Google gloats over ISO's OOXML rejection
No fast-tracking for you, sonny
Ensure Ease of Recovery with Asigra’s Agentless Software
Google has proved unable to restrain itself from gloating over the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) decision not to approve Microsoft's request that the OOXML specification be fast-tracked for approval.
The search giant promptly fired off a blog entry slating both the specification and the way the application was handled.
"Our engineers conducted an independent analysis of the OOXML specification and found several areas of concern, which we communicated both to the ISO and to the public... Technical standards should be arrived at transparently, openly, and based on technical merit," writes the firm's open source team scribe.
"In addition, many irregularities have been reported in the voting process," the firm said, referring to accusations that Microsoft bussed its supporters in to meetings to bolster its share of the vote.
The problems with the specification "include, but are not limited to" the haste with which Microsoft was trying to push it through, undocumented features that prevent other vendors from implementing the standard, dependency on Microsoft format, and its overall incompatibility with the existing ISO standard.
Indeed, Google says there is no reason to abandon the one document format (ODF), which "already offers a high degree of interoperability, wide support, and offers the level playing field the world needs", it says.
You can read the full blog entry here. ®
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
COMMENTS
RE "one document format (ODF)"
I do believe that the name was chosen specifically to be confused with ODF, a tactic Microsoft is well known for.
Though, according to Wikipedia [1] and other sources it's "Office Open XML" not "Open Office XML".
I agree with everything you said in your comment.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
"one document format (ODF)"
You mean Open Document Format! D'oh!
As to the independence of this particular report, that's irrelevant - anyone applying intelligent thought to the matter cannot avoid the obvious: "MS Open Office XML" is NOT an open standard, by any stretch of the imagination. To claim otherwise is laughable. Even the name smacks of desperation - no less than the BSI states that it is deliberately designed to create confusion with ODF and its name should be changed (as well as that the format should be redesigned from the ground up, based on ODF).
Let us not forget that ODF is already an approved ISO standard, and that however much Microsoft moans about it not having the correct features to support Windows applications, the glaring irony is that Microsoft was always at liberty to take part in its formulation and standardisation process, yet refused, and (as the standard evolves) still refuses to do so.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Requirements Checklist for Choosing a Cloud Backup and Recovery Service Provider
Data control in the cloud
Cloud based data management
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
