van den Beld Post & Participation – Open XML continued

The complaints keep rolling in on Groklaw about the outcome from Open XML. ***UPDATE #2: I went out to dinner and have been thinking a great deal about this. I do hold an opinion on this, but I think it is reasonable that people who read my blog expect me to be careful with my assertions. For that reason, I retract this statement.***Strange that a website setup by IBM to fight a proxy war during the SCO case would be so focused on the Open XML discussion today. But that is for another day. ***UPDATE: Concern has been raised in the comments of this blog about my assertion of Groklaw and its contents. My assertion in the preeceeding paragraph is my opinion - take it or leave it a face value please.***

It may be that the disagreement of opinions following the approval of Open XML has exceeded what was happening during the process. The one thing that I have noticed from the anti-Open XML camp is a myopia when it comes to facts. It's amazing to me the capacity to put up blinders to facts that skew the picture away from their world view. ***Update. In thinking about this paragraph I think it is worth noting that Microsoft (as with any organization) should take to heart concerns raised about Open XML so that our engagement in international standardization work continuously improves.***

In light of those blinders, it is worth your time to look at a blog post from Jan van den Beld. It is an educational post. If you don't know who he is, he was Secretary General of Ecma for many years and a long-time participant in ISO/IEC business. In fact, he was there at the start of JTC 1 and has been such a good participant that the latest version of the JTC 1 directives are dedicated to him personally.


This brings me to my thought of the day. One of the most often raised accusations of the community who was in favor of Open XML was that they were "stuffing committees." There are a number of things that come to mind when I read these accusations.

Participation is a good thing - it is a very positive word and concept. Furthermore, it is an important part of the standards world.

Yet in the case of Open XML, it seems that participation by those in favor of Open XML only happened through pernicious activities and breeched ethics - while participation against Open XML was purity and light personified. I just don't get that.

In Norway when IBM and Google join the committee 2 days before the final vote...or when IBM brings a subsidiary company to the table with them in Italy effectively giving one company 2 votes...or when Oracle and Red Hat join the US V1 committee just before it votes....that is participation, right? I actually believe that to be true. It is no different than Microsoft or its business partners coming to the table to have their voices be heard in the process. As long as the participation is within the context of the rules for a given NB, then it is legitimate participation.

It would be nice if people would get off their high-horses on this particular issue, because the only position ANYONE should be taking is one in favor of participation. I would certainly be surprised to hear that anyone thinks participation should only be limited to those who agree with you. That would be an indefensible position to take.

Comments (27)

  1. JsD says:

    "In light of those blinders, it is worth your time to look at a blog post from Jan van den Beld. It is an educational post. If you don’t know who he is, he was Secretary General of Ecma"

    wow !!  sorry man, i didn’t know it…    

    please forgive us, your draft ( OOXML ) is wonderful

    Now we are friends?

  2. Wu MingShi says:

    If you have real evidence that IBM is behind groklaw anti-ooxml drive please provide proof. Otherwise, I must say I am disappointed that you decided to allow yourself to sank into spreading outright lies this time.

  3. Jason,

    This was beneath you:

    "Strange that a website setup by IBM to fight a proxy war during the SCO case would be so focused on the Open XML discussion today."

    I have exchanged hundreds of emails with PJ over the past three years, and have never had the slightest reason to ever think that what you suggest is true, let alone possible.    

    You’ve not only done PJ, but yourself a disservice in making this remark.


  4. Matt says:

    Do me a favor. Point me to one factual moment where someone shows that Groklaw was created/ in your words "set up by IBM". Most important and 100% required word there is factual. Show me proof.  If you do, I’ll personally mail you 500$ myself. Pay pal, birthday card, any method of your choice,hell I’ll even certify the mail and put it up on my blog scanned to verify.

    In return, if you cannot prove it, please remove the comment from your site or update it for accuracy.  Sound like a fair deal?

  5. jasonmatusow says:

    I can’t imagine what would draw me to that conclusion…but I am particularly interested to see the outrage expressed about my comment. I have zero interest in defending SCO in this discussion – but the simple fact that a single person (of their own free will) posted what was it…3000…or so posts with deep legal analysis..that all favored one side of that case – – call me silly for making a leap in logic here.

    As for the numerous "anonymous" posts up on Groklaw that have access to confidential information and/or a willingness to lay out accusations (frequently without substantiation)…that is where I also make the assumption about the proxy discussion. I know, it may be very cynical…but there it is.

    The most unfortunate part or my comment is the fact that the rest of what was said in my blog post has been overshadowed by this point. Because I’m not going to spend my time trying to have a tit for tat with the community – I will update my blog post to represent the sentiments in the comments.

    Andy – I have a great deal of respect for you as well – but you too should be more open about who have been retained to represent as an attorney while you are simultaneously playing the role of "journalist." I blog as "myself" due to the fact that the blog world is just that…but it is clear from my content and from the way in which my blog is quoted that I do so as an employee of Microsoft. My affiliation is in the clear.

    Any other "anonymous" fact finders interested in doing the same?


  6. Jason,

    By extension from what you say, I must be in IBM’s pay as well, or why would I spend so much of my time writing about ODF?  

    I have on rare occasions received comments on Rambus stock sites (I have filed several pro bono amicus briefs in that case)  implying that I must be in someone’s pocket, which I have always thought displayed far more about the ethics of the people who left them than my own, and hence my comment about this being a disservice to yourself.  

    I have regularly disclosed my affiliations with OASIS and the Linux Foundation, and they are frequently mentioned by the journalists that quote me (and to whom I always disclose them), who also usually identify me with a phrase such as "ODF advocate."  In fact, on a dollar basis OASIS is one of my smallest clients.

    My opinions, in fact, actually are my own.  And it is a real privilege, as the owner of my own business, to have the freedom to say what I believe, to spend my time as I wish, to campaign for what I think matters, and not to owe or have my advocacy for sale to anyone.  I would say that, as between you and me, I have far greater ability to blog "as myself" than do you.

    As to financial impact: I expect that I have lost more business than I have gained by identifying myself so strongly with a controversial cause that I believe in.  I can assure you that if I had a year end bonus, it would by no means be impacted by the success or failure of open document standards.


  7. Well, people write whole operating systems in their spare time. Some even have commercial success with them and challenge the established players. These things happen, welcome to the new world. If a paralegal decides to do legal work for free, who are you to attribute that work to IBM?

    You started your blog post with a blatantly false premise, and you got called on it. People usually stop reading after encountering a certain amount of b*ll. You have nobody to blame but yourself for that.

    I’m not exactly a fan of PJ (e.g. she censors her site very aggressively), but calling her an IBM shill is just ridiculous.

  8. "Strange that a website setup by IBM to fight a proxy war…"

    So now Microsoft has stopped even trying to clothe naked lies.  Even SCO gave up this line of deceit.

    "but it is clear from my content and from the way in which my blog is quoted that I do so as an employee of Microsoft. My affiliation is in the clear."

    Yes it is.  I think you may need to have some concrete proof about this allegation, because you are not just an employee, you are a corporate director.  

    Microsoft has gone too far this time.  And I am not posting anonymously, either here, or in the letter that I am writing to every member of my state’s congressional delegation, and to the FTC that the actions of Microsoft be investigated.

    Frank G. Terry

  9. jasonmatusow says:

    Fair enough Andy. I think that many of the individuals involved in the debates have a commercial interest – thus their particular attention to the discussion. I don’t have a problem with that. I think we both agree that disclosure is important. When I go to your blog (which I read regularly because I think you are very bright and have meaningful things to say – even when I disagree.) I don’t see a prominent disclosure. That is a choice you make.

    As for the relative size of OASIS as a client – I’m not sure that it is relevant.

    In the end, I did not mean for my comment to precipitate this level of discussion – though it clealry has merit on its own. I will say that I don’t like the "anonymous" posts where people then lay out an argument that absolutely slams someone. I choose to always note my name and affiliation and/or blog location when I comment elsewhere.

    Anyway – there are bigger issues out there.

    Thx for the comments.


  10. D'Arcy Smith says:

    ":Strange that a website setup by IBM to fight a proxy war during the SCO case "


    "My assertion in the preeceeding paragraph is my opinion – take it or leave it a face value please"

    No.  You presented that as fact.  If you do not have proof of it I think you should formally retract it.  If you won’t retract it and cannot prove it then I guess we know what we should think of any future "options" you offer to the public.


  11. jasonmatusow says:

    Frank – I’m not sure about the "actions" you are talking about. I have posted my take on Groklaw…not really sure that this is more than that.



  12. Scott Bower says:

    Hello Jason,

    You seem to think that much of the debate over this OOXML Standard is sponsored by the likes of IBM, Oracle and RedHat when they’ve done little more than bring this matter to the commercial fore.  With respect to the "Vocal Minority" movements, I’ll hazard a guess you’ve shorted it’s relevance somewhat significantly.

    in this day and age, it’s much easier for the client to be far more informed than they were even a handful of years ago.  This is why there is more awareness and disappointment over Microsoft’s practices in this than there ever has been before.  You speak about how IBM, Oracle and RedHat registered themselves with relevant bodies moments before a vote was made regarding this OOXML push and applaud it as ‘participation’ which by rights shouldn’t be sold as such.  They should never have had to ‘participate’ in this way. You don’t mention this may very well have instead been a reaction to the three-fold rush of registrations to those same bodies by Microsoft and dare I note it, sponsored partners and in many cases, countries before them to ‘participate’ for the very same vote.  These bodies are supposed to discuss appropriateness of standards on nothing more than their Technical merit which having seen examples of in this standard is inconceivable even to a layperson like myself that these Partners could vote Yes of their own free volition. The same behavior wasn’t noted when the ODF standard was up for ISO ratification and certainly didn’t cause any form of extracurricular ‘participation’, swelling memberships or global consternation over it’s passing in the same way Microsoft’s OOXML has garnered.

    I’m far from the top of the IT foodchain here where I work and certainly don’t speak on their behalf in any way but the marketing tirade doesn’t quite wash over this crowd I work for anymore, in this country and many other nations equivalent organisations, the trend is towards truly open standards, not ones that are ‘nearly’ there and polished off by marketing glam.  Transparency is becoming in the online space, blogging in particular means information and irregularities of practice are easily brought to the fore by anyone with access to the internet.  You’d be very hard pressed to fine a Tech Manager or CTO who wasn’t once on the floor battling to get MS Office 97 docs recoverable on their yet-to-be-licensed-up MS Office 95 shod systems, or for that matter even Office 97 Apps using Office 97 Servicepack 2 Docs. Without a doubt, these apparent ‘Vocal Minorities’ are all ex-pats of this genre and were no doubt all users and sometimes supporters of these products. They’re your customers and they’ve borne witness over time on what Microsoft has done and how they as customers have been treated as a result.  

    I’m not sure what information you can gather from your comment scripts but even the basics mean you’ll know who I work for and what we’re moving to and are already realising cost effectiveness and integration from.  our licensing with Microsoft will go on and it would be foolish to say that would end anytime soon but I’d imagine our licensing costs might descend from the several hundred million we currently spend with Microsoft now and with standards in play it will only be a matter of time before Microsoft feels the pinch especially if it keeps stonewalling with pseudo-standards that are next to impossible to implement independently of Microsoft and it’s conditional promises.

    I do hope Microsoft is true in it’s perceived intention to become a true standards bearer but history tells a different story.  you’ll have to forgive us all for not seeing the ratification of an obviously rushed and incomplete standard as an effort on Microsoft’s part to become standards compliant anytime soon.  

    In short, we aren’t a minority and we’re your customers.


  13. andre says:

    "Yet in the case of Open XML, it seems that participation by those in favor of Open XML only happened through pernicious activities and breeched ethics – while participation against Open XML was purity and light personified. I just don’t get that."

    Try harder or ask independent persons. Yes it was. No one likes to take a destructive role. You should read the Canadian comment which explains the underlying motivations very well.

    It makes a difference if members join a committee to work on the issue or join a committee just to vote.

  14. DJ says:

    Full disclosure: I am an "average Joe" computer user with no affiliation to any of the companies on either side of this issue. I use Linux and other open source software and do everything I can to convince those within my sphere of influence do the same. I regularly read blogs from Microsoft employees and those who oppose OOXML and have done so for more than a year since the OOXML/ODF "thing" made its way onto my radar screen. On top of all that, I am a citizen of the United States.

    That said, and based on my personal observation of the OOXML journey from what I consider a balanced perspective, I am embarrassed for my country because of Microsoft’s actions during the standardization process. The United States has a rough time as it is maintaining any amount of respect around the world, and now we have this to deal with. Yes, I know I am being a bit dramatic, but only a bit.

    Though I have tried very hard, I cannot understand how you, Jason, and your colleagues can blog day after day with such conviction that what Microsoft has done is honorable in any way. I equate the way Microsoft has acted during the process to a man coming home to find his wife naked in bed with another man, and then the wife looks her husband square in the eye and says: "Nothing happened!"

    Do you really believe, deep down in your soul, that anyone will be convinced those countries like Cote d’Ivoire became P members at the eleventh hour and voted an unconditional yes simply because they were convinced OOXML was such a superior specification and they just had to let the world know about it? Do you truly, honestly expect anyone to believe Sweden was an isolated incident?

    Sadly what has gotten lost in all the back and forth about Microsoft vs. IBM, Sun, Oracle, et al. is the overwhelming lack of support for OOXML on purely technical grounds by respectable, independent individuals and organizations. Sure, anyone and everyone who has a vested interest in Microsoft’s success sings OOXML’s praises and those with a vested interest on the other side have nothing good to say about it. Fine, that is to be expected. But a lot of very smart people who know what they are talking about wouldn’t touch this thing with a ten-foot pole.

    Are they just stark-raving mad in your book? How do explain them away at Microsoft? You have successfully diverted attention away from them and drowned them out by elevating the corporate competition aspect of this mess to a shouting match, but I can’t recall ever reading a sound technical argument from Microsoft supporters in response to the myriad technical shortcomings brought to the fore by people who are a lot smarter than me.

    Why is it that when someone like Rob Weir (yes I know he is an IBM employee) writes a blog post based entirely on technical grounds there is absolute silence from the pro OOXML camp. I find that especially interesting since I recall Doug Mahugh blogging and commenting on other blogs about how he was itching for a technical debate when he went to Malaysia and was upset that he didn’t get one. Why hasn’t he or anyone else from Microsoft taken up the challenge of responding to some of Rob Weir’s posts concerning OOXML’s technical shortcomings? I find the silence quite telling.

    For specifics see and look for the articles titled: "OOXML’s (Out of) Control Characters" or "The Disharmony of OOXML."

    As someone who knows almost nothing about XML I find those two articles to be clear examples of serious technical flaws in OOXML. If I am mistaken I would appreciate someone explaining to me why.

    I could go on ad nauseum here because my head is swimming with thoughts, but I am overwhelmed with emotion over Microsoft’s audacity and it isn’t usually healthy to speak when your emotions are running wild. Unfortunately I have had my fill and no matter how hard I try I simply cannot come to terms with what Microsoft has done. I can say with complete honesty that I feel sick to my stomach.

    Now, I know some Microsoft supporters will try to write me off as a "shill" or "lackey" because that is what works best for you all. That’s fine because I know it isn’t true. The bottom line is there is little or nothing you can say or do to convince me that Microsoft had anything but its own interests in mind during this whole fiasco. Please do not try to tell me how good for anyone other than Microsoft this thing will be. Microsoft is a company whose sole interest is to make money, and it seems convinced that the only way it can do that is by trying to trap the world in a technological cage from which it can’t do anything without Microsoft’s products. I would suggest you all try producing technically superior products that will make me come running to the nearest MS retailer with a smile on my face.

    Until Microsoft can come into my home and allow me to watch as it flays the skin from it’s flesh in exchange for a new coat, I will never be convinced that the leopard has changed its spots. And I think a lot more people will need the same sort of convincing following what you have done in regards to OOXML.


  15. Wayne says:


    Quite frankly you (as a corporation) have managed to upset so many people that IBM doesn’t need to pay people to scrutinize everything you do with a magnifying glass. Some of these people may have connections with IBM. Hey, I have a connection with IBM, my old desktop is a P3-667 with an IBM logo. I must be an IBM front too.

    Fooling aside, I’m not in IT myself, I’m a sales representative. Our company manufactures catalytic converters, and catalytic converters don’t require operating systems, or word processors. We do of course use operating systems and word processors in our day to day business, but I don’t worry about them, they are not my responsibility, my job is to sell stuff.

    That being said I’m a geek. My first computer was a Timex Sinclair. I had taken programming before that in High School, so switching from Fortran to Basic wasn’t that hard. I then upgraded to a Commodore 64, Microsoft V2 Basic in Rom. I’ve run every version of DOS since 2.0, and every version of Windows from 3.0 to XP SP2. In other words I’m your target audience at home, guy with three kids, computer literate, 7 laptops in a house with 5 adults (OK, my youngest is 16 so she’s not quite there yet), 3 desktops, god knows how many game consoles, I think we have one of every one ever built, including an XBox 360 my son bought just to play Halo.

    So what am I doing opposing Microsoft XML? Well I’m on several standards committees, and I follow standard news to a certain extent. I’m a geek, so I follow computer news. I downloaded a copy of DIS29500 when it was announced, and started reading it. I was shocked and appalled by what I saw, quite frankly it was horrid, and ECMA should have never let it loose. I could dig it out if you want and post a list of what I consider problems, but the worst problem was the way it was written, it was a mess.

    I take standards setting seriously, even if it isn’t in my main area of expertise, which document formats aren’t. I also haven’t done a lot of programming in the last 10 years, but I know what is and isn’t good practice, and I know what is and isn’t good practice in standards. So I have spent some of my precious spare time lobbying against Microsoft XML over the past couple of years.

    My own spare time. Hell man, I have 3 kids, my wife, my dog, my cats, all of whom deserve some of my attention and time, and I’m working on a standard I don’t even have a direct interest in. It’s not going to affect our product. The standard for Stainless Steel, now that’s what I should be paying more attention to, and instead because your company decided to push something through using the Fast Track process that really should not have been Fast Tracked, and I’ve been wasting time on it.

    Last spring I decided that I’d had enough. If your company was so self interested, that it could do something as stupid as this, I decided that until your corporate direction changed, I would not buy or recommend anything that was manufactured by Microsoft. I formatted my new Gateway laptop, and installed Ubuntu. My daughter decided she’d like to try it, so I installed Ubuntu on her computer as well, and when my wife’s Acer had an operating system failure, and her XP install CDs failed, I refused to install XP, and installed Ubuntu instead on her Acer. She’s getting used to it, and starting to really appreciate Ubuntu’s features, though it took a couple of months.

    I then celebrated by buying myself a new MacBook for Christmas, and took great delight in deleting the promo version of Microsoft Office, and installing IWork. Which does work, and a lot better than Office.

    And I recommend to my friends that they buy anything that isn’t Microsoft. Hell, I help them do it, and the reason I help them do it is because the corporate actions of Microsoft drove me to it. You have only yourself to blame.

    Oh, and back to Groklaw. Do you read Frank Hayes? He writes for Computerworld. I know Frank (we are both Filkers), he’s a pretty good writer, and he calls a spade a spade. Here’s a link to an article he wrote last summer called "Grokking SCO’s demise", you can find the article here:

    As I said, Frank calls a spade a spade. If he thought that Groklaw was and IBM front, he’d let you know. In spades.


  16. quux says:

    It is good that you have decided to retract your statement about Groklaw being IBM’s sockpuppet – without proof it’s a terrible thing to say, and even with proof it’s a bit irrelevant. Either the argument makes sense or doesn’t make sense – the entity making the argument really shouldn’t have a lot to do with the judging of that (unless you are challenging their *qualifications* to speak about certain issues).

    To be honest, I think there’s a lot of bile and willful dismissal of facts to be found at Groklaw. But I still think you should do more than simply retract the statement – you should apologize to both Groklaw (PJ and the whole community) and IBM. It was a tacky thing to do, especially in a forum where the line between Jason Matusow Private Person and Jason Matusow Microsoft Spokesman is so thin.

    Jason, please do the right thing and apologize. Name-calling isn’t how civil discourse should work.

  17. Stuart says:


    I’m looking forward to seeing MS-ISO approve all

    Microsoft products as standards.

    After that, MS-ISO will repeal all non-Microsoft

    software standards.

  18. Wu MingShi says:

    I’m glad that you have the courage to retract the groklaw accusation.  The fact that you decided to strike the statement rather than just delete them shows that you are not afraid of admiting mistake, which is more than most of us will do.

    Please don’t let yourself slip again.

  19. cybervegan says:

    How could you be *so* wrong?  It not about anything that you think it’s about. It’s about *freedom* – not being tied to your company’s cash-flow cycle, being able to choose where we store OUR data, and what programs we use to process OUR data.

    You would do well to remember that it’s OUR DATA, not yours.

    Your artificial barriers to interoperability and your sham standard that only MS can implement legally will not stop the bleed. That’s the only reason you want this ‘standard’ – because you know that ODF will loosen your strangle-hold on the market. OOXML is purely and simply an end-run around another international standard that caught you by surprise, one that you *could* implement if you really chose to, but dare not because it would provide your customers with an out. You *had* to fast-track ISO DIS 29500 because otherwise, by the time it made it through the ISO standards process, you’d have already lost, and it would have come out the other end way too different from what Office 2007 implements now to be useful to you; the so called fast track seems to have provided you with the right combination of speed and pliable rules you needed.

    That’s the way it looks to me, but I’m just at the bottom of the food-chain. I have no financial interest in the outcome, just an interest in freedom. I don’t work for any of your competitors, but I do work on the front line; I know what I see, and I see times ripe for change.


  20. Ron says:

    Yes, by all means, lets focus on participation.  That is,after all, the easiest to spin.  IBM brought an affiliate with them TWO DAYS before the deadline! OMG!  Lets not mention that Microsoft had been paying partners to join for only a few weeks at that point…

    And above all, lets not talk about suitability of OOXML to be a standard in the first place, much less on the fast track.  Lets not discuss wrapping proprietary and still not fully disclosed binary formats in an XML wrapper and calling it a new format.  Lets not even think about mentioning patent traps, instead lets just refer all questions to the carefully worded OSP that excludes any commercial implementation by any real competition, and refers anyone who questions it to ‘talk to your lawyer’.

    We’ll also not talk about the sudden flurry of ‘independent’ analysts talking up the ‘overwhelming’ support for this ‘widely implemented format’ (er, name even one actual implementation… well?), and how ‘market based standards’ improve innovation.  Funny, why are they all using the exact same words? Words that all originated as talking points in Microsoft press releases?  Pure coincidence, I’m sure…

  21. Matthew Flaschen says:

    "I know, it may be very cynical…but there it is."

    It is cynical, but unfortunately cynicism is not a substitute for evidence.

  22. Ian Easson says:

    Let’s get some perspective here guys (and girls).

    If Rob Weir had made a similar faux-pas, you’d never see the correction, because all negative comments are censored on his blog.  It’s only because this blog is open to all that you are allowed to correct things.

  23. quux says:

    Ian Easson –

    agreed on Weir’s blog. But I expect better from Microsoft.

  24. hAl says:

    I remember PJ bringing the first story from Rob Weir blog suggesting she did not even know it was an IBM blog.

    That was amusing.

    If the Groklaw site is directly influenced by IBM is hard to tell. They seem to at least use IBM sources for their material and the site is hosted on an IBM (and several OSS companies like redhat) sponsored serverpark .

    It is however significant that the site is very pro-IBM in its publications. A site that suggest to be against software patent but does not complain when every year IBM is a main software patent claimer. A site that promotes OSS but never complains that IBM is not publishing any of their main products as OSS and keeps their mainframe software and protocols more closed than windows.

    A site that always publishes IBM blogs as trustworthy sources which they agree with and MS blogs as the evil sources which they condemn for false information.

    Try an interesting search on how often they claim that people opposing the groklaw opinion are a MS shill or MS astroturfer and then look if they ever uses the term IBM icm with shill or astroturfer even though the commenters are posting a hell of of a lot more pro-IBM propaganda then pro-MS.

    If Groklaw is not a direct IBM site then it would still qualify as one of the the most IBM suckup sites ever publishing exactly what especially IBM would like to have published.

    The two main topics they have published on in the last year are the SCO case and OOXML both of which IBM is a main participant trying to influence opinion and in both of which Groklaw is fully supporting every IBM publication and point of view.

  25. hAl says:

    Btw, Andy as you are here does the Linux foundation sponsor any anti-OOXML organisations/sites ?

    I seem to remember that a predecessor of the linux foundation, the osdl, was mentioned to sponsor groklaw for instance.

  26. hAl,

    The Linux Foundation sponsors no such sites (or any sites, other than pages accessible from the Linux Foundation site, such as FOSSBazaar).  I list the the first several paragraphs of many of my Standards Blog pieces at the LF blogs, with a link back to the Standards Blog for the balance.  So to that extent, the LF has an  informal relationship to my site.

     –  Andy

  27. Luc Bollen says:

    hAl, you are a boring troll.  Please stop posting about IBM in all the blogs discussing OOXML.  Get a life, man.

Skip to main content