I just got off a 3-hour call with my colleagues on the V1 technical committee, in which I and the other members of the US delegation to the BRM presented our thoughts on what happened at the BRM. Then we all voted on what to recommend to the INCITS Executive Board for the final US position on DIS 29500.
The final outcome: we are recommending that the US maintain its Approve position on DIS 29500. The next step will be for the INCITS Executive Board to conduct a letter ballot to approve this result.
After all the hard work in V1 going back to the beginning of last year, it's great to have finished up our review of DIS 29500 on a positive note. I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process, and the spec is much better now than when we started.
More details later. For now, I'm looking forward to a weekend at home!
Doug Mahugh just posted about a call this afternoon where the U.S. V1 technical committee voted to approve
I just saw this come through in email, and would point you to Doug Mahugh's blog that the US V1 technical
I had little doubt about that vote even though I was rather surprised to see the voting of the US delegation at the BRM.
Did the BRM actually publish the full list of changes? I haven't seen that publicly available, but obviously the technical committees would have access to non-public info.
Have you had a chance to read through all of the changes that were approved and those that were rejected, and made sure that they were all consistent?
Or, did you decide that the BRM's result was sufficient without needing to do a detailed review?
"we are recommending that the US maintain its Approve position on DIS 29500."
You people should hang your heads in shame.
Methinks that the USA has made a mistake on this issue. I've been involved with standard in the past with Underwriters Laboratories, Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation, and ISO. The rule is that when there are serious problems with a standard, you bounce it back. And there are serious problems with this standard. References to things that are not in the standard (or in any other standard) are probably the biggest issue, but there are others.
I cannot see how the US position on MS-XML is justified.
@hAl, me too.
@gopi, I've read the changes approved in Geneva (and I was there), and I've read nearly all of Ecma's proposed dispositions that were accepted. I think the changes are improvements for the most part. FYI, I know we have at least two people on V1 who have read every disposition.
@krp, let's get out and get some fresh air and perspective this weekend, OK? I'll go first.
@Conrad, do you have any specific facts you'd like to discuss, or is this just a "feel it in my gut" thing for you? If it's the former, I'd be glad to discuss the details.
I get fresh air every single day. You people should still hang your heads in shame.
I was thinking specifically of the references to the older binary file formats, which aren't properly documented, are the biggest issue. In fact I think that this is a killer issue - a standard which references unknowns is not a standard.
You, along with your MS comrades, continue to take unwarranted liberties in referring to MSOOXML by the name "OpenXML".
As an American (now at home in New Zealand), I'm deeply ashamed of the US body if they've voted to accept the MSOOXML format. It's simply wrong to pollute the world with a second office format standard. ODF was first and Microsoft has had every opportunity to influence it's development. It has chosen not to. Now Microsoft is rewriting the rules of the game (at the expense of ISO's reputation) because without doing so, it would have to compete on a level playing field. Make no mistake: MSOOXML isn't open, and it's not "for the customer's best interest". It's for Microsoft's bottom line. And that's not compatible with ISO standardisation.
Remember: multiple implementations of the same standard is good for everyone (except incumbent monopolies) and multiple standards for the same things is bad for everyone (except incumbent monopolies).
Hands up if you have two socket sets in your toolbox - on for metric and one for American Standard nuts and bolts. A waste of steel and money, eh. But that's just the tip of the iceberg for the travesty of two standards for the same thing.
Think about it.
Please provide links to the ANSI or INCITS documents that provide the bylaws, guidelines, principles, or other criteria that V1 and the INCITS board are obligated to follow when acting on an ISO standard item.
Fortunately for the rest of the world, not everyone subscribes to your view that "first" to standardize precludes other choices.
If everyone thought like you, TCP/IP and the internet would never have happened. We would all be trying to figure out Open Systems Interconnection (OSI)
No Internet. No web. We woud not be having this conversation.
How ironic that you'd pick OSI as a counter example. I think we could both agree, for example, that:
1. if the Metric System had predated the incredibly ponderous and legacy-encumbered American Standard system of measurement (5280 ft to the mile, for example), then I think everyone would be able to agree that someone suggesting that introducing an American Standard measurement standard would've been stupid. Do you disagree?
2. Based on the link you provided, TCP/IP came into existence because, clever though it might've been, OSI was, in practice, unimplementable. TCP/IP, on the other hand, was like the Metric System by comparison - simple, practical, and implementable.
I'm not saying that standards should hold back innovation - I'm saying that when you have a superior standard like the metric system, it's damn stupid to try to introduce the American Standard system.
I don't think anyone would disagree that ODF is a much tighter, more practical standard than MSOOXML. It's already been implemented to a huge extent by 5 or six *independent* projects (e.g. Abiword, Gnumeric, OpenOffice, Symphony, Google Office, etc.) and it's 1/10th the size of the MSOOXML spec, and comes without any legacy baggage. *No one*, not even Microsoft, has been able to implement MSOOXML. Is it even implementable in it's current form? I don't know...
Here's the point: I'd say that in this context, ODF is much closer to TCP/IP and the Metric System, and MSOOXML has all the ponderous hallmarks of an OSI or American Standard measurement system. I'd be interested to understand your rationale if you disagree.
I should clarify, @mordonez: I don't believe that any standard should stand still because that blocks innovation. I also don't believe that a bad standard that cannot be implemented should block the standardisation of a better standard.
I do not, however, think that anyone could make a solid case for the fact that OOXML is a better standard than ODF. I also believe that my first point still holds. Multiple implementations of a single standard are always preferable to multiple redundant standards.