Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML?

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Interesting article on the Swedish vote on making OOXML an ISO Standard:

Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML
Posted by Kim Haverblad - Monday, 27 August 2007
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/1/

According to this article, 23 companies joined without prior notice in
order to be able to vote, which would have clearly been a "no" vote
without the votes of these new companies. Most of these companies are
Microsoft partners.

One of these new companies was Google, which strongly opposes OOXML, and
has created the following position paper:

http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

The author of that article is on dangerous legal ground.

"One would think that SIS would not accept new companies to participate in
the vote since they haven't been part of the earlier discussions and
meetings. But according to SIS they didn't see any problem that new
companies wanted to take part in this vote without prior notice. So what
happened here is that Microsoft gather together a bunch of loyal partners
that would vote yes to their standard without any questions."

None of that other than the time they signed up is supported by evidence.
It is more likely that Microsoft partners vote for this submission for the
same reason Massachusetts changed the position given switching costs.  This
is self-interest.  No proof of bribery is shown.  There is no indication
that questions have not been asked.  Continuing to make that charge in
public forums without proof is opening the author and the employer of the
author as well as the publisher to slander lawsuits.  This is not a good
thing, Jonathan.

Google's paper is specious.  It claims wide use for ODF without the numbers
to back that up.  My guess is the number of users of products that can use
OOXML is far greater than that of ODF and in fact they support that later in
the paper.  Worse, they claim to be offering no legal advice, then go on to
make legal assertions about the OOXML IP.

I am not arguing technical merit here.  This is about a slander campaign
conducted by companies and individuals opposed to OOXML.

This bitter butter battle over white elephant products demonstrates in a
very disappointing way the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground for the
sake of commercial advantage.  They are destroying their own credibility.  

Yuck.

len


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@...]
 
Interesting article on the Swedish vote on making OOXML an ISO Standard:

Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML
Posted by Kim Haverblad - Monday, 27 August 2007
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/1/

According to this article, 23 companies joined without prior notice in
order to be able to vote, which would have clearly been a "no" vote
without the votes of these new companies. Most of these companies are
Microsoft partners.

One of these new companies was Google, which strongly opposes OOXML, and
has created the following position paper:

http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Rick Jelliffe]

Jonathan Robie said:

> One of these new companies was Google, which strongly opposes OOXML, and
> has created the following position paper:
>
> http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf

Doubly interesting in that Google is the world's most prolific generator
(Google Maps to IE) of VML, which is part of the Open XML standard. I
suppose it is much easier to generate documents than to accept them, so
they need a standard for one but not the other...

There is an organized campaign by the fringe of the anti-Open XML people,
fanned by closed source vendors of ODF products, where if they cannot
persuade the various National Bodies that there is no value in having
Office's format open and documented and with clear IP so that everyone can
use it, then they will attack the National Body, ISO and the process. But
don't believe what everything you read: for example, it was claimed that
the Portuguese committee refused to admit IBM and Sun into a meeting
claiming that there was not enough chairs, but in fact IBM and Sun applied
past the deadline to join a fixed-size committee and there were no seats.
Don't be conned.

Jonathan, do you seriously think that people who want a standard should
not be allowed to participate, especially as they find (perhaps to their
surprise or alarm) that there are so many people trying to block it? Or do
you believe that it is legitimate to join a standards committee with the
goal of blocking a standard that other people need (i.e., to use the
standards process to create a cartel: the US at least has strong
anti-trust laws against this.)?

If you don't like ISO C# as a language, don't use it. Use ISO C++, or ISO
Common LISP, or ISO Pascal, or ISO FORTRAN, or ISO ADA, or ISO Eiffel. But
an ISO C# person should not try to block developments in ISO C++ just
because it is not their liking, or because it goes against their corporate
interests.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

P.S. For an update on the current approval process, see
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/last_days_for_office_open_xml.html

P.P.S. For my comments on why a "No with Comments" vote (conditional
approval) is a good thing, see
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/my_recommendation_on_office_op.html



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Len Bullard wrote:

> The author of that article is on dangerous legal ground.
>
> "One would think that SIS would not accept new companies to participate in
> the vote since they haven't been part of the earlier discussions and
> meetings. But according to SIS they didn't see any problem that new
> companies wanted to take part in this vote without prior notice. So what
> happened here is that Microsoft gather together a bunch of loyal partners
> that would vote yes to their standard without any questions."
>
> None of that other than the time they signed up is supported by evidence.
> It is more likely that Microsoft partners vote for this submission for the
> same reason Massachusetts changed the position given switching costs.  This
> is self-interest.  No proof of bribery is shown.  There is no indication
> that questions have not been asked.  Continuing to make that charge in
> public forums without proof is opening the author and the employer of the
> author as well as the publisher to slander lawsuits.  This is not a good
> thing, Jonathan.
>  

Len, there's no allegation of bribery in the article, there is only an
allegation that Microsoft had something to do with gathering most of the
new members together, and the author of the article supports this
allegation by pointing out that 18 of the 23 are either Microsoft Gold
Certified Partners or Microsoft Certified Partners. The article does not
say anything specific about what kind of communication may have occurred
between Microsoft and its partners. The article does suggest that it's
pretty unusual when a standards vote is determined primarily by people
who were not members of the group the day before, and are partners of a
company who was going to lose the vote. Do you think this was just a
coincidence? Do you think this is the way important votes should be held
in standards bodies?


> Google's paper is specious.  It claims wide use for ODF without the numbers
> to back that up.  

Here's what they say: "Counting the number of documents found by doing
Web searches for different document types the older Microsoft Office
formats dominate, but the second most widely used format is the existing
ISO standard ODF. As translation is needed anyway it would make more
sense to convert to ODF, the existing ISO standard for editable document
types." You suggest that Google does not have the numbers to back that
up? Er, this is Google, after all ....

> My guess is the number of users of products that can use
> OOXML is far greater than that of ODF and in fact they support that later in
> the paper.  Worse, they claim to be offering no legal advice, then go on to
> make legal assertions about the OOXML IP.
>  

Google's argument seems to be this:

1. ODF already exists, and can represent Microsoft documents as well as
the documents from other vendors. Blessing OOXML as a second format
results in two mutually incompatible formats that can each claim to be
standard. Google invokes memories of Betamax to suggest this is bad.

2. OOXML is too large and complex to be easily reviewed, and does not
play well with existing standards. "The OOXML standard document is 6546
pages long. The ODF standard,
which achieves the same goal, is only 867 pages. The reason for this is
that ODF references other existing ISO standards for such things as date
specifications, math
formula markup and many other needs of an office document format
standard. OOXML invents its own versions of these existing standards,
which is unnecessary and complicates the final standard.", "Considering
that OOXML has only received about 5.5% of the review that comparable
standards have undergone, reports about inconsistencies, contradictions
and missing information are hardly surprising."

3. OOXML is not yet widely adopted, at least on the Web. ODF is the most
common XML format for office document data, and it would make more sense
to translate data from proprietary formats into a simpler, existing
standard format that has already received extensive review.

4. There is not widespread adoption of OOXML outside of Microsoft. Most
of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who have
contractual agreements to implement OOXML software.

5. There may be legal issues with Microsoft's "Open Specification Promise".

Up to now, I have been summarizing their argument, rather than offering
my own views. To me, at least 1-4 seem to be valid arguments. I'm not as
able to evaluation 5.

I guess I should express my own views too. I think OOXML is a good
thing, and I'm very glad Microsoft produced it. I don't think it should
be a standard, because it is designed precisely to represent one
vendor's office documents, not as a general purpose office document
format created by a group of vendors.

> I am not arguing technical merit here.  This is about a slander campaign
> conducted by companies and individuals opposed to OOXML.
>
> This bitter butter battle over white elephant products demonstrates in a
> very disappointing way the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground for the
> sake of commercial advantage.  They are destroying their own credibility.
>  

Yawn. I'm not very good at arguments about who are the good guys and who
are the bad guys, but I don't find this kind of language terribly
convincing. Maybe I've heard too much of it.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> There is an organized campaign by the fringe of the anti-Open XML people,
> fanned by closed source vendors of ODF products, where if they cannot
> persuade the various National Bodies that there is no value in having
> Office's format open and documented and with clear IP so that everyone can
> use it, then they will attack the National Body, ISO and the process. But
> don't believe what everything you read: for example, it was claimed that
> the Portuguese committee refused to admit IBM and Sun into a meeting
> claiming that there was not enough chairs, but in fact IBM and Sun applied
> past the deadline to join a fixed-size committee and there were no seats.
> Don't be conned.
>  

Let me be clear that I am not part of any of these committees or
conspiracies or whatever, I just read an article and reported on it. Do
you have inside information on the Swedish vote? Is not not true that 23
vendors, most of them Microsoft partners, joined just in time for the
OOXML vote? Do you think standards bodies should allow this approach?

One of the articles that I read on the subject mentioned the IBM and Sun
story, saying specifically that they were rejected because it was past
the deadline, and compared that to Sweden, where 23 vendors were allowed
to join at the last minute for the vote. I don't know ISO process, but I
assume that each national body is allowed to set their own rules for
participation in votes.

Let me also be clear that I see real value in having Microsoft document
their formats and bless them with clear IP. I do not yet see the
argument that one vendor's proprietary formats should be blessed as an
international standard, though. My gut instinct is that international
standards for interchange formats should be created by more than one vendor.

> Jonathan, do you seriously think that people who want a standard should
> not be allowed to participate, especially as they find (perhaps to their
> surprise or alarm) that there are so many people trying to block it? Or do
> you believe that it is legitimate to join a standards committee with the
> goal of blocking a standard that other people need (i.e., to use the
> standards process to create a cartel: the US at least has strong
> anti-trust laws against this.)?
>  

When 18 out of 23 of the new members who show up just before a vote are
Microsoft Gold Certified Partners or Microsoft Certified Partners, it's
possible that this is less of a grass roots effort than your language
would suggest. And I do think that every standards body needs to be
careful to ensure that it's not easy for the largest, most powerful
companies to push through whatever they want.

I could possibly be persuaded that OOXML should become a standard, I'm
not yet persuaded. But I definitely believe that standards bodies should
have procedures that prevent this kind of shenanigans.

> P.S. For an update on the current approval process, see
> http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/last_days_for_office_open_xml.html
>
> P.P.S. For my comments on why a "No with Comments" vote (conditional
> approval) is a good thing, see
> http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/my_recommendation_on_office_op.html
>  

I'm very glad OOXML exists and that it has clear IP. I'm not sure that
one vendor's proprietary formats should become a standard. If that were
not a concern, I would agree with you on conditional approval, partly
because anything this large and complex needs to have significant
independent implementations to show that it can be successfully
implemented across the industry.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jim Melton-2]

Rick,

Before I say anything else, let me make myself very clear: I DO NOT
SPEAK FOR MY EMPLOYER ON THIS TOPIC.  In fact, I have removed my
normal signature block to avoid any possibility of confusion on that
subject.  But, in the interests of full disclosure, I have to reveal
that I work for Oracle, which has been perceived (incorrectly, as it
turns out) as having a strong position on this subject.

Speaking strictly as a multi-decade participant in international and
domestic standardization, I share Jonathan's concern about the
seeming abuse of the standards processes in this situation.  In
several National Bodies, not just Sweden, a flood of new members
arrived literally days before a vote was scheduled to be held on this
specific fast-track document.  In all but one or two of those
National Bodies, that flood was sufficient to reverse what would have
been a vote against the standard.  The vast majority of those new
members were Microsoft partners, some closer than others.

In addition, several new National Bodies suddenly joined the process
at the last minute -- National Bodies that had never previously
expressed the slightest interest in international standardization
related this subject.  Every single one of those National Bodies have
been reported as having voted in favor of progression, and most are
reported as having a membership made entirely, or primarily, of
Microsoft partners.

Is all of this "legal"?  Yes, of course it is...the processes have,
as far as I have been able to tell, been within the letter of the ISO
Directives.  (Of course, I have no clue whether any process
violations have or have not occurred in any given National Body,
other than in the USA.  In the USA, as far as I have been able to
tell, there were no process violations.)

But, is it in the long-term interests of international standards?  I
submit that it is most certainly not!  If very large companies are
always (or nearly always) able to complete subvert the spirit of the
consensus-based process by ensuring that new members with favorable
positions join various standardization bodies just in time to avoid a
defeat (or to ensure a defeat), then everybody else might just as
well quit trying.  And then we're back to the situation 20 or 30
years ago, where another giant was able to do exactly that.  (Clue:
its common name has three capitalized letters.)  We didn't like it
back then, and we shouldn't like it now.  (In fact, Microsoft is
alleged to have complained in several forums about the dominating
tactics used by that other giant...but that was before Microsoft had
the sort of muscle it takes to pull it off.)

Don't get me wrong.  Microsoft has every right to press their
interests in the standards arena, as well as in the marketplace
itself.  But it must do so fairly and within the rules.  I believe
that it has an ethical obligation not to subvert the process for
short-term gain at the cost of destroying the process's long-term
credibility.  Any standards process that comes to be perceived as
nothing more than a marketing arm of some commercial enterprise will
not for long be perceived as a standardization process at all.

One more thing: I have it on impeccable authority that at least two
of the last-minute joiners of one National Body said during a meeting
break that they didn't understand the subject was on which they were
going to vote, but Microsoft had instructed them of exactly what to
say and how to vote -- and paid their membership fees and other
expenses.  If that's true (and, since I wasn't there to hear it, I
can't tell if that "impeccable authority" I mentioned misunderstood
something), then it is probably illegal -- and I do not mean
"violation of standards bodies' rules", but "violation of the law" --
in the country involved.  In the USA, we would call it restraint of
trade, I guess.

In closing, I want it to be clear that I have no personal opinion
about the proposed standard itself.  I have not read the 6500+ pages
of the document, nor have I read the ODF standard.  I love
competition (but doubt that the effect of this is going to be
increased competition) and I care very much about being able to
express complex document semantics in XML.  I use Microsoft products
and I have a love-hate relationship with those products.  I do not
think that Microsoft is the devil incarnate.  What I care about is
the long-term viability of the standards processes.  And I believe
that the, um, fiasco that has been happening with respect to this
proposed standard is truly a train wreck in effect.  Microsoft will
almost certainly (I give it better than 99% probability) of
succeeding in making OOXML an international standard.  But, in the
process, they will have significantly damaged the credibility of the
process itself, and of their own relationship with standardization.

Grumble...
    Jim



At 8/28/2007 11:15 AM, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>Jonathan Robie said:
>
> > One of these new companies was Google, which strongly opposes OOXML, and
> > has created the following position paper:
> >
> > http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf
>
>Doubly interesting in that Google is the world's most prolific generator
>(Google Maps to IE) of VML, which is part of the Open XML standard. I
>suppose it is much easier to generate documents than to accept them, so
>they need a standard for one but not the other...
>
>There is an organized campaign by the fringe of the anti-Open XML people,
>fanned by closed source vendors of ODF products, where if they cannot
>persuade the various National Bodies that there is no value in having
>Office's format open and documented and with clear IP so that everyone can
>use it, then they will attack the National Body, ISO and the process. But
>don't believe what everything you read: for example, it was claimed that
>the Portuguese committee refused to admit IBM and Sun into a meeting
>claiming that there was not enough chairs, but in fact IBM and Sun applied
>past the deadline to join a fixed-size committee and there were no seats.
>Don't be conned.
>
>Jonathan, do you seriously think that people who want a standard should
>not be allowed to participate, especially as they find (perhaps to their
>surprise or alarm) that there are so many people trying to block it? Or do
>you believe that it is legitimate to join a standards committee with the
>goal of blocking a standard that other people need (i.e., to use the
>standards process to create a cartel: the US at least has strong
>anti-trust laws against this.)?
>
>If you don't like ISO C# as a language, don't use it. Use ISO C++, or ISO
>Common LISP, or ISO Pascal, or ISO FORTRAN, or ISO ADA, or ISO Eiffel. But
>an ISO C# person should not try to block developments in ISO C++ just
>because it is not their liking, or because it goes against their corporate
>interests.
>
>Cheers
>Rick Jelliffe
>
>P.S. For an update on the current approval process, see
>http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/last_days_for_office_open_xml.html
>
>P.P.S. For my comments on why a "No with Comments" vote (conditional
>approval) is a good thing, see
>http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/08/my_recommendation_on_office_op.html

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Stephen Green-4]

Isn't it the whole point of an ISO Standard (or any global standard)
that there be a reasonability about it being universally adopted?

One does wonder whether a single vendor standard can reach such
a standing in view of the need for competition amongst vendors.

On the other hand, if there are single vendor standards appearing
then it has to be possible for there to be more than one just to make
adoption reasonable for competing vendors. If we want singularity of
standards then maybe we should take more care not to foster single
vendor standardisation unless it is to allow a balance when this is
already taking place.

I guess we are looking at such polarisation here due to a necessity to
balance 1. the fact that single-vendor standardisation has already
happened for office documents with 2. a standard multiplicity that the
competition needs in the face of this. We just have to face it - it has
already happened - the horse has bolted so it is now too late to shut the
stable door.

Best regards.
--
Stephen Green

Partner
SystML, http://www.systml.co.uk
Tel: [phone]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@...]
 
>Len, there's no allegation of bribery in the article, there is only an
>allegation that Microsoft had something to do with gathering most of the
>new members together, and the author of the article supports this
>allegation by pointing out that 18 of the 23 are either Microsoft Gold
>Certified Partners or Microsoft Certified Partners.

You mean the title "Microsoft buys the Swedish vote" suggested they went to
Wal-Mart to pick up a discounted toy?    Of course MS partners vote for MS
submissions.  That's practical business.  Did MS gather them up?  I can't
say and neither can you nor can the author of that article.  They probably
did.  Are Google, Sun and IBM not doing that as well?  If not, they are not
being very smart.  Only in the slightly goofy period of the W3C trying to
dissuade others from going to other bodies did anyone ever think you don't
have to show up on time with your own posse.

>The article does not say anything specific about what kind of communication
>may have occurred between Microsoft and its partners.

Right.  It says they bought Swedish votes.

>The article does suggest that it's pretty unusual when a standards vote is
>determined primarily by people who were not members of the group the day
>before, and are partners of a company who was going to lose the vote. Do
>you think this was just a coincidence?

No.  I think it rather weird that everyone else shows up late in smaller
numbers.   Do Sun, Red Hat, IBM and Google have so few partners they can't
afford to join?

>Do you think this is the way important votes should be held in standards
>bodies?

It's been my experience that late comers are pretty common in this voting
game just as they are in American primaries.  It's low turn out until the
vote counts.  What you really want to know is who is reading the minutes and
the other published papers as they are being issued.  Most of what you need
to know to cast a vote can be known without going to the meetings.

> Google's paper is specious.  It claims wide use for ODF without the
> numbers to back that up.  

>Here's what they say: "Counting the number of documents found by doing
>Web searches for different document types the older Microsoft Office
>formats dominate, but the second most widely used format is the existing
>ISO standard ODF. As translation is needed anyway it would make more
>sense to convert to ODF, the existing ISO standard for editable document
>types."

And they say:

"Many companies have announced they will support OOXML-and several have
announced translators for the new formats. This is only to be expected-as
Microsoft is a major vendor in the office automation space. Wide industry
support doesn't necessarily make a good ISO standard although it definitely
helps. What matters more for a good interoperable standard is multiple
implementations."

So only if the RIGHT vendors do it for the RIGHT format is it a good thing?
Do the multiple contradictions there come across as loudly as they should?
And if there are millions of .doc, etc. files out there, why should a
customer go to ODF where the translations will be worse because they will be
down translations?  This comes down to 'one standard and it will be ours'.  

>You suggest that Google does not have the numbers to back that
>up? Er, this is Google, after all ....

Umm... this is the same company that sends me ads based on pay-to-play
words.  That is not exactly the source I trust and the numbers they have (12
implementations) don't really stack up to the switching costs for 'millions'
of documents.

>Google's argument seems to be this:

>1. ODF already exists, and can represent Microsoft documents as well as
>the documents from other vendors.

Once translated.

>Blessing OOXML as a second format
>results in two mutually incompatible formats that can each claim to be
>standard. Google invokes memories of Betamax to suggest this is bad.

Betamax lost because of shelf space stocking problems for low-end Mom and
Pop video tape vendors, not quality or quantity.  It was a supply side
problem and had Sony spent some time looking at that, they could have
repackaged.  A one standard product market is the same as a one shoe size
mall.  It isn't bad for the store but it is bad for the feet.

Put another way, how many of you want to give up your Audi's, BMWs and
Lexuses to drive VW Beatles made in Mexico?  After all, a car is a car and
if the emission standards could be met, well, you would have to give up the
fourth kid and maybe slim down yourself, but all to the common good, yes?

>2. OOXML is too large and complex to be easily reviewed, and does not
>play well with existing standards. "The OOXML standard document is 6546
>pages long. The ODF standard,
>which achieves the same goal, is only 867 pages. The reason for this is
>that ODF references other existing ISO standards for such things as date
>specifications, math
>formula markup and many other needs of an office document format
>standard. OOXML invents its own versions of these existing standards,
>which is unnecessary and complicates the final standard.", "Considering
>that OOXML has only received about 5.5% of the review that comparable
>standards have undergone, reports about inconsistencies, contradictions
>and missing information are hardly surprising."

Ummm... isn't that the "SGML is too hard" with pages Jon tossed to the floor
argument.  A decade later, bloat and more bloat in XML as the gaps were
filled and we still hate namespaces and XSD.  IOW, for those that want to
get their product from a single source or a source and its partners, it may
not be "unnecessary".   As for the 5.5% number, based on what I am reading
either a lot of review was done or a lot of people are complaining about
specifications they haven't read.

>3. OOXML is not yet widely adopted, at least on the Web. ODF is the most
>common XML format for office document data, and it would make more sense
>to translate data from proprietary formats into a simpler, existing
>standard format that has already received extensive review.

Office documents, Jonathan, not 'web documents'.  The web has become a
cancer according to what supporters of open source tell me ("can't be
stopped; it just pops up somewhere else").  That "Web IS Holy" argument
doesn't wash anymore.  Packing a a doc file into an attachment and sending
it or opening HTML in Word is an everyday occurrence.                    

Web documents are rarely that complicated and if they are, they are in PDF
for which if I want a version that doesn't crack or break, I still have to
buy it from Adobe (yes, I have Foxit; it screws up cut and paste, displays,
and so on).


>4. There is not widespread adoption of OOXML outside of Microsoft. Most
>of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who have
>contractual agreements to implement OOXML software.

So the partners of Microsoft are inside Microsoft and the partners of Red
Hat are outside Red Hat?  Are you the Red Queen?  That's really bogus.
Everyone is partnering with someone and they vote their self-interest.  That
is the business side of this.  The technical side is a different issue.  You
insist on down translation so your customers will lose information so they
can pay to switch to do business with you?   What kind of deal is that?

>I guess I should express my own views too. I think OOXML is a good
>thing, and I'm very glad Microsoft produced it. I don't think it should
>be a standard, because it is designed precisely to represent one
>vendor's office documents, not as a general purpose office document
>format created by a group of vendors.

That is a MUCH better deal than if it isn't a standard.  Because of
political gerrymandering, if it isn't a standard, the legal conditions are
such that very large customers have to switch and thee me and the rest of
the taxpayers foot the bill.  Where will that money go?  Well... to Red Hat,
Sun, IBM, and indirectly, to Google.    

So the bottom line is their customers pay you to free them from Microsoft by
taking the same information and making it less informative?  Huh?

>Yawn. I'm not very good at arguments about who are the good guys and who
>are the bad guys, but I don't find this kind of language terribly
>convincing. Maybe I've heard too much of it.

Try.  It isn't that hard to figure out who be which if the rich get richer
and the poor pay for the free lunch.  I don't mind capitalism but this is
Prince John taking money from the villagers for a ransom he doesn't intend
to deliver to the man he persuaded to hold his brother hostage.

len
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

This is where we agree fully, Jim.  This is what I fear most.  This bitter
butter battle over white elephants is damaging the delicate and not very
long-lived respect established for international standards.  Where we differ
is that this is entirely Microsoft's doing.  What I read on the blogs, the
Ban OOXML stickers, the unfounded charges and rumors, these tactics are also
doing damage.   What I can say with some certainty is that the use of legal
maneuvers in other bodies to force others to use one set of standards
(remember the US government making it necessary to use W3C specifications a
few years ago until the W3C maundered?) is doing damage all the way around
because it forces the market battle into the standards meeting room in ways
I haven't seen since the days of the IBM hegemony.

We're burying ourselves in the feces of our convictions.  Yuck.

len

From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@...]

In closing, I want it to be clear that I have no personal opinion
about the proposed standard itself.  I have not read the 6500+ pages
of the document, nor have I read the ODF standard.  I love
competition (but doubt that the effect of this is going to be
increased competition) and I care very much about being able to
express complex document semantics in XML.  I use Microsoft products
and I have a love-hate relationship with those products.  I do not
think that Microsoft is the devil incarnate.  What I care about is
the long-term viability of the standards processes.  And I believe
that the, um, fiasco that has been happening with respect to this
proposed standard is truly a train wreck in effect.  Microsoft will
almost certainly (I give it better than 99% probability) of
succeeding in making OOXML an international standard.  But, in the
process, they will have significantly damaged the credibility of the
process itself, and of their own relationship with standardization.

Grumble...
    Jim


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Len Bullard wrote:
> Of course MS partners vote for MS
> submissions.  That's practical business.  Did MS gather them up?  I can't
> say and neither can you nor can the author of that article.  They probably
> did.  Are Google, Sun and IBM not doing that as well?  If not, they are not
> being very smart.
>  

You seem to be arguing against the idea of one vote per company, saying
that whoever is best able to create large lobbies should win in the
standardization process.

> No.  I think it rather weird that everyone else shows up late in smaller
> numbers.   Do Sun, Red Hat, IBM and Google have so few partners they can't
> afford to join?
>  

I honestly don't know whether Red Hat has been voting on this standard
at all - I haven't been involved in ODF, OOXML, or ISO standards, but
you seem to be implying that the proper remedy is for every other
company to try to stuff the ballot box by enlisting their own partners,
and whoever does this best should win.

>> 4. There is not widespread adoption of OOXML outside of Microsoft. Most
>> of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who have
>> contractual agreements to implement OOXML software.
>>    
>
> So the partners of Microsoft are inside Microsoft and the partners of Red
> Hat are outside Red Hat?  Are you the Red Queen?  That's really bogus.
>  

This is one of the traditional ways to measure whether a standard is
implementable - compatibility among multiple independent
implementations. That's the approach we take in the W3C, where I've been
on standards groups for 10 years. I think Google is implying that there
are not multiple independent implementations for OOXML.

I have no idea what a Red Queen is, but I'm certainly not speaking for
Red Hat in anything I say, I don't know what our position is on OOXML,
and the quote above comes from Google's position paper, not from me.

>> I guess I should express my own views too. I think OOXML is a good
>> thing, and I'm very glad Microsoft produced it. I don't think it should
>> be a standard, because it is designed precisely to represent one
>> vendor's office documents, not as a general purpose office document
>> format created by a group of vendors.
>>    
>
> That is a MUCH better deal than if it isn't a standard.  Because of
> political gerrymandering, if it isn't a standard, the legal conditions are
> such that very large customers have to switch and thee me and the rest of
> the taxpayers foot the bill.  Where will that money go?  Well... to Red Hat,
> Sun, IBM, and indirectly, to Google.    
>
> So the bottom line is their customers pay you to free them from Microsoft by
> taking the same information and making it less informative?  Huh?
>  

So should there be a standard for each vendor's proprietary formats, or
just for Microsoft's? In an ideal world, there would be one standard
format, and all vendors would support it, eliminating the cost of
proprietary conversions.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Gause_Brian]

I disagree that Len is arguing against the idea of one vote per company.
This does not follow. As I read his text, I thought it was a cynical dig
at MS, not a conclusion regarding "the way it should be".

I also disagree that Len is "implying that the proper remedy is for
every other company to try to stuff the ballot box..." What I see in
Len's text is a rhetorical question. He could be implying that the
standards committee needs to institute a membership policy barring
one-day-old members from voting. To say that he's implying one
particular solution is a mistake that simply doesn't follow from his
words.

For my part, I believe these standards committees should have membership
policies to prevent such clear attempts to push through such decisions.
But does it really matter? MS has found their solution...be prepared for
this sort of behavior over and over again...



-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:30 PM
To: Len Bullard
Cc: xml-dev@...
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML?

Len Bullard wrote:
> Of course MS partners vote for MS
> submissions.  That's practical business.  Did MS gather them up?  I
can't
> say and neither can you nor can the author of that article.  They
probably
> did.  Are Google, Sun and IBM not doing that as well?  If not, they
are not
> being very smart.
>  

You seem to be arguing against the idea of one vote per company, saying
that whoever is best able to create large lobbies should win in the
standardization process.


> No.  I think it rather weird that everyone else shows up late in
smaller
> numbers.   Do Sun, Red Hat, IBM and Google have so few partners they
can't
> afford to join?
>  

I honestly don't know whether Red Hat has been voting on this standard
at all - I haven't been involved in ODF, OOXML, or ISO standards, but
you seem to be implying that the proper remedy is for every other
company to try to stuff the ballot box by enlisting their own partners,
and whoever does this best should win.

>> 4. There is not widespread adoption of OOXML outside of Microsoft.
Most
>> of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who have
>> contractual agreements to implement OOXML software.
>>    
>
> So the partners of Microsoft are inside Microsoft and the partners of
Red
> Hat are outside Red Hat?  Are you the Red Queen?  That's really bogus.
>  

This is one of the traditional ways to measure whether a standard is
implementable - compatibility among multiple independent
implementations. That's the approach we take in the W3C, where I've been

on standards groups for 10 years. I think Google is implying that there
are not multiple independent implementations for OOXML.

I have no idea what a Red Queen is, but I'm certainly not speaking for
Red Hat in anything I say, I don't know what our position is on OOXML,
and the quote above comes from Google's position paper, not from me.

>> I guess I should express my own views too. I think OOXML is a good
>> thing, and I'm very glad Microsoft produced it. I don't think it
should
>> be a standard, because it is designed precisely to represent one
>> vendor's office documents, not as a general purpose office document
>> format created by a group of vendors.
>>    
>
> That is a MUCH better deal than if it isn't a standard.  Because of
> political gerrymandering, if it isn't a standard, the legal conditions
are
> such that very large customers have to switch and thee me and the rest
of
> the taxpayers foot the bill.  Where will that money go?  Well... to
Red Hat,
> Sun, IBM, and indirectly, to Google.    
>
> So the bottom line is their customers pay you to free them from
Microsoft by
> taking the same information and making it less informative?  Huh?
>  

So should there be a standard for each vendor's proprietary formats, or
just for Microsoft's? In an ideal world, there would be one standard
format, and all vendors would support it, eliminating the cost of
proprietary conversions.

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

>You seem to be arguing against the idea of one vote per company, saying
>that whoever is best able to create large lobbies should win in the
>standardization process.

I'm saying that is what they do already and always have.  That is what the
ODF effort is doing as well but it is doing it to defeat a candidate.  It
seems to be business as normal but rather ugly in this case.  I'm not sure
we can change that or should, but it I think it in everyone's interest for
it to be a less ugly event.  

I don't think the results of having two standards regardless of their
provenance justifies pummeling ISO into the ground.  I do think ISO should
take a long hard look at this event and question the efficacy of the
processes given the reality of large vested interests being able to game the
systems from all sides.  Realistically, I'm not sure what can change but the
reputations of all engaged in this are taking a beating and as a result, the
'millennials' are stepping up to the plate even more cynically than we were
when we were the young turks.  This can't be good.

I think about what Christine Amanpour said about the problems of "God's
Warriors" and the Middle East.  Paraphrased, it isn't that one side is more
right or wrong, it is that all sides are killing the middle and the only way
that stops is when real leaders emerge and compromise on their mutual needs
instead of continuing to fight over their differences.  Has it ever been
otherwise in any seemingly intractable and unwinnable fight?

>I honestly don't know whether Red Hat has been voting on this standard
>at all - I haven't been involved in ODF, OOXML, or ISO standards, but
>you seem to be implying that the proper remedy is for every other
>company to try to stuff the ballot box by enlisting their own partners,
>and whoever does this best should win.

No, I am saying that a bit of honesty here among the chickens is in order.
Stuffing the boxes is becoming an acceptable way to do business but it seems
all sides have only their own interests while telling the customers they
should pay for the differences to reconcile on one solution. Ugly.  

Really, two standards won't hurt and the rest is gerrymandering.   We've
seen this cycle enough times in enough organizations with different players
over the years to know it for what it is.  If OOXML is that terrible, it
will die a death of neglect.  If ODF is that wonderful, it will enjoy a
rapid rise, but we have to let the customers choose according their own
circumstances or we are doing the same dumb thing we did when people
believed one DTD (think 28001) could cover all documents.  It's like sex for
power; it is cruel and evil.

>This is one of the traditional ways to measure whether a standard is
>implementable - compatibility among multiple independent
>implementations. That's the approach we take in the W3C, where I've been
>on standards groups for 10 years. I think Google is implying that there
>are not multiple independent implementations for OOXML.

Google implies that but Google hasn't even tried and won't try; yet as Rick
points out, they are a big user of VML and I remember people on this list
vilifying VML.  No one else can as long as there is no standard.

>I have no idea what a Red Queen is, but I'm certainly not speaking for
>Red Hat in anything I say, I don't know what our position is on OOXML,
>and the quote above comes from Google's position paper, not from me.

See Lewis Carroll.  A world of upside down logic.   I've been watching this
for some time and it doesn't seem to have an outcome of one standard.  It
can have an outcome of punishing the customers with high costs and no
choices but to pay them to the companies that win the bitter butter battle.
As far as I can tell, there is little benefit to the information or the
customers by short term mandate of ODF.   There will be benefits for the
customers if ODF gathers momentum from sales and if that takes longer
because of OOXML, that is the price of preserving the institutions that
enable choice.  The customers don't need a Pyrrhic victory and the companies
insisting on that may be damaging themselves in the long run.   Keep up the
technical review, get to the meetings, and fight the good fight by all
means, but let's drop the charges made with proof, the allegations based on
appearances, and let the chips fall.  

>So should there be a standard for each vendor's proprietary formats, or
>just for Microsoft's? In an ideal world, there would be one standard
>format, and all vendors would support it, eliminating the cost of
>proprietary conversions.

Should there be only one reliable messaging standard?  Should there be only
one hypertext language (kiss of topic containers; HTML is King)?  Should
there be only one query language?  Should there be only one size of condom?

If MS opens it up, it quits being proprietary.  When Sun opened up their
office suite, it became ODF.  Adoption is the key but no can adopt a baby
strangled in the crib, nor will any one adopt one that is still born.  So
let the customers and the implementers choose.

Realistically, these formats are both dodos.   I spend a lot of time working
in databases and that spit out reports.  For me, neither one of these is a
good choice and both are if a customer requires them, but I have to send
them a bill.  Otherwise, I choose HTML tables and PDF both of which can be
imported into a spreadsheet and neither of which punishes my customer for
choosing unwisely.

len
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

I am saying something simpler:

Will the rat bastards please consider the good of their customers instead of
building walls around them for their own comfort?  Document formats can't
change what exemplary leadership can.  No one gets out of a Chinese finger
puzzle pulling to the outside.

Again, if ODF is better, it will grow and evolve.  Customers will migrate as
they can afford to.  If OOXML is terrible, it will become unaffordable.  If
it isn't, implementations will improve the lot of the customers.

All anyone here needs is patience.

But if we we lose faith in standards as vehicles of consensus formation and
maintenance, we gate everything good the web as a community has accomplished
and we amplify everything bad that it could not avoid becoming.  Then lord
help us, it is 1989 again and the cold war is back on.

len


From: Gause_Brian@... [mailto:Gause_Brian@...]
 
I disagree that Len is arguing against the idea of one vote per company.
This does not follow. As I read his text, I thought it was a cynical dig
at MS, not a conclusion regarding "the way it should be".

I also disagree that Len is "implying that the proper remedy is for
every other company to try to stuff the ballot box..." What I see in
Len's text is a rhetorical question. He could be implying that the
standards committee needs to institute a membership policy barring
one-day-old members from voting. To say that he's implying one
particular solution is a mistake that simply doesn't follow from his
words.

For my part, I believe these standards committees should have membership
policies to prevent such clear attempts to push through such decisions.
But does it really matter? MS has found their solution...be prepared for
this sort of behavior over and over again...

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Two more interesting developments on the Swedish vote reported earlier
in this thread (see http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/1/ ).

1. The Swedish SIS board has decided to declare their vote invalid
(http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200708301301334&title=SIS+Declares+OOXML+Vote+Invalid&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=612629#c612649).

2. Italy had a vote in which 89 new members joined just in time,
supplementing the original 5 members
(http://www.piana.eu/?q=en/node/33). This time around, companies on both
sides of the issue joined at the last minute, and OOXML lost the vote.

A rule requiring members to participate actively for 45 days before
voting on major issues might make this kind of shenanigans less likely .....

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

Someone should have gone to the US Supreme Court first which has a precedent
for reversing elections.

I agree.  As the problem of the rule shown, it should be fixed.  One wonders
what the side effects of that will be.  Realistically, the next time
something like this comes up, all interested parties need to sign up early
and stay late. Otherwise, each side picks their meanest guy or gal and sends
them into the Thunderdome... after testing for steroids.

To rail at MS, enabling the IDE to make a relational primary ID editable is
all I needed to have demoed.  But since the app we've been working on since
May just deployed on the test server and ran I'm happy with them today.
Tomorrow is another day.

len


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@...]

Two more interesting developments on the Swedish vote reported earlier
in this thread (see http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/1/ ).

1. The Swedish SIS board has decided to declare their vote invalid
(http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200708301301334&title=S
IS+Declares+OOXML+Vote+Invalid&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=61262
9#c612649).

2. Italy had a vote in which 89 new members joined just in time,
supplementing the original 5 members
(http://www.piana.eu/?q=en/node/33). This time around, companies on both
sides of the issue joined at the last minute, and OOXML lost the vote.

A rule requiring members to participate actively for 45 days before
voting on major issues might make this kind of shenanigans less likely .....

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Jonathan Robie-2]

Len Bullard wrote:
> Someone should have gone to the US Supreme Court first which has a precedent
> for reversing elections.
>
> I agree.  As the problem of the rule shown, it should be fixed.  One wonders
> what the side effects of that will be.  Realistically, the next time
> something like this comes up, all interested parties need to sign up early
> and stay late. Otherwise, each side picks their meanest guy or gal and sends
> them into the Thunderdome... after testing for steroids.
>  
I've spent 10 years working on W3C standards now, and it's great to see
how getting people into the same room, working together over time, leads
to greater wisdom and better cooperation than we had when we walked into
the room to start with. People who want to vote should be forced to
experience this firsthand ;->

Jonathan

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard-2]

Usually true.  I learned a lot from the people who created SGML and not all
of that was enjoyable, but it was learned.  Sometimes familiarity just makes
them less nice because they discover they really don't want to cooperate.

As said so often here and elsewhere, the leadership makes all the
difference.  The XML process was a terrible example that had a good outcome
but it has become a good example in mythology.   Sometimes items of
importance become isolated by layers of process and it becomes necessary to
break through the layers to get to the important piece, but seldom is it
necessary to smash everything else on the way down just because it is
thrilling.  Don't crack the bathtub trying to drain it to get to the baby.
The baby will drown first.  Pick up the baby.  Then fix the bathtub.

Local governance guided by global policy becomes ever more important.  With
ever more integration, we create more opportunity for both good and bad
outcomes because all we are empowering is means. We are not evolving the
ends.  Those are local, personal, and impossible to govern from afar.
   
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=18057

The great game comes to the virtual game.  One wonders about the doubling
effect of feedback from the virtual to the real.

The W3C has been painfully naïve and is now almost irrelevant.  Neither are
permanent conditions.  ISO, ECMA, W3C, all of these have had peaks and
troughs of relevancy and the only consistent theme has been the tenacity of
the leaders to work in accordance with shared values, to give up having
where having has been more terrible than not having, to accept compromise
knowing that another cycle or opportunity will be afforded, and to let the
better hand play the riff when it plays to the beat of the band.

These are not cryptic ideas but they are hard until well-practiced.  

My generation is playing a final role here.  We are in our fifties now and
while we can advise, we won't be swinging these swords much longer.  We
learned from James Mason, Lynne Price, Charles Goldfarb and the rest what
respectful combat is all about.   What I fear is we are leaving a bad
example to a generation already over indulged in fame and wealth with a
sense of entitlement for goods they did not create or earn.  They will learn
as we did the tricks of the game and they will play with skill, but unless
we have been clear about outcomes, that the ends do no justify the means, we
have impoverished the legacy.

The ODF vs OOXML war is a fight for ego and thrills not the good of the
customers.   I don't worry that these artifacts will destroy opportunities
because both are dodos to be swept away in the extinction of irrelevancy.
As for means used by all sides, I am reminded of this quotation:

"These things cannot be hidden for long:  the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth."
The Buddha.

Bumper stickers have to get it right because there isn't enough space to get
it wrong or enough time to read it if it is printed too small.

len


From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@...]
 
I've spent 10 years working on W3C standards now, and it's great to see
how getting people into the same room, working together over time, leads
to greater wisdom and better cooperation than we had when we walked into
the room to start with. People who want to vote should be forced to
experience this firsthand ;->

Jonathan
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[DSosnoski]

It's now clear that bribery *was* part of the process, with the emails
from Microsoft promising extra "marketing contributions" as a payoff for
voting for Open XML:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/F36E6AC141F8C10ECC2573470074B795

Anyone know if Karl Rove is now consulting for Microsoft?

  - Dennis


Jonathan Robie wrote:

> Len Bullard wrote:
>> The author of that article is on dangerous legal ground.
>>
>> "One would think that SIS would not accept new companies to
>> participate in
>> the vote since they haven't been part of the earlier discussions and
>> meetings. But according to SIS they didn't see any problem that new
>> companies wanted to take part in this vote without prior notice. So what
>> happened here is that Microsoft gather together a bunch of loyal
>> partners
>> that would vote yes to their standard without any questions."
>>
>> None of that other than the time they signed up is supported by
>> evidence.
>> It is more likely that Microsoft partners vote for this submission
>> for the
>> same reason Massachusetts changed the position given switching
>> costs.  This
>> is self-interest.  No proof of bribery is shown.  There is no indication
>> that questions have not been asked.  Continuing to make that charge in
>> public forums without proof is opening the author and the employer of
>> the
>> author as well as the publisher to slander lawsuits.  This is not a good
>> thing, Jonathan.
>>  
>
>
> Len, there's no allegation of bribery in the article, there is only an
> allegation that Microsoft had something to do with gathering most of
> the new members together, and the author of the article supports this
> allegation by pointing out that 18 of the 23 are either Microsoft Gold
> Certified Partners or Microsoft Certified Partners. The article does
> not say anything specific about what kind of communication may have
> occurred between Microsoft and its partners. The article does suggest
> that it's pretty unusual when a standards vote is determined primarily
> by people who were not members of the group the day before, and are
> partners of a company who was going to lose the vote. Do you think
> this was just a coincidence? Do you think this is the way important
> votes should be held in standards bodies?
>
>
>> Google's paper is specious.  It claims wide use for ODF without the
>> numbers
>> to back that up.  
>
> Here's what they say: "Counting the number of documents found by doing
> Web searches for different document types the older Microsoft Office
> formats dominate, but the second most widely used format is the
> existing ISO standard ODF. As translation is needed anyway it would
> make more sense to convert to ODF, the existing ISO standard for
> editable document types." You suggest that Google does not have the
> numbers to back that up? Er, this is Google, after all ....
>
>> My guess is the number of users of products that can use
>> OOXML is far greater than that of ODF and in fact they support that
>> later in
>> the paper.  Worse, they claim to be offering no legal advice, then go
>> on to
>> make legal assertions about the OOXML IP.
>>  
>
> Google's argument seems to be this:
>
> 1. ODF already exists, and can represent Microsoft documents as well
> as the documents from other vendors. Blessing OOXML as a second format
> results in two mutually incompatible formats that can each claim to be
> standard. Google invokes memories of Betamax to suggest this is bad.
>
> 2. OOXML is too large and complex to be easily reviewed, and does not
> play well with existing standards. "The OOXML standard document is
> 6546 pages long. The ODF standard,
> which achieves the same goal, is only 867 pages. The reason for this
> is that ODF references other existing ISO standards for such things as
> date specifications, math
> formula markup and many other needs of an office document format
> standard. OOXML invents its own versions of these existing standards,
> which is unnecessary and complicates the final standard.",
> "Considering that OOXML has only received about 5.5% of the review
> that comparable standards have undergone, reports about
> inconsistencies, contradictions and missing information are hardly
> surprising."
>
> 3. OOXML is not yet widely adopted, at least on the Web. ODF is the
> most common XML format for office document data, and it would make
> more sense to translate data from proprietary formats into a simpler,
> existing standard format that has already received extensive review.
>
> 4. There is not widespread adoption of OOXML outside of Microsoft.
> Most of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who
> have contractual agreements to implement OOXML software.
>
> 5. There may be legal issues with Microsoft's "Open Specification
> Promise".
>
> Up to now, I have been summarizing their argument, rather than
> offering my own views. To me, at least 1-4 seem to be valid arguments.
> I'm not as able to evaluation 5.
>
> I guess I should express my own views too. I think OOXML is a good
> thing, and I'm very glad Microsoft produced it. I don't think it
> should be a standard, because it is designed precisely to represent
> one vendor's office documents, not as a general purpose office
> document format created by a group of vendors.
>
>> I am not arguing technical merit here.  This is about a slander campaign
>> conducted by companies and individuals opposed to OOXML.
>>
>> This bitter butter battle over white elephant products demonstrates in a
>> very disappointing way the hypocrisy of claiming moral high ground
>> for the
>> sake of commercial advantage.  They are destroying their own
>> credibility.
>>  
>
> Yawn. I'm not very good at arguments about who are the good guys and
> who are the bad guys, but I don't find this kind of language terribly
> convincing. Maybe I've heard too much of it.
>
> Jonathan
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Len Bullard]

Matusow indicated that it was being rectified.   I doubt that it was MS
policy.  Probably one very eager beaver.   Still, point made.

Standards are becoming a sordid business.  If this goes as other events
have, someone will dig up bribery on the other side.  And so it will go.

Rick Jeliffe made a good point:  the  anti-OOXMLers are not the same as the
anti-MS crowd.  The pro-ODFers are not the same as the anti-MS crowd.  The
pro-OOXMLers are not the same as the pro-MS and so on.  The problem is the
news worthy events are the extremes of the polarities.

The losers are the customers.  A tar ball dirties not only those it hits,
but the hands that pick it up to throw it.

len


From: Dennis Sosnoski [mailto:dms@...]

It's now clear that bribery *was* part of the process, with the emails
from Microsoft promising extra "marketing contributions" as a payoff for
voting for Open XML:
http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/F36E6AC141F8C10ECC2573470074B795

Anyone know if Karl Rove is now consulting for Microsoft?



_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

[Rick Jelliffe]

Dennis Sosnoski said:
> It's now clear that bribery *was* part of the process, with the emails
> from Microsoft promising extra "marketing contributions" as a payoff for
> voting for Open XML:
> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/F36E6AC141F8C10ECC2573470074B795

The other side to the story is that MS discovered and fixed the
mistaken/inept email within hours, that they alerted SIS, and that it
wouldn't have impacted the vote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2007/08/29/open-xml-the-vote-in-sweden.aspx

The abandonment of the vote was on a quite different issue of time (not
enough to time to reschedule the vote before the ISO deadline after a
miscount was discovered.) DIS 29500 would have been accepted 25-6 it
seems: why would they bribe if they didn't need to?

This looks like a beat-up. Appropriate to bring up Karl Rove though, it
was just what I was thinking...

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php