GNOME and OOXML

"One should not overlook another important component in this situation: 
the fact that OpenDocument is not the final answer to document formats. 
Instead, it seems that the level of criticism of this format is growing, 
and that development of document formats will have to continue into the 
future. We do not, in other words, have all the answers in this area."

I've heard this said three times in three different places today already. 
And it rings false; it sounds fair and objective, but is little more than 
meme-repeating. It also claims something about ODF that is not true: 
namely that it is positioned as the definitive, finished document format 
that will remain the same unto the ages of ages.

In reality, ODF is evolving, within the standards process, with input 
from everyone involved. Look at the way KOffice is genuinely innovating 
within the ODF file format. Of course, if, as in the news.com article 
quoted above, your definition of "meeting business needs" is 
interoperating with Microsoft, then ODF won't work for you. But that is 
not a fault of the standard: it is a conscious choice on Microsoft's 
part. And yes, HTML tables are different from wordprocessor tables. 

But in the end, splintering effort between ODF, CDF and OOXML is exactly 
what will mean having to suffer locked-down documents for the next 
decade. Trying to implement OOXML is simply impossible for anyone, even 
for Microsoft (since their own applications do not follow their own 
standard). Trying to implement ODF is feasible for us.

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9806369-7.html

Jody's involvement was unknown to me but by no means a surprise.

As far as spreadsheets are concerned, both the prospective offerings in this space are
hopeless. Each reflects the peculiar biases and assumptions of the application software for
which it was originally developed, OOXML inherits from Excel, while ODF inherits from
OpenOffice.org Calc.

The trouble is that the spreadsheet structures directly reflect the design of the software,
and that software is itself very poorly specified, having been endlessly adapted to the
requests of myriad users. The implication would be that to read & write ODF well, you must
re-implement OpenOffice.org and the same with OOXML and Excel. To try to sidestep this, the
specification writers have often simply avoided specifying anything at all. Implementations of
ODF's spreadsheet format, for example, aren't required to share any meaningful functions or
method of expressing formulae, and so can't really open each other's spreadsheets. In my
opinion many of ODF's early supporters did not understand that a spreadsheet is more than a
wordprocessor table with numbers filled into it.

So the result is that either these standards don't standardise anything (so you can receive an
ODF spreadsheet and have no idea whether you will be able to open it, since it depends so on
which program saved it) or they standardise so much that you're effectively agreeing an ISO
standard of running Microsoft Office, which is redundant when it is already the de facto
standard.

I do not expect any meaningful progress to be made on this, and I regard the whole process as
worthless for that reason. Maybe it makes more sense for word processor documents, but I doubt
it. Our only hope of actually achieving spreadsheet interoperability is to clone Excel, which
we can do with or without an ISO standard. Jody's work on Gnumeric has helped with this
tremendously.

Firstly, thanks for a balanced (and informed!) article. LWN rocks. :-)

The conclusion is a bit rough -- our participation was very much a matter of public knowledge,
as it was mentioned in the Board meeting minutes *and* discussed on foundation-list at the
time.

The issue Luis raised was that we didn't do some kind of broader PR announcement at the time,
so that folks *outside* our community could understand the context of our participation.
Guilty as charged (though, as noted on the mailing list, it's unlikely that this would have
had any impact on the ill-informed "open letter").

GNOME Foundation members (who bother to read our minutes and the Foundation mailing list) were
all very much aware that we were participating, so there was no transparency issue for the
Foundation itself.

- Jeff Waugh, GNOME Foundation

*shrug* 

All I know is that Microsoft rules the desktop and rules the office suite markets. What they
choose is what is going to get used the vast majority of people. 

That's the reality and that is the power that Microsoft has gotten for winning the 'lock-down'
on those markets. (no matter how dishonestly) There is no if's and's or but's about it. 

Gnome and OpenOffice.org, one way or another, is going to have to be compatable with OOXML.
The choice is to do that, or to loose whatever relevence they've gained in the market place
over the past few years.

Sure, sure I'd prefer ODF for everything, but there is a lot of other things in the world I'd
like also that isn't going to be changed anytime soon. (at least not in the next 2 year
timeline)

If Migal or Novell or whoever, buy working with Microsoft can make OOXML work on the Linux
desktop then they are doing all of us a big favor, no matter how distastefull it is.

And if they are able to pull it off... then OOXML may work out as a standard after all and
everybody here gets exactly what they want; which is cross-platform document handling.

If they can't pull it off, even after all the hard work, honest effort, strife and the patent
bullshit... then that will prove to the world just how worthless OOXML is and Microsoft
shouldn't be listenned to when trying to establish standards.

I mean it's one thing to stand there and talk about how shittastic OOXML is and how ODF should
be used.... But it's another thing to PROVE that OOXML is shitastic by implimenting the
'standard' correctly according to the documentation and still failing miserably.

Either way it's probably going to end up being a win for the Open Source desktop as long as
they (the Gnome folk) are working hard and are taking a honest and open approach.

Some basic facts about what the ECMA TC45 is proceeding with at this time so readers can
better understand the consiqueses of GNOME injecting themselves into this process. And putting
a stamp on this MS lead industrial cartel at ECMA with the Chairman and Co-Charmain MS
employees and all the other participant votes YES (besides IBM) for Fast Track approval and
sent to ISO. Please note it is in the interest of all the parties at ECMA TC45 for OOXML to be
ISO. (IBM partipated in the innitial vote only to make their position known clearly) All the
partipants now (IBM not present) at the ECMA TC45 were in that innitial YES vote and are
helping resolove comments so that OOXML becomes and ISO.

Robert Wier of IBM on the ODF List
"The practical difficulty here is that of timing.  While I have no
doubt that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technical
disclosures from Microsoft back in 2006, Ecma TC45 is not in that mode
of operation right now.  The OOXML standard Ecma 376 has already been
approved by Ecma.  It is now before JTC1 as DIS 29500 and the text is
essentially frozen since December 2006.  The only changes that can be
made to it must be in response to specific JTC1 national body ballot 
comments.  Jody can no longer go to a TC45 meeting and say, "Gee, I'd
like more information added on X, Y and Z".  JTC1 rules forbid changes
to the standard that are not traceable to a national body comment. 

Certainly, Jody or any other Ecma TC45 member so inclined can help
Microsoft address the thousands of ISO comments that were received,
and help prep OOXML for approval by JTC1.  There is certainly a lot of
grunt work to be done there.  But let's not call that anything but
what it is -- helping Microsoft gain ISO approval.

From Richard Stallman on the Gnome list today:
 
"Is joining ECMA TC45 really like using a library?  According to your
own words, it is engaged in modifying the OOXML spec:

    That is inaccurate.  Whom do you think will be responding to
    national body issues ?  ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to 
    propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their
    own issues preemptively for resolution.

I gather that such modification intended to bring about the acceptance
of OOXML as an ISO standard.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) 

If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee
is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML -- which would hurt
our community substantially.  If the GNOME Foundation is to be
represented in on the ECMA committee, it should explicitly counteract 
that backfire effect by doing something else.

One way to do so is by publishing a statement, addressed to all
countries that vote in ISO, asking them to vote against any and all
versions of OOXML as a standard"