Jump to content

Talk:Office Open XML: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Simosx (talk | contribs)
200 edits
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProject Computing}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid|software=yes|software-importance=}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 15
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Office Open XML/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archives|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=100|auto=yes}}


== Microsoft Visio, e.g. VSDX ==
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|- align="center"
| [[Image:File.svg|50px|Archive]]
'''[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]'''
----
|- align="center"
| [[/Archive 1|1]] [[/Archive 2|2]] [[/Archive 3|3]]
|}


Is it true, that VSDX is also an OOXML format? Shouldn't it be listed in the article then? --[[User:Johayek|johayek]] ([[User talk:Johayek|talk]]) 09:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
== Neutrality ==


== Stallman Quote Inaccuracy ==
This article is in pretty poor state, important sites are censored from the references, and critics are being discredited at every opportunity ("have financial stakes", "lobbied extensively", "advocates" - contrast this to how Microsoft is represented in the support section). The net result is that the page gives an incredible misrepresentation of the controversy about the case.


Just adding a note here in Talk that the Richard Stallman quote should not be included due to it's false/misleading nature. For reference: Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has stated that "Microsoft offers a gratis patent license for OOXML on terms which do not allow free implementations."[20]
I tried to add a link I found interesting and important to the technical criticism section, but it was promptly removed by the ever vigilant Microsoft supporters.


Easily disproven by ECMA themselves:
Would it be better to have a separate page about the controversy, so that this page could simply discuss the standard itself? And the controversy page could list references to sites that don't pretend to be neutral, without the harassment? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ketil|Ketil]] ([[User talk:Ketil|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ketil|contribs]]) 08:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf


"Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets
: I dont think splitting the article is in the best interests of wikipedia. That would result in 2 articles without a neutral point of view. As it is this article is not neutral and needs a lot of work. [[WP:NPOV]] states that an article needs to show all significant views. So far I think this one reads like an advertisement. I dont think a separate page would have any less harassment, in fact it would become a war zone. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 20:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. Its publication benefits organizations that intend
to implement applications capable of using the format, commercial and governmental entities that procure such software, and
educators or authors who teach the format. "


Resources for freely implementing the standard: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
:: Fair enough. I still think it would be possible to have a non-controversial page with technical details on the format itself, and relegate teh "war zone" to techncal controversy, process controversy, etc etc. [[User:Ketil|kzm]] 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


This level of FUD reiterated by Miguel de Icaza himself, stating: "OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when
::: Looking at [[WP:NPOV]], it appears to me that the proper process to reference opinion is to cite a prominent representative - for example, the NoOOXML page - and state that said representative has a particular opinion. It is a fact that the NoOOXML supporters believe that OOXML is a bad thing, just as it is a fact that Microsoft would like us to all use OOXML. [[User:tgape|tgape]] 14:32, 12 September (UTC)
OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that
space."


Further expanding: "That is odd. Michael and I have discussed this topic extensively. He certainly would like clarification in various areas and more details in some. But Michael's criticism (or for that matter, the Novell OpenOffice team working with that spec) seems to be incredibly different than the laundry list of issues that pass as technical reviews in sites like Groklaw.
:::: Granted, but to me that says there are at least 2 groups who's opinions need to be shown on this page. But so far to me this page reads like an advertisement. Showing off the features and long sections on its benefits and any mention of anything negative is painted as coming from competitors. The excuse of what Wikipedia is not is also overused to limit criticism.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


The difference is that the Novell-based criticism is based on actually trying to implement the spec. Not reading the spec for the sake of finding holes that can be used in a political battle.
== Request for Comment:Opposition, Accessibility, and Criticism ==


Finally, Michael sounded incredibly positive after the ECMA meeting last month when all of their technical questions were either answered or added to the batch of things to review. I know you are going to say "The spec is not owned by ECMA", well, currently the working group that will review the ISO comments is at ECMA.
This is a dispute about the removal of sections about criticism of OOXML, accessibility problems with it, and public opposition to it. It relates, though less directly, to previous discussion of the removal of links to articles critical of OOXML. Previous discussion of section removal is [[#"Removing parts that cause so much discussion"|here]], and of the notability of opposition to OOXML [[#Petition censorship|here]]. [[User:Dovi|Dovi]] 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


For another view at OOXML look at what Jody Goldberg (no longer a Novell employee) has to say about OOXML and ODF from the perspective of implementing both:
;Statements by editors previously involved in dispute


http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-questions/
*'''Opposition, Accessibility, and Criticism''' are highly relevant to OOXML and highly notable. NPOV means full presentation of ''all'' sides of an issue. Rather than removing information and links critical of OOXML, information and links about ''both'' POVs should be made available in a fair fashion. [[User:Dovi|Dovi]] 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I find it hilarious that the majority (not all) of the criticism for OOXML comes from people that do not have to write any code that interacts with OOXML. Those that know do not seem to mind (except those whose personal business is at risk because Microsoft moved away from a binary format to an XML format, which I also find hilarious)."
*There is significant criticism to OOXML that is currently not mentioned in the article. There is a single person, [[User:HAl]], that repeatedly removes edits (not even rephrasing them) that he believes are critical to OOXML. I do not have confidence in his edits on OOXML (or even [[OpenDocument]] unless he states convincingly his affiliation. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiraniaorg-blog-comments/Kge4tQA42Mg
;Comments
* I've come here based upon the RfC - I have never edited this article and am not associated with either "camp". Skimming the talk page (I'm sorry that I don't have time to read every single comment), it seems that most parties have the correct goal: [[WP:Neutral point of view]], [[WP:Verifiability]], and [[WP:No original research]], although there may be some disagreement about how each of those should be applied. A couple of observations:
** [[WP:NPOV]] is about trying to address ''significant'' viewpoints. According to [[WP:Undue weight]], it does not make sense to address every single opinion on a topic. But if there is a significant group of people that share a common opinion, it should be presented in a factual, verifiable manner.
** To specifically address the Opposition by X sections: it looks to me that there is significant lobbying efforts on both sides, so it seems pretty strange to ignore it completely. At the same time, we must be vigilant that such sections act as summaries and don't get bogged down in every little detail and point, becoming mini-articles themselves. The sections as written could use a little work, but overall seem to walk that fine like acceptably.
** Congratulations on the Criticism section. It seems extremely well documented, and is well written.
Good luck! &mdash;[[User:Mrand|<font color="#228B22">Mrand</font>]] <small><sup>[[User Talk:Mrand|T]]-[[Special:Contributions/Mrand|C]]</sup></small> 19:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


This edit has been reverted multiple times at this point by multiple users with citations, continually reverting it at this point without clarifying it's misleading/false nature strikes me as vandalism. As Joshua Isaac states above, "personal interpretations on-wiki are not enough."
* A [[User:HAl|single person]] that has been consistently [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=144442411&oldid=144440260 removing edits], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=128170791&oldid=127988966 showing bias], and being vague to questions on conflict of interest. There is significant opposition to OOXML that is currently not depicted in the article. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
: You seem to be confused. The conflicts of interest were evident on the side of Pieterh and Zoobab from the FFII editting the article to support their own site. And your edits seem at least equally biased or even more than hAls. And your unsupported personal attacks don't belong here on wikipedia and probably only strenghten his determination to keep your bias edits out of the article. I will certainly look very carefully to your future edits on this article for a while. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
: It would solve so many issues if the people who edit the most showed in the Open where they come from. You are bashing the edits of Pieterh because he provided his name? What about [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=145236056&oldid=145231621 this guy] whose edits still remain? Being anonymous should not be such an advantage in Wikipedia. I am glad you will be attending to my contributions. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


[[User:TechAtlas|TechAtlas]] ([[User talk:TechAtlas|talk]]) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)TechAtlas
Somewhere in the history of the article I see [[User:Dovi|Dovi] mentioning that after an edit of his it would now contain both points of view but actually it doesn't. Not at all even. For example there is not a single piece in the article that states that OOXML is better than ODF in some area's or even that it would an improvement on having current 'closed' binary formats or even that it is a big step forwards for MS opening up their formats or in fact anything positive about OOXML. If there was anything positive in on OOXML opponents long ago took it out. It is mostly a summary of factual information on what the OOXML format is and a bunch of critisism. If anything positive was in the article like it having backwards compatibility with binary documents then an opponent adds to it: "According to Microsoft" whilst it is actually also a objective goal described in the format spec. On the other hand when the critisism are added they are presented as fact and not as "according to IBM's Rob Weir" or any such thing. The whole information value of the is totally undermined by opponents changing text to make everything that is positive as being stated or claimed (commenly by Micrsoft) or remove it alltogether whilst the negative is being presented as factual and truthfull even though I already clearly showed in my review of one of the links (a bit higher on the talk page) that it was mostly a bunch of garbage. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
:: My impression is as follows: the current article is unbalanced. In a standard process objections are raised. These objections are "technical comments". You can't say that bug reporting is criticism or bias. A standardisation process is a kind of RFC procedure. The submission to ISO fast-track was controversial an enormous amount of bugs was found and the aggressive "ignore comments" campaigning started. It is a common consent that the specification was premature. I can't see why vendor sites are so much more relevant than sites of critics. These critics are "obscure" and anonymous in the article. It is not really explained why opposition takes place. Imagine the Chinese government to edit Tiananmen and then editors to accuse democrats of "conflict of interest" who want to see the 1989 protests get mentioned. The bias became apparent when the OOXML article was "improved" because microsoft officials felt it was biased. Then it was polluted with marketing garbage. A support argument for instance is the use of ZIP. Well, an "existing" ISO standard provides the same. That is certainly not on the same level than all the technical bugs raised by Kenia but a bogus argument. And then we have a group Voices for Innovation that strongly advocates OOXML adoption at ISO because these SMB offer products. It does not even get mentioned. "Wouter van de Vlugt" has apparently business relations with Microsoft. I would not mind him to edit the article. And what about the anti-IBM slander? The first accusation is a logical fallacy, the second slightly over the top. I just recall that I tried to improve the "policy" section rather than to delete it. I think it is apparent from the edits who promoted bias. "is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives" for instance was entered without an indication that it was a quote. Reasonable editors should "write for their enemies", be descriptive. "can and do coexist" is also political language. Offensive language and bias invites your critics to start an edit war. It must be possible to be more descriptive and present (!= promote) OOXML and conflicts.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::: Weird. Are you looking at the same article ? This to me looks like one of the articles on wikipedia that has the most critisim in it. I do not see an ignore comments campaign anywhere. I see anti-ooxml campaign lead by IBM and several FOSS organiations which is pathetic. I see references to critisism of competitors IBM, OpenOffice and Sun and by the ODF alliance, the ODF foundation, groklaw and and some obscure group of Malaysian blogger (whihc is just about Yoon Kit who also happenned to write the Kenyan objections together with soemone from IBM). I see how people removed the association of Rob Weir with IBM calling his blog a personal blog. That is just a joke. You state that it is not really evidient why this critisism takes place. I noticed that the article did actually contains several articles stating those for instance from computerworld but they were removed probably because they stated that IBM was behind it in relation to their upcoming Notes 8 release. Also Groklaw has a years long reputation of stating exactly what IBM tells them to. You object to Microsoft references as vendor references but do not have objections to their being multiple competitors polluting the article. Your whole comment here reflects an enormous bias for one side. Why not just extract a short summury of actual (technical) critisism of those listed by the national bodies of which there are also already several in the article and limit the information on the protesting by competitors and ODF supproting organisations to a few selected independant news sources reporting on that protest. Why give those organisations a platform here on wikipedia ? [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 06:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: Take a look at the changes. You put forward some strawmen arguments and do name-calling. It doesn't matter who is behind criticism as long as the criticism is valid. No one needs to endorse it. The article was transformed into a Microsoft-marketing gobblespeak article and editing policy of some of the editors was biased and unfair. The goal is a decent article. Editing has not to be guided by stupid anti-IBM conspiracy theories. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


:"reverted '''multiple''' times", "'''continually''' reverting" – that's untrue and a mere exaggeration – in fact one out of '''two''' reverts was applied against an IP. In fact I pressed the "vandalism" button '''myself''' in order to revert the edit, and I was surprised and sad I wasn't able to add an explanation.<br />
The essense of the critisism and the opponents was not lost. I cleaned up some of it because it was disputed and because it was mostly simular and even identical information that is already in the article. The article looked like a promotional video for opendocment supporters. After cleanup the essential critisism is still in the article as well as the important sources for it. Mayby Dovi is suggesting he is now going to invite someone from Ecma to add an 'advantages of office open xml' section to balance the article ?? 05:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:I accept your profound explanation here pro removing the Stallman quote. Such an explanation was in fact missing from the first attempt to remove the quotation, which had been in the article for a long time (I think). --[[User:Johayek|johayek]] ([[User talk:Johayek|talk]]) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


:Seriously: if you consider a revert of a piece of text, that has been in an article for a long time, vandalism, you should check your understanding of the term. And an edit-war is only started by the revert of a revert.--[[User:Johayek|johayek]] ([[User talk:Johayek|talk]]) 09:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The piece under "'''Opposition by IBM and its commercial allies'''" reads very poorly. It reads as though IBM is against all standardisation and that Microsoft is fighting the good fight of standardisation against the evils of big bad IBM. It needs removing or cleaning up. --[[User:EvilMonkeySlayer|EvilMonkeySlayer]] 08:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


An IP edit has nothing to do with said edits veracity, as long as it is sourced (which it was) or backed up accordingly. Nor does the fact that that quote had been in the article for a while mean it's accurate, I think the original editor assumed the multiple sources to be proof enough that it wasn't vandalism. Especially after 2-3 different users reverted the reversion. [[User:TechAtlas|TechAtlas]] ([[User talk:TechAtlas|talk]]) 23:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)TechAtlas
: Apparently this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=145236056&oldid=145231621 the edit] that added the ''IBM and its commercial allies'' text.


== Criticism ==
: That piece or the article was cleaned by [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] already together with te ffii en fsf campaign links. That cleanup was before your comment so I am not exactly sure what your are suggesting [[User:HAl|hAl]] 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


I propose a criticism section.
:: Unfortunately I wasn't hitting the refresh button every second to find out whether it had been removed or not. Hence my comment was under the impression it was still up. No worries. --[[User:EvilMonkeySlayer|EvilMonkeySlayer]] 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Potential sources:
== Microsoft ... ==
[https://blog.gardeviance.org/2013/12/once-more-unto-breach-dear-friends-once.html]
[http://fileformats.archiveteam.org/wiki/DOCX]
[https://archive.fosdem.org/2022/schedule/event/lotech_odfbetterthanooxml/]
[http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/08/dog-that-didnt-bark.html]


Parts of the article are written unencyclopedic. Microsoft does this, offers that. Or irrelevant time stamps are added. A wikipedia article is not a press agency from Microsoft. We always need to focus on a description of the file format which is the subject of our article.
for instance:
* "Microsoft stated that Office Open XML would be an open standard, and submitted it to the Ecma standardization process."
* "In support of the licensing arrangements Microsoft commissioned an analysis from the London legal firm Baker & Mckenzie."
and so on.
* "Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit released a beta version of a converter to allow document format conversion."
All that sounds like an amateur press release or "cut&paste". The language focuses on activities and usually you find remarks attached why something was done. So the pattern is "Ms does X because of y" where "because of y" is speculation. It is very annoying to find these irrelevant "because of y" marketing claims attached in an unsystematic way.
first quote: relevant is standard was submitted by MS to ECMA
second quote: Relevant is Baker&McKenzie
Third quote: Relevant is the converter.
Irrelevant are the activities: "stated", "released", "commissioned".[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


[[User:Family Guy Guy|Family Guy Guy]] ([[User talk:Family Guy Guy|talk]]) 13:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
: Microsoft is a relavant party in the creation of the format, the patent licensing and the adoption of the format. That is undeniable and their presense in the article is therefore logical. I would however agree that the suggested sentences might be rephrased for instance like this:
:"Microsoft submitted the Office Open XML specification to Ecma International for standardization as an open standard"
:"An analysis from the London legal firm Baker & Mckenzie on OOXML licensing confirmed that the Office Open XML format can be implemented by anyone." [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:: "Microsoft submitted the Office Open XML specification to Ecma International for standardization as an international standard". [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Legal analysis ???? ==

I removed a reference to a grokdoc so called legal analysis.
That analysis is based mainly on this statement conclusion:
"but the patent claims are not the methods and concepts described therein"
to show that Microsoft granting rights on patent claims is like granting nothing.
In software patents however the patentclaims really are described methods and concepts. To state the opposite is just making a mockery of legal analysis. A pure joke.
And I remember stating this very clearly on Groklaw when this analysis (I think by Marbux) was published but of course those comments of mine were immediatly moderated away as on Groklaw any opinion contrary to theirs is banned !!! [[User:HAl|hAl]] 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
: Your arguments are invalid. It is not about the validity of the patent claim (which can be disputed) but the validity of the license model. The grokdoc text is pretty long and compiles several concerns by market player. Currently we do not have a real legal analysis which describes the effects of the license models on a worldwide scale. Nobody really knows if different the patent license models can be trusted.[[User:84.129.90.247|84.129.90.247]] 13:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:: The argument I removed only referend a section of the grokdoc text called "The Microsoft covenants not to sue grant no rights". This section centers purely on granting rights on patent claims. For which i already explained the arguments.
:: Also I disagree on the other concerns on grokdoc being concerns of market players. The grokdoc list is not compiled to be about market issues or by market parties. That list is about a site filled with opponents of Microsoft standardizing the ooxml format collecting possible issues (there is no real verification of these issues and people that do not agree are moderated away or banned from the site) in order to block that standardization and the list therefor consist of mostly findings by groklaw readers who I might (barely) trust to find some obvious editorial and syntax errors but who seem to have a very narrowminded view on ISO directives and legal matters (close to when if it is not FOSS it is illegal). Allthough groklaw writes about legal issues it is just a very onesided opinion side. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 14:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
::: And that is exactly the point. We have two sections: support and criticism. Criticism is essentially biased. Grokdok is biased. It is common to find issues, that is what ISO standardisation is all about, review the specification and find issues. For sceptics of ooxml patent licensing Grokdoc may be a key collection, at least it is the most comprehensive one. You need to present criticism in a form that does not "endorse" the view but present it. I think you understand what the CNS and the OSP are. Grant patents to an inventor != grant patent right to a third party. You must be smart enough to get the difference and what the article is about. This is why your argument is invalid or manipulative. A second example: we discuss grokdoc as a source and then you come up with groklaw.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: The referenced section was actually first part of an Groklaw article (where it is then an unarguable truth)by Marbux and was later moved to the grokdoc listing (which is essentially a groklaw wiki anyways). As I commented on the patent issues in the article it is a logical reference. I do not oppose some bias in the article else I would probably remove more than half of the article. The grokdoc list in fact is already well referenced in the article even allthough I find a quite lot of the issues on it of very poor quality. It is however a good original source of critisism unlike some other sources that just regurgitate the same arguments. However the suggested argument on patent law is just blatently incorrect and because of that I added the information on this talk page so people could verify this claim when I removed it. I personally reinstate it if you can find me a serious patent expert that verifies the Grokdoc conclusion (I'll put in a nice bottle of something as well) that in software patents the patent claims do not contains methods and/or concepts. I actually find that kind of information is seriously misleading as it is presented as a serious legal analysis but show the patent law knowledge of a high school child. I hear ton of so called legal claims on OOXML repeated everywhere because often directly fed from this false information. I would rather see real legal experts do the legal statements. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: It would take very expensive legal research. OOXML is supposed to be used on a worldwide scale. As Microsoft designed these patent models they made the research, however it is not published. Microsoft did not really answer the objections made.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 00:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Edit war ==

this was disputed:
"* Office Open XML is currently the only open document standard to define spreadsheet formulae."
a) a reference would be good
b) it is a pretty poor argument. It is possible to lie with facts.
c) begging the argument: "the only open document" sprays the claim that OOXML is an "open document" which is discussed elsewhere. Why not "Office Open XML defines spreadsheet formulae." Are there "non-open document standards" that define spreadsheet formulae?
d) Why was it deleted or disputed?

: Actually what was disputed is the define part. Some anonymous editter want to rephrase "define" as "attempt to describe". That was just a ludacrous edit and I reverted that several times. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:: "describes"? The current bugs do not count. "attempt to describe" is inacceptable imho, the standard is not adopted yet. "define" may be too "formal" in the context of mathematics and formulas.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 19:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::: Yes, "define" was too formal and this was my objection. [[User:HAl|hAl]] initially suggested that these were "a few editorial bugs" but has now conceded that the problems were more than skin deep. OOXML does not "define" enough to be implemented, which means that people looking at the spec must see how Microsoft Office does it and try to replicate that. The result of this is that the "real" OOXML spec is the Microsoft Office source code, not the document that was submitted to ISO. "Defined" is not accurate -- what term would you prefer? [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] 10:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: You are uttering complete nonsense. The bugs in the spreadsheet formula's (you put in a reference to rob weir post) are all editorial errors and ommisions only and a total of about seven amongst the several hundred formula's and 300 pages of formula defitions in the format specification. Some of them are obvious mistakes and would not confuse any implementer and some are ommitting the value of the variable that is used leaving open whether the specific uses radials or grades but is easy to implement if you. This is minor editorial stuff that can easily be fixed and also stuff that Brian Jones who is in the Ecma technical committee already suggested to be included in the suggested changes for the ISO balot resolution meeting. Suggesting you cannot implement those 300 pages of fomula's specification because of 7 editorial errors is laughable. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 12:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: 1. editorial = orthographic problems, tecnical == specification problems 2. Ecma was supposed to review the standard. these are issues that have to be resolved. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Which is exactly what Ecma is doing. They are already working on that. Novels Miquel the Icaza (founder of the Gnumeric spreadheet) yesterday said that Novel was the second largest contributor of issues to Ecma with 121 issues and that Ecma already solved 118 of those and continues to work on them. Also he said: '' I have no access to whatever ISO does or its process so I have no way of telling, but at least from what I can see on the ECMA mailing lists, things are moving forward and issues continue to be addressed.'' So is is not like the issues aren't resolved and the standard will not improve. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 11:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I am not in the political arena. ECMA submitted a report to ISO that contained many bugs, so many bugs that it gets pretty hard to approve the specification, many objections are raised, also in the ISO process. Many of them were known but ignored. I explained Hal that "technical"!= "editorial". Of course the specification has to improve, that is what the bug reporting (technical comments) is for. When an international standard is buggy you need to either implement the bug, or ignore the bug but then you don't conform. See year 2000 problem.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: I too, found myself unwittingly in an edit war with [[User:HAl|hAl]] and tried to address it on his talk page... no response. I went through a 3 day cool off period before I started editing here again.[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

== disambiguity ==

I am just curious: As "Office Open XML" sounds very similar to

- Open Office (OO.org)

- OpenOffice Bacher EDV

- Open Document Format - a direct competitor

and maybe potential other products, does Microsoft risk trademark infringement or may become subject to other competition/consumer regulations? [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

: I do not think it sounds that simular. There is similarities with openoffice but that shocking. Also the when you use common words like open and office and xml then trademarks become very weak. and I do not hear any simularites with Open document formt at all. That is just funny.
: I hope you are kidding. That is like stating that everything with "open" in it would have possible trademark conflict with each other.
: Seriously, people that confuse Office Open XML with Open Document Format because of similarities in text or sound are definitly already purely focussed on OOXML vs ODF rather than seeing OOXML as a seperate entity and have narrowed their view already considerably. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 13:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Well, at least some users and media confuse it, see above discussion. I wonder if that was intentional. Trademark law could be nasty sometimes. People who are focused on OOXML and ODF will understand that these are two distinct formats. Ordinary market players could get confused. ODF and OOXML are direct competitors, although they serve different needs and philosophies. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Besides the similarity of names, what about the meaning of the word, "open". OOXML does not appear to be open because it references closed file formats... Does OOXML not conflict with the idea of open standards? Is there not a conflict between ODF and OOXML because of that? In the market, an ingenuous end-user may feel OOXML is a good choice because it is open and not realize that it is closed. If the proposed standard were Office Closed XML it would be more distinctive. This is complicated by the fact that the closed parts are not essentially a part of a modern file standard but an attempt to standardize past practices. Can standards be retrospective? Certainly an organisation can use a practice and propose the practice as a standard, but the practice must be opened and well documented. Saying something should work the way a closed proprietary package works is not a reasonable part of an open standard and OOXML should not have "open" in its name.[[User:Pogson|Pogson]] 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: "Open" is part of a marketing name. The format would be officially ISO 26500. Sure "open standard" is another point. HAl argued that OOXML was an EU Open Standard as you can find in the article while others think it fulfills only "minimal characteristics". See below. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::HAl do you really mean to imply there is no ambiguity between Office Open XML and Open Office ODF. OOXML is clearly an attempt to confuse. It is less unambiguous than Windows and Lindows. Yet MS sued over that for exactly that reason. Microsoft is often this way, crying foul when someone uses their own tactics against them. I'm not confused by "Office Open" and "Open Office", but many people will be, because they are '''not''' familiar with FOSS.[[User:Celtic hackr|Celtic hackr]] 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::: There is no ambiguity with OpenDocument and Office Open XML in the way that the wiki could accidentally lead you the wrong article and the earlier suggestion they might sound simular was even ridiculous. For a wikipedia search on "open office" I can see some ambiguity in the wikipedia search results so that tag seems a valid option. Microsofts namechoice might be dubieus but was made possible by OASIS renaming their Open Office XML format to Opendocument just so that it would match the proposed name in EU's reports on which is also dubieus. I bet that MS was furieus when the OpenOffice suite was first release under that name for their namechoice. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: Hal, Hal, Hal. Firstly, OpenOffice existed long before MS came out with Office Open XML. Secondly, when I speak of ambiguity, I speak of ambiguity for those who may be looking for a word processing format to save their documents in. An uneducated non-wikipedia Windows desktop person may be in Word and need to save in Open Office format, for someone who requested the document be in Open Office format. Now an unknowing user, might be confused by Open Office/Office Open. Not everyone is as computer literate as you, nor does everyone turn to wikipedia whenever they have a question about something. When I speak of ambiguous, I am speaking about in the world at large, not in the narrow confines of our Ivory Tower. Surely, you must see this, or you have MS blinders on. Again, I have no quarrel with MS or FOSS. I make my money on support, and there more need for support in MS products than in FOSS. [[User:Celtic hackr|Celtic hackr]] 06:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::As noted in another discussion further down the page on the same topic of similar names this issue is the first comment issue in Great Britain's BIS - disapprove with comments ballot. If it's important enough for BIS to list, it's important enough for Wikipedia to list.[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

== Marketing kludge ==

"According to Microsoft, Office Open XML '''[file format ]'''is backward compatible with Microsoft Office versions 2000, XP and 2003 '''[products *]''' using Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack.[5]"

1. The sentence is misleading. The format is not "backwards compatible" but earlier versions of MS Office support the new format read/write using a "compatibility pack". Which is good news that needs to be spread. ... "is backwards compatible" is just a very complicated description that should be improved.

2."backward compatibility" of the format is said to be achieved by deprecated elements, so conversion of older binary document '''to''' OOXML is simplified. That is a semantic issue. The new format can express everything that was expressed by earlier MS format. We could also descrieb that as deprecated slack. Nothing bad per se for document preservation. But is no real "backwards compatibility", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(*) Cmp: "How to use earlier versions of Excel, PowerPoint, and Word to open and save files from 2007 Office programs"

== Editing style and poor description of standardisation benefits ==

<blockquote>

<nowiki>
===Arguments in support===

Organizations and individuals supporting Office Open XML have provided arguments for standardization<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/summary.aspx
| title=Hear what Ecma has to say about Open XML (paragraph: Key benefits of Open XML)
| author=Open XML community
| publisher=OpenXMLcommunity.org }}</ref>.</nowiki>
</blockquote>

* We have a reference but the reference it false.
* overgeneralisation: "organisations and individuals"
* The reference refers to OpenXMLcommunity, a vendor community site from Microsoft
* But the article just quotes from an ECMA paper: "Hear''' what Ecma has to say''' about Open XML"
* Quote: "Hear what Ecma has to say about Open XML, '''The following is a summary from "Office Open XML Overview", by Ecma International.
OpenXML_White_Paper.pdf'''"
* the article explains the features of OOXML but does not advocate for (ISO) standardisation. It also mentions the ECMA process for standardisation. It is clear that the arguments for OOXML are distinct from arguments for the standardisation of XML.
<blockquote>

<nowiki>
====Key benefits arguments====
ECMA has provided the following key benefits arguments for standardization [http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf Ecma international. Office Open XML Overview]: High Fidelity Migration to Open Formats, Enhanced Interoperability, Compactness, Low Barriers to Developer Adoption, Integration with Business Data, Internationalization, Room for Innovation, Accessibility, and Long Term Document Preservation. See also [http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/Ecma%20responses.pdf -Response Document- National Body Comments from 30-Day Review of the Fast Track Ballot for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (ECMA-376) Office Open XML File Formats]</nowiki>
</blockquote>

* here again the same source, the Office Open XML overview.
* and then these long links that are added in an inappropriate fashion (see also ....)
* the arguments are not explained. what is "high-fidelity Migration" or "room for innovation"?

Conclusion:
* A key document for the defense of OOXML is provided by ECMA and mentions some marketing argument, the OpenXML Whitepaper.
* We also have the document TC45 response paper as a source that needs to be considered.
* the first link should get removed as it is unsourced.
* It is not clear why '''ISO standardisation''' is wanted.
* We need to separate arguments about the benefits of the format and the benefits of ISO approval/standardisation.

Additional remarks:
* above the bogus argument is made: ISO standardisation because an EU committee asked for it.
* It is apparent that a key to the conflict is the ISO standardisation procedure of two competing XML-document formats.
* what is at stake in that competition for Microsoft? Cui bono? What is the warmap for a strategist? I am speaking about rational interests, not emotional or technical arguments.
* '''What does ISO approval really mean?''' what are the effects of OOXML becoming an ISO standard instead of an ECMA standard? E.g. are ISO standards binding for some users? Would some users be forced to switch to ISO 26300 if DIS 26500 gets rejected? Would ISO standardisation help in antitrust?
* I have seen no commercial analysis of interests. E.g. why Microsoft wants ISO standardisation. And I don't mean room for high-fidelity user surplus. Or why IBM apparently does not want it. We find accusations but no description. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 22:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

: I changed the key benefits section as it indeed was rubbish with a more clear one taken from Microsoft overview on the format. I see you looked only at the pro arguments section ? Looking at the critisism section I see a legal section that does not contain any valid legal argument but writes that the scope of the patent licensing does not cover the entire spec like it is a fact, a statement which of course is not supported by any reference from a legal expert. I see a reference to Government bodies but it is only one and then merely a very brief ballot statement that is more about showing their concerns and ignorance then about critisisms (what binary information in the standard are they talking of ??? I looked at nearly all 6000 pages and did not see that). [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 07:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
== Full protection ==

I've fully protected this page because of edit warring. Please take this to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]].--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 22:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:That was me and Hal. He's been removing the EU terminology for a week now, so it'll be good to see if we can resolve this. I think talking about it here to see what others think is a good start. [[User:202.135.231.49|202.135.231.49]] 22:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

: Can't you just block [[User:202.135.231.49|202.135.231.49]] who is trying to bold edit 'minimal charateristics' in the EU definition section every time ? It has no specific value whatsoever. It is also all the characteristics the EU has ever uttered on Openstandards and you could therefore also qualify this als 'the entire set of EU characteristics for an open standard'. Also it is actually a set of characteristics that is bigger than most conventional open standards definitions which seldomly require royalty free licensing. Adding that clause makes the EU definition quite a severe definition in itself. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 22:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Wow... [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] wrote a lot of words but when you dig into it the edits in question are still the ones I stated. So it's not just putting it in bold as they say, it's still about including "minimal characteristics" <b>at all</b> that's the question (they deleted it regardless of being bold, and in their haste they often removed the wrong parts leaving nonsensical sentences -- eg, "EU of an Open Standard"; check the edit history for many more mistakes from [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] and Hal).
:: The EU qualification as per the cited document is valuable and accurate and those who think it's a severe definition should take that up with the EU -- it was their words entirely. As [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] says the EU haven't made a formal definition of Open Standards we shouldn't take it as such -- it's only those who want to make their statement about more than minimal characteristics that have a problem with this clarification.
::Hope this helps clarify my ideas :) [[User:202.135.231.49|202.135.231.49]] 01:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

::: The qualification minimal is not relevant in the section about EU open standard definitions as OOXML qualifies for all items that the EU documents state. I think the minimal characteristic is added by some ODF fanboy to diminish the value or significance of supporting the full EU definitions of an open standard. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 10:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Another question is if it is an open standard according to the EU definition. According to what they claim, it is. But some people question possible binary data in the format and the patent licensing conditions. EU demand is RF, not RAND while ISO also lets RAND slip through. A pragmatic problem is also that Microsoft tries to undermine proper multipartisan review. I expect these open questions to get resolved. I think that it is very useful to have the edit lock now. Discussions belong on the talk page, please avoid edit wars. As far as I understand minimal characteristics was meant by the EU to strengthen the definition. However it is absolutely sufficient to satisfy the definition. Some parties propose other Open Standards++ such as free GPL reference implementations. for me it is not really relevant if "minimal characteristics" gets mentioned or not. Please don't insult. The advantage of odf over ooxml would be: a) clarity reg. RF patent terms b) open multipartisan development process while OOXML was only recently "communitized" and we have to hope that no tricks are played. The question is relevance, I don't doubt that the EU conditions can be satisfied. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Hal wrote that "minimal characteristics" is not relevant in the section because it meets the criteria. You'll notice that Hal is trying to steer the argument their way towards whether OOXML complies, rather than the focus of this thread's dispute resolution which is about the removal of the "minimal characteristics" term and whether it's an appropriate description. The actual document says, "To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard: [and then the bulleted terms quoted in the Wikipedia OOXML entry]". It's now clear that meeting all of the minimal characteristics of an open standard does not make it more than the minimal characteristics -- which the point entirely. [[User:202.135.231.49|202.135.231.49]] 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: Indeed the argument is about the compliance. Adding minimal suggests there is more EU open standaard characteristics defined which is not true. So actually effectivly minimal characterictics is equivilant to all characterictics. We could therefore also support the text stating "all characteristics". The only reason to add minimal is to focus away from the stated compliance. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Hal, you're trying to rewrite what the EU stated. They said that their list were the "minimal characteristics" (which indeed does imply more characteristics to come). You apparently want to state that the words the European Union carefully used to describe their "minimal characteristics" list mean something else. The EU chose words to describe their stance and we should respectfully reproduce that. "All characteristics" is not what they said, they said "minimal characteristics" [[User:202.135.231.49|202.135.231.49]] 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::: ...and I might add that I hope it's clear now to [[User:Hu12|Hu12]] what the argument is about (not about compliance, but about accurate EU terminology and not overstating what they were careful to phrase). I'd like to resolve this dispute but it seems that there's not much middle ground when HAl wants to argue about two words. And Hal, you've been fairly consistent and I doubt that we'll reach agreement here -- I think we should progress this dispute resolution process because unfortunately we're just repeating the same arguments again and again, without reaching consensus. The "minimal characteristics" text is accurate -- you should allow it. If you continue to disagree, I think that perhaps we should follow the "Discuss with third parties" ideas as per the dispute resolution guidelines [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] 08:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::: ...another day, another post. I take it from HAls silence that he/she is unwilling to discuss this (although HAl would spend all day reverting the EU clarification this dispute process apparently isn't worth the same effort). HAl, please, we need to discuss this in order to reach a consensus and if you're going to remaing silent we can't continue the dispute process. [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] 05:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I am intensely interested in the outcome of this dispute. Is this ever going to DR? Please start concluding some of these disputes so that the page can be unlocked. It's falling farther out-of date, and other grammar/wording corrections need to take place. For example, India just recently voted against; I believe that Malaysia has voted for, and Switzerland isn't even in the chart!! As far as this particular issue goes, I would side on using the EU statement verbatim (or at least not paraphrasing "minimal characteristics" to "all characteristics"), as that feels more like a "reference material" approach. Perhaps a clarification paragraph after their statement could discuss the above issues, or better, "EU open standard" could be it's own article. This article is about OOXML; hence, a discussion of that which defines that "minimal characteristics" of "EU open standards" should be covered on a page about the EU open standardization process. I would be more interested, *here*, in what particular characteristics apply to the particular format this article discusses. Folks; figure this out!!! [[User:65.112.197.16|65.112.197.16]] 19:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::: It was important as meeting the EU open standards definition is very important for adoption in the public sector. Critics question the anglosaxon patent model. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::: HAl has began the edit war again and he/she is not following the disputes process. I'm now taking this to arbitration and asking for HAl to be diciplined. [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: I disagree. I say you started an edit war by adding meaningless adjectives to a part of the article I added. However you probalby do not know how it is to add real information to an article seeing as you haven't done so up till now. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Locked again. Everyone, please take this to [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Hu12|contribs]]) 00:20, August 26, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Thanks Hu12. Hal hasn't been engaging the process which means many of the disputes resolution processes can't be used. I don't know what we can do other than to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#hAl_related_edit_warring_on_OOXML request arbitration as I've done]. If this is not the correct process please let me know. Assuming that it is, then people please add your statements to the arbitration page. [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227]] 00:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
:: I reverted your edit several times and I agree with hAl. You are a troll only editting the article because you are some kind of Opendocument fanboy. There is not a singly constructive edit by you done to the article. Your <b>only</b> intent seeing from your edits it to an anti OOXML. Every time you have editted the article you have editted in "minimal" related to the conformance of OOXML the EU definition of an open standard in bold and in the section definition. Not even the wikipedai article on Open Standards does that. it is also correct to state that OOXML conforms to <b>all characteristic</b> or <b>fully conforms</b> to the EU definition and I support that the section will be altered to reflect those changes again that I added and that that user [[User:202.160.118.227|202.160.118.227] has now reworded in a very ugly way. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 07:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Just go away with your antics. You added nothing meaningfull to the article but requests for protection blocks. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 22:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the request for arbitration in question, and would recommend an article [[wikipedia:request for comment|request for comment]], as detailed on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles]], as your next step in dispute resolution, since it seems discussion here is not going anywhere. [[User:Picaroon|Picaroon]] [[User talk:Picaroon|(t)]] 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

== Needs rewording ==

When the article is unprotected this needs to be reworded:
:Non-standard, inflexible paper size naming. For example, book 4 sections 3.3.1.61 define a "paperSize" attribute for which values 1 through 68 are predefined standard paper sizes such as A4 paper.[16]
As it stands, it's confusing since it talks about non-standard paper sizes but then goes on to talk about standard paper sizes. Reading the reference, the point that's being made is that it specifically defines and names 68 paper size, some of which are not really international standards (like letter, A4 extra etc). On the other hand, ODF simply requires the paper dimensions be specified and leaves it up to the user interface on what paper sizes to offer and how to name them [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

: I disagree. It is a valid point of criticism that was made. A trivial bug. It is about a code table with 68 entries. The corresponding international codes for paper size ISO 216, ISO 269) have to be used. That has nothing to do with a scalable attribute 'pagesize' where size is measured in millimeters. But you cannot say kind of "pagesize is "5" (and 5 is specified as C6 = 114x162mm)". [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 18:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Allthough people might consider it an issue it hardly looks very relevant. Even ISO knows that it's paper formats aren't exclusivly used. Using a code table for papaer formats seems pretty inflexible however I is also a list that is fairly stable and determined by the existing printerbase. Flexibility is not really needed and printersupport for a lot of the more exotic ISO format sizes autside the A3,A4,A5 paper sizes is minimal to none. In fasttracking it is about standardizing a standard based on an industry use. Clearly the use papersizes is determined by printer and paper manifacturers and Office Open XML will not have any troubles supporting current formats that office printers use. Having the extra flexibility in OpenDocument only makes it harder for implementations as effectifly there won't be many implementations that will stray from the list in Office Open XML as there are no printers it. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
: Formally the appropriate solution is to remove it and fully rely on mm x mm in the Format. It is sufficient if the application assigns all formats to paper sizes internally. "In fasttracking it is about standardizing a standard based on an industry use."-- No, not at all. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:: What is fast-tracking about: Having a body as ECMA who prepares a standard that does not require discussions and can be taken AS-IS. Unfortunately the ECMA draft was not ready. And that is the problem now. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== Voting procedure ==

{{tlx|editprotected}}
The articles section 'Voting procedures' states:

''Votes are taken only of those present at the meeting, and "P-members" for the purposes of this clause are P-members of JTC 1 (not SC 34); votes from the five-month ballot are not carried forward to the BRM. [citation needed].''

This seemed strange to me because it might eliminate the opinion of voting members that are not present at the ballot resolution meeeting. So I tried to verify this at several sources. According to this blog comment by Jason Matusow this seems incorrect:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2007/08/19/open-xml-us-vote-progress-continues.aspx#4484268
This is relevant because it suggest that any votes made prior to the 2 september 5-month ballot deadline will be taken into the ballot resulotuion as well even those that are not represented at the actual ballot meeting. The article could now suggest that voting before that deadline is of no use unless you attend the actual meeting.
Therefore I suggest that this line be removed. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 12:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

: It is important to substantiate the claim by references to the ISO/IEC rules of procedure. A blogger as Matusow is not a credible source here, givin all the procedural fighting. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:: The original line is unsubstantiated by any ISO directives. It was listed as uncited. I already questioned it's validity when it was entered in to the article. So now I ask for it to be removed and give a reason and a reference. If you have any valid reason for this strange and uncited information to stay than please inform us. 15:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC) <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:HAl|HAl]] ([[User talk:HAl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/HAl|contribs]]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: To me mind the procedural description is true but please ask at the ISO secreteriat. In international polics it is common that voting requires presence. Afaik ISO is not different here. Afaik you cannot submit a letter vote. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::The article's not actually protected; I removed the expired protection tag. Also, this talk page is in desperate need of archiving. Cheers. --[[User:MZMcBride|MZMcBride]] 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: I created a second archive, and fixed the archive box code, but a third page is probably needed [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 15:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

::::: It is important to distinguish between the BRM vote (which is concerned with adopting a text), and the approval vote for DIS 29500 (which is about approving the text for publication as a standard). Votes at the BRM are indeed of those present at the meeting, and previous votes are '''not''' carried over from the ballot for these votes on the text. On the wider question of approving DIS 29500, the results of the 2 September ballot are still "in effect", but (maybe as a result of the BRM's deliberations) NBs have an opportunity to modify this vote after the BRM. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do we even have a description of the voting process here? Shouldn't that be on its own page? The ISO voting process is not specific to OOXML. [[User:tgape|tgape]] 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== Reference 8 ==

# ^ How to use earlier versions of Excel, PowerPoint, and Word to open and save files from 2007 Office programs. Microsoft. Retrieved on 2007-02-09

--> Is the "Office 2007 format" the very same as OOXML? [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

: MS Office 2007 default saves files in Office Open XML. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 05:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Really? But office2007 includes binary, no? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] ([[User talk:Arebenti|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Arebenti|contribs]]) 19:21, August 25, 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::: Office Open XML is the default format but naturally MS Office 2007 also supports binary formats. And if you download the [http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4d951911-3e7e-4ae6-b059-a2e79ed87041&DisplayLang=en Microsoft plugin for PDF and XPS files]you can also save in PDF and XPS format [[User:HAl|hAl]] 22:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

== OPC = kind of file system? ==
<blockquote>"Office Open XML files conform to the Open Packaging Convention and different applications have characteristic directory structures and file names within these packages. An OPC-aware application will use the relationships files rather than directory names and file names to locate individual files. In OPC terminology, a file is a part. A part also has accompanying metadata, in particular MIME metadata."
</blockquote> --- Do metadata/relationship parts include redundant info? I understand that we have the ZIP container and then a kind of XML file system which makes the OPC (?). As a professional I would say: I want to see the data to be consistent, redundant information usually creates an inconsistency hell and it would be pretty easy to corrupt the files with third party tools and all kinds of dirty hacks. My questions: a) What is the advantage of having that XML index b) Does OOXML have special standard interpretation methods on how to deal with corrupted/inconsistent data, I am told that problem occurs with the old legacy format as well. Pls let me know.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

: The use of relationships is explained in the article. It is not redundant as the XML markup files only contain relationship IDs and the relationship files contain the references to the actual files in the package. Redundancy is for instance what OpenDocument uses for spreadsheets cell data, having both value-properties as value-tekst for the same cell. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 05:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

::XML is a profile of SGML (IS8879:1986) for use on the WWW. When we made XML we removed parts of SGML that were aimed at easing production and maintenance of large document sets, which ISO SGML excels at. In particular, the entity mechanism was simplified: entities act in some cases like macros or file inclusions, and in other cases like links. They allow compound documents. XML still has this simplified entity mechanism, but they are part of the DOCTYPE declaration. The DOCTYPE declaration is used to invoke DTDs (Document Type Definitions) which are simple schemas. DTDs have fallen out of favour because of more modern schema languages, such as W3C XML Schemas and ISO Schematron. As DTDs have gone, there is no equivalent of the entity mechanism, though XLink compound links come perhaps the closest. One of the functions of entity declarations was to move specific URLs into a header. So the reference to an object uses the name of the entity, and that entity is defined to correspond to a URL. This means that, when you have a large document distributed between many files, you can localize all references in one file, what some people now call a linkbase. Entity declarations in SGML can also have attributes ("data attributes") and notation information (e.g. the equivalent of MIME types). What OPC does is to largely recreate the functionality of SGML entity declarations but in the context of ZIP, XML, URLs and MIME. It is one of the distinguishing design principles in OOXML (compared to ODF, for example) that OOXML tries to split itself into as many small component files as possible, so that access to individual information does not require large files to be loaded. It makes some kinds of maintenance and document assembly functions much easier; on the other hand it makes other operations more cumbersome compared to direct reference; probably it will look strange to people who don't have SGML experience, but it resolves of the problems with XML (XML is being used for so many things it was not designed for.)[[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] 07:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::: Thanks Rick, I would really like to see some debates on the OPC format. Does it mean that Open XML is "more SGML" than XML?[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== Non-adoption? ==

The section on 'adoption' is good, but what about 'non-adoption'? In the last couple of days I seem to have read that both India and Brazil[http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Brazil-votes-against-Microsoft-OOXML-standard-/0,130061733,339281499,00.htm?feed=generic] have rejected it. Other high profile rejections would be interesting to note. [[User Talk:Stevage|Stevage]] 14:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

: Actually the adoption section is about implementations. What you are referrring to is the standardization proces in which several ISO national bodies have decided to give a ballot vote of "Disapproval with comments". Countries like Brasil and India. Most countries like for instance the United States and Germany so far have votes for "Approval with Comments" and a few have abstained. That is all part of the standardization process which is currently in the 5-month ballot period. It however has nothing to do with adoption of the standard in implementations. The total outcome of the ISO standardization proces could have an effect on adoption but that is something that will emerge in about 5 months or so. Starting on 2 september the national bodies ballots have to be in and a proces starts to resolve the outstanding comment and improve the standard format so that it will satisfy as many of the national bodies in ISO as possible. Mayby then even India and/or Brasil or other disapproval votes will change their ballotvote to an approval. What is fairly certain is that the standard will see a lot of changes (mostly minor) made to it in the next few months. Those minor changes will of course improve the quality but it is probalby only a dozen or so specific issues that will influence the voting. A bit longish explanation of adoption vs standardization but since the article is locked anyways... [[User:HAl|hAl]] 15:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
:: Good, HAl, then please let's think about a better phrase than "adoption" [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

==Requests For Citation==
69.73.191.92 has made some unsupported claims to the 4.8.1 Complaints Surface About Some National Bodies section. I have added requests for citations to back up those claims from reliable sources. If the citations are not added I will be removing the claims. While 69.73.191.92 appears to have posted a link on my talk to a page that gives some support, it does not support all. They also need to be on the article, not my talk page.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 22:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
: You want me to add a Swedish article reference to the english wikipedia ? Or links to a bunch of companies websites showing partnerships ? I gave you the info on your talk page to show it is verifiable. However full referencing was not a good option because of practical reasons. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
::From [[WP:VERIFY]]
::"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
::You cant just post references on my talk page, it needs to be in the article. The reference needs to be to pages that backup the claims you have made, not to a bunch of companies pages about from those that were involved. If the claims cant be backed up they need to be removed. The claims as I see it.
::*the FFII planned a countermove by joining the ISO group
::*with one more member to create a disapproval on the standardization
::*which included 4 IBM partners as well
::*Google paid a 17.000 SEK (2444 USD) fee to join the committee and were allowed to vote at the last minute.
::Someone has already changed 2 other problems. But I suggest backing up the claims before they get removed. Also do not replace the other things removed without references to back them up from a reliable source. You can find a list of reliable sources here [[WP:VERIFY]]. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


::: The information is verifiable but it would be ugly to put all refences in the article.
Firstly you just need to read what is already in the article
Info about google being one of the late additions
http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/2/ (yes, that is already a reference in the article but Kilz does not read references, just asks for them)
But feel free to pick:
At least 4 companies that not only partner MS but also IBM:
Strand Interconnect IBM
http://www-304.ibm.com/jct09002c/gsdod/solutiondetails.do?solution=24718&expand=true&lc=en
KnowIT IBM+Oracle
http://www.knowit.se/KIT_templates/Page____1749.aspx
Sogeti IBM+Oracle
http://www.sogeti.se/templates/Sogeti_LokalStartsida____2214.aspx
Module1 IBM partner
http://www.modul1.se/modul1/templates/Page____255.aspx
there could be more.
Info about FFII wanting to join with 8 new members themselves:
http://nyteknik.se/art/52005
::: Which references would you prefer to be added to the article ? [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

::::You are going to have to add the references to the article. I have removed the one for Google joining late as http://www.os2world.com/content/view/14868/2/ which is already there proves that. It is hidden in a block of names. Also You should also make it clear that the 4 are partners of both Microsoft and IBM.
::::But while you are at it, You may as well provide a reliable source [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=154657385&oldid=154644440 for this edit]. The one source you have is from a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources as they are self published sources[[WP:SPS]].
:::::Uh, that blog is a bit more, Jason Matusow is a director at Microsoft. Somebody removed a link to a computer magazine and replaced it with a link to this blog, which I consider really dishonest. I've kept the references to him, but tried to make clear that they represent MS opinion.
::::They can be used to back up other non self published sources only. I have provided a verifiable source for the claims I placed. Please provide a reliable source.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::::: A link from arstechnica directly citing from anti-MS propaganda site Groklaw which themselves are citing from the blog of anti-OOXML activist Rui Seabra is hardly an example of an objective citation. It is just deferring the source farther trying to make the source unclear. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 11:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Right - I didn't look beyound the AT article. I've read groklaw and the notes, and it's not clear to me what the optimal choice woudl be. Perhaps referring to groklaw, which people will know is (ahem) a bit opinionated? I can't find anything clear about whether the member limit was due to MS pressure (as the article now indicates), or a general thing for Portuguese ISO committees or whatever, nor a clear list of members and affiliation. [[User:Ketil|kzm]] 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I put in the meeting log of Rui Seabra and added his association to ANSOL which is an associate organisation of FSF europa and of course is fierce opposing OOXML standardization. His story and that of Jason Matusaw do not conflict that much. The interpretation however a lot. In fact Rui says: ''(20 seating spots -- this isn't true, 24 people were seating at the beggining and there were still chairs in the room)'' making it clear that a 20 seats argument was used but not nescesarily physical chairs as he then interprets it. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: I've added the groklaw link (even labelled it as opposing), and left the link to Rui open to interpretation, noting the two different ones. I think the paragraph now is supported by the sources such as they are, and fairly NPOV. [[User:Ketil|kzm]] 13:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::The thing is, arstechnica is not a self published source. It has editorial review. It matters not who Jason Matusow is, the rules of Wikipedia are clear. You cant rely on self published sources. [[WP:SPS]], especially ones that may have a bias in what they are reporting. They can be used as secondary sources of information only if you have a non sps to back them up.
:::::::::Another problem is that the section has some original research [[WP:NOR]]. In other words we need to find sources like arstechnica that are not blogs that sum up what has happened. We cant provide links to facts and then come to conclusions.
:::::::::I have given a lot of time after the pointing out the need for references, for the references to be placed. Later today I plan on editing out any claims not supported by references in the section. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I interpret the blog by a senior exec at MS as representing the company, and as such a bit more that self-published. Groklaw I guess is a "sorta" editorial site. Bot are quite POV. I agree AT is an editorial publication, but I think they may misrepresent the case here, and it is better to provide POV sources directly - at least in addition. Just stating my opinion, I'll await further edits at this point. [[User:Ketil|kzm]] 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: Maybe you are right that pov is best posted from the original source. But I think we agree that a secondary source may be needed to back it up. I honestly dont see the error in the AT page. Perhaps I missed it. Its just that sometimes links to editorial publications are hard to come by on some information. Im going to do a little editing now as I thing I have given way more than enough time for references to be placed. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears HAl has removed a request for citation without placing a citation. His edit claimed that the one reference was enough. The claim that 4 were ibm partners is not proven by the reference, only that they are Microsoft partners. We also have no idea who in that list it is. So it is impossible to tell who is a Microsoft and IBM partner. I replaced the request for citation. As I placed it there , no one should remove it without placing a reference or removing the claim. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
: But you already know well and true that there are 4 IBM partners as someone listed that references only a couple of lines above. And it is easy to look up material if it needs verifying. Not every little thing in the article requires citation.
:From [[Wp:cite]]: [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.
: Is anybody anywhere seriously challenging that there were at least 4 IBM partners that voted for approval in that vote ? [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::I am, 69.73.191.92 claims that 4 are IBM partners. But they are also Microsoft partners. None of the references in the article now states which partners are IBM partners. It is also original research [[WP:NOR]]. Where is the reference that says 4 of the group were IBM partners? The listings above may prove they are, but it is against [[WP:NOR]] to gather facts and make conclusions. If the reference exists that says 4 of the group were IBM partners, please add the reference. Then we can edit the article to say that they were both Microsoft and IBM partners. Otherwise the claim should be removed. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
::: ''Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts''. You already know these are published facts. You still challenge verifiability. That is completly ignoring wikipedia spirit. How would you consider it if someone added fact tags to every word you ever uttered on wikipedia even when knowing the info you wrote is correct and easily verifiable anyways. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
::::You might have missed the second part, [[WP:NOR]] per the page;
::::*"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"
::::That is from the top of the page. It isnt just unpublished facts. No Original Research means that you cant take facts and come to conclusions if they dont already exist some place else. Thats the theories, arguments, unpublished analysis or synthesis part.
::::You also are blurring verifiability into no original research. Every fact or claim can be challenged, That is Wikipedia, the 3 main core policies [[WP:VERIFY]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:NPOV]]. In fact I always add references to things I add just because of [[WP:VERIFY]]. If someone challenges something , it isnt an attack, its a way of making Wikipedia better. I dont think the information was easy to find, a reference was all that was needed. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

== Rodiguez criticism ==

I added the following to the section about criticism:
*In August 2007, a number of issues with OOXML were published,<rref>{{cite web
|url=http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/
|title=OOXML is defective by design
|author=Stéphane Rodriguez
|date=August 28, 2007
}}</ref> such as:
**The spreadsheet format has a large number of internal dependencies, which requires many changes in different parts of the XML data for changes to a single data cell, and multiple different ways to represent semantically identical cell data.
**Numbers are stored with arbitrary floating-point rounding errors.
**[[Locale]] conventions (such as decimal points, date formats, and character settings) are inconsistent. For example, SpreadsheetML documents are internally represented in the US English locale, but font types such as "bold" can be specified in any language (e.g. "gras" in French), even though the specification does not provide a list of equivalent words in different languages.
And it was immediately reverted by HAI with the comment "Office 2007 critisism belong in Office 2007 article". I don't see the point of that. The reference was specifically addressing ambiguities in the OOXML specification, although I agree that the issue about floating-point rounding might be an implementation issue. And I think that HAI, when removing text with such an edit summary, should actually move the text to the appropriate article, rather than simply deleting properly referenced statements. [[User:Hankwang|Han-Kwang]] ([[User talk:Hankwang|t]]) 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC) By the way, the ref is definitely notable in case anyone is wondering about that. The author claims that he gets 300 thousand hits per day on that page during the last couple of days. [[User:Hankwang|Han-Kwang]] ([[User talk:Hankwang|t]]) 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:If it is a valid referenced criticism it should stay. Perhaps it should be on both articles. But removing referenced criticism is not following [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:: How about putting it in the "Adoption" section? That section implies there exist a lot of implementations of OOXML, while the link demonstrates that currently, MS Office is limited to read files written by MS Office. The whole point of "open" office formats is interchange of documents, and that OOXML doesn't provide this in reality is IMHO a central argument of its critics that is not reflected by the page. [[User:Ketil|kzm]] 06:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
::: the question is, does he talk about OOXML or about the Office2007 format and implementation. should get added to the Office07 article. But HAl said OOXML is identical with word07 format. Let's see what changes will be made by ISO that could well render OOXML incompatible with Office07 format [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 15:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: This is what Novels Miquel de Icaza says about the piece: [http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279895&cid=20363627] [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: Yes, I know. I don't think Miguel was able to debunk it but I think the core problem of the Rodriguez article is that he criticises the Microsoft implementation, not the format as such. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

== The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed tag ==
Can anyone please explain <br>
1. Exactly why this tag is in place? <br>
2. Why it doesn't link to a discussion about the problems that cause the tag to be in place? <br>
3. Why it should remain? [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 01:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the tag there. This article is the product of repeated removals (despite lack of consensus) of nearly everything related to worldwide opposition to OOXML, a topic which is not covered fairly in the article to the extent that its notablility requires. Information and links have been repeatedly removed, always with one of two spurious claims:
*That anything not directly related to the technical aspects of the spec is tangential and therefore not encyclopedic.
*That various arguments against OOMXL represented in the article and then deleted, or links to them which are then deleted, are poorly made arguments and not of encyclopedic quality. This claim, of course, is the very essense of "original research."

On all of this, see previous discussions (which I see have already been archived though they are only from mid-summer), discussions which never had any impact on the aggressive pro-Microsoft editors who went ahead and did as they pleased, repeatedly, and are still doing so. The essense of their behaviour is to remove POVs and then call it "balance" because Wikipedia is NPOV. What they ignore, of course, is that NPOV requires ALL positions to be fairly represented according to their notability. This article does not do that in any way.

In any case, I have given up trying to contribute to this article. Too much uncivil behavior has been tolerated here, and I haven't the time or energy deal with it. I see that you have in some good efforts, so do as you please with the tag, and good luck![[User:Dovi|Dovi]] 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::It is indeed sad if that is what happened. [[WP:NPOV]] should not be used like that. It means all pov should have equal coverage. By removing any significant POV it unballances the rest. But any claims need to be referenced, once referenced it makes it easier to request help.
::I have a hand in archiving a lot. The page was huge and needed to be archived. That does not mean that a continuation of any of those sections can not still happen. A new section with a link to the old can be added by anyone wanting to continue it.
::I dont want to see Wikipedia abused, if it means taking something all the way to Arbitration where the 5 pillars WILL be upheld I will do it. I am just a lone editor though. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 09:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::: The whole article looks like a slander cmapaing aginast OOXML. Rarely you see articles that are so vandalised by opponents of in this case OOXML. It seems like the perceived link between MS and OOXML brings out the worst in a lot of wikipedians. 90% of edits are just to slander ooxml ( mostly following articles on groklaw or slashdot) by people that have not contributed a single actual information item about OOXML but just repeat what some blog tells them in general without any substantiations to back them up. More than half the article seems to be written about critisism, protests and block ISO standardization. Very little is done to improve information about the Office Open XML format itself. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::If half the article is pro and the other con at least its [[WP:NPOV]]. All information about ooxml needs to be in the article, not just dry facts about its design. But , yes all claims need to be referenced. Sadly it appears people are removing references and links to sites just because they personally dont like them or agree with them. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Kilz; it's OK to just be one lone editor. Arbitration is not where to go now. One arbitration request has already been sent back because no "[[WP:RFC|request for comments]]" procedure had been run. That is exactly what is needed now. Please spend a few minutes to summarize each point of contention (EU open standards minimal characteristics, examples of POV-whitewashing, etc). Look for examples of Pro-OOXML and Anti-OOXML edits that violate policy. After you've done that, run an RFC. We expect that editors will be civil on the talk page and not disrupt each other's comments. Once consensus for agreement is gathered, then we can take action in regards to content. If that fails due to lack of professionality and nastiness, then arbitration is the next step. RFC can make it very clear what the driving issues are that lie behind an especially heated debate. I'm especially disturbed by claims that challenging edits, challenging removal of requests for citation, and that the presence of content that contrasts both sides of POV, is all somehow wasted time or part of a concerted smear campaign. I don't understand that perspective and it seems very unfair and non-wikipedian to refuse to discuss these issues in a structured way. Slugging it out on the talk page and reverting each other, to the point of locking the page, is ridiculous. So, Kilz, if you want to restore order, a staged process is the way to go: stage 1, figure out all the issues, stage 2, list one independently in an RFC section, stage 3, replicate this last step for each point of contention. As WP:RFC says, a bot will take care of the rest. Don't be afraid to ask for a [[Wikipedia:Third_opinion|third opinion]]. This can often help cut through pathos-related arguments. Good luck, and don't give up! [[User:65.112.197.16|65.112.197.16]] 17:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::I was gone for a few days and it looks like a minefield. Already there is a section on this talk page about removing complaints. If that happens I will start it faster. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 21:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::I don't want to get into a war of biblical proportions over OOXML as I don't care much about the subject. I have a programmer friend and he's told me about the battles over OOXML. So, although I don't ''care'' too much about the subject, I have some familiarity with it. I visited here because of recent news on CNN and wanted to see what Wikipedia said about OOXML. I was struck by 1) the artificially favorable tone of the article, and 2) it's “too many chefs in the kitchen” style—the product of many intense edits by many editors without a single, guiding hand to pull it into a coherent progression and organization. I doubt much can be done about this second problem since it would be understandably discouraging for any individual to invest the great time and effort, only to have it subverted by what attorney's call “a moron in a hurry." Passions run high when the topic of Microsoft comes up.

::::::However, on the first issue: the artificially favorable tone of the article, it is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article to omit a balanced and comprehensive treatment of the controversies surrounding OOXML. It is unconscionable for any editor to serve as ''the'' censor who deletes such information because “anything not directly related to the technical aspects of the spec is tangential and therefore not encyclopedic.” That argument is a metric ton of weapons-grade ''bullonium'' and should not be tolerated. Something is not at all “right” here. There wasn't even a proper mentioning of what a competing standard to OOXML was; I had to add that myself an hour or so ago. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] (''[[User_talk:Greg_L|my talk]])'' 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

=== Unbalanced / NPOV ===
I've swapped {{tl|totallydisputed}} with {{tl|unbalanced}}. Totallydisputed seems overkill unless there's some actual factual errors. Unbalanced seems to match with the above, but good old {{tl|NPOV}} would do just as well. --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

: {{tl|totallydisputed}} seems to be intended. {{tl|NPOV}} and {{tl|unbalanced}} assumes benevolent editors [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

==noooxml==
It looks to me like this link is being removed without a good reason. It is clearly part of the story, though against ooxml. Removal imho is against [[WP:NPOV]];"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views". Its one link is in the external links in a section labeled OOXML criticism. Why is it being removed? [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
: As already listed in other reactions that site does not present a new view. It only bundles view already represented in the critisism section and links and adds to that a campaign against OOXML. To it does not add new views but adds a protest site. A site that tries to gain extra momentum by linkspamming shown by the people behind this site repeatedly adding this link. Wikipedia is not ment as a platform for linkspamming and protestsites that want to gain votes. The motivation for putting the site on wikipedia seems to get more petition votes and that is not what wikipedia is for. I have litte doubt that the people adding the links to this site are people motivated by getting a high vote count on a pettition and trying to draw wikipedia traffic. In actual critsims cited info that site is behind the sites of grokdoc and rob weir already listed in the article or the comments by the national bodies. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 13:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::The NoOOXML site significantly extends coverage of views beyond those listed in the criticism section, and is by no means a simple linkspam/petition site - it is a severe mischaracterisation to say so. I agree completely that Wikipedia is not a site for linkspamming, and I would ask you not to impute motives that you cannot know for including the NoOOXML site. May I also suggest that you register an account with WIkipedia rather than using an IP address. Thanks, [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 14:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::: The noooxml site was editted in by several people which zoobab and pieterh who are the webmaster of the site and the president of FFII. Only an idiot would fail to see that that is pure selfpromotion for the petitionsite. I do not think the sites coverage of the critisism goes beyond that of the other sites. The only thing they produce more info on is their campiagn against ooxml and listing when some national body is influenced enoug by them to vote no. That however is not information encyclopic worth. When we want to count votes we can look at the upcoming ISO JCT1 report of the ballot resolution phase. That is the objective information that is relevant for the voting. It wil show the votes and the comments. There is no need to revert to some campaign sites that prefers no votes only and cites a riot on every vote that isn't no. And I have seen on this page before how people are treated by anti-ooxml campaigners so I expecially log-out of my account on wikipedia especially before coming to this page !!! I do not wish to expose myself to the anti-ooxml fanatics. '''I would suggest everybody that edits in remotly neutral or ooxml favourable edits do this anonomously''' [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I have placed back the link to noooxml.org. I'm not affiliated; until a few weeks ago I knew next to nothing about ooxml. I think the site belongs there, under criticism. Indeed, the site is biased, but all sites both under criticism and under support are biased. There is lots of information there and most there is actually referenced; I mean, it's not a crackpot site or something. [[User:Hankwang|Han-Kwang]] ([[User talk:Hankwang|t]]) 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:On the contrary, it is a crackpot site. There are constant claims of bias, with no evidence. For example [http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-18661/effi-links-corruption-to-ooxml-support] is entirely scurilous, if not outright racist. It repeats rumours such as [http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14606/rumors-of-microsoft-blackmail-in-new-zealand] then treats them in aggregate as if they have any substance. [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] 07:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:: The site is a pure slander campaing on OOXML. Allthough I have no doubt that MS tried to influence the voting to approval, on that particular site every country that voted for approval is looked upon as corrupted. Probably they have such a narrow view on things that cannot even imagine that anyone would vote for OOXML out of their own free choice. They suggest that the late additions to sweden is a sign of corruption trying to influence the vote by all entering the committee as late as possible but also call the refusal of the late addition of opponents to the portugal proces as MS corruption. That the two incidents show similar tactics on both parties seems to completly escape their view. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:It's notable enough I think and the stats behind the EFFI ([http://www.effi.org/blog/kai-2007-09-05.en.html Finland]) study seem sound and an interesting correlation but we would need a non-partisan secondary source that reports this as the EFFI work is a primary source and noooxml is probably deemed a partisan source in this case when it comes to reporting other sources. Noooxml is reliable though in it's own right for stuff it says - just what it reports what other say can be argued about. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

==Table of votes?==
Could somebody more in the know add a table showing which countries have voted what and what's the situation atm? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.214.20.122|128.214.20.122]] ([[User talk:128.214.20.122|talk]]) 13:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No need for impatience. This is not a hot news site. The votes have only value in this article in a complete listing (not meaning a fulll list in the article itself but a vote count with a reference to the official document by ISO). So why not wait untill a complete list is available. The preliminary voting should probably be made available by the JCT1 secretariat in a couple of weeks. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::There are links now in the article and a separate page with current results: [[OOXML Ballot Results]] [[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

== Criticism - support ==
* see alse [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.noooxml.org]]
There currently is an edit war about a link in the external links sections. I move the two sections here, and would like to see some discussion, BEFORE they get added again.

===OOXML criticism===
* [http://www.wired.com/news/technology/software/0,72403-0.html?tw=rss.index "MS Fights to Own Your Office Docs"], Wired article on Office Open XML
*[http://www.robweir.com/blog Personal blog of IBM's Rob Weir], includes blog posts critical to OOXML
*[http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections EOOXML objections on Grokdoc]
*[http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/ Group of bloggers from Malaysia], writing on open standards
*[http://blogs.sun.com/korn/entry/talking_with_microsoft_s_gray Sun's accesibility expert Peter Korn] blogs on Office Open XML and W3C on Accessibility Guidelines.
*[http://www.noooxml.org/ NoOOXML], a [[civil society campaign|campaign]] by the [[Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure|FFII]] against the proposed [[ISO]] standardisation of Office Open XML.

=== OOXML support===

*[http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/04/20/a-few-updates-on-the-openxml-formats.aspx A few updates on the OpenXML formats], blog of Brian Jones who is a Microsoft Office program manager
*[http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=1800436990&eid=-10 Game over for OpenDocument?] commentary in LinuxWorld by Gary Edwards (member of the OASIS opendocument Technical Committee)

===Discussion===
First, Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT#REPOSITORY|not a linkfarm]], we are writing an [[WP:ENC|encyclopedia]] here. Some external links are OK, but it is in general better to use references or content. This seems to be a topic that should be discussed in the text, not with external links. If the pro's and con's have to be in the external links sections, it should be even, not 6 against, 2 in favour.

Furthermore, wikipedia is [[WP:SOAPBOX|not a soapbox]]. Also for that, I would suggest that these both sections should go, and that a neutral, though clear section in the text should be written. Hope this explains. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:If you want references/deeplinks to criticisms on the NoOOXML site, that's easily done:
:*{{cite web|title=Wrong Goal|url=http://www.noooxml.org/wrong-goal|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Binary Space|url=http://www.noooxml.org/binaryspace|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:: That comments one is really funny as it shows an example embedding of an external binary file in the package. Even simpletons on OOXM and ODF will know besides embeddingbinary files in an Office document package that in both OOXM as in ODF you can actually embed binary data within the XML as bas64encoded data. Suggesting that the spec is bad because it can embed binary files in the package is just plain funny. Nice of you to put it in here cause it can make people laugh [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:*{{cite web|title=1900 bug|url=http://www.noooxml.org/1900|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Muslims|url=http://www.noooxml.org/muslims|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Patents|url=http://www.noooxml.org/patents|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Accessibility|url=http://www.noooxml.org/barriers|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Global relevance|url=http://www.noooxml.org/global-relevance|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=User needs|url=http://www.noooxml.org/user-needs|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Open Standards|url=http://www.noooxml.org/what-is-an-open-standard|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Conversion Issues|url=http://www.noooxml.org/conversion|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Rice Pudding|url=http://www.noooxml.org/rice-pudding|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Tiny Adoption|url=http://www.noooxml.org/adoption|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:*{{cite web|title=Only Latin URLs|url=http://www.noooxml.org/not-for-orient|accessdate=2007-09-03}}
:Some of these are pretty meritless - the Rice Pudding and Tiny Adoption links, but most, if not all of the rest are substantive technical issues with OOXML. I don't think that the article should have a host of links, one per issue, but a link to a round up (such as the mainlink to the NoOOXML site) is beneficial. The links to the BSI Wiki and the Dansk Standard comments were added by me as well - I certainly don't think deeplinking each and every issue is necessary or desirable.
:The technical issues with OOXML are not simply point-of-view based material - they are factual, and repeatedly removing links that give brief examples of the issues can only be a bad thing, in my opinion.
:As for 'balance', it is by no means necessary for the number of links for each side of a debate to be the same. Cheers. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 17:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:: These are derived technical issues taken from other sites. It does not add anthing but a laugh for some of them [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

: With regards to the "topic should be discussed in text" suggestion, it's worth noting a comment posted on the [[Talk:Noooxml|talk page of the Noooxml article]] by the author of that article. [[User:80.233.255.7|80.233.255.7]] 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


::The text contains a whole section on pro's and con's .. why exactly do we need these also stated in the external links section (which is even a linkfarm without these links), using blogs and propaganda sites (see also [[WP:EL|our external links guideline]])? If Noooxml.com is noteworthy, then it might be good to just state that in the text, the wiki-article exists, and the external link can be there. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::The Noooxml article looks fated to be deleted, which means an internal link in Wikipedia is not possible, leaving us with an external link. I'm not (personally) convinced that the Noooxml article falls foul of the soapbox policy, but I'm no expert on that particular Wikipedia policy, so my opinion most likely counts for little. I feel considerably more certain that the OOXML article should have a link to the NoOOXML site simply to demonstrate (if nothing else) the strong opposition (from some quarters) to OOXML becoming an ISO standard. It appears undeniable that there is controversy, and certainly encyclopaedic to document the existence of such controversy. The [[Scientology]] article has a link to Operation Clambake, after all. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I think both sections should stay, that giving pro and con external links in important. We cant deny the existence of the sites in the article. They exist. That some people disagree with them is understandable. But we as editors should look past our own bias ans leave in information we may not agree with personally. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::::I see your point WLD. The problem lies in having a link "''simply to demonstrate (if nothing else) the strong opposition''". This why there are inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT]] a soapbox for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Including Opinion pieces and Advertising. noooxml.org fails to be a <u>''resource'' about the subject</u>. This is an encyclopedia, and that applies to pro-ooxml content as well. The article for NoOOXML states itself that its "'''a campaign'''". That fails [[WP:NOTABILITY]] and [[WP:NOT]]. If it was notable (not to be confused with "fame", "importance", or "popularity"), and was encyclopedic in nature, that would be great. Kilz, it has nothing to do with bias or dissagreement. It has everything to do with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and [[WP:NOT]] a soapbox. --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] 18:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the reply. You may note the 13 deep-links above into the NoOOXML site that (mostly) document, in readable prose, substantive technical issues with the proposed standard. I certainly endorse the [[WP:NOT]] view. The NoOOXML ''is'' a resource, as is (I'll mention again) the Operation Clambake site - so to link to the NoOOXML site is ''not'' simply to demonstrate opposition. I would say that I've seen little, if any, substantive arguments in favour of adoption OOXML. There are many in favour of adopting XML based document formats, and indeed for specifying or documenting the formats used by Microsoft office software documents (both of which are good, but not OOXML specific), but precious few that specifically give technical reasons why OOXML should be adopted in parallel to other standards. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:Sorry, I miss the point here, you define the discussion as being encyclopedic (I do concur with that part). But the [[Noooxml]]-article is not encyclopedic, and ''therefore'' we need the link? I am sorry, but that is a thing that does not hold. Also the reason that Scientology has a link to Operation Clambake is a [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS|non-reason]]. If the 13 links mentioned are suitable, reliable sources, then why not use them as a reference, instead of linking to the frontpage. I guess that would certainly help the encyclopedic value of the page (the pro's and con's are merely summarized, hardly discussed). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::A brief conversation would be so much better than text. Sigh. Okay, here goes. I would much prefer to link internally to the NoOOXML article, which as said above, could itself link to the NoOOXML site. As it looks likely that the NoOOXML article will be deleted, on (at least partially) the basis that is was created by someone closely associated with the NoOOXML site itself, it means the options are likely to be (1) no link or (2) an external link. (There is another option - that somebody not associated with the NoOOXML site create the article - unfortunately, if I were to do that, I'm certain I would be incorrectly tarred by 'association with the NoOOXML cause' and not successfully create/retain the article). The Operation Clambake example is an example of a site that is ''highly'' critical of the subject of the main article (in this case Scientology), so a critical site ''per se'' does not mean the link should not be there - it is definitely and emphatically not a [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] example, although I'm unsurprised that it has been taken that way (I certainly don't think Operation Clambake is 'crap'). The point is that external links to sites highly critical of an article's content are not immediate candidates for removal. The NoOOXML site has relevant content, accessible to non-expert readers. It happens to be critical of OOXML. The 64 pages of comments from Dansk Standard highlight the many technical shortcomings of the proposed OOXML standard, but being in an Adobe Acrobat document cannot be linked to individually. Both enhance the value of this article. I fail to see why a link to the NoOOXML site is not relevant to the article. Wikipedia isn't paper, so it's not for space saving reasons. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

::: The nooxml site is purely about votes and about sending letter to ISO member to make them change their vote. It relies on other sites to get its issues from and only bring new when it is about somebody voting no or kicing ar riot when someone doesn't. The sites on which most of its issues are based are already in the article and the protest campaing does not belong in wikipedia. I just noticed that the president of FFII actually made an article his own website. How pathetic are these people for getting some extra hits and gathering more petition votes ??? [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::That is a severe mischaracterisation of the NoOOXML site and does not belong in a reasoned debate.[[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:I merely linked to [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS]] (or better, [[WP:WAX|WP:WAX/what about article X]]), because that is just a non-argument. The link is inappropriate, it is a [[WP:SOAPBOX|soapbox]] site, I don't care about other links on other pages, we are discussing this link. The page contains information, yes. But that information can be incorporated (which apparently has already been done), and the information then used as a reference (although I doubt if this site is a primary source, as said above, it relies on other sites, and it may very well fail [[WP:RS]] (as it is an opinion site I expect the information not to be independent). But the link goes to the mainpage, which is obviously the wrong place, do you expect me to search the site for the good information (no, [[WP:EL|our external links guideline]] states that the link should be directly to the information that is relevant to the article, and the frontpage does not seem that). That the vote on [[Noooxml]] seems to go to deletion means ''also'' that it does not go to rewrite, or stub down, which also are possible outcomes on pages which are created under a COI. And deletion probably means that the site is not notable enough, and hence, there is no reason to link.
:Now, instead of the discussion what I hoped for, an open and good discussion about which links should be here, and if they should be here, or that the controversy is discussed enough in the text, we are ''only'' discussing ''this'' link. What about the other sites linked, especially the blogs and the wiki, as far as I can see, only the [[wired.com]] and the [[LinuxWorld]] are meritable sites, the others seem to fail [WP:EL|the external links guideline]] and/or [[WP:RS|the reliable source guideline]] as well. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 22:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::Well, you kicked off that aspect now. Grin. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:: the only site I find credible is the site of IBM's Rob Weir. He is a known partisan against OOXML but IBM is responsible for most of the worldwide issues submitted against OOXML and his team seems to be the place where all those comments all seem to come from. He is also involved in the ODF standardisation. Sun Peter Korn is an expert in accesibility for ODF and allthough it plays some part in the OOXML format discussions it is not a major issue probably since most existing accesibility tooling is already build for its predecesoor binary formats applications and will work with the new formats as well. The blog of microsofts Brain Jones is a more usefull for its technical background info on the format than as a support ooxml site for which you are better of with Doug Magugh blog site.. The other sites aren't worth a comment on. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 22:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::HaL - can you substantiate your assertion "IBM is responsible for most of the worldwide issues submitted against OOXML"? I'd be interested in factual citations rather than apparently baseless assertions. Grateful for any links you can supply. Thanks [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup>
:::I think this whole debate illustrates a problem with referencing blogs. Where the interested reader is not an expert in the topic being discussed, he or she has to rely on the opinions of credible experts in the field and it is difficult to determine who is credible and who is not. Rob Weir, Brian Jones, Doug Mahugh, Jason Matusow are all likely to be regarded as partisan; and Rick Jelliffe lost credibility with some/many (not all) after being paid by Microsoft to attempt to provide a balance in this very article. The technical criticisms documented in the BSI Wiki and Dansk Standard comments submitted with their vote are verifiable, and generated by subject matter experts: it may actually be sensible to not have links to ''any'' blog in this article. That said, I certainly respect Peter Korn's views on accessibility. That is not to disparage the other gentlemen mentioned, but Peter doesn't seem to have any particular axe to grind on the OOXML standardisation issue: rather he wants whatever format to support accessibility, which is a noble cause. It does seem to me that we are attempting to get the NPOV policy (which is a good policy, in my opinion) to cover external links as well, which is difficult to apply. External links are there to give the interested reader further places to go to get more info - they are not references supporting assertions made int he text, so I think it is reasonable that external sites are not necessarily neutral. A warning in the link describing the site as partisan should be sufficient, rather than arguing whether a link should be in the article or not. That is a somewhat inclusionist view, but I tend towards inclusionism anyway. I've said enough on this topic, so I'll toddle off.[[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 23:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: As it is in this article certain people require verification for every tiny bit of info that goes in to the article even in the technical description. As this info is only displayed on MS blog sites it would be hard to even contemplate the entire article then without using those as a reference. However it is a lot different when it comes to opinion about Office Open XML. Support or critisism. That is pure POV vs POV edits. Even the ''objective'' comments of the ISO national bodies are severaly tainted by this discussion on pro and anti site with them often containing literal copies of issues mentioned on those blogs. So the influence of the blogs seems real. Especially influential as a source is the blog of Rob Weir who is the main source for IBM critisism and is a member of the US national body as well as a participant in the development of ODF formulas. I saw you ask hAl about the IBM comments. I seen a bit about that as well. Allthough I can't show you worldwide figures I saw the number for the US committee on [http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2007/07/18/open-xml-us-v1-committee-vote-and-ibm-motivations.aspx Jason Matusaw's blog]. 230 techincal comments of which 83% (!!!!) came from IBM. IBM outreviews the entire US interested parties in critisism on OOXML by a margin of 5-1. They must indeed have quite a team on reviewing the spec. As for worldwide figures I have little doubt that IBM has entered those same comments in other NB where they are represented as well. this can be seen by the simularities in the comments (or even identical versions). So the rest of critisisms does indeed look pale in the face of that effort by IBM. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: It doesn't really matter where they come from. If a committee endorses together a bug report it is "theirs". Those IBM specialists are well-respected in the industry and among their opponents. If you find a bug, nationality is irrelevant. A bug in the US is a bug in Kenya. When I looked at the comments submitted to ISO, endorsed IBM comments were a minor fraction. Despite that the expertise of IBM was pretty good.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== swedish vote... the Microsoft parnters that joined lately to vote "yes"... ==

for memories, here are the company that join lately and voted "yes" :
Camako Data AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Connecta AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Cornerstone Sweden AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Cybernetics (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Emric AB, Exor AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), Fishbone Systems AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Formpipe Software (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), FS System AB, Google, HP (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), IBizkit AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), IDE Nätverkskonsulterna (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), IT-Vision AB, Know IT (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Modul1 (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Nordic Station AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), ReadSoft AB (Microsoft Certified Partner), Sogeti (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), Solid Park AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner), SourceTech AB, Strand Interconnect AB (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner) and TietoEnator (Microsoft Gold Certified Partner). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.228.207.5|82.228.207.5]] ([[User talk:82.228.207.5|talk]]) 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Where's that info coming from? As far as I know, Google voted NO: [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Google%27s%20position%20on%20OOXML%22 Google's position on OOXML]. [[User:80.233.255.7|80.233.255.7]] 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

== iso reject ooxml ==

"ISO votes to reject Microsoft's OOXML as standard"
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136711-c,techindustrytrends/article.html --[[User:87.127.117.246|87.127.117.246]] 13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

: Strange header by PCworld. It is only an intermediate vote that does not reject anything yet. Only a unanouos vote of approval wuithout comments would have guaranteed the standard to be agreed upon immediatly. The article suggest that that somthing is rejected but this of course is not corredct at all. Currently it seems (allthough I have not seen the ãn official ballot intermediate result on the ISO site yet) that the Office Open XML submission did not get enough votes in this phase to be assured of a favourable vote in the ballot resoloution phase. That means several ISO members have to be persuaded by changes in the specification to change their vote in favor of approval during the next 6 months. I think PCworld want a catchy header for their article. However they might look up the meaning of the word rejected in their dictionary. Only if an insurpassable majority of the votes would have been disapproval the proposed standard would have been likely to be rejected. As it is now I think Ecma and Microsoft are probably dissappointed but on the other hand they seemed to have gained 50 votes for approval as well and that might give them a basis of hope for a better result in the future. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::Yes. As far as I understand it, the process now moves towards the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). If sufficient National Bodies (NBs) had voted 'Yes' (with or without comments) at this stage, the proposal would have moved forward to becoming an ISO standard without the need for a BRM (at least, that is my understanding). The objective for those wishing OOXML (excuse the shorthand here) to become an ISO standard is now to gain sufficient 'Yes' votes before or during the BRM. This is normally achieved by addressing the comments submitted with the 'No, with comments' votes - an NB whose comments are adequately addressed (in that NB's opinion) then changes their vote from 'No, with comments' to 'Yes'. However, as I understand it, if a sufficient number of NBs believe no changes are necessary, then the comments will not necessarily be addressed. I think this means that it is possible that an NB can change their vote even without the comments being addressed. In addition, I think the number of participating National Bodies can increase between now and the BRM - and if new participating NBs are of the opinion that 'Yes' is the correct vote, again, OOXML may become a standard without comments being addressed. I expect that ECMA will address the comments, and various interested parties will lobby NBs in parallel. The BRM may well be a non-event if sufficient NBs are of the opinion that a 'Yes' vote is the correct one beforehand. ''In toto'' this is not an outright rejection of OOXML, but simply another stage in its presumed eventual transition to an ISO standard. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 13:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::: Skipping a BRM in the ballot resolution phase has only happened in cases with unanamous votes of approval or when disapproval was so big that the standard proposal was withdrawn. Only in the anti-OOXML camp has ever been suggested that a sufficient number of approval votes could lead to a skipping of the BRM meeting. This of course because they did not want people to vote approval with comments suggesting a threat of the their comments not be dealt with in a BRM even allthough several early disapproval vvotes already guaranteed that a BRM would be held. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather amusing after reading the PCworld article is the complete opposite Micrsoft reaction in their [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04OpenXMLVotePR.mspx pressrelease on the result of the 5-month ballot voting period]
This pressrelease almost suggests it to be a vistory when it evidently is not a victory. clealry Ecma and Microsoft still need to do a lot of work on the format specification to gain enoug h support during the next 6 months. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:Well, OOXML failed to get approval ''now'', but that doesn't stop it from becoming an ISO standard ''later''. And the sheer number of "Yes" votes is impressive. Note that I didn't say 'approval' votes, as 'No' votes are conditional approval in any case. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 13:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::It's my understanding that the only thing that "failed" here was the motion for ISO fast-track. ISO is not in the business of preventing standards from happening... this vote was only ever intended to determine whether or not the format reference was immediately ready for the standardization approval process. It's essentially a foregone conclusion that OOXML will be ISO-standardized. The variable here is exactly what it will look like when it gets there, after revision and further specification is furnished. My personal view is that MS pushed hard to get the format fast-tracked because they've already put some effort into writing code to the version of the spec that they submitted, and that changing the spec to pass ISO will cost them lots of money in software revision. Were I them, I, too, would have pushed hard to get my reference implementation passed. That being said, I think they'll play ball from here on out. Lots of standards aren't fast-tracked; like EVERY standard before 1986, for example (including ISO country codes and ISBN's for books). [[User:65.112.197.16|65.112.197.16]] 18:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Well said. The level of debate, argument, argumentation and lobbying between now and the end of the BRM is likely to be high, so we will have our work cut out to keep this article high-quality and Neutral Point of View. It's going to be a long haul. [[User:West London Dweller|WLD]]<sup>[[User_talk:West London Dweller|talk]]|[[Special:contributions/West London Dweller|edits]]</sup> 08:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::You write that, "It's essentially a foregone conclusion that OOXML will be ISO-standardized." Why would you think that? My impression is that the commonly accepted view is that OOXML is nothing but a scam to create the appearance that a proprietary format is an open format as well. Why should it be a foregone conclusion that the scam will work? And if you are going to make such incendiary remarks, why don't you post with a userid? -- [[User:Hyperion|Hyperion]] 10:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ISO has made a [http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1070 press release] stating the result of the voting. [[User:193.183.46.253|193.183.46.253]] 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I read about the technical details of this standard, the more I hate it. But it looks like ISO will approve it anyway in the end. Because only Microsoft can ever implement this standard, this will mean the death of non-Microsoft office applications. Not necessarily right away, but eventually. [[User:JIP|<font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 07:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a systematic problem with the current article, in that it does not distinguish between OOXML the technology (format) and OOXML the draft document. The contradictions vote was more about the technology (which is why comments on particular technical issues were at the wrong time) and this five month review is about the draft (technical and editorial). So the article should make it clear that it was the *draft* that was (rightly) disapproved not the technology; everyone involved has known that there would be a ballot resolution period (my blog March 13 for example). And, as Japan commented in its contradiction-period submission, I expect it will be approved after the BRM. So the concrete changes I suggest are: section September 2007 ballot result change "this format has not" to "this draft has not". Change "during the five month ballot period" to "as it stands at the five month ballot."[[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rick Jelliffe|Rick Jelliffe]] ([[User talk:Rick Jelliffe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rick Jelliffe|contribs]]) 07:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== "distinguish" template, redux ==

There was a dispute (now archived) about whether the name "Office Open XML" might be confused with "Open Office." The result was to keep the "distinguish" template because searching Wikipedia for "open office" turns up this article first. More evidence for the record: [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_on_hi_te/europe_microsoft_software_standards an example] of a mainstream (AP) journalist confounded by the ambiguity. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
: I do not see the confusion that you suggest ? [[User:64.191.125.249|64.191.125.249]] 20:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:: That's nice, but given [[User talk:64.191.125.249|you're posting via an open proxy]] and you are not disputing the evidence Fleminra posted, I feel safe ignoring your opinion. --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
:: That I have to spell this out is telling: "Open Office XML" != "Office Open XML". The former (which is cited by the AP article) is a colloquial synonym for the XML-based format used by the suite widely called "Open Office"; the latter is the anagrammatic title of a Microsoft effort to hype-jack a trend toward open data formats. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
::: A non-discussion. The example show disambiguety the other way. That is relvant voor adding a disamb tag on the Open Office article (which is there already). Also when accidentally using Open Office XML as a target on wikipedia you actually get the Office Open XML as a first result. Also the tag on this article is already there for Open Office as a result from an earlier discussion on this page. Mostly any remaining discusion was about confusion between the terms OpenDocument en Office Open XML. Those aren't remotly similar and to go on wikipedia with the term OpenDocument and ending up in this article not having found the OpenDocument article would be a major achievement. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 08:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::: [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]], you are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.73.191.92#This_is_a_anonymous_proxy_user using an anonymous proxy]. Your comment is not taken into account. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: You are a troll but that does not stop you does it ? I explained in an earlier reaction on this page that anonimity is preferrrable on editting this page. And you are one of the reasons why !!! [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:: It is apparent that since the Associated Press article, you read everywhere about this "Open Office XML". The start of the page should explain that the correct name is "Office Open XML", and not "Open Office XML". [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::: More still: [http://news.google.com/news?q=%22open+office+xml%22 Google News: "open office xml"]. Also, ''this'' article itself is a case in point of using the name "Open Office XML" in reference to ODF. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: What i find strange is that you suggest alterastion to this article wheras these examples of confusion on OOXML might would mostly lead people mistakingly to the OpenOffice.org article and should be rerouted to this one. [[User:69.73.191.92|69.73.191.92]] 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: The OpenOffice article already has a disambiguity tag for such a case. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Also some national comments to ISO highlighted a potential naming problem. --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus on including a distinguish template pointing to "OpenOffice.org" was based on the fact that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Open+Office&fulltext=Search searching Wikipedia for "Open Office"] incorrectly yielded this article as the first result. [[User:69.73.191.92]] points out that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Open+Office+XML&fulltext=Search searching Wikipedia for "Open Office XML"] also incorrectly yields this article as the first result. The two search phrases in question already have redirects to the correct articles, but in both cases the Search function incorrectly leads users here. Therefore, I propose this "distinguish" template: "Not to be confused with [[OpenOffice.org]] (an unrelated [[office suite]]) or '''Open Office'' XML' (a colloquial synonym for [[OpenDocument]])." Or "nominal predecessor" instead of "colloquial synonym." —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

: You are creating ambiguity with a non existing name and then leading it to a different article. that is actually adding to the confusion and suggest Open Office XML might actually be an existing name for Opendocument. That is creating confusion rather than solving it !! [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:: I'm sorry, I'm completely confused by your first sentence. Is "creating disambiguity" logically the same as "destroying ambiguity"? If so, then I have achieved my goal. "Open Office XML" ''is'' an existing (if historical) name for OpenDocument, evidenced by the [[Open Office XML]] redirect to [[OpenDocument]], the use of "Open Office XML" in [[Office Open XML#Background]], as well as your own earlier comment in [[#disambiguity]]. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::: Even the Opendocument article does not recognize that it used to be called Open Office XML because OpenDocument wants to loose it's connection to being an OpenOffice related format. Try adding in that article first that is is also known by its colloquial name Open Office XML. It won't last a day. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Since it is the very first comment in Great Britain's disapprove with comments ballot, I would suggest that it is VERY worthy of consideration in this article[[User:198.50.4.4|198.50.4.4]] 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)(logged in to sign my comment)
:::::There might be a ambiguity with Open Office which was already in the article with a disambiguity tag. Fleminra however suggest there is also a ambiguity with Opendocument. However there is no ambiguity with Opendocument. The suggested extra ambiguity is with "Open Office XML" but that 99% mistakes for people meaning Office Open XML and then this is the correct article. Adding a disambiguity tag leading them to opendocument is therefore extra confusing. Especially since when they arrive at opendocument there isn't a mention of that name whatsoever. So when the confusion in the media is between Office Open XML en Open Office XML I think it is utterly ridiculous to use that as an argument to place in a link to OpenDocument. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 07:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::In all of your comments, by "''dis''ambiguity," you mean "ambiguity," right? It turns out they have opposite meanings. You might have noticed, but I have invited comments about adding a "history" section to the [[OpenDocument]] article to address your concern — naturally you're welcome to explain there why such an addition would detract from that article. Personally though, it's just frustrating to me why you would be so strongly opposed to having this article emphasize that the correct name of ''this'' standard is "Office Open XML," ''not'' "Open Office XML," when there's clearly a lot of confusion about it.. or are you saying that, to you, the terms are equally correct, and interchangeable names for ''this'' format. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: I do confuse disambiguity and ambiguity quite often when looking back at it. Just stupidly copied/pasted it from another reaction as I do not like to retype difficult wordslike that. I'll change. Does not change view though. The media confusion ís not leading people to wrong article but adding open office xml as a colloquial name for opendocument to the the distinguish tag actually is doing just that and therefor adding the the confusion rather than solving any. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The distinguish tag could point to [[Open Office XML]], a redirect to [[OpenOffice.org XML]], which I hadn't realized had its own article. —[[User:Fleminra|Fleminra]] 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

== 69.73.191.92 is greyproxy.com (anonymous proxy) ==

Has also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.73.191.92 edited exclusively the OOXML article]. Is that any issue according to Wikipedia policies? [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
: Anyone can edit Wikipedia with or without an account; but editing through [[WP:PROXY|open proxies]] is not allowed for obvious reasons. I've reported it to [[WP:AIV]], so someone should block the account. --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Thanks, the account has now been blocked. Now there is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.73.191.92 issue of examining those edits] and rectifying the content. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::: The edits look ok to me: there's no need to revert unless they look iffy --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== Factual errors tag ==

I've changed {{tl|totallydisputed}} to a {{tl|POV}} because I still can't see any factual errors in the piece. When placing the totallydisputed tag, {{user|81.101.137.204}} said:
: ''I don't agree. The comments about IBM unreasonably trying to stop OOXML is certainly inaccurate, and the article's neutrality is certainly disputed. Should stay''
IBM is only mentioned in a few places, so I guess this is referring to [[Office Open XML#Policy arguments]], which says "Microsoft attacked IBM's fundamental opposition to the Open XML standardization process". That's simply badly worded - it's Microsoft's opinion. I'll try and reword it.

I'm very happy to help fix errors, but only if I know what they are (that is, just placing disputed at the top of the page is not very helpful). In future, please use {{tl|disputed-section}} next to the relevant section if possible; and post on the talk page.

Please post below with any other problems --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you should have waited a week after suggesting that the tag be removed before editing it if you did not place the tag. Removal of this tag, without talking about it was a bad idea.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== Merge ==

A merge tag was added to this page for a merge with [[Microsoft Office 2007 file extensions]], but I think a merge between different office formats may be more appropriate. I'll go into more detail at '''[[Talk:Microsoft Office 2007 file extensions]]'''. It'll probably be best to post there to keep the discussion in one place. --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 23:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)~

I think that the article should be kept more clear of MS Office related clutter. MS Office is relevant only as an historic source for the format developement and MS Office 2007 only relevant as the main current implementation of the format. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 07:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:I agree with [[User:HAl|hAl]] that bringing more side references into the article won't help, it's hard enough to follow as it is... links are good, more expansion of the article, not good.[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 17:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Removed merge tag --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 05:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

== Propose removal of natinal bodyt activity section ==

National body activity has resulted in comments submitted and is no longer realy relevant how they are gathering those comments. Their submitted comments can be found on the relevant jct1 sc34 page which is also in the article and is as such the only relevant source of comments by ISO members.

Mayby leave the complaints about the national bodies proces as a seperate section as it seems a favorite topic of opponents of OOXML. {{unsigned|HAl|07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)}}

: Yes, it seems good to analyze what the comments will mean for the format and how to format will get improved. As far as I can see it will be a tough job for ECMA to provide a compromise. And another important aspect is the French plan.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::how about incorporating the info into the [[Office Open XML Ballot Results]] and providing a link from here to there?[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 17:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::Or, we could make a separate section that is purely about the standardization process, and leave this article for the Office Open XML standard itself, there was a move to do that during the voting on RfD OOXML ballot results.[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 17:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
::: I am for a deletion of the ballot result article. It does not belong into wikipedia. --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
::::The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OOXML Ballot Results|discussion]] is actually already completed on the proposal to delete [[Office Open XML Ballot Results]] [[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 20:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
They should be left as a separate section attempting to hide or disperse the information is not a good idea. There is a section on the activities of the national boodies, there should be a section about the complaints about the same. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

== Part about standardization is much too long ==

This article explains almost nothing about what is the OOXML file format, preferring to deal in depths about its standardization (plus there's so much details that this is nearly cryptic for the reader, even there). The problem is that the title is not "Office Open XML standardization", but just "Office Open XML" (and it's necessary to explain such a HUGE file format specification, about 6000 pages). So what readers should find in this article is not there. Plus this is NOT a standard for the moment, and judging by the developments on this area, there's a chance it may never be one. So my proposal is to create a new article titled : [[Office Open XML standardization]], and put almost the whole article in it, and explain what is Office Open XML in this article (that should have been done first). [[User:Hervegirod|Hervegirod]] 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think splitting up the page would be a good idea. The notability of the document structure is aligned with its discussion of standardization imho. Few pages exist just about its structure outside of Microsoft that do not discuss standardization. Perhaps the section about the structure needs to be enhanced, but it can be done in this article. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was in favor of splitting the article when the idea was first proposed, this article is unweildy in it's length. However, having given it more thought, it is very likely that readers and new editors would come here looking for information about the standardization and where the process is currently. Also, we don't want to give the appearance of trying to hide information. Currently I'm weakly in favor of keeping the article intact, based on the idea that if it was split editors would put the information back in this article anyway not realizing there was a separate Office Open XML standardization article - more confusion is not good.[[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 16:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

: The standardization section can be greatly reduced in lenght in februari when the ISO descision on Office Open XML falls and just state whether or not the it will become an IOS standard. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Why not try to shorten it and focus on the upcoming steps. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

== OOXML = no database support ==

Which [[OpenDocument]] has. I thought I'd throw that out to the editors here. [[User:Masterhomer|Masterhomer]] [[Image:Yin_yang.png||20px|]] 23:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

: Actually as far as I know OpenDocument does not have database support either. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

: If OOXML does not have database support, would it be misleading then if it was implied as having database support? [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 08:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:: It might but at least this Office Open Office article does not imply database support at all. The Opendocument article however in it's first sentence suggests that it support databases even though it does not do that nor has a planned version that will contain database support. You would like to call that misleading ? [[User:HAl|hAl]] 10:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:: When reading about "[http://www.mida.gov.my/beta/news/view_news.php?id=2715 Halal Hub Open XML System]", the first thing that comes to mind is that MSOOXML has database properties. Is this a naming error, or is there something more concrete in it? [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 11:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

::: I am not sure what you mean. The article you reference does not even contain the word Office nor the word database and even if it would I am not sure what the relevance is to this article which certainly does not mention that Office Open XML supports a database markup language. Unlike the Opendocument article which does suggest that even though it does not support that either. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:: It is the third paragraph. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
::: No, it is actually the first paragrapgh of the [[Opendocument]] article that is factually incorrect. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:: I counted again, it is the third paragraph. The project is called "[http://www.mida.gov.my/beta/news/view_news.php?id=2715 Halal Hub Open XML System]", which is weird to have ''Open XML'' in the name of the project. Is this a naming abuse? Why would ''Open XML'' be used in a project name? Is ''Open XML'' more than a document format in this major project? [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:::As I read that - the "Open" and "XML" are to make it buzz-word compliant and the two words are not intended to be read as "Open XML" but a system that is both "open" and uses "XML". Sounds just like a XML message gateway and object broker and usual stuff. I guess once they speed up message flows maybe they can then work on killing the animals faster but I doubt it. [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 17:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

:::: It appears to me that there is more for an attempt to associate with "Open XML", unless there is general confusion on this. For example, [http://www.nst.com.my/Sunday/National/20070826083013/Article/index_html Ministry still undecided on Open XML] talks specifically on "Open XML" as one word. See the third paragraph in that article that talks about ''The Open XML system rose to prominence in May when Microsoft Malaysia, in partnership with the Halal Industry Development Corporation (HDC), undertook to develop a system for producers of halal goods and services to carry out their activities on the Internet.'' <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] ([[User talk:Simosx|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simosx|contribs]]) 17:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::: What I still notice is that the Opendocument article falsely suggest that the format supports databases and the Office Open XML article does not. As that is the relvant topic of discusion I suggest the person adding this section on the talk page quickly edits the Opendocument article to remove those false claims [[User:HAl|hAl]] 00:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== False reference spam again ==

<nowiki>Many of the national bodies comments seem to be word-for-word identical and are supposed to be either the result of NB sharing results or of larger multi-national organisations feeding their pooled comments to the national bodies <ref>{{cite web
| url=http://adjb.net/index.php?entry=entry070909-104641
| title=OOXML ballot comments
| author=Alex Brown
| date=2007-09-09
| accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref></nowiki>

First of all, I had a look at the comments and think that this is not true. Surprisingly the national comments are very diverse. But what makes me angry again is that the article provided as a reference does not support the message. These injections of unfounded claims are unacceptable. further it includes speculation as the " larger multi-national organisations feeding their pooled comments". A national commitee is free to endorse any comments it likes and vote on them. In fact Rob Weir bug reports were endorsed by some players. However, look at the source, look at the comments submitted. Extraordinary many comments and less dublicates that you might expect. So the unfounded sentence creates a wrong impression. This is why I removed the sentence. --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed, when I first read the comment and saw a reference, I falsely assumed that the statement had merit; however, having taken time to actually read comments from various national standards bodies I see similarity in content but very little verbatim. What is of concern is that this statement is from the blog of the DIS 29500 convenor, [[User:Alexbrn|Alex Brown]] - I hope he's not standing by this characterization of the ballot comments. [[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:: This is what he wrote: "Glancing through them, I am struck by how much is word-for-word identical between countries. Maybe countries shared comments (and certainly the open Wiki for UK comments may have been a source), or maybe some of the larger multi-national organisations reviewing DIS 29500 fed their pooled comments down to many different nations. Ultimately, though, the source of comments does not matter; what matters is whether they have technical merit." As the source is Alex Brown we could use his original quote or WP:NPOV it just a bit.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Guys, the kind of thing that made me say there were duplicates are a number of similar ODF compatibility requests. Take the comment:

<pre>It is desired to have improved interoperability between ODF and OOXML.
However, OOXML's "vert" attribute only allows text to be rotated 270 degrees,
whereas ODF's equivalent allows text rotation by 90 or 270 degrees.</pre>

You can find this phrase ''verbatim'' in the submissions from the United States, Greece and Colombia. You can also find these variations:

"OpenOffice is attempting to add support for OOXML. However OOXML lacks support for a feature of OpenOffice, namely : an option to rotate the text by 90 as well as 270 degrees." (Chile)

"OOXML lacks support for a feature of OpenOffice, namely: an option to rotate the text by 90 as well as 270 degrees." (New Zealand)

"It is desired to have improved interoperability between ODF and OOXML. However, OOXML lacks the following feature: an option to rotate the text by 90 or 270 degrees." (United Kingdom)

Since ISO ballot comments are usually completely textually distinct, '''any''' duplicated content surprises me! However this is just an observation, '''not''' (as some people seem to be reading it) a complaint.

Arebenti - I did not claim there was anything wrong with this, indeed I wrote in my blog "the source of comments does not matter; what matters is whether they have technical merit".

If you want to include something on this in Wikipedia, I think the noteworthy thing is that - unusually - countries did not generate comments in isolation, but that somehow or other there was cross-talk/commonality. You might not want to speculate ''how'' stuff got shared (as I did) - that's okay on my blog, but perhaps not right for Wikipedia. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
::Good point, and thanks for the examples... I didn't read all of the comments from all of the countries and my reading was getting a bit blurry and or bleary eyed after about 30 of them, so I'm sure there are more examples than those you point out. I misunderstood and got the false impression that some countries had submitted commented ballots that were identical line for line - mea culpa, sorry, I apologize for mischaracterizing your statement. [[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 21:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
::True, very good. A good page for the "mapping discussions" is the ODF-converter page. I assume that this was the original source: http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/features.html - Honestly, what I expected was far more "cut'n paste similarity" because the same dossiers where sent to all delegations. Then I read the comments and were quite surprised. [[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

== deletion proposal ==

We discussed above the possibility to shorten the article part about the ECMA and DIS process. I found this here

"The TC45 committee is chaired by Microsoft;[20] it also includes members from Apple, Canon, Intel, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil ASA, Toshiba and The United States Library of Congress.[1]"

I think internals of ECMA are not really important at the current stage anymore. Further an odd name as TC45 is "dropped in" but not explained. 2 Month ago the response would have been to explain the function of ECMA TC45 but honestly, that is not the purpose of the article. It is also understood that some persons want the membership list because it indicates that ECMA is not just a Microsoft proxy but other parties were involved. And others wanted to stress that Microsoft chairs the ECMA committee, so the spin from the first sentences is contrasted by the spin of the second. I think it's time to get rid off spin that does not belong here. --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 22:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

: I think the mentioning of the other Ecma participants has merit especialy as many people suggest that the whole spec is written by Microsoft only. It is very relevant when for instance certain item (like the very contested legacy tagging) originate from the Ecma technical committee rather then from Microsoft.
:I suggest dropping the section about the 30-contradictions phase and to drop any associated comments from grokdoc that were gathered in that period to show contradictions as that phase of the standardadisation is a long time in the past and we now have ballot comments from national bodies which are mote relevant. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 00:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I understand that this is the legitimate rationale behind. But why does this message be worded like this, by mentioning all ECMA members. Editing should be direct, not tactical. As I understand it, ECMA had the obligation to provide a document format that is fully compatible and inside ECMA the other parties commented which were addressed and also requested more information which was provided. Miguel's standard example is formulas. do we have good references for how the ECMA committee work was? when the article tries to imply that an allegation, namely a "ECMA just rubberstamped the MS-Format", is unfounded, it gets political, even when it is factual. ...and you can lie with facts, a great misconception of positivism! Can't the message be written explicitely?[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 10:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

== English plox ==

Can this article be translated into English or at least be written for the Simple Wikipedia so ordinary people can understand it?
:plox? lolz... nub! ur n0 haxxOr!1!!1 Let me summarize for you (grain of salt here please, these are broad brush strokes) Microsoft introduces a standard for international use with the potential to make documents completely compatible - not only internationally but also with old Microsoft Office generated documents. The standard gets approved by a committee and then put on 'fast-track' for international acceptance. Several parties including IBM oppose this standard as it is written for a variety of reasons including standardizing parts that only Microsoft has the templates for (the old documents). Much discussion ensues: a vote is taken, consensus needed to pass for fast approval is not reached, a meeting is scheduled to see if concerns and issues can be worked out. Succinct enough? [[User:Jonathan888|Jonathan888]] [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


== HAl reverts ==

: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=159433733&oldid=159433637
That’s the second revert of my edits so far today - The page linked, ''http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/index.html'' does '''not''' mention copyright restrictions at all (the title of that ref is ''What is Ecma International'' ). As such, the reference should sit after ECMA International. Additionally, for the text to say “free without copyright restrictions”, we require facts. The page does not contain that either, so please explain the problem. -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Actually the page states as the aim of Ecma:
::''To publish these Standards and Technical Reports in electronic and printed form; the publications can be freely copied by all interested parties without restrictions. '' And that is exactly what copyrights are. The rights to publish and copy a work, in this case standards and technical reports. You move references without explaining why you move them and then ask for refrences to the ones you just move. The only way to give those is to revert your edits. If you do not want that than do not ask for the reference that you just moved. ;-) [[User:HAl|hAl]] 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::: ''freely copied'' is not the same as without ''copyright restrictions'', because copyright covers an awful lot more than gratis reproduction. Should we ammend the paragraph? The first time I moved it was not in the summary, it was part of a larger edit, I am sure you can understand. The revert did however mention the point I raised above -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::: You are not reading it properly. They publish a standard and let it be copied for free and WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS by anyone intersted. You state that that is not the same as without "copyright restrictions". What exact copyright restriction would you as an interested person be still under ? It is actually one of the most free copyrights licensing clauses that I have ever seen. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::::: So you’re happy that we adjust the line to quote their statement, rather than use a different meaning -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: I was happier with the original line as for many people they want to read the word "copyrigths" when reading a section about licensing. I won't adjust your as it is still stating the same but I do think that what there before would have been more clear to readers than the direct citation of the Ecma site. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::: Agreed. Relevant is here the Berne convention (copyright/droit d'auteur). Specs as documents are developed by multiple parties, just as in Wikipedia (where "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL"). The spec is usually formally owned by the standards body, so no claims of the parties that participated in development or submission can be asserted. the second question is what the standards body does with the spec. It is very common for National bodies to charge a fee for the printed standard, an income source. But ECMA distributes the spec royalty-free. Of course this does not apply to patents. "Copyright restrictions" still exist because formally the spec is owned by ECMA and it is not public domain.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 10:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

== CNS OSP relation ==

"The format can therefore be used under the Covenant Not to Sue or the Open Specification Promise"
Is it a "or" or a "and"? --[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 10:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

: It is an or. MS would probably suggest you use the OSP. But they did however promised the irrevocable CNS on the format before the OSP so as it is irrevocale you can use that. I would think they might drop the CNS for future versions and only put up the OSP licensing as they use that licensing form for several open format Microsoft provides patent rights for and just the OSP would seem to satify any Ecma or ISO required RAND licensing fine. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

== OOXML's "own XML"? ==

"Office Open XML uses its own XML markup language in fileparts that are placed in an Open Packaging Convention file container."
-- sounds as if OOXML was not XML compliant. As XML is a meta language I wonder how to word it. The sentence bears a bias against the format. Also adoption of OOXML-Terminology as "fileparts" and "file container" should be questioned.[[User:Arebenti|Arebenti]] 10:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
: That is reworded rather poorly mayby. I think it means that the main markup languages like WordprocessingML in Office Open XML are described as "its own XML markup languages". I know there was some critisism by opponents of the spec on the XML used in the deprecated VML part of the spec however that was actually found to be similar on the XML use in w3c standard SVG and it would be rather weird suggesting that w3c standards are using non-compiant XML... [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:: It is reworded rather poorly, but is still better than it was. It is meant to say, uses it’s own schema based upon the XML markup language. If you can make that terse… edit it already :) -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:: Other changes I made to the document structure section were to avoid OOXML terminology, because they are confusing. You have the OOXML file, the files which are parts, and folder/directory misuse. Whereas I replaced OOXML file with “package”, part with file (because they are still files in the container), and folder with directory -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

: I amd also not so sure on the part that says: ''Office Open XML packages have characteristically different directory structures and names depending on the type of document'' as [http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2007/09/11/open-xml-implementation-test-documents.aspx this blog post] suggests that the directory structure in the open specification package used by OOXML is a lot more flexible and a lot less characteristic than this line suggests. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
:: The statement is meant to point out different applications customise the layout (as they do, there is a per-application directory, one for word processing, one for spreadsheets etc), which are ''characteristically different depending on the type of document'' -- [[User:Johndrinkwater|johndrinkwater]] 12:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

==Microsofts refusal to commit to its own standard==
Im just wondering where exactly the information [http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=3685&pagtype=all presented here] would best fit into the article. I think its important information that Microsoft isnt committing to the standard it itself is trying to get adopted. Im just not sure where it would best fit into the article. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
: That is not so strange. It was about a question why Micrsoft does not give upfront licensing for all future versions of Office Open XML. That would be like loooking into the future. Microsoft does not own Ecma or ISO. If Ecma for instance on an advice of ISO drops some part of the spec that MS considers to be vital for MS Office then they won't support that version with MS Office. Micrsoft would likely also not support if the ISO national bodies would require Micrsoft not just to license their patentrights but to legaly invalidate their related patent rights (an unheared of requirement but actually to be found in one of the iso national bodies comments). Something similar applies to Opendocument. For instance the patentlicensing by Sun whose format Opendocument was based on applies on to versons Sun contributed to themselves. That is not eternal either. So if Sun leaves the OASIS TC their commitments to ODF ends. [[User:HAl|hAl]] 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
:Yes that does look like an admission that the pushing for the standardisation isn't a commitment to stay with the standard (or for that matter any standards) as it evolves. The claims that the ECMA would take the standard and change it is a disingenuous claim: what the heck does Microsoft think ECMA or ISO will actually do with such a standard especially given changes are discussed and voted on by committees from the industry ? [[User:HAl|hAl]] view misses the whole point of adopting standards but simply rehashes the Microsoft view very clearly - "Microsoft does not own Ecma or ISO.". The whole point of having standards is that it is commonly accepted and adopted without one company having a monopoly control. It does look like they are leaving open the option to switch in what feels like a "bait and switch". Is the commentary in the Techworld article from a notable enough person ? [[User:Ttiotsw|Ttiotsw]] 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::I think so, from the page "Frank Hayes is Computerworld’s senior news columnist." he is also quoting Brian Jones, a Microsoft manager who has worked on OOXML for six years. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 03:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:: I do not understand your point. Changes are normal. The point however is that the you can't predict changes over a long period of time. Micrsoft also commits to its customers. If the format would be changed in such a way that the effect would be negative for their customers they would most likely not support it. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. Microsoft has a need in future as well to improve and enhance their Office products. Customers will have a need for that. It is remotly possible for other organisations (like competitors) that have no direct financial interest in the format to seize control of the Ecma committee and to block any changes or suggest changes to remove item from the spec to make it less usefull. Oh and by the way. Talking about spin. A nice edit by that author on the citation from the blog reaction:
::''“At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. ... Since it’s not guaranteed, it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement.”''
:: And on the blog:
:: ''At the end of the day though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. Now my impression is that won't happen, as the folks on the TC all have pretty similar visions for the future of the spec, but since it's not guaranteed it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement. In terms of licensing, we can't provide licenses for new stuff Ecma adds, since Ecma owns it. Our license applies to everything we've submitted, and if we submit anything new we would probably just use the same license.'' [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Talk about spin. You yourself [http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/12/spreadsheet-formula-bugs.aspx#3849462 asked a 2 part question] hAl. ''"Also It would be good if Microsoft would state offically it's intent to support future development and improvement of the standard in Ecma of new version of the format and that it intents those version to get simular open licensing."'' Then you took 2 separate answers , took out part and made it look like it says something different here. Here is [http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/12/spreadsheet-formula-bugs.aspx#3850252 Brian Jones Comment], no spin. It in fact says that Microsoft wont commit to OOXML There is a break between the commitment and the licensing, its a 2 part answer to a 2 part question.[[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 12:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Actually the first part of the question that Microsoft would support future developement was answered quite clearly positivly by Brian Jones by stating that Micrsoft would stay active in Ecma and propose changes based on where they would like to go with Office development in future. The second part on the licensing he stays he does not confirm anything else that when they contribute something they wil license that (which is as I stated similar to the CNS by Sun). [[User:HAl|hAl]] 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Again you left something out, Ill print the whole answer so we end the spin .
:::::''"To your last point, it's hard for Microsoft to commit to what comes out of Ecma in the coming years, because we don't know what direction they will take the formats. We'll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. Now my impression is that won't happen, as the folks on the TC all have pretty similar visions for the future of the spec, but since it's not guaranteed it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement."''
:::::No amount of spin is going to change the meaning of the words. More than one person sees it, Microsoft is leaving open a way out by not committing to use the standard they themselves want as a standard. I started this section not to debate on the spinnability of the words. The clear meaning of them ends that. But where do you think it should be placed in the article. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 22:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: A blogarticle about an interpretable comment on another blog. You should write a gossip column to publish it there mayby? [[User:HAl|hAl]] 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I dont think the classification of the article is a blog is correct. It is appearing in a news site, one with editorial oversight. There are some news sites that seek comments. That does not make the information any less usable. Secondly the Blog it was taken from is on MSDN from a Microsoft manager who has been working on OOXML for the last 6 years. One you must think speaks for Microsoft because of the questions you yourself asked him. [[User:Kilz|Kilz]] 12:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&curid=3300610&diff=160955822&oldid=160915915 This edit on the non-commital of MS] appears to show bias and is apologetic at best. [[User:Simosx|Simosx]] 21:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:16, 24 January 2024

Microsoft Visio, e.g. VSDX

[edit]

Is it true, that VSDX is also an OOXML format? Shouldn't it be listed in the article then? --johayek (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stallman Quote Inaccuracy

[edit]

Just adding a note here in Talk that the Richard Stallman quote should not be included due to it's false/misleading nature. For reference: Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has stated that "Microsoft offers a gratis patent license for OOXML on terms which do not allow free implementations."[20]

Easily disproven by ECMA themselves: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf

"Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. Its publication benefits organizations that intend to implement applications capable of using the format, commercial and governmental entities that procure such software, and educators or authors who teach the format. "

Resources for freely implementing the standard: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm

This level of FUD reiterated by Miguel de Icaza himself, stating: "OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that space."

Further expanding: "That is odd. Michael and I have discussed this topic extensively. He certainly would like clarification in various areas and more details in some. But Michael's criticism (or for that matter, the Novell OpenOffice team working with that spec) seems to be incredibly different than the laundry list of issues that pass as technical reviews in sites like Groklaw.

The difference is that the Novell-based criticism is based on actually trying to implement the spec. Not reading the spec for the sake of finding holes that can be used in a political battle.

Finally, Michael sounded incredibly positive after the ECMA meeting last month when all of their technical questions were either answered or added to the batch of things to review. I know you are going to say "The spec is not owned by ECMA", well, currently the working group that will review the ISO comments is at ECMA.

For another view at OOXML look at what Jody Goldberg (no longer a Novell employee) has to say about OOXML and ODF from the perspective of implementing both:

http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-questions/

I find it hilarious that the majority (not all) of the criticism for OOXML comes from people that do not have to write any code that interacts with OOXML. Those that know do not seem to mind (except those whose personal business is at risk because Microsoft moved away from a binary format to an XML format, which I also find hilarious)."

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiraniaorg-blog-comments/Kge4tQA42Mg

This edit has been reverted multiple times at this point by multiple users with citations, continually reverting it at this point without clarifying it's misleading/false nature strikes me as vandalism. As Joshua Isaac states above, "personal interpretations on-wiki are not enough."

TechAtlas (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)TechAtlas[reply]

"reverted multiple times", "continually reverting" – that's untrue and a mere exaggeration – in fact one out of two reverts was applied against an IP. In fact I pressed the "vandalism" button myself in order to revert the edit, and I was surprised and sad I wasn't able to add an explanation.
I accept your profound explanation here pro removing the Stallman quote. Such an explanation was in fact missing from the first attempt to remove the quotation, which had been in the article for a long time (I think). --johayek (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously: if you consider a revert of a piece of text, that has been in an article for a long time, vandalism, you should check your understanding of the term. And an edit-war is only started by the revert of a revert.--johayek (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP edit has nothing to do with said edits veracity, as long as it is sourced (which it was) or backed up accordingly. Nor does the fact that that quote had been in the article for a while mean it's accurate, I think the original editor assumed the multiple sources to be proof enough that it wasn't vandalism. Especially after 2-3 different users reverted the reversion. TechAtlas (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)TechAtlas[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

I propose a criticism section.

Potential sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]


Family Guy Guy (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_Open_XML&oldid=1198604155"