FFII on proposed OpenXML adoption
| From: | Jonas Maebe <jmaebe-AT-ffii.org> | |
| To: | news-AT-ffii.org | |
| Subject: | [ffii] FFII opposes Fasttrack adoption of Microsoft OOXML format as ISO standard | |
| Date: | Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:13:14 +0100 |
PRESS RELEASE -- [ Europe / Economy / ICT ] ======================================================================== FFII opposes Fasttrack adoption of Microsoft OOXML format as ISO standard ======================================================================== Brussels, 29 January 2006 -- The FFII has sent an open letter to all delegations of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) to oppose with contradictions the "fast track" adoption of the Microsoft's 6000-page OOXML specification (ECMA-376) before the deadline of February, 5th. Microsoft's proposal damages the adoption of the existing ISO 26300 standard (OpenDocument) that covers almost the same functionality in just 600 pages. The FFII has several concerns with the proposed standard. OpenXML relies on undisclosed patents, and undisclosed or incomplete licensing terms that make any independent reimplementation impossible or heavily risky. It obliges implementors to reverse-engineer the behavior of old closed Microsoft applications and formats. It uses non-standard formats for languages and dates, and specifies known bugs, such as treating 1900 as a leap year. Benjamin Henrion, FFII analyst, explains: "Microsoft is pushing through a overcomplex proposal in a very short time frame. The fast-track procedure was never intended for specifications of this size and artificial complexity. It seems clear that the pressure is on ISO to not look too closely at the many traps in OOXML, which include patent minefields that will allow Microsoft to strictly control who implements this. Microsoft tried to introduce its patents into international standards before, resulting in the failure of an anti-spam standard." Multiple associations, companies and bloggers who have looked at OOXML describe it as a "single vendor standard", since large parts of the standard simply refer to application behavior, not technical specifications. Examples include the option to enable "WordPerfect text alignment". OOXML was produced in one year by Microsoft alone and ratified as ECMA-376 by ECMA, a private association that drafts standards on demand. It is via ECMA that Microsoft has been able to push for a fast-track procedure at ISO/IEC. By comparison, the Open Document Format ISO standard took 5 years of work through ISO/IEC and OASIS and counts with multiple implementation covering all the main platforms (Symbian, Windows, Linux, Mac OS, BSDs and Solaris). In contrast, Microsoft's format has no any implementation in market currently, and in medium terms it is expected to cover only the Microsoft platform. Alberto Barrionuevo, FFII Vice-President, concludes: "We ask all ISO delegations to cancel the fast-track procedure. It is simply impossible to clarify all the issues and contradictions existing in ECMA-376 within such a short fast-track time frame. Indeed, this standards-stuffing attempt undermines the entire credibility of the ISO/IEC process. If Microsoft can buy a single-vendor 'standard' with impunity, what is ISO for?" ======================================================================== Links ======================================================================== * FFII's Open Letter to ISO: Contradictions to ECMA-376 fast track process at ISO/IEC http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_Fasttra... * Grokdoc: List of Contacts of all ISO delegations http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_Contacts * Espacenet (EPO): 14 European software patent applications by Microsoft regarding XM http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST=1&CY=g... * OpenDocumentFellowship: Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML http://opendocumentfellowship.org/files/JTC001-N-8455-3.pdf * EP12711339: very broad software patent application on data representation by Microsoft http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP1271339 * Permanent link to this press release http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_Fasttra... ======================================================================== Contact information ======================================================================== Benjamin Henrion FFII Brussels +32-2-414 84 03 (fixed) +32-484-56 61 09 (mobile) openstandards at ffii.org (French/English) ======================================================================== About the FFII ======================================================================== The FFII is a not-for-profit association registered in twenty European countries, dedicated to the development of information goods for the public benefit, based on copyright, free competition, open standards. More than 850 members, 3,500 companies and 100,000 supporters have entrusted the FFII to act as their voice in public policy questions concerning exclusion rights (intellectual property) in data processing. _______________________________________________ FFII Press Releases. (un)subscribe via https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/news, or contact media@ffii.org for more information.
Posted Jan 29, 2007 15:49 UTC (Mon)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (1 responses)
Turns out that it's Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, so this position is hardly a surprise. (Although I agree wholeheartedly.)
Posted Jan 29, 2007 16:49 UTC (Mon)
by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
[Link]
Posted Jan 29, 2007 16:45 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (8 responses)
In related news, I just got an email from Jennifer Garner of INCITS, which is in charge of responding to OOXML on behalf of ANSI (which represents the USA to ISO). INCITS has decided "decided not to submit a contribution in response to JTC 1 N 8455" (the fast-track ballot).
Apparently, they only received three comments in time for the meeting on the fast-track ballot, thanks to the tight schedule. (See the complete list of comments.) However, one can still send them comments (email isot@ansi.org and jgarner@itic.org) in the hope of influencing the final US vote on the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML File Formats (whenever that is).
(It is perhaps worth noting that, according to an email I received from Rob Weir of IBM, both IBM and Microsoft have representatives on the INCITS executive board [which is what met on January 2325 to determine whether to respond to the fast-track ballot].)
Posted Jan 29, 2007 17:45 UTC (Mon)
by nettings (subscriber, #429)
[Link] (7 responses)
can you clarify? do they endorse or oppose the proposed standard? or is this only about the formal issues? if so, are they for or against the "fast-track" procedure
Posted Jan 29, 2007 18:16 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link] (6 responses)
According to Jennifer Garner, the INCITS executive board decided not to respond (i.e. not to object) to the fast-track ballot for OOXML. As I understand it, this does not mean that the US approves OOXML, but rather approves of ISO processing OOXML on a fast-track schedule. If the fast-track ballot is approved, OOXML will then go to an ISO subcommittee for a 5-month process. Apparently, there will still be a final US vote, via the INCITS/V1 standards committee, on whatever comes out of the ISO, although I'm not completely clear on this process or its deadlines.
It must have been an interesting meeting, with IBM and Microsoft representatives going head-to-head. I wish the minutes were available to the public.
Posted Jan 29, 2007 19:13 UTC (Mon)
by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045)
[Link] (2 responses)
Ditto.
> If the fast-track ballot is approved, OOXML will then go to an
...would this lead to the OOXML proposal dying sooner than if fast track had been rejected and it had to go through the regular process? If so, maybe this is a net win - having OOXML get whacked in five months has got to be better than having it linger for years in committee while MS makes PR hay from it.
Posted Jan 29, 2007 20:49 UTC (Mon)
by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
[Link] (1 responses)
Oh well. Supposedly only 3 of us were opposed to the fast track anyway! Personally, I think that's really a raw deal that they didn't accept objections filed during business hours on the 24th. At least they still recorded them.
Posted Jan 30, 2007 1:03 UTC (Tue)
by jhardin@impsec.org (guest, #15045)
[Link]
Yeah. I got mine in by the 22nd - the day before the meeting *started* - and they *still* ignored it.
<fume>
Posted Jan 30, 2007 18:05 UTC (Tue)
by mikov (guest, #33179)
[Link] (2 responses)
So they will not object, even though ALL comments submitted on time (and probably most of the not submitted on time - I didn't check them all) were against the fast-track ? Good job, INCITS.
Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:24 UTC (Tue)
by philips (guest, #937)
[Link] (1 responses)
It was all logical decision on their part to skip the "fast-track" part of ECMA in favor of the "5 month" period in ISO. ISO isn't ECMA - the committees there can go on for years discussing any particular (and not any particular) submission for standard.
Since more or less all interested parties are presented in ISO (e.g. EU/Asia which are very interested in having solid open document standard) would press M$ to the end. Especially since overlaps with existing ISO standard are so blunt. And if M$ would fail address all raised issues in time - do not expect EOOXML becoming a standard in any foreseeable future.
Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:56 UTC (Tue)
by mikov (guest, #33179)
[Link]
So, it makes no sense at all. Unless I am losing my mind, not having enough time to review the proposal and the comments is a damn good sign that fast-track is not suitable. This is basic common sense.
If you are being asked to support or not something that you do not understand, and silence means that you agree, the most logical action is not to support it until you have had the time to form an informed opinion.
Nowhere in the press release, even the "About FFII" section, do they mention what the initials FFII stand for.And FFII stands for ...?
Hehe. I doubt that was intentional; after you work anywhere for a while, you forget that not everyone knows who you are. In any case, it's good to hear. Most standards don't generate this kind of interest, but control over the world's documents (and billions of dollars) at stake, this one is worth following.And FFII stands for ...?
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
Quote: "In related news, I just got an email from Jennifer Garner of INCITS, which is in charge of responding to OOXML on behalf of ANSI (which represents the USA to ISO). INCITS has decided "decided not to submit a contribution in response to JTC 1 N 8455" (the fast-track ballot)."related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
As far as I understand it, there has been no official vote "for" or "against" the OOXML standard. Rather, national representatives (such as ANSI and INCITS, in the case of the US), have until February 5 to send objections to the ISO regarding "fast-track" processing of OOXML (see Groklaw).
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
> It must have been an interesting meeting, with IBM and Microsoftrelated news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
> representatives going head-to-head. I wish the minutes were
> available to the public.
> ISO subcommittee for a 5-month process.
Not likely. When it comes to political tasks like ratifying standards, MS is very, very good at greasing the wheels. I'm afraid that now nobody will have the time and ability to construct a convincing objection and OOXML will most likely be passed.related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
> Personally, I think that's really a raw deal that they didn't acceptrelated news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
> objections filed during business hours on the 24th.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
According to Jennifer Garner, the INCITS executive board decided not to respond (i.e. not to object) to the fast-track ballot for OOXML.
You are asking them too much. The EOOXML is all way "fast-track" - even review phase included. It took 2+ weeks for community to perform some "skin deep" analysis of the spec. So now INCITS has to review in rush all sent in comments, verify their validity and make an official objection? All that in under one week???related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot
I admit that I don't really understand the standartization process and the relationship between the involved organizations. However, as far as I could tell, INCITS is in a position to say whether they aprove the fast-track process or not. related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot