Alex,
Microsoft aren't putting themselves through ISO just to feel good, though, and I don't think that it will either help or hinder their monopoly position. I think they're mainly worried about it because they want OXML to be considered standardised, and feel that Ecma alone isn't sufficient.
It *will* help their monopoly -- that's why they are going to such lengths to slow ODF and push their format to ISO. Ask yourself this question: why, since 1987, has Microsoft never submitted their Rich Text Format pseudostandard to any standards body? Or Excel CSV?
ECMA is a rubberstamp organisation, and was chosen by Microsoft precisely to avoid the same level of ISO review ODF went through. It has been an effective shortcut; as ECMA is not a standards body but an association of major IT companies, no review or criticism took place.
The Microsoft Office suite has over 70 import and export filters, but you won't find ODF among them. You won't find it in any Word menu, either. There are add-in tools (including a one-way tool developed by a Microsoft partner), but their use is anti-intuitive to basic users. We computer whizzes probably have no problem reading and writing MS binary blob .doc files, but then again none of us probably is allergic to the command line, either. Microsoft claims that ODF came along too late to be included in the next version of Office, but they have been careful to avoid announcing that they will include it in future. They are still betting on marginalising ODF.
Additionally, I wouldn't ask free software developers to refrain from implementing OXML if there is demand for it. Personally, I've seen no demand
There is no need for market "demand" for the MS format to appear; as it is in the current version of Office, every Office upgrade means another MS-OXML installation. If Microsoft really cared about the "billions" of binary blob documents, they would publish the binary formats, which they have not done. They are willing to make the binary blob Office formats available, but only on terms prejudicial to Free Software developers (you must be a company to ask for the formats here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/840817 or subscribe as a company to their developer network).
Although ECMA doesn't care about writing Excel bugs into a messy standard which disregards ISO standards such as 8601 (dates), ISO standards bodies take their work seriously and don't like the Microsoft maneuvering. Perhaps it's all for the best that the fast-track ballot was maintained, it might make it easier for the national bodies to strike it down.
Sean
Sean,
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 00:50 +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
It *will* help their monopoly -- that's why they are going to such lengths to slow ODF and push their format to ISO. Ask yourself this question: why, since 1987, has Microsoft never submitted their Rich Text Format pseudostandard to any standards body? Or Excel CSV?
I don't understand that point at all. Neither RTF or CSV are terribly important, so whether or not they standardised them seems neither here nor there: that's not what their monopoly is based on.
Yes, they are pushing to standardise their XML format. I just simply don't believe it does much to help their monopoly. In the world of office suites, their monopoly is basically total at this point: you can't really improve on 100%.
ECMA is a rubberstamp organisation, and was chosen by Microsoft precisely to avoid the same level of ISO review ODF went through. It has been an effective shortcut; as ECMA is not a standards body but an association of major IT companies, no review or criticism took place.
OXML is getting the same level of review within ISO as OpenDocument (actually, in a way, it's getting more - there was no "contradictions" period for OpenDocument), the choice of Ecma has made no difference there at all.
As for "no review or criticism", I rather suspect you didn't follow OXML through Ecma. I did, and I saw how the format changed in response to criticism, and can give you many examples of such (e.g., the specification of the Excel formula syntax and vocabulary).
Personally, I'm not in favour of OXML being standardised at ISO, but I'm willing to give Microsoft credit for properly standardising it so far.
Cheers,
Alex.
Hi,
Alex Hudson schrieb:
Yes, they are pushing to standardise their XML format. I just simply don't believe it does much to help their monopoly. In the world of office suites, their monopoly is basically total at this point: you can't really improve on 100%.
Yes and Microsoft fears losing here because there are organizations caring about using proper standards, in short about being able to retrieve data in, say, 20 years.
Personally, I'm not in favour of OXML being standardised at ISO, but I'm willing to give Microsoft credit for properly standardising it so far.
Sorry, but a format that allows non-documented binary blobs to be interpreted is something I would not consider a standard.
Best wishes Michael
On Thursday 26 April 2007 10:02, Alex Hudson wrote:
Sean,
On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 00:50 +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
It *will* help their monopoly -- that's why they are going to such lengths to slow ODF and push their format to ISO. Ask yourself this question: why, since 1987, has Microsoft never submitted their Rich Text Format pseudostandard to any standards body? Or Excel CSV?
I don't understand that point at all. Neither RTF or CSV are terribly important, so whether or not they standardised them seems neither here nor there: that's not what their monopoly is based on.
Yes, they are pushing to standardise their XML format. I just simply don't believe it does much to help their monopoly. In the world of office suites, their monopoly is basically total at this point: you can't really improve on 100%.
Although I agree with your 100% market share statement, you should consider other reasons for Microsoft's ISO campaign. Microsoft Office is still one of the two cash-cows (the other is Windows), which bring in the $$$ they need for their extra-ordinary profits. Do not forget that Microsoft makes losses in many other markets.
Given this, the actual goal of this ISO theater is to defending the current market share. There are already laws and policies in public authorities all over the world which require open or even ISO certified standards for document exchange. This implicates that users are going to install an additional office suite that fits these requirements. (I don't think Microsoft wants the majority of its user-base to know that other suites do exist :) By doing so may make the MSO installation superfluously, increasingly erasing the market-share and so drying out Microsoft's first-class source of profits.
Even though there is an Open Document add-on for MSO (which is inconvinient for their typical users), Microsoft has no control over this format. And even if OOXML would really become the most ridicolous standard in the history of ISO: Microsoft has a good track record making sufficient marketing (or propaganda)... they assume that most deciders wouldn't care how good or bad that ISO standard would be, if there would be just one (and as a plus-plus-good it would be from the market-leader). I'm afraid, that Redmond is likely right with such assumption.
[...]
Greetings, Anastasios
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Alex Hudson wrote:
Sean,
[...]
Yes, they are pushing to standardise their XML format. I just simply don't believe it does much to help their monopoly. In the world of office suites, their monopoly is basically total at this point: you can't really improve on 100%.
Are you aware about ODF (and more in general Open Standards) government initiatives around the world?
Do you know that the OpenOffice.org market share is growing and growing up close to the 20% during last couple of years?
Did you ask to yourself why they are pushing OpenXML and why they are lobbying it inside any national standards bodies?
I think this task is *very very* important because we are demostrating we can break the monopoly in *favor of free software*!!!!
Davide