What else should we really have expected from this bunch? Par for the course with them.

"All standards are equal...but some are more equal than others."

I hope the EU does something to investigate these blatantly corrupt dealings. This should be criminal. Being British I had registered my objections to the BSI, along with many others. Not sure that made any difference at all.

Personally speaking, if the ISO does go ahead with this rubber stamping, I'd not piss on them if they were on fire.

When will Microshite learn that it cant bully people into voluntarily adopting a standard.

It's a short term gain, long term increased hate for Microcunts. If anything, aside from a few imminent victories on the whole "standards compatibility" blurb that they can use for promotion, all this serves to do is devalue the other ISO standards, and cast doubt on it's ability to independently regulate and do a good job.

It's like at the OSCARs when the judges start getting sent champagne-baskets and free holiday trips by the production companies. D Value.

Paris because, ?, she, has a nice ass.

will be to declare the vote VOID and to introduce a high profile investigation of its methodology.

The delegates seem to be able to add up the votes and there is not that many of them, so why the silence from the ISO?

Could it be that they've heard that the process might be a touch flawed? Time for a review perhaps?

Robert Mugabe?

I am outraged at the BSI's rumoured change of stance. Hopefully this is just rumour. Otherwise we need to be told why (apart from loads of MS cash).

How many implementations of OOXML are there - 1

How many implementations of OOXML are there that Microsoft will not sue for patent infringements - 1

How many implementations of OOXML will there be in 10 years time - 1

The standard is simply Microsoft Office ....

Make some more in the interest of consumer choice. Some European power-companies could e.g. make their own standard to deliver electricity at 440V/100Hz and market it as "double excitement at twice the speed".

... this gets through as a standard, i will very quick to look at the responsibilities of an ISO standard. I will pester the BSI when MS fail to release interoperability data. I will pester BSI when this standard is the basis of a patent lawsuit.

In fact if this comes to pass and it down to the BSI (at least for us UK poeple) i intend to remind the BSI at EVERY point, they made it a standard and therefore they have to explain when it does not act like one!!

I emailed the BSI the other day regarding the news of the change of heart and they sent me a very off hand email in response which amounted to "we're the standards body, not you, go away"

Is nothing immune from coruption anymore.

Damn it, you got in there before I could add my Zimbabwe reference. That'll learn me to go viewing houses when important Register articles are coming out.

Next time you see BBC coverage of Robert Mugabe stealing an election just be thankful that we live in a modern, ethical, democratic and meritocratic society...

... scratch that. We're f*cked.

I'm really not trying to start a flame war, but what is actually wrong with Microsoft's spec? Is it just that the ODF got there first?

And not being funny guys, but people (in particular OSS fanatics) are contstantly going on about Microsoft and lack of standards. MS get approval of a new standard by the International community, and now your slating the standards procedure.

How about you make up your mind?

is it really any wonder MS have always just made up their own standards when this is the grief they get after trying to do it the "propper" way.

Is nothing immune from coruption anymore.

Nope!!

Here's a partial list:

- Features in the spec which are not documented.

- Features in the spec which cannot reasonably be implemented by anoyone except MS.

- Standard features in the spec implemented in non-standard ways (drawings, country codes, etc.) or ways that are intentionally broken (dates).

- 6000 pages of spec in a "fast track" process.

- Thousands of unresolved technical questions about the spec.

- MS's "Open Specification Promise" worded narrowly enough to exclude all meaningful competition.

- Egregious abuse of the voting process (Norway: 5 for, 19 against. Result - "Yes" vote). At least 5 national ISO bodies under investigation for irregularities.

Plus, of course, as you say, ODF was there first. ISO rules mandate that there should be one standard in a particular application area, and that new ideas should be added to that standard rather than spawning a new one.

Who do I need to write to at ISO to get this process stopped until a full investigation has been conducted?

Frankly, it doesn't particularly matter whether or not this standard goes onto the ISO book or not. In software, it is implementations which matter, not standards. This is behind the RFC approach: the barrier for establishing a standard is low (IP by carrier pigeon anybody?), and it is only the ones in wide implementation which matter.

Ultimately the test is interoperability, not an ISO stamp. If the only implementations which can interpret the legacy binary formats come from MS, well I don't think that matters. If a future version of MS Word writes out documents which don't work in other compliant (apart from legacy binary) implementations, that is a big deal. But at that point, because it is a published standard, it can easily be proven one way or another that "you don't comply with your own standard".

Yes, the shenanigans around the voting process stink. We will never get the GBP to be interested in that however. Today I'm far more interested in the voting in Zimbabwe, where vote rigging could result in either the continuation of a despicable regime or in civil war - either way, a genuine life or death matter.

Cadbury's Cream Eggs - they're immune from coruption

but anything else is fair game these days

"I'm really not trying to start a flame war, but what is actually wrong with Microsoft's spec"

Maybe the highly detailed technical explanations contained in it such as "Handle this behavior like Word 97" with no sub explanation how Word 97 handled it. How can people create interoperable software with something as vague as that?

E-Petition anyone?

As long as a standard is defined and everybody then conforms to it, why the hell does it matter who defined it? Everybody will still have access to the specifications and it is then up to them to make sure it is compliant

I can't help but wonder if the vote had gone the other way, with the same allegations of corruption, whether people would have still been saying the same things, or whether it would have been a case of "Microsoft are just trying to cover things up, of course the vote was fair and they can't hack it. Linus Torvalds is my god." or something similar. It seems nobody is quite able to incite such pathological hatred as MS.

Besides, everybody knows that Linus Torvalds was the lovechild of Bill Gates... Linux was just his way of rebelling against his father.

What's wrong with OOXML? Well here's a taster for you.

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/disharmony-of-ooxml.html

and scroll down a bit to the table that shows how to colour red or right-align stuff. It's just a small sample. If you want a more technical overview then go here

http://www.noooxml.org/open:rejectooxmlnow

or here

http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/top_10_worst_responses/

Basically, no one can implement an unimplementable standard. No one is even sure if Microsoft can implement this stuff.....

How bad does it have to be? There's nothing wrong with the idea of OOXML per se, but it needs a lot more work to actually be *fit* to be a standard.

We need a Robert Mugabe icon for this sort of event :(

"I'm really not trying to start a flame war, but what is actually wrong with Microsoft's spec? Is it just that the ODF got there first?"

I don't know where you've been over the last few weeks, but the deficiencies of OOXML are well and truly covered:

(1) It's miles from being usable (hint: MS *itself* has admitted that it won't really implement it)

(2) It breaks ISO rules on having proprietary elements

(3) It only got approved due to substantial vote rigging.

The latter is the main point. What Microsoft has done to a technical-only body is to break the tentative agreements that live between the rules and abuse the process for what it's worth. The main issues is that their actions have caused substantial harm to the voting process overall, and teh standing of ISO adn an independent body. In short, Microsoft has shown how easy it is to buy votes, even when the topic at hand is so deficient it's even to non-techs evident just how broken it is.

All that whilst ODF is already out there and could be amended under accepted process - but that's the problem. Microsoft does not WANT a fully open standard so it had to rig the process for all it was worth, covering ISO delegates in shame.

So f*ck MS. I use Firefox, Thunderbird and Ubuntu, and the last Windows system (this one) will soon be no longer used, nor will any of my companies be allowed to use any new software made by MS (that's a ban we've had in place for a few months already). I'll even be tipping off FAST to force an audit - I will enjoy abusing that little club of leeches as well.

(yes, I'm angry - I hope the EU will find enough to start another investigation).

[I'm really not trying to start a flame war, but what is actually wrong with Microsoft's spec? Is it just that the ODF got there first?]

If you read the technical overviews that abound on the 'net, you'll see that the spec itself is a 6000 page document, that when analysed deeply shows flaws, and self inconsistencies. There are areas of it that simply state that to implement some part of it, you'll need to use a 'black box' that is a trade secret.

The opinion of some minds that are far better attuned to this than mine have stated that trying to implement the "standard", unless you want to pay large money to MS for the rights to peruse it's 'trade secret' source, is not possible. And when you do, the license it's released under is incompatible with many Open Source licenses (especially GPL).

So, you have a 'standard' that isn't a standard, and can only be built if you pay MS. And implicitly can't be implemented in a fully open environment, which coincidentally is Microsoft's competition these days.

Competing fully working standards.. Still doesn't work too well (hey, what voltage would you like to run your mains on out of 5 competing standards? Or which side of the road would you like to drive on in the UK out of two competing standards?).

The idea of a 'Standard' is one that everyone uses as a baseline. You can have your own proprietary formats too.. Nothing is stopping you doing that (so, office can keep using OOXML, but it'll just be a proprietary format, which is what it will remain anyway, despite being called a 'standard').

But, if everyone maintains a compatibility with the fully open Standard, then everything can talk to everything else. Having TWO is wasted effort and development time.

The dead bird icon, as it's looking as healthy as the reputation of the ISO at the moment.

Steven, if you haven't been following this from early on you might not know this, but the proposed standard (8000 pages long) produced about 3000 comments and criticism - and that's after they eliminated the duplicates. That's a deeply flawed standard. Many of these comments were not addressed - not surprising given the size of the standard, the number of flaws and the fact that they wanted to fast-track it.. they didn't have enough time. So what's happening right now is that the standard will be passed with fingers crossed in the hope that these flaws will somehow get resolved.

That's apart from the fact that we will now have two different and incompatible standards. Kinda like having two entirely different HTMLs, two different types of wall socket (and voltage/frequency), two different and unconnected telephone networks, etc. The proper way to handle any new requirements for Microsoft software to use ODF would be to simply add them to ODF itself, producing a new version of the ODF standard - after all MS is a board member of the Oasis foundation which is responsible for it.

The best thing that could come out of this is for governments to insist that all documents and software conform to either ODF or OOXML.

That way ODF will become the effective standard as M$ software cannot meet the OOXML specs itself.

All that Microsoft wants is the word "open" for a standrd that will never become an open standard.

I Norway they pushed the no sayers out, in Finland they pushed the yes sayers from outside in.

What a farce.

@Jai - Obviously you haven't heard about the recall in Canada then.

Remember folks, if you don't like the way a vote went, start that mud a flying! People hardly ever care if its justified, just so long as its a good show!

I think one of the important issues being overlooked is that it isn't just Microsoft who uses "standards" as a way of gaining advantage. OpenOffice and the ODF format were only created in order to bash Microsoft by releasing a free giveaway which directly competes with Office, one of Microsoft's biggest moneyspinners. ODF is actually just part of a larger MS bashing campaign.

The problem for people who want to complain about how awful Microsoft are is that Microsoft's opponents did the same thing Microsoft seems to have done - get an unsatisfactory standard approved in order to throw a spanner in their opponent's works.

Maybe OOXML doesn't deserve to be called an international standard, but then again ODF shouldn't have been one either, especially when the maker of the most successful office software in the world was so strongly against it.

ISO have some webforms e.g. <http://www.iso.org/iso/support/contact_iso/contact_for_iso_partners_2.htm> but perhaps the Fax Machine in Geneva might be the easiest? Fax +41 22 733 34 30

Wonder if anyone's actually got an answer to explain why the BSI changed it's mind given the statement:

"It identified a number of technical issues in the document which need to be addressed before the UK can approve ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML as an International Standard. "

And, as far as I know, those change haven't been made...

The answer's simple.

Just don't use the fuc*king thing.

After all, (IIUC) Tosh's HD-DVD format's a 'standard'. It's bolloxed now, but still a standard.

Once more government depts. realise the Mugabe-style election process, it's history. Just a way to kill more trees with a worthless spec.

RIP, OOXML. Take Microsoft with you on the way out.

Then I'll be utterly ignoring anything the ISO does not and in the future because they have proven themselves utterly unfit to handle standards.

Just something you buy.

I remember trying to use Word OLE Automation, which was so buggy, I abandoned it in favour of generating RTF. Then I found out that RTF is just an alternate format for Word documents. The keywords describing a table or run-time fields were named but not its behaviour. The documentation didn't state the field name for today's date, let alone the options for formatting it. The documentation only properly specified character and line formatting. Anything more sophisticated required reverse engineering how Word saved it.

The OOXML documentation is a big steaming, worthless pile? Normal practice.

MS may also have a hidden agenda. Their main competitor in the office space is open-source. They can discredit open solutions by my making a mockery of the standards process. Good open standards are essential to any FOSS work.

"It seems nobody is quite able to incite such pathological hatred as MS."

Because they abuse us, insult our intelligence, etc., etc, etc.,and there's not much we can do about it.

Seems obvious to me!

However, the vast majority don't actually know this. So M$ will prevail!

It doesn't actually matter whether OOXML is a pile of SH1T or not, or whether M$ can implement it or not, they don't now have any obligation to implement ODF.

Ergo, MS can continue as they were.

Anyone whose putting any weight behind an ISO standard is getting what they paid for. I worked for a major manufacturing firm that went through ISO9000 and 9001 audit at the same time that "Dilbert's" company did. (Seriously, the comics came out almost in parallel with developments where I worked!) We were on respirators from the laughter. I watched several boxes of non-compliant documentation "disappear" and magically reappear at the hands of an administrator who was almost as adept a magician as Bullwinkle. It was just as big a joke for us as it was for Dilbert and Wally.

If your hanging your hat on an ISO standard this bird's for you!

(p.s. How many Yale History degrees does it take to pay for an affirmative ISO vote?)

This sounds like the standard MS bribery techniques...

I wonder how many members of the national standards bodies recently got whisked off to plush hotels, foreign resorts and other such "hard to track" machinations of bribery.

They do it with regional councils in the UK - I've experienced and witnessed it first hand, so why not the BSI as well?

...is that Microsoft has no product that supports OOXML, not in the first version and not in the current version (adjusted by ECMA).

There are currently two products that supports OOXML: NeoOffice (OpenOffice for Mac OS X) and IBM's Symphony.

morale: don't buy MS products if ypu want to use MS OOXML standard...

Actually:

Number of OOXML implementations: 0

MS haven't even agreed to follow the OSI standard in any future version and even where they imply it, they say they reserve the right to change the implementation at any time and that their pledge not to sue does not automatically follow.

I wrote to the EU and to the BSI.

The EU actually sent me a letter back, it wasn't a form letter even, it was written to me (spelling mistakes and all :)

They are looking at this issue was all they said. It's not a lot but at least they replied, now the twats at the BSI simply sent me a form reply advising me to look at their website. Yet another bunch of idiots who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes. A bunch of self serving parasitic wankers.

I would write to my MP, Nick Raynsford, but he hasn't yet managed to get up to speed on these computer thingeys. Not sure where to put the coal in, bless. That and the fact he's so far up Gordon Browns rearmost orifice means I'd waste a sheet of A4, an envelope, a stamp and the shoe leather to post it.

I suppose we could simply ignore OOXML, since it's unimplementable anyway it's not going to be a big problem. OOXML is just another so-called MS standard. MS can claim it's open but we all know thats rubbish. I'll stick with my Mac and Open Office on both the PC and the Mac.The next version of Office may have it, I'm still using Office 2000 so it's not a big deal anyway.

Will the last one out of the BSI remember to bank the cheque from MS and switch the lights out!

Bullet points for you:

a) MSOOXML is deliberately named to confuse the trade mark of Open Office.

b) the proposed standard uses unavailable technology (MS's VML)

c) the proposed standard standardises a bug (1900 is NOT a leap year, MS)

d) the fast track is for de facto standards that have been tested in the heat of the marketplace, there is NO MSOOXML standard out there

e) it isn't XML: the namespaces cross over and some elements are modal (meaning one thing in one application and another in a different application, even though they use the same XML namespace)

f) RAND without ND patent "I promise not to sue as long as you're 100% compliant but still not using the stuff we haven't specified (which is required to become 100% compliant)"

g) if it was a standard, why did MS stuff the ballots with MS MVP's?

h) if it was a standard, why did MS take over the voting chair?

i) if it was a standard, why isn't MS using it?

Please see RFC 1149 :-

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt

Geoff

"It seems nobody is quite able to incite such pathological hatred as MS."

Because thanks to Microsoft, the I.T. industry is a disgrace.

Average computer users have the expectation that their PC won't work properly most of the time. We don't take that sort of nonsense from our cars, or TV, or refrigerator, yet it's considered normal for a computer to be unreliable.

That's wrong, and it's largely Microsoft which set that particular standard.

First of all I see most of the comments are just about bashing MS, just for the sake of bashing.

Well think carefully - why was the ODF first created and rushed through? To drive a wedge against MS Office. So the motive for ODF itself is founded on ulterior considerations, and never out of any great altruism to promote openness.

And who are the vendors who pushed ODF - all of MS's competitors which lost the battle. And how do they fight the competition, not by offering compelling end user experience, but by playing dirty tricks like going crying to courts. Now that they have found US courts not that favorable, they go to the next place - EU to sue MS. And EU has a bunch of sour grapes, they jeel jealous about US corporations, that are successful. With all of those losers still loudly wailing here, in the end success is determined by the consumers and market which see compelling value in Microsoft products - so cry all you can, nothing can alter that. If you want to compete, compete by delivering compelling end user experiences like MS or Apple.

And why should ODF be the only standard - is there any god given rule for that. What is wrong with another standard. Let these standards play themselves out in the market - or are people frightened of competition. Are'n there multiple standards in other areas of engineering across the globel. How about just electricity the basic commodity - the world operates on atleast two set of standards.

I see most of the comments are from outside the US, who just make use of every oportunity to bash an american corporation.

And lastly if some one here has long memory the ODF itself was aggressively lobbied and pushed through rapidly so as to put a blocker on Microsoft's Office products, without actually having the strongest player in the market on documentation products having a meaningful say in it. So past mistakes of ODF cannot be swept under. The true test of standards is Openness and interoperability and I for one have not found a vendor so strongly promoting openness and interoperability as MS does.

Do any of you know that MS systems can interoperate and work with Linux, Sun-Solaris, Novell, and a host of other systems and their protocol stack is open to other developers.

So before you go crying and wailing just a tirade of ignorant CRAP about MS, get your facts straight.

OFFS! This is the same BS that Microsoft pulled when Toshiba needed votes in the DVD forum to get HD-DVD ratified.

Microsoft have a terrible reputation and it appears that with the departure of the Gates, their reputation is headed further and faster into the sewer system than ever before. It's like the slide to the dark side of the force. I picture Microsoft operatives talking to Shouting Steve and the conversation going something like this.

"My lord, the forces of open-ness are advancing before us. They control the vote, they control the standard."

"Yessss. I have foreseen it, all is going according to my plan."

"B...b..but my lord, the vote goes against us."

"Does it? Does it really? Contact our reserve delegates, and transmit the key code phrase - 'money for nothing', using the emergency band. It is time."

"M...m...money for.....?"

"Just do it! Or face my wrath! With my force powers I could use my voice to crack your eardrums, or hurl that chair with a mere flick of my wrist. Do you dare defy me? Begone, and do my bidding!"

"Yes my Lord Steve. I do thy bidding, of course. Excuse your humble servant."

"I said, begone!"

You are wrong. Microsoft had was NOT excluded from ODF, except by their own actions/choice.

shame, I don't have any knowledge of exploiting vulnerabilities.

I'm sure OOXML would provide a hobby for life...........

What's all this allegation about Mugabe when postal voting in UK is officially snafu and HMG has said officially its going to do sweet FA about it - not open season for racism by any chance?

"And lastly if some one here has long memory the ODF itself was aggressively lobbied and pushed through rapidly so as to put a blocker on Microsoft's Office products, without actually having the strongest player in the market on documentation products having a meaningful say in it"

Bullshit..

Microsoft sit on the OASIS committee - they refused to get involved in the ODF definition project. They could have got involved and made the ODF standard but they sat on their arses and hatched up the pile of shite that isn't even XML compliant.

You are Steve Ballmer and I claim my £5.

In all the comments, I haven't seen mentioned the biggest issue with this :

If this passes, then OOXML is 'a standard', and therefore any government agency etc that declares "all documents must be in an open standard" is immediately open to carrying on using MS formats. Nothing else matters, it means no government agency, anywhere, will be able to say "no Word docs, they aren't an open standard".

This immediately means that ANY decision to require (for example) ODF and not OOXML can (and I predict will) be challenged by any vendor who feels that the decision 'unfairly' discriminates against it.

Look forward to a lot of legal wrangling as agencies that want to use open standard have their decisions challenged, and probably end up being forced to accept OOXML as an acceptable document format. It matters not a bit if MS aren't fully compliant, they can simply point out that no-one else is either and therefore they can't be held to higher standards than the rest of the world.

I can't see how anyone could logically reach the conclusion you have reached if in full possession of the facts.

MS had a significant opportunity to get involved in ODF, in at the ground floor, could have brought all of its document know-how to the standard, but CHOSE not to because its interests are served by locking people into MS Office, not by establishing open interchange of documents.

Microsoft STILL has that opportunity. But you cannot define a document standard by the functionality of a piece of software. That is why ODF is so simple compared to OOXML - ODF is a standard that resulted from robust argument from different vendors and developers, whereas OOXML is a write-up of the MS Office document storage model.

Yes, competition is good. But only HONEST competition serves the consumer. Dishonest competition, perpetuating proprietary lock-in, serves only the profit-making corporation.

If I ever have someone tell me that something must be good because it's "an ISO standard", I'm now going to just laugh in their face. To be willing to rubber-stamp this kind of crap has, for me at least, put their reputation deep into the septic tank. If this is how they do business when they are being WATCHED, I dread to think how they've been doing business when they were able to act behind closed doors.

OOXML will be a "format of choice" for my company over their dead and decomposing bodies. Yes, I've read (much of) the spec. Yes, it's a total and utter pile of garbage with huge patent/copyright traps that all favour one company. It's not a standard, it's just another lockin method.

If the standard is not open it won't work. If it is open it has a chance.

If a business needs to keep information for a long time - then text is the answer it always has been. Just use HTML as the markup and you are good to go.

Hard to see what the fuss is all about - oh yes, some companies didn't get that MS uses lock-in tactics, and they went off creating their documents in MS Office only to find later that they cannot access the documents, oh well their bad.

ODF was not approved as a standard to "get at Microsoft". It was done so that different products could seamlessly work together. ie. you could create a document/spreadsheet with one application and edit/view it with another and it would look and act exactly the same in either application. There was no exclusion clause saying microsoft could not implement it. In fact microsoft participated in drafting the standard.

Microsoft was not interested in producing its own "standard" (that does exclude others from fully implementing it) until some government bodies decided that, in the future, they would only use products that conformed to standards. This was so that they would not lose the ability to access the documents in the future and also so that they were not tied to a single OS and application suite. When this happened microsoft pushed through the ecma standard and are now pushing through the ISO standard. This is simply so that they can claim that their applications conform to standard.

Wow a few posts here that are almost certainly from people in the employ of MS. They lack credibility to the point that they remind me of some of the posts from chinese people on some of the on-line newspapers comments pages with regards Tibet.

I'm all for a Mad Bob Mugabe icon btw.

>First of all I see most of the comments are just about bashing MS

That may be true...

>just for the sake of bashing.

...but this is an unsupported assertion, immediately redolent as the accusation you make of others.

> Well think carefully

Thank you, I'm trying

- why was the ODF first created and rushed through?

ODF is an open fully implementable standard - why do you think two years from start to version 1.0 is a rush?

>To drive a wedge against MS Office.

Yet another unsupported assertion. Perhaps while I am thinking carefully, you might choose to lightly ponder what a file format has got to do with an application.

> So the motive for ODF itself is founded on ulterior considerations, and never

> out of any great altruism to promote openness.

And while you are pondering, explain to me why a file format that anyone can use, even MS Office, is such a problem?

>playing dirty tricks like going crying to courts

This mystifies me - are you saying there is not such thing as the rule of law? Whether or not anyone was crying, either law was broken or it wasn't Or are you suggesting that Courts are "against" Microsoft too?

Et cetera

"What is wrong with another standard."

So writes someone (in all apparent sincerity) who must clearly be ignorant of the Tanenbaum quote on "the nice thing about standards", thus undermining any confidence in your expertise on this or any other matter of relevance.

"I for one have not found a vendor so strongly promoting openness and interoperability as MS does."

The man in the icon is putting his jacket down so that he can sit on the astroturf. Thanks for the Microsoft perspective!

Aye, one problem with your insane rantings, and it turns up pretty damn quick.

ODF WAS NOT created to drive a wedge into MS's profitability.

If it were, would MS have been invited as a prime voting member on the ODF standard creating board?

Have a look (I know you won't because you're too busy going "la la la! Can't hear!", but maybe others thinking there's something to our drivel will) at who were on the comittee to define the ODF.

The numbers of software companies on the comitee are dwarfed by non-software companies. Companies like American Library Association. Do you think they care about it?

"When will Microshite learn that it cant bully people into voluntarily adopting a standard."

Most likely never. Apparently they *can* bully people into voluntarily adopting standards.

There's quite a bit of whining here in these comments, complaining that MS is being unfairly bashed. One of the more recent instances asks: "Well think carefully - why was the ODF first created and rushed through?"

Rushed through??? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_standardization

"The first official OASIS meeting to discuss the standard was December 16, 2002; OASIS approved OpenDocument as an OASIS standard on May 1, 2005.

"The group decided to build on an earlier version of the OpenOffice.org format, since this was already an XML format with most of the desired properties, and had been in use since 2000 as the program's primary storage format"

I think a lot of people here are simply regurgitating what they've been fed by MS, rather than doing their own research. Here is somewhere to start: http://www.noooxml.org/

If anybody goes out and buys MS office they really need their head examining, Open Office will do everything you need AND DOES NOT COST A PENNY. Go ahead if you insist and I'll keep my money and enjoy plenty of beer.You won't find me being a Slavetard

Remember it is NOT in MS's interest to make anything interoperable.

Freetard and proud.

"If I ever have someone tell me that something must be good because it's "an ISO standard", I'm now going to just laugh in their face."

I've been doing that for years, babes. ISO standards have been a joke for the past decade at least.

Who gives a shit? As an earlier poster said: implementation NOT standards are the hallmark of working software.

TeX and LaTeX. I wrote many inch thick technically rich, marked up and graphical documents in those syntaxes. They were brilliant {} .

Where's your sense of humour? "Steven Hewitt" and "kuttalam" are caricatures. And not bad ones either.

OMG, in the end you will require that people actually halfway know what they are doing when operating a computer? I have seen grown academics (!) scoffing at Godsends like LyX (!!) because it's "too demanding". I have seen others insisting on using MS Word & DOC—even after losing data due to DOC—when writing books and articles "because it is what publishers demand for exchange as standard". This does not even include the people that abuse spreadsheet applications as databases. I can see where you are coming from, and I share your enthusiasm, but this is 2008. That train is gone.

Those who say they will (or people in general can) simply ignore OOXML being an official ISO standard are missing something.

The whole point of OOXML becoming a standard is so that local councils firmly in Redmond's pocket can meet any pesky legal requirement for keeping official documents in a standard format for public accessiblity.

"It's no good you complaining now about the Vogons destroying your silly planet for a hyperspatial bypass when you would have been aware of the proposal months ago, had you only upgraded your copy of Office monthly, to keep up with the version used by your official representatives."

If you want to avoid legal problems, you _will_ update, as often as they decide to require it, at whatever price they ask (which will of course be substantially discounted for government I.T. organizations, out of patriotic good will)

If my memory does not betray me, you are always commenting on stories that involve Microsoft, invariably showing your unbounded love for MS and all the do.

Do you get paid for that or is it just complete and unabashed fanboyism? I hope it's the first, because the second would be too sad to contemplate even for a hardened heart like mine...

But you got at least one very crazy friend here (kuttalam), so rejoice! Or are you guys the same person?

Anyway, back to the ISO thing: loads of money (and other favours) have changed hands, I'm sure. That's sadly how the world works, innit?

"Do any of you know that MS systems can interoperate and work with Linux, Sun-Solaris, Novell, and a host of other systems and their protocol stack is open to other developers."

The mind boggles. Yet another one who has been released from Room 101.

The whole standards process needs to be looked at.

Allowing an abusive monopolist to be a standards bearer is extremely suspicious behaviour and needs to be investigated.

So the majority of people don't like what's happening. So, what are you going to do? Sit at your pc and rant? Come on, there must be something you can do.

I've not seen an E-petition link yet (for those that don't know: UK gov has an online petition thing going on, quite effective sometimes).

Why not publish the BSI email so the rest of us can take a bite without having to trawl the BSI site for it in our very short lunch breaks. Same with ISO.

There's some clever folk here with piles of knowledge, direct that towards the solution not the problem (sorry, sounds like managerial bs, but it's true).

Now I must scurry back to my hole where I toil with MS Sharepoint ffs...

Z

"slavetard" + "freetard" + "beer" in the same post. Oooooh, and a smattering of SHOUTING TOO.

Shurely a candidate for fotw?

@Steven Hewittt(sic)

Shurely you can't be the fuckwit I used to work with. Actually, from the content & the fact you didn't even spell your name correctly, yep - you are.

Rest easy El Reg readers, this isn't the astroturfing of a Microshaft employee. This is genuine. The guy is genuinely thicker than your average plank :-)

Heh :-)

kuttalam: "I see most of the comments are from outside the US"

How do you see that? I don't have such a facility.

Matthew Greet: "I remember trying to use Word OLE Automation, which was so buggy, I abandoned it in favour of generating RTF"

Word OLE automation works well for me. Does OpenOffice have such a facility?

As a self-confessed openoffice and linux freetard, I pity all youse M$ office and M$ windows users. Handing over all your cash when you could be having a 'freetard' lunch, what the hell is wrong with you?

But how can anyone explain the mentality of the PAYTARDS? They must have more money than sense those paytards. Steve Hewitt and kuttalam fit the bill as retarded paytards.

"I've not seen an E-petition link yet (for those that don't know: UK gov has an online petition thing going on, quite effective sometimes)."

Hahaha.. Thats a fuckin' joke... Effective if you want to be told 'Fuck off, we know best' by a smug scottish twat!

Not all true dude. There was one going round that was for soldiers to get compensation for every injury they got, not just the 3 worst (I think some guy had over 70 in total and was dependent upon his parents for the rest of his miserable life, he got 200k!)

The petition managed to raise the awareness to many, including non services folk. But then again the subject got onto the BBC website front page...

OOXML will not, nobody gives a shit except those here who are aware of how dangerous a company is when it aims to aggressively monopolise parts of the computing world.

I'm hoping for some suggestions as to what someone can do to help keep competition in computing.

Paris says 'Trying to avoid OOXML, if it is ever more than just a joke shop standard, would be a start'. Thanks Paris, you're so wise... like an owl.

Z

...cadbury's cream egg bar, and cream mini-eggs have seen to that.

Yep, they've been done over too. I think you'll find they are called "Cadbury's Creme Eggs" now. Have been for some time.

Something to do with some standards body, or somesuch, I believe.

Quite how Cadbury's are allowed to persist with the blatant deception of calling them "eggs" beggars belief... they made a horrible mess of the pan last time I tried to make an omlette :-( I reckon the standards droids should go all the way and insist on "creme oviforms". Think I'll write to Mr Brown.