binary document which uses a deprecated feature is opened with MS Office 20xx (whenever that is released), do you foresee changing the contents to match the non-deprecated logic, or simply using the deprecated features for that document?  I can see pros and cons for either approach for MS Office, but it seems like for the sake of OOXML as a standard, you would really want to convert to non-deprecated features if at all possible.  Any thoughts on that (and again, not so much what the format will require as what you think MS Office might choose to do, assuming the standard does not require one approach or the other)?

  2. carlos says:

    having seen +1000 pages of one of the +40 PDFs generated by ECMA (Microsoft), only one word come to my mind and my heart:

    pathetic

    this DIS 29500 is becoming an amorphous thing … very worring … keep devaluating standardization, Microsoft !

    Congratulations Brian, you, Microsoft and ISO are making history 😉

        carlos

  3. Cmdr Flibberty Jibbitz says:

    Carlos,

    Maybe you can enlighten us exactly as to what you found to be pathetic.  

  4. Wu MingShi says:

    Again, the same frustration of not being able to see the alteration because I am not NB members. Any chance of an white-out/black-out/non-classified version?

  5. carlos says:

    >Carlos,

    >Maybe you can enlighten us exactly as to what you found

    >to be pathetic.  

    may be you could enlighten yourself, finding out about the process and deliverables of true and serious standards:  C, C++, PDFs, etc.  

    good luck ! 🙂

          carlos

  6. Sour Grapes says:

    Carlos, the standards you mention are only "serious" standards because they have been in use for years. They went through, and are still going through, a standardization process. You need to give OOXML some time in the industry before you make a claim of pathetic. Otherwise you look like a foolish prognosticator trying to garner attention.

  7. Francis says:

    This is wonderful news! I hope they give you extra vacation time for all your hard work!

  8. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    Hi Ben,

    I think the way we’ll end up going with the deprecated elements is that they will continue to be supported, but we’ll find ways of encouraging users to "upgrade" their documents to use the newer functionality.

    We alreay have this today in Word 2007. If you have the compatibility settings on for instance, your document will be put in "compat mode". Users are prompted to "upgrade" their document which takes it out of compat mode and turns off those settings.

    We also do this with VML in some places, but not all places. We obviously still have work to do there from a product side, but in terms of the spec, the guidance is very clear.

    ———–

    Carlos,

    Did you actually read through the responses? I’m extremely proud of the work we did in TC45 to pull together well thought out proposals for each issue. It shows the effiency of TC45, and the willingness to continue improving on the standard. That’s how standards and software work, they continue to evolve and improve over time.

    The Open XML standard already makes huge strides in terms of redefining what a document really is. It’s not just about presentation and formatting, but about the semantics of the information within the document. The combination of content controls and custom XML are changing how people think about the traditional office suite document.

    Wu MingShi,

    I’ll talk to the other TC45 members, but I’m not sure how much of an undertaking it would be. Many of the responses include the national bodies name or original comment, so it would actually be a bit of a task to go through redacting everything. One thing I plan on doing is posting the most interesting ones over the coming weeks and for those I’ll be able to make sure they don’t have any country specific info in them.

    ———-

    Sour Grapes,

    I think another intersting point in terms of the maturity of the Open XML standard is the level of support already out there:

    Apple (Mac OS X Leopard, iWork 08, iPhone), Adobe (InDesign), Microsoft (Office 2007, Office 2003, Office XP, Office 2000, Office 2008 Mac OS X), Novell (Suse Open Office), Google (Search / Preview), Mindjet (MindManager), Intergen, OpenXML/ODF Translator (Open Source project on Sourceforge), Dataviz (DocumentsToGo on Palm OS, MacLinkPlus on Mac OS X Leopard), NeoOffice, Altova (XMLSpy), MarkLogic (XML Content Server), Datawatch (Monarch Pro), QuickOffice  (QuickOffice Premier 5.0 on Symbian), Altsoft (XML2PDF Server 2007) and those under development by Corel (WordPerfect), AbiWord, Gnome (GNumeric),  Xandros, Linspire, Turbolinux and others.  These implementations are now available on many platforms, including Linux, the Macintosh, Windows, and handheld devices (PalmOS, Symbian, Windows Mobile).  

    -Brian

  9. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    Francis,

    Thanks! There is still a lot of work to do this winter and spring, so my vacation is probably going to have to wait until closer to April. My wife’s trying to get me to clear at least a few days so we can get away for a long weekend though… (we just got another new weimaraner puppy so we want to take our two dogs out somewhere with snow)

    -Brian

  10. Doug Mahugh says:

    Today’s announcement from Ecma that written responses have been provided for all 3,522 national body

  11. carlos says:

    >Carlos,

    >Did you actually read through the responses?

    yes

    >I’m extremely proud of the work we did in TC45

    congratulations for your optimistic view of

    reality. I would be ashamed to have to change

    so much of a proposal … this is a sign of

    the lack of quality ( i.e: rush ) of the process

    >It shows the effiency of TC45, and the willingness

    >to continue improving on the standard.

    you aren’t  improving the standard, you are

    *correcting* it

    you have demostrated that you don’t know

    how to draft a standard.

    Generating +10000 pages of changes [1] you are actually devaluating the

    words "standard", "standardization" and

    "fast-tracking"

    >That’s how standards and software work,

    >they continue to evolve and improve over time.

    this is how standards work when money and marketing needs are the drivers of the standardization process.

    Proper review and technical merits are third-class citizens.

     Carlos

    [1] http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Proposed%20dispositions%20for%20National%20Body%20comments%20on%20DIS%2029500%20complete.htm

  12. Today's announcement from Ecma that written responses have been provided for all 3,522 national body

  13. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    Carlos,

    Sorry man, but you just aren’t living in reality. Look at the huge gaping holes in ODF. By you’re logic ODF still isn’t ready to be an ISO standard, and that’s almost 2 years after it’s submission.

    Standards grow, and improve. The percentage of the Open XML specification that’s being impacted by these changes is fairly low, but the changes themselves are a net positive. That’s not the sign of a broken standard, it’s the sign of an improving standard.

    -Brian

  14. trila says:

    Where are the corrections so that I can see the probably ugly face of AutoSpaceLikeWord95?

    It seems that ECMA is totally incompetent to setup a public website to publish its comments?

  15. Wu MingShi says:

    Thank you Brian for considering a redacted version. I agree it is a big job.

    I will be satisfied if the the latest uptodate specification, i.e., the one that will be made public as the ISO standard assuming BRM goes ahead and no changes there.

    After all, there is a lot of people out there will do a "diff" of both documents. Sure, there will be a lot of noise from the opposition camp, but hey, the more scrutiny the standard receive and the better the standard will be (to their chagrin)

    In the long run, it is not the comments that are important, but the actual ISO specs itself. It is true that by not publishing the comments we will not see the argument behind them. But I am sure there will be noises about them. However, the noise level can indicate to us which points are important and we can then concentrate on these. With this, we can discuss (repeats) points on the perceived important points without falling foul of the confidentiality rule

  16. Open XML says:

    Rien à voir avec la bataille Thermophyles ou les spartiates n’étaient que 300. Le processus de standardisation

  17. S says:

    @Brian Jones,

    Unsurprisingly, the major issue about a migration format such as ECMA 376 remains unaddressed. The migration format document does not contain the migration tables, therefore Microsoft is excluding others from reliably migrating existing files to the newer file formats.

    This is in direct contradiction with what  standards are for.

    PS : the so-called growing number of Open XML related projects is hypocrisy at best. It does not cost more to start a project related to binary formats, and there are gazillions such projects out there. Since those projects are just started, they always allow Microsoft to conveniently ignore the main issue : there is no serious and reliable non-Microsoft implementation out there at this point.

    A little more genuine words don’t hurt.

  18. Cmdr Flibberty Jibbitz says:

    Am actually surprised that Brian even bothered to reply to Carlos at this point.

    It is clear from his various posting that we got a troll in our hands, and one that probably saw the page count and figured "time to post!" considering his lack of analysis or his reply.

    And of course, Carlos has probably never participated in any other standard efforts.  

    OOXML has improved thanks to this process, and will become a much better standard as a result and this seems to bother a lot of people as it might mean that they have lost a year long FUD battle.

  19. Cmdr Flibberty Jibbitz says:

    S,

    Am not sure that you can blame Microsoft for a lack of "serious and reliable non-Microsoft implementation out there at this point".  

    Most products implementing OOXML are like the "beaujolais nouveau" wines of software products, they are just coming out.   It will take some time before they become vintage wines.    These products will mature over time, they will improve based on the needs of their users and will eventually be as tasty as any other product.

  20. Ein Berg von Arbeit ist (fast) geschafft. Alle 3,522 Kommentare der National Bodies im Zuge der Standardisierung

  21. Ein Berg von Arbeit ist (fast) geschafft. Alle 3,522 Kommentare der National Bodies im Zuge der Standardisierung

  22. S says:

    @Cmdr

    Cmdr said "Am not sure that you can blame Microsoft for a lack of "serious and reliable non-Microsoft implementation out there at this point".  "

    What about Office 97 then? Hasn’t Microsoft made all binary formats available (officeff@microsoft.com)? How come there is no known reliable way to use a competing product?

    Office 97 shipped in 1997 right? That’s eleven years ago. Even if implementors are quite slow, I think they’ve had enough time.

    Well obviously, not having the migration mapping tables does not help. That’s why it will be even harder to compete with something based on "OOXML" with Microsoft’s reference implementation (which itself is a moving target). We know this : it’s called fire and motion, and it has everything to do with making it impossible for the market to play on equal footing. This by the way describes what the Office group has been doing for two decades now.

    Now can you please answer this question : without the migration mapping tables, how do you intend to compete with Office 2007 ?

  23. Bruno says:

    Jiří Kosek, the official collector of the Czech Republic’s 75 OOXML objections, has posted his evaluation of the ECMA’s responses to those objections:

    http://xmlguru.cz/2008/01/ecma-response-to-czech-ooxml-comments

    It’s a very thorough evaluation, with each response scoring a "Satisfactory Resolved (GREEN)", "Partially Resolved (YELLOW)", and "Not Satisfactory Resolved (RED)".

    And the results?  I’ll just quote him:

    "ECMA already provided proposed resolution for 75 comments (out of total 75 Czech comments). This means that 100.00% of Czech comments were handled by ECMA.

    90.67% of comments were satisfactory resolved.

    8.00% of comments were resolved only partially.

    1.33% of comments were not satisfactory resolved.

    In fact I was really surprised how many “green boxes” are there at the end. I was expecting that ECMA will properly address only part of our comments. The vast majority of Czech comments was addressed by ECMA so it is time to say yes to OOXML."

    (I looked at the lone "Unsatisfactory Resolved" issue, and it’s just a disagreement on the wording of the spec (that a portion is too verbose for Czech Republic’s liking), not on technical issues, and Jiří is fine with letting that get resolved in the future.)

    Sorry, anti-OOXML fanboys, but the writing is on the wall.  It’s time to face the facts.  All your tremendous effort to FUD and derail OOXML has done is to create an ISO OOXML 1.0 spec that is actually of 1.5 quality, complete, and polished (unlike ODF 1.0, which is woefully incomplete and not polished at all).  Just as Miguel predicted, I might add.

  24. S says:

    "Sorry, anti-OOXML fanboys, but the writing is on the wall."

    The arrogant in you probably does not understand that no one seriously following the OOXML saga believed that this would fail. And everyone, except you and a few other shills apparently, clearly saw that contributions such as IBM’s Weir have made great service to Microsoft to improve the specs. This alone contradicts what you are saying. Let’s go further.

    I think the entire issue left is that there isn’t and probably will never be a second reference implementation that can ever compete with Microsoft’s implementation for the simple reason that if you correct mistakes in the specs, you are not discussing all what is MISSING in said specs. And an example of that is the migration mapping tables, which in their absence ensures that competing products are excluded from doing what Office 2007 does.

    This isn’t what standards are for. No matter how you see it, this is largely immoral to parade on OOXML’s so-called "success" when you know that the specs that are provided guarantee exclusivity, therefore no interoperability.

    Sure, you will be able to unzip a file, and read/write angle brackets. But that’s not what we are talking about.

    Last but not least, if there are important changes mades to the specs, then a logical conclusion is that there will be no reference implementation. What an accomplishment indeed…

    (Of course, I’m playing devil’s advocate here, everyone knows that Microsoft was well on its way to remove VML in Office documents and that the reason we have discussed VML in this whole 2 years is only the consequence of Microsoft’s own incompetence in shipping Office 2007 devoid of VML).

  25. Bruno says:

    "The arrogant in you probably does not understand that no one seriously following the OOXML saga believed that this would fail. And everyone, except you and a few other shills apparently, clearly saw that contributions such as IBM’s Weir have made great service to Microsoft to improve the specs. This alone contradicts what you are saying. Let’s go further."

    LOLOLOL

    You seriously are trying to pretend that Weir’s objective in FUDding OOXML was to "improve the spec"?  Are you for real?  Hell, just last month Weir made posts to this very blog about how this is a "Standards War" and his objective was to annihilate OOXML, period.  Hell, for months, the front page of Weir’s blog had a big picture link to http://www.noooxml.org/, using the big "NO OOXML" PNG.  He doesn’t have that link anymore, but you can see the 2007 archives of his blog at the WayBack Machine to see that he used that banner/link for months and months.

    And if Weir’s objective was to "improve the spec" why is he still against it, based on bogus issues (like ISO/ECMA spec maintenance agreements and ECMA not violating ISO rules by publicly publishing comments/responses)?

    I’ll grant you one thing:

    If Weir/IBM’s goal wasn’t to kill OOXML, it was certainly to delay it so as to get a few more months to lobby governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF based on ODF’s having the ISO imprimatur.  But their objective certainly was NOT to improve the spec.  And reading sites like slashdot, osnews, groklaw, grokdoc, reveal that lot’s of anti-OOXML folk were trying to kill it (as an ISO standard) and believed they were succeeding in doing so.  They had no interest in improving the spec, and indeed, cover their eyes and ears so as to remain intentionally ignorant of spec improvements so they can keep spewing the same talking points over and over.

    (The rest of your post was, shockingly, reasonable (though still badly misguided).)

  26. Gerd R says:

    "If Weir/IBM’s goal wasn’t to kill OOXML, it was certainly to delay it so as to get a few more months to lobby governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF based on ODF’s having the ISO imprimatur."

    I think that Rob Weir is a technical person that wants to kill OOXMl for quality reasons. Of course the whole purpose of OOXML standardization is to delay ODF adoption, but at least in Europe the stage is passed. Microsoft lost because they invested in anti-open standards lobbying. Thanks to the recent effort of Microsoft to rush its spec through there is now a well-organized and vocal community that defends open standards and combats OOXML. And governments want to get better contractual conditions anyway and switch to odf.

    The positive outcome will be that ISO will improve its structure. Unexpectedly ODF is going to win because of your standardization efforts.

    Don’t hide behind rules, that is plain stupid. Either the comments are published which means public or made available to members of the standard organizations.

    We need a more public and more transparent standardization process. Thank you, for pointing that out with DIS 29500.

  27. .NetBlogger says:

    Una noticia muy interesante es que ECMA respondió a todos los comentarios que se hicieron en todo el

  28. Una noticia muy interesante es que ECMA respondió a todos los comentarios que se hicieron en todo el

  29. S says:

    "You seriously are trying to pretend that Weir’s objective in FUDding OOXML was to "improve the spec"?"

    Well, have you read the comments he made? I’m not talking about his blog. I think it’s not mutually exclusive to make constructive comments and to want the proposal to return to draft status until it’s of ISO quality. Some would call that "kill it" but I think saying so denatures his view about it, and the view of many about it : had Microsoft come up with a top notch standard for Office documents, we would certainly have a different discussion.

  30. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    S,

    If that’s the case, then do you think he will now support the format since we’ve fixed the vast majority of issues raised?

    -Brian

  31. S says:

    @Brian Jones,

    "If that’s the case, then do you think he"

    Don’t forget Brian that it’s you and others who created the big bad IBM conspiracy. It’s really odd for you to keep doing so. The reality is that, due to IBM immense influence in national bodies as a consequence of IBM being so much involved in standards, IBM would be one of the guys with most direct impact against OOXML. But you chose to make IBM evil and sole company against it, even though many out there were against it since day one. Let’s be real, it’s a total fabrication of yours.

    And don’t forget to thank Rob for all his hard work.

    "we’ve fixed the vast majority of issues raised?"

    Like the migration tables? Where are they?

    Isn’t ECMA 376 a migration format?

    Isn’t it ironic that Mac Office 2008 shipped just yesterday and it creates deprecate files now, only because it chose to support OOXML too early? I wonder what you think about that…

  32. S says:

    @Brian Jones,

    "If that’s the case, then do you think he"

    Don’t forget Brian that it’s you and others who created the big bad IBM conspiracy. It’s really odd for you to keep doing so. The reality is that, due to IBM immense influence in national bodies as a consequence of IBM being so much involved in standards, IBM would be one of the guys with most direct impact against OOXML. But you chose to make IBM evil and sole company against it, even though many out there were against it since day one. Let’s be real, it’s a total fabrication of yours.

    And don’t forget to thank Rob for all his hard work.

    "we’ve fixed the vast majority of issues raised?"

    Like the migration tables? Where are they?

    Isn’t ECMA 376 a migration format?

    Isn’t it ironic that Mac Office 2008 shipped just yesterday and it creates deprecate files now, only because it chose to support OOXML too early? I wonder what you think about that…

  33. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    S,

    You didn’t answer my question

  34. S says:

    Hoping that you will answer mine then (i.e. migration tables), I think Rob will continue to be against OOXML (February 2008 edition) because it :

    1) does not prove interoperability across applications and platforms for any substantial scenario. Where are those scenarios, if any?

    2) does not show evidence that a second standard is needed so far. OOXML (February edition) looks more like ODF now. For Microsoft, or anybody, to have a case, they need to come up with something way better than the current standard. Something so much better that it’s a no brainer that it’s going to advance the state of the art.

    You can ask him directly.

  35. len says:

    I have worked on standards.  I try not to do that.  Short sword work is best done by those who practice everyday.

    1.  The transparent process is easily abused too.  Actually, it is easier to abuse.  I’m usually for transparency but when the emotions get this high and the yelling loud, closing the process is a good thing to do.

    2.  Brian didn’t start the ‘IBM conspiracy’ threads.  People like myself standing off to the side noticed that IBM was expending resources to defeat OOXML.  There is nothing new about these tactics.  It doesn’t always happen and perhaps the web emergence having pushed standards efforts out of the light while specifications were pursued make some think this is new but it isn’t.  What is noticeably different from when I had to fly to meetings, eat bad food and sleep in roach motels is how personal critics are these days.  Bad manners among the millenials are becoming legendary.  Since your kids will tend to rebel against whatever you become famous for, this may be good news for my grandkids.

    3.  Standards drafts are typically full of holes.  OOXML and ODF are not exceptional.  If one sees standards as a means to set down existing practices given existing technologies, there will be a very deep well of old documents, conflicting opinions, aging memories and code rot.  Most people in the web era confused standards and specifications.  Specifications are orders of magnitude easier precisely because they are clean sheet designs.  The more successful a product has been in terms of sales, the harder it is to use it or any artifacts that support it for standards because of the rot that accrues over many versions and resources.

    4.  IBM used to be the Evil Empire.  They lost their cred that way.  If this is a new IBM, they should review their losses.  What I keep seeing over in the virtual worlds/real-time 3D standards work is they are very good at defocusing the efforts of others and FUDDING the market while they try to figure out what they can sell.  I think that commercial with kid showing the old guy his ‘avatar’ is pretty accurate except the kid works for IBM.  A services company just doesn’t have much credibility in the product standards arena.

    None of this makes a difference.  Some really are working hard to answer the comments and others really are working hard to derail the process.  Motives vary.  The entertainment value is high but I think at the end these things will be true:

    a)  OOXML will be much improved by the scrutiny.

    b) Microsoft customers will have a much better bargaining position.

    c)  Those who want to take Microsoft down for any reason will be dissatisfied but better practiced.

    d)  Jones Weirmaraner will find out what snow is.

  36. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    Len,
    Couldn’t agree with you more. And I’m definitely looking forward to the snow 🙂

    ——————- 

    S,

    So is your main gripe then with Open XML that you would like to also see the binary documentation (which is already available BTW), as well as a mapping that lets you take files in the binary formats and move them into the Open XML formats? Aren’t those issues seperate from the standardization of Open XML?

    -Brian

  37. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    I figured at some point someone would post it. I think it’s great that everyone can take a look, but I’m not sure what the national bodies will think of their comments being public (although at some point someone had posted those as well). The process was set up by ISO so that the NB feedback would be kept confidential.

    Take a look and let me know what you guys think.

    -Brian

  38. marc says:

    >>The ECMA comments are here:

    >Take a look and let me know what you guys think.

    having read the changes proposed, i must say:

    the same trend continues: rushing and rushing… you are making a mockery of the ISO fast-tracking process: changing on-the-fly the specification, without proper review and consensus

    and all this only to achieve "ISO status" for the format of a software product, leaving interoperability, implementability and standards reusing as a second-class citizen.

    IMHO, with all this corrections, Microsoft demostrated that this draft is in an unaceptable state for fast-tracking and need *careful* reviewing.

    Compare it with ODF and PDF fast-tracking: they didn’t abused the system.

    But the game is clear here: just send some response to the 3500 comments, to conform NBs … for example: substitue the word  OLE  by "linking technology" …

    shameful

  39. @marc

    These same NBs weren’t bothered about the use of "OLE" in the ODF specs (ole-object-count)I notice. They probably never reviewed them at all.

    Rushing by doing a massive amount of review and refinement is better than rushing by just releasing with no-one reviewing it.

    Gareth

  40. marc says:

    >@marc

    >These same NBs weren’t bothered about the use of "OLE"

    >in the ODF specs (ole-object-count)I notice. They

    >probably never reviewed them at all.

    i cited this as an example of the lack of respect to NBs in many of Microsoft responses. It seems that their objective was to meet the 100% responses by all means, sacrificing quality or side-stepping the core issue of the comment.

    Another example ( of many ):

    ———-

    Comment/Observation KR-0018:

    Re-use of the existing standards:

    DIS 29500 incorporates very little of existing standards.

    Instead, it demands to use the specific vendor’s proprietary

    and the legacy formats, even though the relevant standards

    exist…."

    ———-

    Microsoft response:

    We agree that standards can benefit from appropriate use of other existing standards, and DIS 29500

    includes normative references to many standards that have been ratified by ISO/IEC, IETF, W3C, and

    other standards organizations. The following standards are normatively referenced by DIS 29500:

    <long list of obviously supported standards, like Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1! , XML! ( thank god DIS 29500 supports XML 🙂  >

    >Rushing by doing a massive amount of review and

    >refinement is better than rushing by just releasing

    >with no-one reviewing it.

    i think that the comparison here is:

    Rushed reviewing of a rushed super-response-combo response document of a rushed 5-month-review period of a rushed +6000 page standard

    is better than rushing by just releasing with no-one reviewing it  (*)

    (*) if you were thinking in ODF saying this, you must know that at least you have the proof of the review time and quality of ODF ( OASIS  4 year work public mailing lists ), can you say the same for DIS 29500 ?  

    actually, i followed DIS 29500 standardization process by leaked documents… the process was very closed … notably contradicting the resonant name "OpenXML"

    I find amazing that NB all over the world are doing the homework ( for free! ) that Microsoft should have done before

    submitting this beast.

    I, as a consumer, don’t want standards generated like this, i don’t trust ISO any more, the word "standard" is losing its meaning for me.  

    Standards driven by $$$, notably rushed, and with outstanding lack of quality are not useful for people, only a marketing tool for big corporations ( being MS, being SUN, IBM or whatever )

    Yip-yip-yahoo !! what standard do you want today?? Do you have some comment? we will change DIS 29500 to please you. But give us you approve vote, uh?

    A tragic-comic mockery

    –marc

  41. @marc

    Man hours = number of people x hours worked per person.

    I would still contend that more man hours were expended on OOXML than ODF.

    The value of a standard is surely not to be judged by who is involved in it’s production and the speed of its gestation.

    Maybe you can just cut Microsoft a little slack for being new to this, rather than some other organizations that have been gaming the system with perhaps more finesse over the years.

    If you feel standards should be entirely free of commercial involvement, then who will drive them?  If they are not out-and-out commercial organizations, then who will pay these people?

    Show me an existing standard and follow the money.  I doubt you will find any "clean" ones.

    Gareth

  42. jones206@hotmail.com says:

    Marc,

    Have you looked at the ODF committee’s responses to the NB comments that came in during their review? They just completely blew off a number of very relevant comments.

    TC45 spent a huge amount of time sorting through each comment and pulling together what we feel is a very good set of responses.

    The difference between the two processes is night and day.

    -Brian