Recent Items
 
Lining Up Open Formats for Office Documents
 
Open Standards are not Open Source
 
Steve McConnell Beyond Myths of Rapid Development
 
The Distraction of User Personas?
 
Magical Thinking and the Universal Document Elixir...
 
My FUD is FUDDier than your FUD, so FUD this!
 
Agile Scope-Creep and How to Detect It
 
Sending Orcmid to (Code) Camp
 
Relaxing Patent Licenses for Open Documents
 
Navigating Data Models

The nfoCentrale Blog Conclave
 
Millennia Antica: The Kiln Sitter's Diary
 
nfoWorks: Pursuing Harmony
 
Numbering Peano
 
Orcmid's Lair
 
Orcmid's Live Hideout
 
Prof. von Clueless in the Blunder Dome
 
Spanner Wingnut's Muddleware Lab (experimental)

nfoCentrale Associated Sites
 
DMA: The Document Management Alliance
 
DMware: Document Management Interoperability Exchange
 
Millennia Antica Pottery
 
The Miser Project
 
nfoCentrale: the Anchor Site
 
nfoWare: Information Processing Technology
 
nfoWorks: Tools for Document Interoperability
 
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
 
ODMA Interoperability Exchange
 
Orcmid's Lair
 
TROST: Open-System Trustworthiness

Second-Guessing Microsoft on ECMA: Shape-Shifting the ODF

Consortiuminfo.org Standards Blog: Terms of Microsoft’s Ecma Submission.  I don’t want to get into the particulars of a set of speculations based on leaked documents from unidentified sources (by an attorney, no less), but there is a point about the presumption of product-agnostic specifications that I do want to flag.  Andy Updegrove’s blog doesn’t allow comments, so I’ll put my observations right here.

Andy makes the following observation about the alleged scope of Microsoft’s ECMA Submission of the Office XML Schemas:

There are two aspects of the scope that I find to be significant. The first is the use of the limiting words "which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats." In short, the effort will not be permitted to create a standard that is (as is the case with ODF) intended to be the best possible product-agnostic format standard, but to create a standard that describes the material submitted by Microsoft. On the plus side, the charter does anticipate an ongoing maintenance effort that is not expressly tied to future Microsoft product developments.

1. I have no problem with the requirement that the 1.0 result be fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats.  I see no sense in Microsoft doing anything else.  Sorry.  I think it is a big job to do what it takes to provide the level of specification it requires for standardized usability of those formats.   I won’t be debating that.  I think it is useful and valuable to do that.  I don’t think it competes with OpenDocument in that regard, which is not so founded or limited.  We can stack up the results later.  Getting the results is the important work for now.
2. I do want to understand why this false comparison is offered: “Create a standard that is (as is the case with ODF) intended to be the best possible product-agnostic format standard.”  And who says the result of the OOX formats can’t be product-agnostic, even with the constraint of preserving MS Office content?

On what authority is it claimed that OpenDocument was intended to be that?  And how do we move from that intention (which I cannot find anywhere in the charter or reports of the Technical Committee) to its fulfilment by ODF?  Furthermore, who says Microsoft should be doing that or even offering up a specification for an open format that meets such a high standard.  (And if they did something so foolish and accomplished that, exactly how would that make OpenDocument advocates happy?)

I don’t believe that providing the best-possible product-agnostic format was in scope for ODF.  I certainly don’t believe that such an intention was realizable, if at all, without there being visible and clear evidence for the concerted effort it would have taken to realize such an intention.  I find this supposition to be magical thinking based on a presumed capability that could have emerged from the OpenDocument effort at best as a miraculous coincidence.

Andy Updegrove is an attorney and reported to be one for OASIS.  I think Andy can easily determine whether or not the charter for the “Open Office XML Format TC” through its many revisions ever placed such a challenge on the committee.  It is also useful to know whether and how the Technical Committee reported out that accomplishment and how the achievement was measured.  For the technical details, maybe Andy has some expert sources he can cite that will reveal to us how this amazing accomplishment is to be verified.

I would like to see that.  I haven’t found it in the public record of the development, and I don’t find it in the specification itself.  I welcome pointers.  I promise to look carefully at any evidence that is offered.

¶ posted by orcmid at 12/07/2005 02:04:00 PM

Create a Link -  Post a Comment - 

 
Dennis, I agree with your views on this. The sentence "I don’t believe that providing the best-possible product-agnostic format was in scope for ODF." triggered a thought for me.

There is probably no way to measure "best" or "best-possible" format (or anything). However, it's often possible to determine "better", especialy when compared with an existing instance.

¶ posted by  Bill Anderson: 15 December, 2005 08:49    

 

  <$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  

<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>
posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> at <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>