BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

Durusau now supports ISO approval of OOXML

Ian Easson — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:24:08 GMT

For those of you who haven't seen the announcement, Patrick Durusau (of anti-OOXML fame) has now changed his position as a result of what happened at the BRM, and now supports the passage of DIS29500 by the ISO. His statement on this is at http://durusau.net/.

(Thanks to Jesper for the news.)

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

Mathias — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:57:15 GMT

4 of 25 people said yes to "O"XML format and that means done? Nobody else then MS needs "O"XML

re: BRM is done....actions require consequences

Citizen in an information age — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:46:03 GMT

Please post each and every name of the US predatory monopoly conviction oversight offices (States Attorneys General, ClubBushFed, etc) so that we may forward information of your companies continued predatory behavior?

Thank you.

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

wtm — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:00:02 GMT

Stop bullshitting people Brian. Stick your XML where the Sun don't shine.

Many other delegates disagree with you

Caleb — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:55:43 GMT

Hmmm... just a few comments from other delegates:

“Delegates were rushed to vote on hundreds of comments in bulk , were told new rules had to be applied, and when many of them tried to propose solutions to technical or legal issues they were simply dismissed....but as it stands today, the BRM has failed -failed to work, failed to impress, failed to create consensus and failed to succeed.” AFNOR (France) TC Member Charles-H. Shultz

“This was horrible, egregious, process abuse and ISO should hang their heads in shame for allowing it to happen. Their reputation, in my eyes, is in tatters. My opinion of ECMA was already very negative; this hasn’t improved it, and if ISO doesn’t figure out away to detach this toxic leech, this kind of abuse is going to happen again and again” - Canadian delegate Tim Bray

“The final day was absolute mayhem. We had to submit decisions on over 500 items which we hadn't have the time to review. All the important issues which have been worked on repeatedly happened to appear on this final day. So it was non-stop important matters....Due to the quirks in the voting mechanisms, a reported 98.4% of Ecma resolutions were approved. This on the surface projects an impression that the BRM is a resounding success. Unfortunately this is not the sentiment of the majority of participants.This is not in criticism of the Convener Mr Alex Brown....It was not the failure of the National Bodies which attended. It was merely a failure of the process. And it may not be the failure of ISO as a process for creating standards, but mainly because a client chose the wrong method in forcefeeding a large draft standard in the conservative process of the ISO.It was a failure of the Fast Track process, and Ecma for choosing it”. .- Malaysian delegate Yoon Kit

“I've never seen anything like this, and I've been doing this for 25 years....There are likely to be hundreds of defects.Virtually every comment we processed did not survive unedited...I see no particular rationale for why we were limited in time. I don't know how you can deal with 6,000 pages with 3,500 comments in a week. It's like trying to run a two-minute mile.” US Head of Delegation Frank Farance

“Most delegations gave a default abstain position, or registered no position. The net is that, although the discussions on Monday and Tuesday demonstrated that the quality of the Ecma responses was such that almost every one required substantial off-line work to make it acceptable, we gradually lowered our standards, so that by week's end, we approved 800+ comments without any discussion, even in the presence of clear objections” US Delegate Rob Weir,

“In fact, even the 80 responses that Greece studied, we did not study at the level of scrutiny that is required when you inspect a standard. There was no time for that. What we did was glance through, and make fast decisions based on what seems right at a quick glance.

The conclusion is that the BRM did the best under the circumstances. OOXML is six thousand badly written pages, and the idea that it could go through fast track is laughable. What happened at the BRM was therefore expected.” Greek Delegate Antonis Christofides

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

John G — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:00:41 GMT

"The whole point of this meeting wasn't to vote on approval of the spec, just on approval of the changes. The only reason you should (in theory) vote against the changes is if you don't believe they improve the spec."

Brian, I think the not so subtle message you are picking up from others is that many wished there had been a 'delete' vote option. That does not mean they are against Microsoft, just against MOOXML becoming an ISO standard. Most people would be completely satisfied if Microsoft Office used ODF as its default file format, and worked to improve that with the community.

As you know the main resistance to what happened last week in the BRM is due to two factors:

1) It would be self-defeating for ISO to have two international standards for the same purpose. We've tried having multiple standards for the same things already: power plugs, which side of the road to drive on, how to spell center, etc. It never makes things better.

It seems to me that Microsoft believes there will be more profit in owning it's own 'standard' (a checkbox item for marketing and supplier reasons) so it is pushing something that does not make sense from a standards perspective (MOOXML) rather than simply doing what does and contributing to ODF.

The MS FUD machine is in over-drive trying to get the whole world excited about MOOXML. But apparently they're not having any of it.

The fact is, open standard formats are not supposed to be used as a competitive advantage. They are supposed to make things work together. That is why there are processes set up to allow for sufficient review and debate in specifying them. And that is why you are kicking up so much dust in your effort to short cut the process.

2) Even if there was not already an ISO standard for document format yet, the right way to get an ISO standard would not be to lift one company's legacy-loaded, internally developed, error-ridden format and stuff it down the ECMA to ISO fast track and down consumers throats (at the same time). It would be to get the specification right by going through a standardization process appropriate to the job. A 6000 page spec with 1000+ changes for 100 people to review in a week? Good grief Charley Brown!

The OLE references and other Microsoft hooks that remain in the document leave it clear that implementing to this spec on any other platform (without a big pile of Microsoft libraries, documentation, and technical support available) will be in reality impossible. This is not an industry neutral, well thought out for the purpose of cross-platform, cross-vender, cross-application data sharing, specification.

Computing is not a zero-sum gain. The better things are, the more opportunities develop. That is what open standards enable. They are there to simplify things so things work not just across proprietary products, but across an industry. The efficiencies that get injected into the system yield pay backs to the industry.

Doing the right thing in this case would mean supporting and helping improve the existing standard interfaces and formats for computing and networking, and submitting new ones where there are gaps.

It's not too late for that here. A leap of faith to show Microsoft really does get it is for you use the delete option on MOOXML and join the rest of the world in supporting, improving, and using ODF as the international standard document format. If there is anything missing in ODF that is in MOOXML it can be added through the appropriate process. I feel that backward compatibility hooks, tools and filters for older Microsoft formats do not belong in this spec, but could be handled in a way that makes sense to everyone.

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

hAl — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:00:50 GMT

From the preliminary onofficial publications it seems that on the voting on the remeining issue about:

26 countries have voted mostly approval votes on changes.

6 countries voted either mostly against approval of changes or did not vote on any changes.

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

juk — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:44:59 GMT

Overwhelming approval? I'm sorry, but 4 out of 25 P countries is not overwhelming approval. Neither is 6 out of 32.

@ the link

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

Anonymous Coward — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:50:31 GMT

One of the two Greek delegates paints a completely different picture than Brian does:

"Brian Jones and Jason Matusow of Microsoft have said that the BRM was a success because it fulfilled its purpose, which was to make changes to the text. Although this is technically correct, if the original text got 1 out of 10 and the BRM managed to improve it to 1.1, it is somewhat misleading to call it a success."

There you have it.

http://elot.ece.ntua.gr/te48/ooxml/brm-clarifications

re: BRM is done... time to sleep :-)

Jesper Lund Stocholm — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:10:08 GMT

nksingh,

LOL - good post-BRM humour!

:o)

The spreadsheet is an .XLS-file ... I suppose everyone can conclude just about everything about that.