Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard
Ecma International has approved
Office Open XML Formats as an Ecma standard and voted to submit the new
standards to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for
consideration as an ISO standard through the fast-track process.
(Log in to post comments)
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 18:43 UTC (Fri) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link] How fast is this "fast track"? Or, how long can we lobby for OpenDocument on the grounds that it is an ISO Standard, and OpenXML isn't?
Don't Play ... Posted Dec 8, 2006 19:27 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link] ... that game.
Clearly Microsoft is trying to "game the system" by getting their proprietary data formats the impriatur of any recognized standards bodies.
They want to be able to tout their "standards conformance" to the press and to use the technicality of it to stay on the approved procurements for various governments, agencies and institutions which are adopting rules against proprietary data formats.
We need to remain clear on the INTENT of these standards and to keep others clearly focused on the intent and spirit of the rules that are being adopted and proposed.
Asking "how long have we got, Doc" is fatalistic. It cedes the game to Microsoft.
The questions we must ask are: how can we get people to understand and respect the intentions of these laws and purchasing rules? how can we support the citizen oversight and activism that makes our governments responsive to our needs? (That last question goes far beyond IT standards and procurement processes).
To Microsoft gaining any stamp of "standardization" is merely a part of their strategy. It's a minor hurdle that allows the purchasing agents who are already "in their pockets" (in whatever sense that it's already so) to continue to buy their products. Most of the government IT personnel, especially at the management level and in the procurement process, don't want to change their products. They are looking for an excuse or loophole that allows them to continue working in the same way to which they are accustomed.
While we are trying to get them, and everyone else involved, to respect the mandate of the populace (keep our data "free" for future generations of our own governments to work with) we have to also continue to win over the users of our (free and open source) systems by providing a superior product with all of the requisite features.
Jim Dennis
So, how fast is the ISO fast track? Posted Dec 9, 2006 8:38 UTC (Sat) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link] Yes. There are bodies (governments mainly) that are required (by policy/law) to save their data in an ISO standard format, as long as one exists. For them all your long text would be wasted, if you just say "OpenDocument == ISO, OpenXML != ISO" instead. In other words: I'm well aware of the other advocacy arguments pro OpenDocument. I want to know how long this one will last. So, how fast is the ISO fast track? :-)
Don't Play ... Posted Dec 9, 2006 16:52 UTC (Sat) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] > Clearly Microsoft is trying to "game the system" by getting their proprietary data formats> the impriatur of any recognized standards bodies.
If anything, this reduces my respect for ECMA as a standards body. What good is a standards body that can be bought off to endorse a standard that only one vendor is realistically capable of implementing?
> Most of the government IT personnel, especially at the management level
That's a very good point. We need to make sure the rules that govern their decisionmaking clearly state that, for example, file formats used to store and distribute public information must be unencumbered by patents and licensing fees and must be freely implementable by anyone *in addition to* requiring that they be endorsed by a standards body.
Write your government representative. It's going to take a lot of voices to balance the sheer power of M$' millions in bribes^Wcampaign contributions.
Standards bodies Posted Dec 9, 2006 18:59 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I think this reminds us that standards bodies are primarily about verifying things like accuracy and completeness, not so much practical issues like implementability, or viability.
There are plenty of standards ISO and ANSI publish which wither on the vine because they are nonsense. This one is a different case but similar issues apply. This type of problem is why the IETF very explicitly tried to follow a different path in their procedures.
The ECMA, ISO standards processes can be pretty useful when there are a number of participants who work to make the standard representative, and then the standards organization can stand behind it as a relatively unchanging, relatively documented work. What they don't do is tell you that the work is of good quality and serving the interests of implementors.
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 19:29 UTC (Fri) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] Or does it even matter? I'm all for OpenDocument, but if there's another standard that is just as open, we win either way.
Don't be fooled Posted Dec 8, 2006 20:17 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Read Cory Doctorow's analysis of the "Information Rights Management" that's packaged with Office 2003. This is not an unencumbered format.
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 20:19 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] OpenXML is 6000 pages and takes 150 person-years to implement.We don't win.
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 20:24 UTC (Fri) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link] I seem to remember that MicroSoft puts restriction in place for what kind of software is allowed touse this "open" standard, i.e. by licenses that are not transferable and certainly exclude GPL-type software. A quick search in Google for open+office+xml+license+gpl yields ample fodder. So it is another kind of open, not as we know it, detrimental to interoperable document processing software and detrimental to the concept of "open standard". Unless I missed the footnote where they tell us everything is different now.
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 9, 2006 9:20 UTC (Sat) by TRauMa (guest, #16483) [Link] OK, from what I read the Microsoft attribution requirement is GPLv2 incompatible. It will be GPLv3 compatible, though... :-)
We've seen this approach before... Posted Dec 8, 2006 21:10 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Remember dynamic HTML ? It was Microsoft-invented standard but it was not implemented fully for years and years (some features of CSS1 was only finally implemented in MS IE 7!). You can be pretty sure that the same thing will happen there as well: MS Office 2007 does not implement this standard. It has "mistakes" - and you can bet there are a lot of them. Of course Microsoft will fix them - by the 2015 or 2020. Till then... you'd better use MS Office 2007 to avoid incompatibility, right ? Really sad day - but what else can you expect when there are billions available for bribing ?
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 22:32 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > but if there's another standard that is just as open
Mighty big "if" there. It should be in 20pt type and boldface.
So far, OpenXML is NOT just as open. (And don't bother pointing me at the spec. Even assuming Microsoft has implemented it exactly as specified (which would be a first*), no 600-page spec is "open" in any useful meaning of the word.)
(*Of course, historically Microsoft has said "the source is the spec" -- but then kept the source closed.)
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 8, 2006 22:52 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] > no 600-page spec is "open"
Argh, typo. 6000-page spec, not 600-page, of course.
The Empire Strikes Back Posted Dec 12, 2006 13:46 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] I recommend reading this blog post: http://blogs.adobe.com/shebanation/2006/12/open_xml_one-w...
Fast track process Posted Dec 11, 2006 6:09 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Here's a summary of the ISO Fast Track process: Section 3 of www.incits.org/tc_home/b105htm/b105Doc2003/N03-126-17n2301.pdf. We really must get our heads around this process, as you'll note there is a one month interval in which a proposed standard for the fast track can be rejected because it conflicts with an existing ISO standard. It may take lobbying of ISO members to get sufficient numbers for such a vote. What became apparent to me looking for this document is the extent to which ECMA's standards process exists simply for manufacturers to be easily able to make their product an "international standard". ECMA say as much on their own website. There is little opportunity for users to amend these fast track standards during the process, which debases the result considerably. For example, there appears to be no opportunity to alter Office Open XML to align more readily with existing ISO and W3C standards.
ECMA's view of their role Posted Dec 11, 2006 6:16 UTC (Mon) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] Interesting slides on how ECMA see their role: standards.ieee.org/corpforum/europeconf/Onno-Elzinga-for-IEEE-Munich.ppt Sort of lacks the balancing of requirements and view to consumer protections you'd hope for in a standards-making institution.
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 8, 2006 20:11 UTC (Fri) by greve (subscriber, #8385) [Link]
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 8, 2006 21:34 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I think this is more interesting. Microsoft itself decided not to support this abomination in it's MS Office for Mac directly - they are porting Windows code instead! And you expect that someone else will be able to correctly implement that ? Unbelievable...
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 9, 2006 4:41 UTC (Sat) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] I hate to find myself defending MS but you can't really criticise MS for code reuse rather than writing it from scratch.
What is lame is that the Mac team apparently have to wait until the Windows importer is declared final before they can port it. So it seems like they'll be forking and then macifying it rather than making it cross-platform. Makes you wonder if anyone is in charge over there.
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 10, 2006 8:51 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I hate to find myself defending MS but you can't really criticise MS for code reuse rather than writing it from scratch. You don't write importers from scratch. You take library which deals with existing parts (CSS, SVG, MathML, XLink and so on) and write only relatively thin unshareable part. But since OpenXML does not use any existing parts (except the XML itself - and even then it does it wrong) you are forced to write the whole importer as one big blob...
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 10, 2006 11:06 UTC (Sun) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] I'm not defending OpenXML. You say the fact that they're reusing the code for Mac shows how complex OpenXML is. I say that reusing the Windows code for Mac tells us nothing about how complex OpenXML is. Except for the most trivial library, reusing code across platforms is simply the sensible thing to do. If they had implemented it from scratch for the Mac that would tell us that their Windows code was so bad that it couldn't be reused. I just don't see how not reimplementing from scratch for Mac can be used as a negative point.
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 10, 2006 15:49 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] I just don't see how not reimplementing from scratch for Mac can be used as a negative point. Easy: if you have sensible format then you don't need full windows importer to port it. You can grab separate already-written pieces (MathML, PNG, SVG, etc), write glue code from scratch - and get full importer. KWord does not use ODF-importer from OOo, for example. Even if both OOo and KWord use libpng to import png images. But when your format is so complex and when its parts are so intertwined that you only have all-or-nothing choice - then yes, the only sensible way is to port existing importer... I'n not saying that MacWord team did bad - I'm saying that if what they did is good... then OpenXML must be pretty awful for it to be good decision.
Two links people might find interesting in this context Posted Dec 10, 2006 16:32 UTC (Sun) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] write glue code from scratch - and get full importer. Why would they even write the glue code from scratch? As the blog posting points out "There is a lot of commonality between the in-memory data model for Win32 Office and Mac Office, since they share a lot of the same code". Writing from scratch should be the last resort. That would be like Win-OpenOffice and Linux-OpenOffice having independent code for importing the same documents. The comparison between KWord and OOo is bogus. They don't come from the same codebase to start with so there would be very little that they could reuse. Let's imagine they somehow did share the ODF importer code, would that imply that ODF was so horrible and complex the the KWord team had to reuse the OOO code? I haven't read the spec for OpenXML but I believe everyone when they say it stinks. There are apparently lots of reasons. That MS are resusing code between Win-Word to Mac-Word is not one of them.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 2:55 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well, unfortunately, is why OpenXML support for OpenOffice.org is going to be important.
Because although ODF may be adopted by some governments because it makes sense from a technical standpoint the VAST majority of businesses aren't.
They all use Microsoft Office, which is going to use OpenXML by default.
Unfortunate how that is Novell's move is for OpenXML support in OO.org is a very intellegent move at this time.
The next best thing is somebody going and breaking MS Office's DRM while making encryption easy to use for OO.org so you don't start having people forcing(government regulations, 'best practices' security recommendations, etc) use of OpenXML and MS Office for security reasons.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 5:29 UTC (Sat) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] You install the ODF plugin for MSFT Office.
One of the employees at your company calls up somebody and says "I'll send it to you in Word". The attachment turns out to be in ODF.
The recipient complains to their IS dept, saying "Why won't Word open this".
Other company's IS person can't explain the situation (But it's in WORD!) and has to install plugin for MSFT Office.
Repeat.
Bwah ha ha.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 6:12 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] That would be nice.
But unfortunately even developers who make and profess to beleive in free software and open standards aren't even caring enough to do things like encode interviews and such into Theora.
Unfortunately nowadays 5 times out of 7 I want to see some interview or speech or something and they have the stupid thing up in Flash format.
I can't even watch that crap on my laptop as there is no flash plugin, and even if there was why not do something that is completely Free software?
It boggles the mind.
I have very little hope for stuff like ODF when even Free/Open source software folks still prefer to use propriatory formats like mpeg or flash or mp3 over open formats like ogg vorbis and theora.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 12:40 UTC (Sat) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] Though I prefer vorbis and theora over the others myself I have to say, that MPEG and MP3 _are_ open formats, thoroughly documented and both implemented in many completely free softwares. Just because legislation in some countries prohibits you from using it without some license does not change this fact.
This would be like saying that Wikipedia contents is not free or open, just because it's prohibited to read it in Iran.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 13:51 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Ya well in my country they are restricted.
Theora and Ogg are not. Free software codecs developed for the specific use of being open and having no royalties or restrictions on their creation or use, but yet I have yet to see anybody use them for video outside of maybe RMS requiring it for records.
So you see exactly why I have no faith that ODF will accomplish much of anything. OpenXML is 'open' also.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 20:33 UTC (Sat) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "Theora and Ogg are not. Free software codecs developed for the specific use of being open and having no royalties or restrictions on their creation or use, but yet I have yet to see anybody use them for video outside of maybe RMS requiring it for records."
See me here:
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
Theora videos there.
And here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%28creator%3A%22d...
Ogg vorbis audio there.
And I really do agree. It is not a wise more for people who care about Free to not support each other wherever possible.
all the best,
drew
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 19:08 UTC (Sat) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] This is a good point. Unencumbered and open spec are different issues, and so mpeg has a pretty reasonable aspect to it, problemed though it is.
However, drag was talking about flash video, ie. vp6. This is not open in any sense, and is technically quite poor to boot. It's larger, more cpu hungry, degrades more poorly with network dropouts. Why anyone ever uses this format is beyond me. But for free software developers to choose a closed format that requires a proprietary player is quite a mystery.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 20:19 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Is it? A mystery??
Post a Theora video on your website and ask your girlfriend to play it. Let's assume she's using Windows because 99.9% of girlfriends are. If 1/2 hour later she's managed to figre out what a codec is, find non-spyware codecs to download and installed them, then you have an uncommonly inquisitive and tenacious girlfriend. Now put her on a Mac or a Linux box and see how she does.
Now post it on YouTube and ask her to play it. 2 sends later it's playing, no matter what platform she's on (no, she's NOT using a MIPS box, obviously, this is not the place to whine about what platforms support Flash).
Convenience counts for a lot.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 20:37 UTC (Sat) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] "Post a Theora video on your website and ask your girlfriend to play it." etc...
You need to think outside the box more. Tell her that the video contains information that will lead her to her new diamond bracelet. (Change gift as deemed appropriate.)
all the best,
drew
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 10, 2006 0:02 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Theora is as convient as quicktime for Windows users and it is as convient as WMV for OS X users.
The reason people are using Flash is partially because of it being convient, but it also has a lot to do with that the fact that it's not aviable in convient format for storage.
That is if you put a download to your website a person downloads it and emails it to friends and such..
But if you put it in Flash, like youtube, were your website is advertising-driven then they are forced to come back to that web page over and over again to view it. Drives up advertising revenue quite a bit.
Also it adds extra restrictions on usage so people are more comfortable uploading content because they don't think that people can 'steal' it.
So flash is used, in a large way, because it is awkward to deal with.
Of course both you and I know there is ways around this, but it's still a PITA.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 10, 2006 0:02 UTC (Sun) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I undestand the convenience issue. For some content, eschewing convenience to encourage adoption of free tools is useful. There is no reason that theora <objects> cannot be as convenient when the right software is installed.
Of course, the right software is not always installed, so for some content, the convenience factor is more important than promoting freedom.
But content availability is not an exclusive choice.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 10, 2006 1:04 UTC (Sun) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] I agree with everything you say. I'll elaborate a bit.
If there was a Firefox extension to stream Theora videos, shipped in the default install of all major distros, Theora usage would take a mighty leap forward. Furthermore, if there were a single InstallShield download, appearing in the #1 slot when you search on "Theora" in Google, that enabled playback in IE6/7, Windows Media, and Firefox Windows, I think Theora could very well take off. You'd see sites like nhl.com using it to stream because it's cheaper and easier than Real and MS formats.
Alas, today the right Theora software doesn't even exist, much less come pre-installed anywhere.
In my experience, it was the utter lack of usability that killed Voribis. The file format rocked, the tools sucked. I pray the same fate doesn't befall Theora.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 10, 2006 7:00 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] I have to dissagree with vorbis being 'killed'.
It's not as popular as mp3 or itunes stuff, but it's supported by many different peices of software, used in a lot of games, and is supported by a wide veriaty of hardware.
It's actually quite widely known.
If people actually start _using_ theora then it will be known. Your not going to have a codec get accepted just becuase it has a cool name, there has to be a reason for people to go and download it.
Ogg is quite kick-ass. 255 possible audio channels, Theora has good compression and I expect that subtitles support is good compared to AVI. Very recently there has been supported added to Flac for Ogg support.
So even from a pure technical standpoint there are plenty or reasons to use Ogg Theora/Flac/Vorbis for a wide veriaty of stuff. You can create some very feature-rich media files and media streaming is very smart.
The major downside for Theora, in my personal experiance, is that the codec itself is not well optimized cpu-wise. I am sure it's been improved since then, but I also expect that there is work to do.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 10, 2006 11:38 UTC (Sun) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link] I agree with everything you say.
Except the thing about Vorbis. The tools are fine. Vorbis is much easier to deal with for me than mp3.
Even if Voribis is dead, long live Vorbis ;-) Posted Dec 10, 2006 12:02 UTC (Sun) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] > In my experience, it was the utter lack of usability that killed Voribis.Not sure what are you tawkin' about, sure not of Ogg Vorbis? libogg/libvorbis are quite demanded on my systems and by folks' players/encoders around.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 29, 2006 0:15 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well I have done some more research on Theora.
The problem with theora isn't so much that it's difficult but that it's already obsolete. Stillbirth, so to say.
It's based on the VP3 codec which has acceptable quality, but it has been surpased by more modern codecs such as H.264, VP6, or VP7. The quality is comparable to Mpeg1, which is to say that it's not realy good at all.
This is very different from Ogg Vorbis, which is superior or at least comparable to other modern codecs.
The open source codecs to possibly look out for are Dirac from the BBC and Snow from the FFmpeg people.
Also as far as the 'patent-free'-ness of theora goes... It is protected by patent granted to it by the original creators of V3, but unfortunately it's still infringing on just as much stuff as any other mpeg* codec. So if they are encumbered, then so is Theora.
This is to bad and I wish I understood this earlier, then I wouldn't of looked like such a.. not-to-smart-guy.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 12, 2006 14:20 UTC (Tue) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] I have seen Theora being used several times, but the fact is that according to the project itself, it is still alpha software. My general understanding is that alpha == not quite ready yet ;)
Note: I would love to see the Xiph.org formats used more. One problem I personally have is dr.dk (can best be described as the danish bbc). They use a Microsoft solution and that of course doesn't work that well together anything but MS Windows. Considering the fact that everyone in DK with a TV, radio or a broadband connection (rules changed recently) are required to pay for it (it is a public service station), it should be a requirement that they offer solutions that works for everyone. The problem is that there really isn't any good open source solutions available currently.
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 8:48 UTC (Sat) by frankie (subscriber, #13593) [Link] Security? DRM is about restrictions mainly, not security. You could be restricted but not safe as well...
Ecma International Approves Office Open XML as Worldwide Industry Standard Posted Dec 9, 2006 10:02 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Yes, but that's not how people think.
I bet that there is some bureaucrat somewere who is _right_now_ drafting requirements that certain types of documents have to be done in DRM'd OpenXML formats to help prevent information leakage. For example: documents dealing with patient information, or with accounts or such.
And you absolutely know this is probably true.
When Microsoft does stuff like this, this big, is only becuase they absolutely beleive that people will use this. "Give the customers enough rope to hang themselves" sort of thing. It has to be made very attractive for people to volentarially lock themselves into a format.
Go up to anybody who is in business and is somewhat technical. Explain to them exactly how Microsoft presents this stuff.. that you can use it to restrict data from allowing other people to see it, but not copy it or give it to other people.
Then ask them what do they think it would be usefull for. Don't bother explaining them the downsides or the failability of such thing. I bet then they will tell you all the things it is usefull for.
Then after that explain to them the downsides and such. Just to be nice. :-)
|
|
||||||||||||