Since you openly admit to being paid my Microsoft you immediately destroy any credibility as a neutral commentator. End of story.

First, my position: pro-ODF.

I'd like to reply to a few points:

>>>>The OOXML specification requires conforming implementations to accept and understand various legacy office applications>As I have mentioned before on this blog, I think OOXML has attributes that distinguish it: ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document

You wrote:

"work-in-progress external specification like ODF"

Er, um, ODF is an ISO standard -- ISO/IEC 26300 -- hardly a work in progress. It already has an extensive track record and is already fully implemented in some 30 packages. It is designed to be neutral, vendor independent and platform independent. I seriously doubt that all of OOXMLs 6000 pages will be fully implemented by anyone (including Microsoft). Some parts of the OOXML spec simply cannot be implemented on non-X86 platforms at all.

Pretty funny stuff really.

It's a bit harsh, but I have to agree with Ian Lynch's comment. Look what Microsoft did in Massachusetts, and is still trying to do- derail ODF at all costs, to the extent of trying to re-organize the state government so that a "task force" would take control away from the Information and Technology Division.
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20051116132008569
Now what business does Microsoft have interfering in any government body to that degree?

When you take dirty money, you get soiled. Microsoft is not some poor oppressed underdog that needs you to ride to the rescue, but a ruthless convicted illegal monopolist that gets dirtier with age. It can take care of itself- no need to make yourself yet another Redmond casualty.

Had Microsoft participated in the development of the ODF spec, as they were invited to do, their claims that ODF was not developed with MS Office formats in mind would be largely a non-issue. In fact, this point makes Microsoft's claims largely FUD. And I agree with the sentiments that being paid by Microsoft shoots your credibility out of the sky. Honestly, wouldn't it have been better for you to offer corrections voluntarily? Or at least be paid by an independent body.

It seems both silly and redundant to have to point out that you cannot both be paid ("contracted" in your terms) by an interested party for an opinion on an issue, and be "independent" on that issue. I am aware that there are people who would make the argument that this is ethically possible, but note that such arguments are almost invariably made by people who are being paid to do so. Even in a courtroom setting, where the system goes to great lengths to maintain a version of this illusion, expert witnesses are presented as "for the defense" or "for the prosecution".

Peter Yellman

How *DARE* you clean up anti-M$ FUD on wikipedia! I'M TELLING RMS ON YOU!

Perhaps I'm missing something but I thought the purpose of a standard was for people to create interoperable implementations. Having something like "strings" spew out bits of ascii text from an ODF document would be "conformant" under your definition it would just not implement 99% of the "bits" and say so. This seems even more absurd.

So the question for me comes down to this: can anyone make a proper program by taking the 6000 pages of specification and implement ONLY what is said in those pages without lots of experiments in a software historical archive or worse?

Put simply OOXML "has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document" either. Or perhaps it "represents" them but doesn't define them in the OOXML spec in any way that would let anyone other than Microsoft correctly implement them.

If it said "Here you need to implement this PROPRIETARY feature which we will not document" for the implementation to work properly, I think you would likely reject it. Instead it uses a more subtle indirection, "You need to duplicate what this other program does" without specifying it further, and the program is not something easily or commonly available.

"But the archiving community deserves support just as much as the document distribution community". They deserve a complete and open standard, not one that even if implemented 100% correctly according to OOXML spec (exclusive of the external non-standards) won't properly be able to process files.

Or am I wrong and OOXML is really complete? I don't think so at least where the "contradictions" have been pointed out. But perhaps you can look deeper than I have.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue can be broken down into a single crux; can a document in OOXML using a legitimate partial implementation be opened in a MS product, saved, and still be opened by the original, non-MS tool? Similarly, can a file created in an MS product be altered by a non-MS tool and still be valid?

I think you'll find that interoperability only works smoothly migrating from MS products to the same version of the same MS product. Don't take my word for it - run your own tests. The spec is all well and good, but as far as I can tell it only looks open - any OOXML document cannot leave the MS silo.

"Or at least be paid by an independent body."

If you can find one that is truly independent, and not a Microsoft-funded shill. :)

The example of the Chinese WAPI contradiction is certainly a precedent. But so is the case last year where the German and UK NB's raised a contradiction in JTC1 against Microsft's C++/CLI specification. (See http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060130092823950 for details)

I think the C++/CLI programming language is more akin, in terms of the technology and concerns involved, to document formats than a WiFi router standard would be, don't you agree? This precedent shows that a broader set of concerns can and have be used recently to argue for a contradiction.

As others have already said, Microsoft at any time was welcome to work with OASIS to add support for their concerns to ODF. IMHO, it shows fundamental disrespect to standards in general and the W3C and JTC1 in particular to refuse to work with the ODF, SVG, MathML, XForms or SMIL committees and instead create a new standard for everything. Remember, this is not just a new document standard. This is entirely new protocol stack of XML standards replacing the combined efforts of 100's of experts who have developed the existing standards in an open consensus, community process.

And this is not happening in a vacuum. At the same time Microsoft is pushing OOXML, they are also trying to edge out PDF with their XPS format, and PNG and JPEG with their HD Photo format. And don't get me started about XAML. This is an all-out assault on web standards.

As for the process that ODF used versus OOXML, this is really just a difference in the liaison relationships of OASIS and Ecma. Nothing sinister here. Ecma is a Class A Liaison with JTC1 so it is able to use the Fast Track process. OASIS has liaison status with SC34, so it may use the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) process there. Both processes are similar, but not identical, and are used to "translate" an existing standard into an ISO standard. Which one you may use depends on your liaison status.

This page is gathering a lot of good information.
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

@Rick,

> I'm looking forward to the next few days.

As am I! In fact, I can't wait to see the transformation from its current state of FUD grafitti, to something more along the lines of, you know... FACTS! ;)

@Ian Lynch,

>> Since you openly admit to being paid my Microsoft you immediately destroy any credibility as a neutral commentator. End of story.

No, I'm sorry ... it's the other way around. It's called disclosure, and even more importantly it's called honesty, and is exactly the reason why trust CAN be placed upon the result of his work. Would it have made him more credible if he didn't disclose this information? You wouldn't have known, so form your perspective his credibility would be exactly where it would be based on the knowledge of who Rick is,

> An honest, hardworking, and experienced industry insider, who understands the ins and outs of technology, standards, and politics, and even more so how each of these come clashing together to form what we will each decide to perceive as "the truth."

Of course, you could state: "Well he could refuse to take the job out of principle for doing the right thing!" to which I would reply,

Job Description: We need a hardworking, honest person with extensive experience in standards bodies and document formats to write a non-biased, non-marketing, fact-based white paper on the Office Open XML Document formats. SPECIAL NOTE: Anybody on the planet will then be able to scrutinize every last detail, re-write, and then re-publish the paper as they see best fit.

The right thing? If you read a job description like the above, knowing full well that there is no such thing as "dry ink" on Wikipedia, and therefore if it turns out that anything you wrote was incorrect, anybody else could step in and fix it, then the right thing to do is *TAKE THE JOB*!

Rick was honest, open, and took a writing job in which he knew anyone could simply come in and erase what he wrote if it was even the slightest bit off target in regards to being factual. You don't think that the Open XML page is going to be monitored like a hawk by every Microsoft basher (and non-basher for that matter) on the planet for the next few days, to then *EXPOSE* every possible point they disagree with as "PROOF that he can not be trusted!"

Sorry Ian...

CREDIBILITY STANDS!

And *THATS* the end of your so called story...

Oh, one last question: If O'Reilly pays me to write a book, does that mean the contents can not be trusted?

Just wondering, cuz' if it stands, your argument would disqualify nearly every book, paper, and other forms of written publication on the planet if held up to your standards of "credibility".

My viewpoint: pro-ODF, anti-FUD, pro-open standards.

Are you expecting to continue writing articles from an independent viewpoint? I would think that being a paid advocate for one of the protagonists would compromise your independence. I urge you to turn them down and to present your own thoughtfully-researched (and hopefully unbiased, but if not then state your biases up front) series of commentaries instead.

On the legacy features issue, you know that all it takes is one major implementation of OOXML to use those features and instantly any implementation that cannot handle them properly is seen as non-compliant and lacking functionality. Thus, you must either implement those features or become "almost compatible". Saying it isn't so does not change the facts, and you have already (by stating something that is demonstrably false) compromised your integrity.

Any standard is only open if there are multiple , independent implementations. If "IP" questions and secrecy prevent competitors from implementing the full spec, it is NOT really open.

@Rob,

And this is not happening in a vacuum. At the same time Microsoft is pushing OOXML, they are also trying to edge out PDF with their XPS format, and PNG and JPEG with their HD Photo format. And don't get me started about XAML. This is an all-out assault on web standards.

A technology company creating new technologies?!

THAT'S JUST AWFUL! Think of the children!

Of course, to think of the children, would mean to be able to provide for those children, and to provide for those children you would need a job, and if you just so happen to be interested and good at technology, you could always go and get a good paying job for a company that develops technology.

Of course, that would require that technology companies existed in the first place, but sadly they went extinct back in 2014 -- Can't really pay a paycheck to someone unless you have product to sell, and to sell product, you would need to be able to create that product, and to create that product you would need someone with the proper skills, and to gain the proper skills requires education, and to gain an education, you need to go to college, and to go to college means you need to have a way to pay for your college, and since most people on this planet find help in that department from their parents, this requires that their parents actually have a job. Of course, even with a job, their parents would need to actually -- you know -- think about the children, and to think about the children requires supporting them and supporting them...

I'm sure you can probably see the patter here, right??? Please say yes.

TECHNOLOGY IS NOT EVIL! In fact, if you want my opinion, it's the people who believe that the creation of new technology is a bad thing that are evil ones.

"Yeah, but if we could all just agree on..."

Since when, in the history of the entire planet, has *ANY* generation been able to sit still and be happy with what they already have, and have been happy to simply just "work together as a community for the greater good of everyone."

They tried that once... It's called communism.

"I'd like a second helping of technology, please... Thanks!"

What is the point of having an approved and accepted standard if any large corporation can come along and insist on their own file format being a "standard"?

Surely what Microsoft should be doing is to address the parts of the ODF standard that prevent it from being used as a portability standard for documents created using MS Office.

If ODF is not capable of enabling portability of documents created using MS Office, then it needs to be fixed.

But if it IS, then there is no point in having a duplicate standard.

IOW, the proper path that MS should be taking is to get extensions officially approved and added to the ODF standard - NOT seek an entirely new standard to duplicate most of what the current standard already does and does well.

The need to keep to archivists happy is easily understood, and I have no objection to the notion of Microsoft creating an XML-based format that can express every single piece of legacy data in their back catalogue. That's their business. But what need is there for it to be an ISO standard?

Wikipedia entry doesn't cover even half of the problems with OOXML, there's more complete list at http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

I'm on your side. I hope you are able to take it on. The FUD-calling is pretty disgraceful, and it bothers me a lot that supposed professional executives for really big brightly-colored organizations (formerly known as the biggest monopoly on the planet until another one arrived) are making a death-match out of this.

Oh about the maturity of ODF. Let's see, OpenOffice.org still doesn't produce an ODF document that relies exclusively on the ODF-blessed namespaces. There is still no formula specification for spreadsheets and other formula usage.

There are a variety of other places where ODF is underspecified. (E.g., you can include alternate content, such as some binary alternative to an image -- a feature that OO.o uses -- but there is no provision to say what format that blog is in. And these are the guys that blame MSFT for doing that as part of their legacy-preservation effort. They do say what's in the blob though.)

I suspect that there's a lot to tweak, maybe some to repair, in the ECMA Office Open XML Document Interchange specification.

But it must be closer to something that works than ODF, and we'll see what parts people choose to use the most in useful interchange of preservable documents.

"but there is no provision to say what format that blog is in"

Sorry, I meant "blob" not "blog."

to: M. David Peterson
A technology company creating new technologies?!

THAT'S JUST AWFUL! Think of the children!
However, your basic premise is wrong. Microsoft does not create open standards. It's so called standards are simply a set of specifications controlled by Microsoft.

Upon detailed diagnosis, every one of Microsoft's so called standards are simply part of its ongoing strategy of embrace, extend, exterminate
frank

There is something fundamentally wrong with accepting payment to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a consensus of what, under certain guidelines, a very large community thinks. This is not much different from accepting a paid lobbying contract; if anyone is paid to contribute to Wikipedia and not a member of the Foundation itself, it is by nature astroturfing. I hope you can agree that it should be discouraged.

Corporations should not have defenses from the people in the community. They are not equivalent to people, and should not be treated so within that community. The information source was created out of the desire of people who were not paid to share, and injecting thought which is influenced by any monetary bias is by definition sullying a good source of information.

In all honesty, I hope you are blocked from contributing. Accepting changes submitted by people who are - even openly - paid to be interested in the outcome of the changes is an extremely bad precedent.

For one that claims understanding of the ISO standardization processes, you leave much to be desired with respect to the current topic. ODF was accept through the fast track procedure and OOXML is on the fast track procedure. The difference, of course, is that the ODF spec (around 700 pages) is about 1/10 the size of OOXML (about 8000 pages).

Please read Rob Weir's blog if you haven't already; I have found it to be an excellent eye-opener about just how horribly evil OOXML is. If you can actually stomach reading Rob's blog an still go on with this job... well... actually either way I want to ask: How much money are they paying you and what are the terms? Did you ask if it was OK to blog about the specifics? /amazed

MS announced years ago that bloggers would be selling vista.

Specifically, http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/guillaume-portes-redux.html

On another note, I think that companies paying people to correct harmfully incorrect things about them in Wikipedia is a great idea and makes a lot of sense. I'm sure it happens all the time, but I don't know of any prior cases of people admitting to doing it.

If you're going to try to be honest and transparent about it though, you should of course say on your userpage what you are doing and who's paying you.

Sorry for the rapid-fire comments; I'll stop now.

How amusing... Microsoft dosen't being the victim of FUD.

Har De Har Har, Har, Har.

What comes around, goes around.

He who lives by the FUD, dies by the FUD.

And you want to run out into the traffic and help out Microsoft, for a fee. Thirty pieces of silver, perhaps?

You do understand that Microsoft is using it's financial mass and influence to corrupt the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' stated objective of only employing truely open document formats but you want to help them with a PR problem.

Thanks for pitching in.

CD 'Bar' Baric

Feel free to change the wording as long as you don't hide the problem. The difficulty is that, as written, the spec allows a compliant document to contain any Microsoft legacy format, and the resulting document is still considered an OOXML file.

In my view, a standard document format should be just that, with sufficient information to allow programs to be written to fully parse that document format. Old formats should not be considered OOXML.

Orcmid wrote:

I suspect that there's a lot to tweak, maybe some to repair, in the ECMA Office Open XML Document Interchange specification.

But it must be closer to something that works than ODF

To the first: if that's the case, then I think you'd agree that Ecma 376 is definitely not a good candidate for a fast track. As to the second point: What is your basis for this claim? There is exactly one implementation of Ecma 376, and it is hardly mature or widely used. There are several implementations of ODF, with a much longer track record.

Quite apart from the MS propaganda/"fact-correcting" issue, the author seems to be pointing a finger at Wikipedia - regarding the inaccuracy of information on its pages.

It's an old argument but it tends to hold firm - if you read an article and think it is wrong then don't moan about it. Change it. If you can't put in any new information then at least remove the incorrect information and note why on the discussion page.

re: M. David Peterson's "his credibility would be exactly where it would be based on the knowledge of who Rick is"

Well, prior to reading this I did not know who Rick was, so his credibility in my book has gone from unknown to incredible (double meaning intended).

re: Dylan Brams' "There is something fundamentally wrong with accepting payment to contribute to Wikipedia." and "it is by nature astroturfing"

That is just crazy talk. There is nothing wrong with accepting payment to contribute to Wikipedia. 'Astroturfing' doesn't really apply either, as long as he is documenting (on his wikipedia user page) who his employer his. It certainly would seem, to me anyway, dishonest if somebody were to do something like this and _not_ disclose that they were being paid... but DISCLOSURE is exactly what this blog post is and Rick should be commended for that.

It is a given that commercial entities have always and will always try to sabotage the wikipedia in underhanded ways, but paying someone to correct inaccuracies is not underhanded. Paying someone to correct inaccuracies does nothing to damage the consensus model. Wikipedia has means to deal with actual sabotage, funded or not, and they work pretty well.

The problem here is that, from his gross misconceptions about ODF and OOXML already demonstrated in this post, I find it very hard to believe that Rick is the right person to fairly do this kind of job. So, I hope that if/when he gets caught inserting demonstrably intentional falsehoods he _then_ gets blocked, with extreme prejudice. As in, please go away and never come back; you are banned for life. Getting blocked just for being paid to edit wikipedia would set a horrible precedent, though.

Obviously, given the unknown (but large) number of paid editors already there, Wikipedia clearly needs more paid editors who disclose that they are paid!

Re: Finite: "That is just crazy talk. There is nothing wrong with accepting payment to contribute to Wikipedia. 'Astroturfing' doesn't really apply either, as long as he is documenting (on his wikipedia user page) who his employer his. It certainly would seem, to me anyway, dishonest if somebody were to do something like this and _not_ disclose that they were being paid... but DISCLOSURE is exactly what this blog post is and Rick should be commended for that."

I agree: Rick is to be commended for his disclosure. Keep in mind, however, that disclosure was clearly Rick's idea. No one in his right mind would believe that Microsoft generally favors disclosure! It is a dirty, barely hidden secret that "disclosures" such as Rick's and the recent "free laptop" incident represent the small tip of an iceberg of paid Microsoft marketing and FUD, channeled through bloggers, tech writers, etc., the VAST majority of whom represent themselves as objective analysts. You apparently agree with me that Rick is exceptional, since you are ready to give him a commendation for revealing that he is being paid by Microsoft for his activities. In any case, the issue of disclosure is irrelevant to my criticism, which is that Rick juxtaposes his disclosure with a reference to his own "independence". Rick can claim that he can be objective or even truthful on this subject while being paid by Microsoft and the rest of us can make our own call on that, but the definition of independent as he used the word cannot sustain a paid relationship such as the one he describes.

Peter Yellman

Let's see, OOXML is a huge piece of crap. That's a fact.

If you write about it objectively MS ain't going to be very happy ^_^

For the record, although pseudonymous (so you'll have to take my word for it) I feel I should note at this time that I am not employed by any players in this field :) I just happen to really hate fake openness, crap standards, Microsoft, _and_ shills*... so I've got a strong personal interest in this matter.

Peter, yes, I fully agree that it is impossible for him to be an independent voice on this issue while being paid by Microsoft.

Note that M David Peterson earlier had the audacity to raise the straw man argument of "If O'Reilly pays me to write a book, does that mean the contents can not be trusted?" (He obviously missed the key word *neutral* in the thread's first comment, either accidentally or intentionally).

* By the definition of shill I don't actually believe Rick is (or will be) technically a shill per se, so long as he discloses his relationship (on wikipedia in addition to here). But considering that Rick did not say that Microsoft encouraged him to disclose their relationship, and we'd be foolish to assume this is the first time Microsoft has paid people to edit blogs and wikis, this issue is still very much shill-related. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

For a nice long list of links documenting Microsoft's history of employing shills, see the digg page about this blog post: http://digg.com/software/Microsoft_hires_standards_expert_to_work_on_Wikipedia_entry_on_ODF_OOXML

Also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_mouth_marketing

Wow, so many comments. Here's a few quick responses.

Ian: I have not started or been paid by MS yet. It is only three days work we are talking of, as an independent contractor not as an employee. My opinions are long-held and on public record. I don't have to get approval for any changes I make to MS or Ecma or anyone, so the improvements I make would be my own, not imperitives from the Borg. The job relates to Wikipedia and not to my blogging or other forums. And I am doing it openly, so that suspicious people can judge whether I have Stockholm syndrome. But at a certain point, grownups look at arguments rather than teams.

Daniel, I asked the editor of ODF a question to the effect of whether they ever looked at MS Office in designing ODF. His answer was to the effect that they hadn't and that it was up to MS to join ODF if MS wanted to influence it to be more MS Office-friendly. An entirely reasonable position for a standards working group. So until someone goes through both specs and finds otherwise, the claim that ODF necessarily can handle everything that is in OOXML is some combination of hype, optimism and intent.

Jerry, work-in-progress in the sense that parts are still being developed, such as the spreadsheet parts IIRC.

Fred, I am not an anti-trust policeman, nor a business practices policeman, nor am I motivated by compassion for Bill Gates. My experience in the XML/SGML document world in the last 18 years has been that the presence of MS Word in a production chain has been an enormous stumbling block for putting together working systems. And since it most deployed system in the kinds of places that put these production systems in place, it has been a major problem indeed. In the early 90s, and David Sklar of EBT pioneered a thing called the "Rainbow DTD" which provided a very close-to-the-metal conversion format for RTF, FrameMaker MIF and Word Perfect: in fact it seems to be a general architectural principle that for complex data conversions you are better off with a pipeline where the first step is to bring out an XML-ized view of the binary format or database, then convert that. For example, the Open Source OOXML<->ODF converter is based on this kind of pivot. So OOXML is a great step forward, even for making ODF import/export practical. There are a lot of people who have to use Microsoft products in their work; I don't care whether Microsoft benefits or not, I don't see that MS money is any more dirty than any other big company's (I have some horror stories from other big companies too!), but if someone is going to be paid to improve Wikipedia, I would prefer it was me rather than some marketing type.

D.C. Parris: err which body? If ODF or IBM turned around tomorrow and also offered me money with the same lack of strings, I would be happy to accept it. But imaginary bodies frequently don't pay up. :-)

Peter Yelleman: Yes, but everyone has an angle. I run a company that sells XSD and RELAX NG and Schematron software; and I write a blog saying Schematron is good and RELAX NG and XSD have their place but that grammar-based schema languages are double-handling and lack power and so will eventually die out. Does my blog reflect my company position? Independent does not mean "doesn't have a POV" nor does it mean contrarian (having a point of view deliberately different from everyone elses.) You may agree with my POV sometimes, MS may agree with my view sometimes, ODF may agree with my vie sometimes; independence comes from persuing your view no matter what other people think. So for me to say "I won't say X because corporation Y also thinks that way today" is actually to surrender my independence. What is important is transparency: when you read an item from MS or ODF or consortium org, you need to know "who pays the bills?" But the purpose of this is not to dismiss an argument because it comes from the nasty people in black hats; it is to help detect FUD or spin.

Anonymous: :-)

tz: Since OOXML is the native saving format for Office 2007, I don't know how you can say that it hasn't been designed to support all the information in an MS Office document? What magic captures the other information if not the file format?

William: that is an interesting claim. Would you care to share a scrap of evidence, even the tiniest, tiniest, tiniest bit, or do you go on the FUD pile? In fact, as the examples a few months ago on my blog show where I have both ODF and OOXML (and HTML and others), the structure is unusual but regular.

Fred: Microsoft shill? Is this name calling now? Since I don't have to get approval for what I write to Wikipedia (and I am not being contracted for any other work or lobbeying) why should I care who pays?

Rob: (I think this is Rob Weir from IBM, an MS competitor: he has an interesting blog) Thanks for the tip on that case, I'll certainly have a squiz. Of course, just because broader issues (err, is that a euphemism for FUD? :-) ) were raised, it does not mean that the issues were decided based on them. ISO committees attract people who like to cross the t's and dot the i's, and rightly so. Which makes them impatient about extraneous issues. But does that make the problem merely one of naming? If the Ecma standard was accepted at ISO under a less similar name and with a more differentiating pre-amble, would that then satisfy your "contradiction" claims?

Jean: thanks for the link. Of course, don't expect Groklaw to be impartial! The benefit of that site is that it is not impartial.

David: thanks for the friendly comments. I wonder whether Rob Weir, who is full time, gets demands to know what his salary is, too. Or whether Groklaw posts funding arrangements. In ODF there are many volunteers, but I don't think anyone would be working supporting OOXML in a voluntary capacity: it is a different beast. But that is probably the same as the 802.n specs: industrial standards are underwritten by the industrial bodies who will benefit from them.

W^L+: To say that a standard is not open unless it has multiple open source implementations is goal-post shifting, isn't it? None of the definitions of Open Standard on Wikipedia have this constraint: ITU, EU, Danish govt, Perens', Kerchmer's, and even Bob Sutor's. And whether the "Open" in "Ecma Office Open XML" means "Open" in the sense of "Open Standard" or a lesser sense

Dave: Yes, ISO standardization is not a court where the other actions of a company are judged. Especially by a jury stacked with its competitors :-) Rob complains about MS's non-standard formats, but where has IBM's support for ISO SC34 been for the last few years? IBM used to be very involved at SC34: Charles Goldfarb, Sharon Adler, Ander Berglund and so on. But they moved their focus of attention to W3C then OASIS etc. They suddenly rediscover ISO when there is some marketing advantage, and feign outrage when Microsoft do the same. But all companies are welcome at ISO JTC1 SC34, even prodigal sons! Maybe I am being too harsh.

Standards Fan: on other hand, no-one is forced to use a standard. The question becomes "which standard is more appropriate for my use". The users have a richer set of choices. I fully expect that ODF will be the format of choice for governments who need a level-playing field and public data interchange, as a matter of public policy: Microsoft simply are not pitching OOXML as a solution in this area AFAICS. Hence their underwriting of the ODF converter. Ultimately, they don't care what format is used as long as they are not locked out from markets and as long as they can try to lock users in by dependence on features; which is fine. (Lock-in by features is different from lock-in by formats. But the rise of the web application suggests that there are compelling reasons for some people to avoid lock-in by features too. However, this has nothing to do with standardization processes.)

Alan: Many government organizations have preferential policies, so that if there is an ISO or national standard, that must be preferred to a consotium standard or proprietary technology. So it reduces the amount of work for organizations looking to adopt OOXML, in that they don't have to justify it against ISO PDF, ISO HTML, ISO ODF, etc. as much.

AragOrn: I am glad to see lists with real issues, not FUD. This is something that I know some of the key players in the ISO ODF process were worried about too: that there was too much FUD and too few facts. I am not being paid by MS to go through that list on my blog, just to edit Wikipedia, so forgive me if I don't do a point by point on them! I'll just make a general observation again, that the point of OOXML is that it publicly exposes the format of a particular real piece of software. If you designed a data format from scratch, you would clearly do things differently; but that simply isn't the point of OOXML, so comments based on "X could be done better" are irrelevant it seems to me. It is ODF's burden to be ideal, it is OOML's burden to be real. I think Bob Sutor made a nice comment that "OOXML is the past, while ODF is the future", and that encapsulates a lot of differentiation between the two: people with legacy .DOC etc issues may be more well-served by OOXML than by ODF.

Orcmid: well, I think IBM is playing hard on this, but there is a lot of anti-Microsoft sentiment out there. And there are legitimate questions to be asked and answered. The thing for decision makers in national bodies to do, if they are responsible, is to not accept one side's claims unless they have heard and weighed a response. IBM or the others are doing anything wrong in putting their POV vigorously, and aligning their corporate imperatives behind opens source and open standards is a great lark and good for users I am sure, but this is an issue with billions of dollars of sales at stake, and so decision makers shouldn't accept everything that anyone writes uncritically, especially when some ODF proponents think it is OK to make "broad claims" regardless of how wild they are.

Frank: Of course MS wants ODF-supporting companies to remain just small enough to forestall anti-trust efforts. What public company would want to give up market dominance? But so what? The points are whether MS has satisfied ISO procedure, whether the standard is contradictory and so stalls at the fist round, whether it seems to be of enough usefulness and quality to be voted at the second round. ISO is a standards body with its own rules about what makes a standard acceptable, whether this accords with "open standard" or not. Clearly I think that it is a disaster to have encumbered and RAND standards; free access is important.

Dylan: Do you think the Wikipedia entries have not been edited by people in full-time employment by large companies, in actual marketing positions, who have to justify what to write? When Wikipedia references Groklaw quoting a guy who works for OASIS' lawyers, is that therefore not a corporate influence? But, ultimately, if you see some change made in Wikipedia that is wrong, please fix it up! In the council of many is wisdom. Unless they are parrots.

Troy: Do you know the difference between PAS and Fast Track? See http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20070117145745854
for more explanation, but not from an unbiased source. ODF was accepted through the PAS procedure not Fast Track. (I was at SC34 meetings where this was discussed.) Yes, my knowledge in lots of areas leaves a lot to be desired; I hope I don't compound my ignorance with rudeness though.

Finite: Child slavery is horribly evil. A file format is not. But it is a good idea to put note up on my user page (I didn't know I had one.) I am not "admitting", I'm out and proud baby! More seriously, yes, I think transparency is good; indeed it is a form of openness. But I haven't actually made any changes yet, responding to this blog is taking all the time when I could be getting paid.

Ed: I am not selling vista. What on earth is your point?

CD Baric: Yes, it has its amusing aspects certainly :-) But from the ISO POV, the issue is not who has been a naughty boy but whether member nations would be better off with OOXML with an ISO number on it or not.

Joe: Interesting point. I think it is the same issue as embedding Java programs or .COM or VB controls or any non-standard/non-markup fragment, though. Both OOXML and ODF allow that: organizations adopting both of them would have to have some policy and profile in order to restrict it. The issue is moving away from markup and standard formats in any area, embedded controls as well as display material.

Nige: Oh, I'm not pointing the finger at Wikipedia. Its characteristics are well known. I use it all the time. It is great. Look me up in it! It is interesting that MS thinks that it is a kind of opinion leader that they feel is important enough to contract an outsider to look at. If I don't find it is a hotbed of FUD, I'll just improve the entries with more examples or references.

Finite: please let me know what these "gross inaccuracies are"? And "get caught"? Just correct the entry if it is wrong. As far as my competency, I don't want to blow own my horn, heaven forfend, certainly not. But Tim Bray (Director of Web Technologies at Sun) has said some nice things at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/10/14/Rick-Jelliffe

Rick:

I deeply respect your disclosure. There is nothing quite so attractive as being vulnerable, nor so telling as the response of others to vulnerability. I don't intend to make you wrong, let alone attack you. I want to show you a different side of the dodecahedron that represents the trade-offs inherent in being paid to provide one's opinion.

You had me at "AT&T UNIX PC". That is, I've read your article with the generosity that comes with feeling related to another person. I get your position, and it looks to be built on shifting sand. You seem ready to enter into this agreement with the best of intentions, and I believe you.

Consider that someone, right this minute, is having sex with a stranger for money, and that this person did not plan to be doing so. He or she started down some path with the best of intentions. Then there was a tiny compromise. And another. By now this person has been paid by the stranger, and is off to trade the cash for something that he or she is absolutely convinced is justifiable, if not necessary.

I'm not saying that this agreement will turn you into a crack whore. I'm not even saying that you're prostituting yourself in any way at all at this point.

I would ask you to consider that your assertion that MS wants to pay you "just to correct any errors [you] see" is, by definition, open-ended. Today your paradigms limit your perception of errors, probably well inside anyone's definition of objectivity.

How might this agreement affect your paradigms--even if the agreement doesn't change? It is my opinion that the agreement will, in fact, change. As several have pointed out, MS has many brilliant and non-evil people. These, however, are not the people at MS who thought up this idea, and they're most certainly not the ones with whom you've made the agreement. I know this because MS is not going to give a brilliant, non-evil person control of the disbursement of money spent in its self-interest.

I hate that corporate influence has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. By that I mean that I despise it. I loathe it. I blame it for the decline in our industry. I fault it for the commodification of every last technical position available in these United States and beyond. From my Congressional representatives, who have come to depend on corporate money in order to raise the vast sums required for re-election, to my neighbor who quotes talking points like, "Is it somehow illegal or immoral to make a profit?", I find it difficult to believe that anyone believes that a corporation has the same rights as a citizen. In particular, I think it's a steaming crock of sewage for corporations to claim the right to petition their representatives. I might rethink this if corporations had the same responsibilities--and growing liabilities--as citizens do. I find it regrettable that we, as citizens, have stood by and allowed for this corruption to advance. We get what we tolerate.

Of course it's not illegal, or even immoral to make a profit. It is when making a profit becomes a "win at all costs" proposition.

Consider the recent revelations about the patently illegal behavior of Hewlett-Packard's Board of Directors. They're just the ones who got caught, you see. MS is no different; it is not in any way open to full disclosure of anything, unless it is forced to do so. Even then--like a spouse caught cheating--a corporation will only disclose what it must.

I don't know you at all, Rick, except for this wonderful and open article that you've written. I can tell that you are talented, insightful, and that you care about the technical topics in this article, and probably about many more.

You seem to have been lulled into a sense of complacency about the role of money in what many of us consider to be a merit-based body, i.e., technical standards. The very presence of corporate patronage indicates that a tumor has taken root. Tumors are very interesting: They trick the body into nourishing them, with the explicit goal of taking over as much of the body as possible, simply to expand. Unchecked, they weaken the body and prevent it from its original purpose. Ultimately, they kill the body.
--

"If O'Reilly pays me to write a book, does that mean the contents can not be trusted?"

Yes, if the topic of the book is one in which O'Reilly has a financial interest.

--
"TECHNOLOGY IS NOT EVIL!"

No, it's not. Neither are guns. Either can and has been wielded by human beings with evil intent, often in the guise of righteousness.

You said: "yet, if I understand matters correctly, ODF was submitted in a fast-track procedure that didn't even allow these kind of objections."

Simply put the OASIS process is a very robust process which is reasonably close to the demands that ISO has for creating a proper standard. The ECMA process, on the other hand can be used to create a 'standard' which is little more than a formalized dump of a vendor's proprietary product.

These differing levels of robustness require a different level of examination when

It's like you're a hospital in Chicago and you've received CVs for two nurses -- One trained in Oregon, The other in the (then) Belgian Congo. Now, the Congolese nurse might be an excellent and capable nurse, but the chances are that, as a Chicagoan administrator, you're likely to more trusting of the Washington training -- simply because it's probably closer to the standards in Illinois.

That you would attack the difference in the treatment of these two standards raises some serious questions about just how much time (or was it money?) Microsoft spent indoctrinating you into their way of thinking before they set you loose to change the notes on Wikipedia.

As for UUIDs and death squads, I would note that Microsoft is being accused of enabling death squads not hiring them. It's people like Putin and Bush who are more likely to be accused of actually using death squads (depending on the accuser).

In any case, the fact that Microsoft paid you to 'correct errors' in a supposedly independent manner isn't a source of crisis of trust for me. On the other hand, you talking like a Microsoft evangelist after taking their cheque does raise some alarm bells for me.

Rick, thank you for your response. I really hope that once you have had some time to think this over, you decide to turn it down. You sound like an interesting, intelligent, self-directed sort of guy. I really would like to hear your own opinions of the formats, and how each can be improved. I do not want the things you say to be subjected to "he was paid to say that," even if you finally decide to say things I disagree with.

I did not say "open source" implementations, because I did not mean that implementors must be open source projects. If an open source project can implement a standard, especially if they become the reference implementation, so much the better. Without Tomcat, for example, would everyone in the world offer Java servlet containers and application servers? Most of the ones I have seen use Tomcat (or Jetty, another open source implementation) internally. Still, in the context of the office applications market, enterprises want something with a paid license and support (which very well could be open source, or could be proprietary).

People like me want multiple choices within each category (IE/Firefox/Opera, for example), and we want the ability for those choices to work with the same data without a lot of extra work. The reason I can use multiple browsers is because they all work with a more-or-less open standard. That is the same thing I want with office applications.

Someone compared this to the free laptops for bloggers thing, and I think the comparison is apt. Joel Spolsky referred to "pissing in the well," and I think he has a point.

Brad: Thanks for finding me attractive. I am even more attractive in person, actually. I have been involved in standards work at ISO, W3C, Standards Australia, IETF and a regional body, and there has always been a corporate influence. Standards committees are not always a paradise of humanitarians and altruism, and certainly not of commercial dis-interest. SGML came out of IBM. XML came out of Sun's Jon Bosak's organizing ability. And so on. The idea that there has not been corporate involvement in standards is not real. Some standards committees, such as W3C Internationalization, have a large corporate influence but are highly benign and fun. Other groups are just a hard slog, with the big boys trying to sabotage each other at every step.

It's unfortunate for Rick and Microsoft that he announced before doing the job because the more he will do the harder the Wikipedia community will fight back.

I do appreciate that you finish your note by saying "its information should be taken with a grain of salt" because you seem to acknowledge that even though wikipedia content is great it should not be taken as the holy grail of content. I'm saying that because I've found disturbing reading some highly notable people praising for Wikipedia as if it was al good.

There are too many examples of the Wikipedia "ministers" making History as they see fit rather than as what actually is. Too many articles about existing people that contain wrong information that actually become information. 1984 is not far ;)

Anyway it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Rick had done the job, then announced it. I'm sure we would have seen those articles being reverted really quickly.

Wikipedia is nice on the outside but is too political on the inside for my liking.

OOps wrong copy paste.

That response was meant to Dare's blog note here about this article:

http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=b9cd3528-e331-4368-9f15-bd8a350c68ac

Sorry folks.

- Sylvain

Stephen: Actually, I haven't read any material from MS on ODF versus OOXML yet. My thoughts so far are unfortunately all my own.

W^L+: MS is underwriting that ODF converter, so the OOXML standard does not prevent anyone from using ODF or, more to the point, any government from mandating it. I have a long-standing bias toward plurality (indeed, I spoke at WWW7 in I guess 1998 or so on the subject, opposing a MS guy...) so if MS has shifted around to my position, for whatever motives, I'm not going to suddenly change out of childish reaction. For example, here is a post of mine from 1999 on the subject: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199911/msg00396.html

The relevant lines are "There are some people for whom standardization means homogenization: in each area, we should only have one technology. There are others for whom standardization means that there should be at least one high-quality choice. I subscribe to the latter, and to the view that "enabling" standards are more important than "constraining" standards.

Sylvain: Actually, I have had email from at least one Wikipedia person who seems to think it is a good development. I may be hopeless naive here, but I don't expect to write anything that would be likely to be reversed. And Dare's blog is always fun.

Thanks for responding, but I don't feel like my question is quite answered yet :)

If there is a clear requirement in a given organisation to maintain complete fidelity of every legacy nuance (however invisible and irrelevant to an information consumer) of an imported binary document, and only one modern format is capable of expressing such nuances, then surely that format will sell itself to the organisations that require it, regardless of the "preferred" status that any inadequate formats may enjoy.

On the other hand, if it is the content of a document that is relevant rather than the excruiating detail of its interactions with its originating software, then a one-time conversion into an application-neutral format which leverages widely-accepted standards would seem to be a sensible way to proceed. Otherwise it appears that the tail is wagging the dog, does it not?

Preservation of the minutiae of years of legacy (as represented by the "billions of documents" we keep hearing about) really seems to be most appropriately a matter between Microsoft and their customers. It seems sufficient -- and under different circumstances, perhaps even admirable -- that they have publically released the specification. Why now drag the entire world into it via the ISO process?

Incidentally, I can see your angle on plurality, but in terms of EOOXML, it seems a little obtuse.

>> "The OOXML specification requires conforming implementations
>> to accept and understand various legacy office applications."

> But the conformance section to the ISO standard... specifies
> conformance in terms of being able to accept the grammar, use
> the standard semantics for the bits you implement, and document
> where you do something different.

Congratulations - by nit-pickery and careful definitions you've managed to avoid or ignore the problem.

The problem is that nobody can support a "standard" in any meaningful way if they don't support the whole thing. I can write a web browser that only recognises the "p" and "i" tags, but that doesn't mean it conforms to the XHTML spec in any *meaningful* way, even if the spec says this is acceptable.

The acid test is whether it *works* or not for normal users:

If you ignore all the legacy cruft in the OOXML spec, then the vast majority of the existing MS Office documents out there will simply fail to render properly when opened by application X. Users see their files' formatting screwed up, decide application X is useless, and Microsoft retains their Office monopoly.

If you want application X to reliably render any/all existing documents, you have to emulate the entire set of MS Office behaviours, including the legacy gunk, old bugs and details which aren't even explicitly detailed in the spec (IIRC, you have to ask Microsoft or third-party vendors for that information).

So... yes, maybe according to the spec you can write a "compliant" app using only the information in the spec and ignoring every legacy wrinkle and bit of still-proprietary information not included in it... but this app will be *useless*, by any sane definition of the term.

Sure, it must have seemed like a great wheeze at Microsoft HQ - "So, we release this byzantine format filled with binary blobs and legacy bug-replication wrinkles, but we don't document them, and then make all the nasty complex legacy bits optional. We use the fact it's optional to make it as hard as possible for anyone who's trying to write an Office app to understand and parse them, but without that functionality their app frequently breaks on existing files, making the whole thing useless and hopefully securing another nice, juicy decade of office productivity software monopoly for us."

One of the most attractive things about an open format or protocol is that it helps ensure against vendor lockin. Exactly how is OOXML doing this when it serves mainly as a way to unofficially-but-effectively degrade the ability of third-party vendors to compete with Microsoft is beyond me.

Unless, of course, one were being paid by one side of the debate to ensure everything's "fair".

Why didn't Microsoft create the OOXML file format so that it wasn't dependent on previous file formats?

Opening a file saved in a different format should use a filter to convert the contents of the file to the new file format.

The conversion filter should be handed the job of maintaining document fidelity. The new standard should define document attributes (generic attributes like "line spacing" not "Word 97 line spacing") that can be set during the conversion process.

Once a document has been converted to the new format, there is no need to retain legacy baggage.

I believe doing this would allow the file format to be converted completely and cleanly.

Why didn't Microsoft create the OOXML file format so that it wasn't dependent on previous file formats?

To maintain its monopoly.

I must say that especially IBM seems very intent on trying to create a smearcampaign against OOXML. (with of course Groklaw following IBM as always). I wish they would try and put their efforts in improving the ODF spec instead as at the moment I find it hardly workable to use the ODF spec for use in applications as it seems impossible to create compatible documents from just using the specs. (something in which OOXML also isn't great).
The fact that odf fans just jump on any comment coming from IBM and try to add it in wikipedia is just pathetic. Both specs are at best moderatly workable and it seems wiser to let OASIS and Ecma first improve to the next versions in stead of trying to discuss the merits and flaws of both formats.
People are actiing like standards are something solid and set in stone but actually development on both formats will continue for many more year so I think people should move forward more and if they think OOXML is flawed then come up with improvements and simular for ODF.

Must admit I find Microsoft's move a little unnerving, but that's probably not too rational. I've no doubts about your integrity and I don't think that's undermined in this case by your being paid by an interested party, especially since you have publicly declared this. If anything, if ODF is better than OOXML (for any definition) then clearing up misinformation will be doing ODF a favour, because arguments can be based on solid premises. I bet there's also something of a (spontaneous, not-paid-for) counter-initiative, MS's move will add motivation to people wanted to clear FUD on ODF.

Could you please clarify one point:

"ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document; this makes it poorer for archiving"

Is it then the case that OOXML can faithfully (reversibly) represent all the information possible in an ODF document?

-

For what it's worth I personally think it would be insane, all things being equal, for anyone to choose a format that's been designed with proprietary interests in mind over one which is grounded in the open source community.

I use OpenOffice if anything fatter than HTML is needed, not least because it saves me a lot of money over MS Word. I've done stuff recently for a publisher that insisted on Word, but it turned out OO's saving in Word format was perfectly adequate.

You're assuming OOXML and ODF can coexist with very different data models because they'll each be used within their own vertical isolated silo.

Unfortunately people (and apps) are increasingly exchanging documents, often Office documents (one can argue this is not the right way to do it but Microsoft has been pushing Office as an information hub for years), so all those differences are going to be very expensive to work around.

One can not think in terms of pre-1995 isolated PC anymore.

Likewise the long OOXML specification is not going to help the archiving community. Indeed the archiving community needs a simple specification more, because it'll have to manage/index large pools of archived documents to be of any use to its users. We're not in the microfilm era anymore. Documents live even after they've been archived. Reproducing Word Perfect artefacts accurately is less important than being able to reprocess any old document safely nowadays.

@Frank Daley,

I stated,

A technology company creating new technologies?!

THAT'S JUST AWFUL! Think of the children!

Your follow-up,

However, your basic premise is wrong. Microsoft does not create open standards. It's so called standards are simply a set of specifications controlled by Microsoft.

Maybe its just me, but I fail to see how me stating "technology" and you redefining technology to mean "open standards", can be used as "proof" that I have the basic premise wrong.

Me: "The sky is blue!"

You: "M. David Peterson has stated that the sky is blue. It seems he misunderstands the fact that the sky can not be candy apple red. The store was out of the color when they painted the sky."

@Danny,

"Is it then the case that OOXML can faithfully (reversibly) represent all the information possible in an ODF document?"

I don't have the answer to this question, but I think it can be said that we both understand the fact that attempting to map one XML format to another, and do so without any loss of fidelity, is a difficult, at best, task to take on.

I think of the task of converting RSS to Atom, and through experience know that even with an XML format as simple as RSS and Atom, its still near to impossible to convert directly between the two without at least some loss in fidelity. Of course, you could add a third layer to the mix (similar to what MSFT did with their RSS extensions for their web feed engine) and at least give yourself a fighting chance. But even then you are going to find at least a few instances in which are going to lose at least some fidelity during the process.

@El Cerrajero,

"Let's see, OOXML is a huge piece of crap. That's a fact."

Okay, I see "That's a fact" that is preceded by an single statement of opinion "OOXML is a huge piece of crap."

The only fact that I see is that you have an opinion, and from my experience that opinion is completely inaccurate. None-the-less,

To Each And Everyone of You: If you are going to make an argument, please include not just "I think it sucks, therefore it does" but also "the reason I feel this way is because of reason X, Y, and Z."

If nothing else, at very least it adds value to your overall argument, as opposed to its currently state of meaningless comment graffiti.

Thanks!

@Finite,

Note that M David Peterson earlier had the audacity to raise the straw man argument of "If O'Reilly pays me to write a book, does that mean the contents can not be trusted?" (He obviously missed the key word *neutral* in the thread's first comment, either accidentally or intentionally).

The audacity? Ahh, fair enough. Audacity is not a trait of mine that I see as anything but -- well, just me being me, and setting aside the fear of being scorned by some to instead state what I believe to be true interpretation on a specific manner.

re: "He obviously missed the key word *neutral* in the thread's first comment, either accidentally or intentionally"

No, I didn't miss it. What I instead chose to focus on, however, was the first point of credibility. Rick is the single most credible source on this planet, in my opinion, when it comes to the ability to provide a truly *neutral* perspective on standards and document formats. He himself has developed as ISO standard, is an insider to the ISO organization, and has proven time and time again that he is worried about representing the facts of each argument instead of propagating the FUD.

In other words, his history of neutrality is a part of what gives him his credibility.

Maybe I should have made my point a bit more clear, so fine, fair enough... I just did.

s/manner/matter

@Rick,

I wonder whether Rob Weir, who is full time, gets demands to know what his salary is, too. Or whether Groklaw posts funding arrangements. In ODF there are many volunteers, but I don't think anyone would be working supporting OOXML in a voluntary capacity: it is a different beast. But that is probably the same as the 802.n specs: industrial standards are underwritten by the industrial bodies who will benefit from them.

AMEN TO THAT! :D

@Danny,

I use OpenOffice if anything fatter than HTML is needed, not least because it saves me a lot of money over MS Word. I've done stuff recently for a publisher that insisted on Word, but it turned out OO's saving in Word format was perfectly adequate.

I think a lot of people are finding this to be the case, which means MSFT's job is to build a better, and therefore more attractive product in MS Office if they want to continue forward in the Office Applications vertical.

If Office 2007 is any indication, I think they'll still be around for a while. ;)

@Brad Eleven,

--

"If O'Reilly pays me to write a book, does that mean the contents can not be trusted?"

Yes, if the topic of the book is one in which O'Reilly has a financial interest.

So in other words, if O'Reilly Media chose to publish a book on "How to publish a book", because they are in the business of publishing books, that book can not be trusted?

Are you sick? Heaven forbid that anyone should ever have beliefs and morals while at the same time bring a paycheck home every week!

Sorry, Brad, but you seem to believe in a world where morals and profit and mutually exclusive.

I don't believe in the same world you do.

--
"TECHNOLOGY IS NOT EVIL!"

No, it's not. Neither are guns. Either can and has been wielded by human beings with evil intent, often in the guise of righteousness.

So then because some technology can be used for evil, and some guns can be used to kill, should we then place a ban on *ALL* technology, and *ALL* guns in the off chance that someone might use either to cause harm upon another?
Sticks and stones can be used to kill people, and the combustion engine can wreak havoc on our environment.

Should we ban stick, stones, and the combustion engine too -- you know -- just in case?

Brad > WAKE UP! Or is waking up and getting out of bed evil too? You know -- just in case something bad were to happen if you did?

correction: "where morals and profit and mutually exclusive." should read "where morals and profit *are* mutually exclusive [of one another]."

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3ACOI says:

If you fit either of these descriptions:

1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;

then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement.

It also says:

If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia.

This is repulsive. You're admitting to becoming a paid shill for Microsoft. Isn't this in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use? While you're over there editing, why don't you check out the article on Astroturfing?

I hope O'Reilly dumps you over this.

M. David Peterson: the vociferousness and manner of your defense of Rick Jelliffe's decision and your assurances of his professional objectivity are having the opposite of the intended effect, and are quickly eroding my natural inclination to give Rick the benefit of any doubts on whether he can or will be objective/impartial. If it is important to you that he be able to conduct his work effectively, I suggest you just stop.

Peter Yellman

Simple question from me is will OOXML as a standard if I implement it allow me to read any compliant document or will people be able to produce tools that are "compliant" that are not wholly readable by another tool.

If so how could it be considered a standard?

@Peter,

M. David Peterson: the vociferousness and manner of your defense of Rick Jelliffe's decision and your assurances of his professional objectivity are having the opposite of the intended effect,

How so? And to whom? You? Why should I care, or in other words, why does your opinion of the effect they are suggest to me that I need to not stand up for what I feel is something worth standing up for.

and are quickly eroding my natural inclination to give Rick the benefit of any doubts on whether he can or will be objective/impartial.

Your natural inclination is to argue for the sake of arguing, Peter. Nothing I am stating throws any sort of red flag that could normally be seen as something to be leary of. And the simple fact that anyone can go in and re-edit his work means you don't *HAVE* to trust his work. If you believe it is wrong, CHANGE IT! That's the whole point with this! He has disclosed the MSFT connection, has pointed out areas of inconsistency, and has stated his plan to fix the areas that he sees as being incorrect. So wheres the problem?!

If it is important to you that he be able to conduct his work effectively, I suggest you just stop.

Ahhh, the old "throw in something that everyone should care about, to then throw in a statement suggesting that if I don't do this, that, or something else, this is proof that I don't care about the mentioned someting".

"I suggest you just stop."

Answer: NO!

I will defend what I believe to be the truth, and will do so in my own very special way. If it gets to the point where it seems that I might actually be having the reverse of the intended effect, I will then look to rectify, if necessary, apologize, and then adjust as necessary as to not have the undesired side effects.

At the moment, I don't believe this is what is taking place. Am I pissing a few people off because of my comments? Probably. But the fear of pissing someone off is not something that stands in the way of standing of for what I believe.

So once again, NO! I will continue to fight each and every absurdity that I believe needs to be fought. END OF STORY!

As a long time business technology consultant and consumer, I have very real concerns about OOXML standard from Microsoft, more from legal perspective - as expressed by leading "intellectual property" attorneys, who are quite skeptical of Microsoft's intentions and plans in this matter.
Because Microsoft has invariably practiced unsavory, unethical (and illegal, in anti-trust cases) business operations regarding any technology that they did not own or control, even today in many creditable reports, I am loathe to grant them any consideration of their
technology proposals/products until the company, including it's upper management demonstrates to my satisfaction - how ever long it takes - that
it is a good corporate, national and international citizen.

In the meantime no amount of PR, even hiring yourself as a honorable person, will make them less vile. One cannot purchase honesty and integrity.

One cannot purchase honesty and integrity.

So what you are suggesting is,

a) you don't believe that Microsoft is honest.

which, given the fact that a company is as honest/dishonest as the employees that lead and guide this company, would lead to,

b) you don't believe that the current base of leadership is honest in their dealings

which, if this were to be the actual case (and I don't believe that it is), the road to honesty would be firing the current leadership and hiring new leaders with a track record of proven honesty, correct?

One cannot purchase honesty and integrity.

Sure you can. You simply seek after people with a proven track record of honesty and integrity, offer them a job, and if they accept, *WHAMO*, you've just purchased honesty and integrity.

"tz: Since OOXML is the native saving format for Office 2007, I don't know how you can say that it hasn't been designed to support all the information in an MS Office document? What magic captures the other information if not the file format?"

No, Microsoft's extended and PARTIALLY UNDOCUMENTED version of OOXML is the native saving format for O2007. The entire point is that the 6000 pages submitted to ISO is NOT the complete description of what Microsoft uses as OOXML.

Their "native format" includes all the artifacts, sidebands, quirks, idiosyncrasies, and hidden emulations (the "Do as Word 5 did" tags). To render a document with fidelity, you need to duplicate not only the 6000 pages of "the standard", but also all these hidden things which aren't in the standard. You call it "magic", but it is there.

To use a more common example, there are plenty of magical things why a perfectly conforming page that is right in a perfectly conforming browser but won't render or work correctly in Internet Explorer - even version 7. So you either have to code differently depending on the browser, or make a page that will look bad in a correct browser. OOXML looks to be another cascading style sheet, javascript, etc. problem, only worse.

Their "native format" is a fairly large (and maybe not even a proper) superset of what is in the OOXML spec. Or at least the "open" part.

Wow, so many comments. Yikes.

Just a quick point on Wikipedia procedures. First, I don't think what I am doing falls under the category of astroturfing in anyway: I am not faking a groundswell. I don't know why astroturfing was even brought up. Second, I certainly will look at the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest, and I thank the reader who brought this up.

Just because everyone else is doing something does not make it acceptable. If I were to summarize an article like this which I had written, it would read something like, "Microsoft offered me a big pile of money to do something I consider questionable. Please condone it."

Sorry. You've already made your own judgment there.

M. David Peterson: your comments basically boil down to "trust me, you can trust Rick". This doesn't work for me. A quick look at your bio should raise some questions for other readers as well.

Your posts defending Rick's credibility, independence, what have you, coming as they do from someone who cannot but be described as an evangelist for Microsoft and it's technologies, lead me to the conclusion that it is Rick's credibility and reputation that Microsoft is purchasing, not so much his expertise. (I have a nagging suspicion that it was you who suggested Rick's name to Microsoft marketing!) Surely there must be people who actually work for Microsoft who are qualified to correct any "factual" errors regarding OOXML in the Wiki entry. That Microsoft has chosen to go this route is fairly convincing proof that it is not so much expertise that they are looking for, but credibility, and, were it not for Rick's disclosure, the appearance of objectivity.

As for whether you should care what I think -- well then: don't! But as touting credibility seems to be one of your main objectives here, it seems to me you don't have much of choice. It's your box, live in it.

Peter Yellman

"But it is a good idea to put note up on my user page (I didn't know I had one.)"

... What does that even mean? Do you have an account? What is your username?

"Child slavery is horribly evil."

Indeed it is! I responded to that in your next blog post.

Rick, I really hope you don't eventually announce you've decided not to do this because of Wikipedia policy or something like that. If your edits are valid then you should be allowed to be paid to edit, even if some Wikipedians will try and tell you otherwise.

The reason you should not to do this is because successful standardization of OOXML will make the world a worse place, and why would you want to help with that for any amount of money?

Rick: in order to avoid any apparence of conflict of Interest, I would either a) refuse MS's offer of financial compensation, but still contribute the corrections to Wikipedia; or b) publicly ask that MS send the money as a donation to Wikipedia.

I have no fear that your contributions will be unbiased, but the amount of controversy this is generating should be a good indication that accepting money from MS is enough for the *appearance* of impropriety, which in turn can damage your credibility whether what you write is true or not.

And, yes, I'm certain there are other paid contributors to Wikipedia, but just because the situation is widespread doesn't mean it's right...

Making the corrections free of charge would send the right message both to MS and to its critics, I believe.

M. David Peterson: No, I didn't miss it. What I instead chose to focus on, however, was the first point of credibility.

What you chose to focus on?

M. David Peterson: Rick is the single most credible source on this planet, in my opinion, when it comes to the ability to provide a truly *neutral* perspective on standards and document formats.

Credibility which has now been blown away by virtue of the fact the he will be paid for what he writes by a company with a serious vested interest. Credibility now needs to be re-earned. I believe that's what someone was posting above and you're skipping around it. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for guidenace.

M. David Peterson: In other words, his history of neutrality is a part of what gives him his credibility.

Alas, you're straw clutching. His history of neutrality up until this point lends some credibility to what he's said in the past, but that history of credibility means nothing now that he is apparently going to be paid by a company with a vested interest. The fact that I am having to explain this beggars belief, but there you are ;-).

A lot of his credibility over OOXML and ODF is blown away by statements such as:

ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document

This is a load of rubbish. Pray tell, how would ODF go about defining information in a closed product defined by one company, and why on Earth should anything in a closed product by one company be defined as an ISO standard? What purpose would it serve?

Since Microsoft Office is obviously a dependency of OOXML, I didn't realise Microsoft Office was an ISO standard, or that it adheres to any in a way which makes OOXML implementable, fully, outside of Microsoft's sphere. The ISO has guidelines for this stuff, and should be looked at. The issue is not whether OOXML is relevant versus ODF (although duplication needs to be looked at), but whether it should be accepted as a credible ISO standard at all.

and one of the more political issues is do we want to encourage and reward MS for taking the step of opening up their file formats, at last?

It is not the purpose of the ISO to be grateful to Microsoft, or anyone, in apparently opening anything.

This statement is totally meaningless besides, because there is nothing to base the statement of 'opening up their file formats' on. Any given standard has dependencies, and those dependencies must not prohibit an independent implementation. As a result, any dependencies must be existing ISO standards (or the issue of reasonable implementation and existing standards looked at), or should co-exist harmoniously with existing standards and specifications that can be reproduced as faithfully as possible.

For example:

- OOXML's representation of dates and times conflicts with existing standards (this is a workaround for Windows and Excel built into the standard).

- It even specifies a fixed list of language codes rather than look at ISO 639.

- It refers to Windows Metafiles which cannot be implemented outside of Windows, rather than looking at specifying ISO/IEC 8632 or a reasonable W3C SVG open specification that third parties can and are implementing successfully already.

- It implements it's own hash algorithm rather anything from the ISO or other standards groups, thus is unproven and uncertain.

- It specifies English Metric Units, which appears to be its own definition of units of measurement. Needless to say, defined and accepted measurements in ISO standards are very important.

- It uses it's own Microsoft Office namespace, which contradicts even the ECMA guidelines.

this makes it poorer for archiving but paradoxically may make it better for level-playing-field, inter-organization document interchange. But the archiving community deserves support

The list goes on, and he thinks that OOXML is better for archiving???!!! The only reason it is apparently better for archiving existing MS Office documents is because only Microsoft knows what's actually going on! That's an unbelievably daft statement.

The issue of archiving existing closed and non-standard Microsoft Office documents is a matter for Microsoft, not the ISO. If Microsoft wants to open the format for those non-standard documents then that's fine, but whatever Microsoft produces must meet the needs of an ISO standard. The issue of archiving Microsoft Office documents is simply not of any concern.

So, I'm afraid the possible payment from Microsoft in conjunction with his comments above adds up to not an awful lot of credibility.

Sorry Rick, but I have to disagree. Standards that allow 'optional implementation' are no standard at all. The only way that such a standard is 'open' is that it is an open invitation for vendors to cheat. The problem that Microsoft has with ODF is obvious; ODF makes it more difficult to maintain their office products monopoly. No amount of sophistry is going to change that.

Archiesteel: I already made corrections last year free, not because of interest in promoting OOXML or ODF but to provide better information about the ISO SC34 WG1 group that I am a member of. This is the group which nominally looks after ODF and OOXML after their standardization and I think the members of the WG have an independent viewpoint from ODF or OOXML camps. But I wouldn't be making corrections at the moment unless there was sponsorship.

I would prefer Wikipedia to remain NOT PAID FOR.

Do you want to live in a world where the views that please the men with money become the loudest?

I would prefer to live in a horizontal web of human beings.

Again, what is the username (or IP number, if you don't have one) that you edit(ed) wikipedia with?

Guys, I just want to jump in and point out that many of you are discussing something that hasn't happened.

Nobody has offered Rick money to get their point of view into entries on Wikipedia. Instead, he was offered money to contribute HIS point of view to Wikipedia.

I understand all the appearance-of-influence angles and so on -- I have a bit of a background in journalism, and these debates are timeless and always interesting to me. And the issue of Wikipedia's policies, which they're free to set, is relevant too.

But when you start talking about people getting paid to enforce Microsoft's view of anything, you're off on a theoretical tangent. That hasn't happened in this case.

Additional observations:

My first computer was a Mac Plus. Loved it. My second computer was an AT&T Unix PC running System V. Loved it long time. My third computer was a Sparc running Solaris or SunOS. Loved it. At work I run Linux, Open Office, Firefox, Eclipse, etc. No drama. For the last six years I have been running a little company making Java programs. Love Java. I do a little open source development...............

The fact that you're telling us how non-Microsoft oriented you are before you get to your actual point rings alarm bells straight from the off, and I get worried every time I see it. Sorry. It may well be true, but there's no need for you to feel the need to dredge through your history to justify yourself, and one is then entitled to ask the question 'why?'

For example, in the Wikipedia entry, it currently mentions that "the members of ISO have only 31 days to raise objections", the implication being that this is far too short a time; yet, if I understand matters correctly, ODF was submitted in a fast-track procedure

Respondents have had a good few years (four or five I believe - OASIS has been open and worked on for a long time) to respond to the OASIS specification. Since it's already a standard that has been out there and the subject of significant review, the fast track process of the ISO can be warranted.

How long has ECMA-376 been up for public peer review? How long was the ODF specification available to public review before being published as an ISO standard? Answer: One month versus eighteen months respectively. That's possibly something you can do some research on and update Wikipedia with ;-).

You are no longer neutral in a dispute if one side pays you. Taking the money of one site makes you part of that side.

If the article bothers you so much, you could have changed the wikipedia entry anytime, without being paid by Microsoft. But no, you didn't. So any change you now do is clearly motivated by Microsoft's money, and not by your desire to represent things in a neutral way.

The paid shills of a convicted monopoly are everywhere, a lot of the time posting only once in a thread or forum to cause a trolling effect and move on to another subforum or forum and continue this effort. If they are successful enough, they will continue to participate and troll a thread for days, weeks, however long it takes to cause chaos. Generally only one troll post is needed to set the honest, caring Linux users up into wasting their time responding to what they think is someone with honest issues. On Usenet you'll notice many of the trolls speak with horrible English skills and almost always rely on the one-post-troll method.

rweiler: Actually, there are many standards with optionally implementable parts. For example, in my standard, Schematron, I clearly state which parts are optional for a validator to use. (For example, the assert element is not optional, while the flag attribute is.) ISO 8879 SGML, the standard which XML is a profile of, even has a little configuration language (the SGML Declaration) to say which optional bit the document uses.

Brian Jones has a specific post on the topic of optional compatibility settings at http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/09/specifying-the-document-settings.aspx
I mention it because several people have brought the subject up. As a quick summary, Brian quotes the standard (how serpentine!) It is important to note that all compatibility settings are optional in nature - applications may freely ignore all behaviors described within this section and these settings should not be added unless compatibility is specifically needed in one or more cases... and points out that ODF has an element config-item which application settings (such as compatibility settings) can be placed, and ignored by other applications. He saves an ODF document and finds one called "UseOldNumbering" for example.

Now, since ODF has this element to mark up information that is optional or application-specific, do you therefore include it as "not a standard at all"? Now I think it is a legitimate question to say "well, maybe the ISO standard should not have these particular compatability bits in it, or just leave them for some other non-standard documentation" but that is a different issue to saying that a standard shouldn't allow optional information: ODF does too.

But I think your comments have another flaw: that if OOXML becomes an ISO standard it will necessarily undermine ODF's progress. In fact, if they are differentiated whether by features or quality or purpose, then governments are perfectly capable of still mandating ODF if that is what they want. I just believe that the decision to choose ODF or OOXML or PDF or whatever is one that should occur at the user level, not at the ISO committee level. People know that an ISO standard has had a certain level of scrutiny and fulfills certain obligations as to format and availability and voting, but the decision as to which technology creates the best level-playing field is one for users to decide, not ISO.

(It seems to be a kind of gay marriage argument: that if gay marriages are allowed, then it threatens straight marriage. But what if the straights keep on a-marrying {i.e. ODF adoption continues} regardless, while with different needs get what they need too (i.e., people who want to use standard OOXML)?

Frank: I guess you missed the sentence "In fact, I already had added some material to Wikipedia several months ago, so it is not something new, so I'll spend a couple of days mythbusting and adding more information." What sponsorship gives me is the time to make improvements.

I enjoyed the Slashdot posting on this thread: see
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/22/2056214

Microsoft's Doug Mahugh responded, posting the text of the invitation to me, which is very gentlemanly of him.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218248&cid=17724650

Which part of the API is enableDeathSquad(uuid) under? I can't find it in the documentation and I really need to straighten out some clients ...

Finite. I now have the user name "Rick Jelliffe" but I have not used it. The old edits were not made with a user name: I don't know whether this is because I have been doing little misc. Wikipedia edits on an off for several years or why.

Albert: Look harder, it is right there next to perpetuateChildSlavery()
See http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/odf_and_jesus_blood_and_diamon.html

:-)

why didn't you talk about that issue *before* MS start to pay your bills?

Will you act like a man and apologize for your apparent mistake?

Christian: If you read my blog, you will see that I have indeed been talking about this issue for a lot of last year, on and off, and not always from a side favorable to MS or to ODF. And if you read the article you would see that I had previously edited the Wikipedia entries. So I suspect you are a troll.

but why didn't you modify the wiki-pages by your own (before the MS-Money trigger)? if you are upset because of the pro-ODF entries, you can write your opinion without getting paid for it. now i can't believe your words.

Ronald: Which mistake. I suspect you are a troll.

Wendell: They want to pay me to improve Wikipedia's integrity, but you are talking about their integrity.

Everyone: Please feel free to let me know if I write anything that operates by raising Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. But that is not the same as just raising specific objective technical issues!

You keep saying you've edited about this subject on wikipedia before, but you haven't given us the IP number you used so that we can see your actual edits... so I suspect you are a troll.

And the question remains, why have you (still!) not corrected the things you pointed out in this blog post that you think are currently wrong with the OOXML article? Publicly stating that certain changes need to be made to a wikipedia article, without fixing them first or immediately thereafter, is the mark of a person who doesn't really grok the wiki concept.

I ask again for a specific pointer to edits you've made previously.

Finite: I don't think it would be prudent to give my IP address on an forum of antagonistic hackers! In any case, from my ISP it will allocate different IP numbers. One of them is on a page I made
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_and_Patrice_Jelliffe
but that IP address seems to be been active for just a couple of days in late 2005.

One reason I haven't started correcting the Wikipedia is dealing with these blog comments and the raising of whether it is appropriate under Wikipedia rules. (Which you also have helped resolve, I think.)

IMO, no standard including ODF should allow optional features. That standards historically have provided such capability has in large part made a mockery of the entire process. That's not a huge surprise since by and large, the standards are made by vendors, and the vendors view the standardization process as just another way to gain a competitive advantage (ie ODF) or as an aid to derailing competition (ie OOXML). The difference between ODF and OOXML is that if OOXML is adopted, the customer loses because there will be one, and only one office suite that can properly read and write OOXML documents. You can take that to the bank. W/R/T to users choosing the 'best' standard, if the users are to decide, there is no point in having a standard at all.

Slashdot makes me want to throw up. What's the deal with those guys?

If it's any consolation Mr. Jelliffe, I believe you and Doug Mahugh have honorable intentions.

I already made corrections last year free, not because of interest in promoting OOXML or ODF but to provide better information about the ISO SC34 WG1 group that I am a member of. This is the group which nominally looks after ODF and OOXML after their standardization and I think the members of the WG have an independent viewpoint from ODF or OOXML camps. But I wouldn't be making corrections at the moment unless there was sponsorship.

I understand, however I think it's important that the sponsor in this case not have a vested strategic interest in promoting OOXML over ODF. Of course, I truly believe that you would be objective, but should it become common practice for corporations to openly hire people to correct mistakes they feel are against their interest, it becomes a very slippery slope before independent "editors for hire" start following an editorial line dictated by whoever holds the purse strings.

Wikipedia is supposed to be self-correcting by the contribution of its user community. If there are inaccuracies in the OOXML pages, then MS should trust the user community (which will undoubtedly have some people who are sympathetic towards them) to correct the mistakes.

Anonymous: Thanks. Slashdot is just kids sounding off. Its funny. The thread on Slashdot is whether corporations should be abolished: it shows where the readers minds are at, which is fine.

When you realize the juvenile level that some of the debate is being conducted at, I think you realize why I (and some ODF people!) think that there is too much FUD and smoke and mirrors in discussions about OOXML. I have no doubt that MS is just as capable as anyone to do FUD, but in this case I have to say that it mostly seems to be coming from some people on the ODF side.

The Computerworld article is more serious, in my book: it suggests that I am exposing a scandal, or that there is something hidden and underhand going on. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=11&articleId=9008842&intsrc=hm_topic
But that is so far from the truth that is pathetic.

I've received a couple of requests to talk with journalists on the issue of paid editing of Wikipedia, but I don't expect they operate on Australian time so I have no intention of getting involved in those stories. I have been in contact with some Wikipedia volunteers, who I hope can help me do the right thing by Wikipedia.

This blog entry is currently the most read of the OReilly blogs, I see. Probably the longest too. :-)

You sucker

Oh, now its in Infoworld too.
http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196903015

That seems a lot closer to reality than the ComputerWorld article.

And IT Business (crazy one this!)
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=41908

The debate over pay-per-Wiki will make the one over pay-per-blog-post look trivial.

I particularly appreciated the line What Microsoft has done is not necessarily bribery. What kind of a moron writes that? What Microsoft has done is not necessarily arson, incest or baby-snatching, either.

I could find your article throw some spanish references:

(slahsdot spanish version)
http://barrapunto.com/articles/07/01/23/1320219.shtml

(technology section of one of the most important spanish newspapers, the link to your article is broken)
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internet/Microsoft/busca/mercenario/hable/bien/Wikipedia/elpeputec/20070123elpepunet_3/Tes

it seems that you will have more repercussion than expected because the title of the newspaper article says: "Microsoft busca mercenario que hable bien de ella en la Wikipedia", that means: "MS looks for a mercenary to "talk well" about the company in Wikipedia"

what a success :)

S: In what way?

Alberto: Mercenary? But then a journalist wouldn't know the right word for someone being paid to edit information to be neutral and balanced, would they? :-) At least based on the evidence of the articles so far.

The thing is not that something wrong has been done, its that nothing has been done! I haven't edited anything, I have been completely transparent, MS encouraged the transparency, when we found out about the Conflict of Interest guidelines at Wikipedia we have been talking to them about how it applies, yet these articles present matters in terms of some vast conspiracy that has been uncovered. Shoot the messenger?

Rick,

This series of posts will teach you not to mention "Microsoft" in public again. You've now seen firsthand what people with more time than brains do to make themselves feel important. Don't worry, they will forget you quickly and move onto another perceived scandal.

Good luck with it.

rob weir must be so busy blogging against OOXML, he still has not found the time to read about XAML or even try to understand what it's about...

just keep the FUD going. obviously, there's nothing wrong with FUD as long as it comes from the right camp. sad.

@Sege

This is a load of rubbish. Pray tell, how would ODF go about defining information in a closed product defined by one company, and why on Earth should anything in a closed product by one company be defined as an ISO standard? What purpose would it serve?

Well everyone seems to be just fine with PDF as an ISO standard, yet last time I checked, Adobe still held firm to the claim that standard or no standard, it certainly was within their rights to maintain control over who could implement support and who could not.

So answer me this: What good is an ISO standard (which PDF is), if you are still required (as in the case of Adobe vs. MSFT, in which Adobe will not allow them to implement direct support distributed as part of Office) to ask permission to use it?

re: grasping at straws: The only grasping that is taking place in all of this is though of you who insist that there is still something wrong with all of this. What I find striking is that no one is contending the fact that there exist gross errors and misrepresentations of Open XML on its Wikipedia page. So the argument isn't "Wikipedia is correct as it stands" and instead "How dare you even consider being paid to make corrections!"

Maybe its just me, but shouldn't the *REAL* concern be within the confines of "is the Wikipedia page correct? If no, shouldn't someone who knows where the errors exist, and how to fix them, do just that?"

I mean, that's what Wikipedia is attempting to do, right? That is, provide a true representation of any given person, place, or thing to the best of the knowledge of the people?

Or should we just call it what it is: "The Peoples Tabloids"

Hi Rick, how funny to see your name appear on the blogosphere! Talk about trying to drag the wrong person into the middle of things... :-)

James

So Mr Jelliffe, you are willing to edit facts that you consider wrong on some wikipedia page, but are perfectly fine with what is in my view just as wrong, which is all what those pages omit to say.

Do you think "lie by omission" is ok?

If you accept money, and find that lie by omission is ok, then your credibility is zero, right?

A refresher : http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/office2007bin.asp

Let us know when you are ready to edit the wikipedia page, and add the fact that the specs are in spirit the same kind of questionable specs that Microsoft used to distribute for older binary file formats in the past. In other words, nothing that can in all fairness be called a standard.

Or perhaps you think that's FUD too.

@Peter,

I don't know whether I should laugh, cry, or cry from all of the laughter that preceded it from all of the effort being made to find some sort of "evil connection" with all of this.

Here's my favorite part,

(I have a nagging suspicion that it was you who suggested Rick's name to Microsoft marketing!)

Wow! As if that would even be required to bring Rick Jelliffe's name to the attention of the "All Mighty Eveel One" itself,

Me: "Oh, Dear All Mighty Eveel One: I present to you "Rick Jelliffe" who I believe can be converted to your Eveel Ways!

MSFT: Uh, three questions,

1) Why do you keep calling us "Mighty Eveel One"?
2) Yeah, we are quite aware of who Rick Jelliffe is, but yeah... thanks.
3) Who the hell are you, anyway, ya phreak, and how did you get this phone number???!!! Go away, you're scaring me, my wife, and you just made my seven year old burst into tears from that "scary sounding man on the phone!" She's going to have nightmares for weeks, you jerk!

"Click."

Me: Hmmmm... That didn't goes as well as I had thought.
Me: Damn.

---

So my bio states that I specialize in XML, XSLT, C#, the .NET platform, and in functional programming languages such as Lisp and Scheme. Of my six mentioned specialties, two of them have direct ties to Microsoft, the rest representing a base set of fundamentally cross-platform technologies (well, XML and XSLT (which is an XML-based language) are fundamentally cross-platform. Scheme and Lisp just happen to have implementations on a majority of the platforms in existence, making them cross-platform by default.)

Question: So does this mean that anybody who happens to know a thing or two about C# and .NET is "suspect!"? Yikes! That's like 10 million developers... That's a lot of suspects!

The other "connection", apparently, is that I began my career working as a *contractor* for Microsoft.

Just to set things straight, I have never, nor will I ever work for MSFT or any other corporation as a full time employee, unless that corporation happens be one in which I am a founding member of***. Why? Because I like my *independence*. I enjoy the freedom of being able to call my own shots.

Of course, nothing I say or do or anything of such sort will be enough to convince the conspiracy theorists out there that there is something evil going on.

Oh well, conspiracy theory away, my friends... Conspiracy theory away.

---
*** Of course, if a corporation I was a founding member of were to be purchased by another corporation, that would kind of null and void this statement. Not that I can foresee this scenario ever taking place, but if it were to take place, I would hate for something like this to be used against me in the court of public opinion, something I am beginning to understand it for what it truly is.

Whatever "the people" say it is, regardless of the facts and/or circumstances at hand.

Oh well, so be it...

Since you've not yet responded to my last observation - that Office 2007 is a (possibly not propers) superset of what is IN the OOXML spec, I would like to add something I missed. The specification indicates that undocumented, nonstandard, or proprietary formats be used, e.g. VML or Windows Metafiles. Office 2007 knows how to handle these, but are they part of a compliant OOXML implementation or not? So when archivists and others using something which perfectly implements the open and public portion of the spec see a big box with "unsupported Microsoft proprietary feature" instead of a graphic, that would be OK with you?

And if OOXML won't allow interoperability with Office 2007 (and later), why bother implementing it?

Or would you be willing to call Office 2007 a NON COMPLIANT implementation so could not be used for storing OOXML archival files (they would need a converter to strip or fix the proprietary junk, EXACTLY like they need a filter to load or save ODF)?

Good show, kill the FUD.
But take care you don't get hurt in the process!

Your apologetic tone in taking up Microsoft's illogical defenses of their monopolistic practices of platform lock-in is most unfortunate. It makes a strong point other than the one you are trying to make: that despite any demonstration of abilities and skills in unbiased logical analysis prior to this, your analyses and motives will from this point on be suspect as corruptable by corporate money. There is no return to grace. You'll join the Exxon Global Warming shills in the list of sell-outs to corproate greed. What a shame. I'd advise you to back out while you still have some semblence of character left. What is driving your need to become a Redmond shill? Is business that bad?

Why pay someone else to clear something up when you are (legally) right on this?

tz: Whether what Office 2007 is compliant with Ecma 376 can be primarily tested by validating the files using the schemas and by generating other files according to the spec and seeing whether it accepts them or not.

All standard XML formats of any sophistication allow extensibility, whether by allowing elements in different namespaces (as ODF does, IIRC), by having open content models, by having open-ended attributes, and so on. And every time there is extensibility, you need special systems to support anything other than generic operations.

XML formats with any history are also prone to having deprecated elements and attribute values. Neither XML Schemas nor RELAX NG, as I understand them (and I was on the working group for XSD at W3C), really allow arbitrary injection or removal of elements. So there are solid technical reasons why a schema coming in from industry might include deprecated parts.

When you don't have extensibility or a deprecations, then you could have guaranteed interoperability. When you are in a different position, you have to define a profile and behavior in order to get there. XML itself is a case of this: all parsers are required to accept UTF-8 and UTF-16 but all other encodings are options. There is no guarantee of data interoperability with XML, unless you use UTF-8 or UTF-16. But the availability of the other encodings allows vendors to differentiate their products and, most importantly, makes it convenient for users to on-ramp their data into XML systems.

Absolutely no-one on the ISO SC34 WG1 working group will be surprised by a data format that is extensible and which therefore allows odd media types that may not even be enumerated. In fact, I am the editor of an ISO standard called Schematron which is all about allowing a separation between highly permissive schemas (e.g. using XSD) and highly restrictive profiles (which guarantee or promote application-level interoperablity).

It is an issue that there is very little sophisticated recognition of; people want to adopt a standard (a schema) and ignore the necessity of having a profile. So yes yes yes, I would be very surprised if either OOXML or ODF didn't allow extensibility, and the solution is not to blame them but to recognize their place in the food chain: I have mentioned several times in my blog or XML-DEV that government organizations interested in interoperability need to utilize profiles.

See my blog Great Irish Government Subsets of XML Standards for a good place to start.

So I would distinguish the cases of extensibility (different media types, legacy formats, legacy data import envelopes, open ended attribute values, etc.) with cases of current binary formats. Now I have not had time to check up the current status of Stephane's reverse engineering of the .bin format in Office 2007, as in http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/office2007bin.asp
But it is low on my list, because that relates more to Office 2007 than to OOXML, it seems to me.

Can I suggest a different angle? If OOXML is standardized through ISO, then that gives an independent conformance test to judge MS by. If they don't conform, government purchasing can reject them, in favour of Word Perfect, or OpenOffice, or whatever. Standardization shifts the power to users away from vendors.

Why not take the deal! The only reason I see: You can make more money publicising this all over the web, then install google adsence and make more money!

To: M. David Patterson
[QUOTE]
Since when, in the history of the entire planet, has *ANY* generation been able to sit still and be happy with what they already have, and have been happy to simply just "work together as a community for the greater good of everyone."
[/QUOTE]

I suppose you're employed very productively in an organisation that works exclusively on inventing the new wheel?

Of course that is because you firmly believe that your new square (or is it polygonal? perhaps orthogonal?) wheel is a million times more efficient and effective than the silly existing round wheel.

And of course you believe that to use the existing round wheel would be nothing short of communism! God forbid the world be communist!

I completely understand, you poor lost, lonely soul.

[QUOTE]
All standard XML formats of any sophistication allow extensibility...
[/QUOTE]

Surely you mean the extensibility of the bit-mask? And surely mixing said "extensible" bit-mask technology with XML provides an excellent, human-readable, extensible solution eh?

And I suppose, you also mean re-inventing the wheel is a MS(tm)GoodThing. I mean why on earth use SVG when you have the opportunity to invent MSVG (or is it called VML?)?

And it must be a MS(tm)GoodThing to encode legacy cruft in a new standard?
You must sincerely believe that the sole intention of this MS move is to enable even the oldest documents ever created in MS Office to be accessible and readable to all implementors. Of course no implementor other than MS could legally and openly implement such vaguely defined "compatibility". But why should that bother you?

And what about requiring implementors to handle 1900 as a leap year?

That has to be a MS(tm)GoodThing, right? Why use the ISO date formats and the Gregorian Calendar when the MS(tm)Calendar has mandated that 1900 be a leap year?

An interesting view on standards, I must say.

G Fernandes: Two points. First, I don't see how the subject of bitmasks comes up when talking about extensibility.

There are only three different uses of bitmasks that I can find in the Ecma spec: one is to do with metadata for file choosers, which hardly seems earthshaking, one is concerned with conditional formating in tables: inline signals that the current cell has odd-cell formatting for example, and some strange thing to say whether a native table in a presentation has bi-directional text. These would add about a minute to a programmer's time to handle, over having separate attributes. I agree they are ugly, but certainly in the table cell case I can see why they might be justifiable for filesize reasons.

Second, Groklaw and the other sites are wrong when they claim that bit-masks cannot be validated, e.g. using ISO Schematron. I've posted code to the Schematron-love-in mail list using division, and Ken Holman also has some XSLT code using mod on his site.

Furthermore, for schemas for large data sets it is not unusual to have terse markup, for entirely practical reasons. This isn't made for toys, but potentially for documents with hundreds or thousands of pages. It is consistent with the super-terse element names.

I read that the famous chef of el Bulli near Barcelona has a desert made of foam frozen in liquid nitrogen. It looks like solid block but as soon as you touch it, the whole thing just evaporates and disappears. The horrors of the bitmask seem to be the same.

G. Fernandes: Actually, VML came out before SVG.

See http://dotnetjunkies.com/WebLog/unknownreference/articles/973.aspx

That OOXML uses VML and not SVG is yet another reason why ODF is more suitable for level-playing-field data exchange and for organizations to mandate (and profile) for that use.

(Corrected 2007-01-25: "not" missing, sentence made no sense)

Rick Jeliffe wrote:

"That OOXML uses VML and SVG is yet another reason why ODF is more suitable for level-playing-field data exchange and for organizations to mandate (and profile) for that use."

Rick, Why are you stating that OOXML uses SVG???

The article you linked to doesn't even claim that.

Are you sure you've researched the topic, Rick?

Have you read this document:

http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/OfficeOpenXMLFactSheet.pdf

To save you 2 minutes of google and searching the pdf, here's an extract:

"Examples of existing standards not used in OOXML include SVG for drawings and MathML for equations. Instead, OOXML "reinvents the wheel," creating unnecessary complexity for programmers."

Rick, what's next in your mission to cleanse Wikipedia?

A new improved history of XAML?

As I wrote in a recent blog post, I've never understood the logic behind Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, and this particular incident is reminiscent of the sort of humbug that one would expect from the faithful members of the Inner Party at ODP/dMOZ. Sure, there's a potential conflict of interest when someone is paid to contribute content to a website that is built primarily by volunteers, but it's rather naive for Wikipedians to assume that this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time. Indeed, the articles that Jelliffe was supposed to review and edit were allegedly written by people working for IBM.

bene bene male male

Your main point seems to be this: "For example, the proposition that "ODF and OOXML are both office document formats: why should there be two standards?" is one that should be discussed. As I have mentioned before on this blog, I think OOXML has attributes that distinguish it: ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document; this makes it poorer for archiving but paradoxically may make it better for level-playing-field, inter-organization document interchange."

From what I can tell, you are thouroughly mistaken on that main point. ODF has, in fact, been designed to accomodate everything known to exist in Microsoft formats.

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2007011720521698&a%0Amp;title=OpenDocument%3A%20Fully%20supporting%20legacy%20MS%20Office%20documents%0A&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=528990#c529349

This fact is attested to by this blog about the daVinci plugin.

http://www.fr0mat.net/

Read it, and understand it, before you attempt any *cough* corrections *cough* on Wikpedia entries that are not, in fact, incorrect.

I'm afraid to say, Rick, it is you who is incorrect.

Mike: Sorry to confuse you. I missed out a "not" in that sentence and it made no sense without it. I've corrected it now. (I need a good editor!)

Press update: This has now made it all the way to CNN online!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/01/24/microsoft.wikipedia.ap/index.html

Mark: My information comes from speaking with someone working on ODF directly and asking them. (IIRC it was Patrick Durusau, the editor of ISO ODF, in Seoul 2006.) Having an expert familiar with formats is different from there being a design goal and specific process. But I would be happy to be wrong.

Rick Jeliffe wrote:

"Mike: Sorry to confuse you. I missed out a "not" in that sentence and it made no sense without it. I've corrected it now. (I need a good editor!)"

Thanks for the apology, Rick. And the correction. And the deft use of irony to introduce a little humour to this discussion.

Would you care to share your views about the heart of the matter we are discussing now? I think it goes to the core of the reason why so many people are expressing dismay about the prospects of someone with your reputation and skills contemplating accepting money to edit Wikipedia for Microsoft. (I'm not saying you have accepted anything...).

We were talking about Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), which is an open standard for web graphics from the worldwide web consortium (the people who invented the web and who define what HTML is).

SVG is the result of years of dedicated work by leading engineers, designers, artists and business people from the world's leading software companies, manufacturers and publishers to standardize graphics on the web.

Microsoft participated in the standards process, but never implemented SVG in Internet Explorer. Why do you think that is?

Lack of resources?

Lack of importance of vector graphics?

Lack of demand?

Now fast forward to 2007. Microsoft's new Vista operating system features... scalable vector graphics. But wait a minute... the graphics language Microsoft found time to implement is not the worldwide web standard SVG... it is a new variant that has the same functionality and technical merits... but slightly different syntax, and a new name, XAML.

Why do you think that is?

Could you explain to the lay community (tuning in from CNN now) the significance of a slightly different syntax?

Mark: "Would you care to share your views about the heart of the matter we are discussing now? "

See my blog "Wikigate!" at
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/wikigate.html

Also "An astounding offer" at
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/01/an_astounding_offer.html

OK, so Microsoft doesn't intend to constrain what you write in any way, and they'll pay up front, so aside from a certain feeling that it's not quite right to take someone's money and then harm them, there's no constraint on what you would write. It doesn't look good, because it's impossible for anyone else to tell whether being paid has impacted your objectivity, and it's also impossible from outside to tell whether there are informal guidelines in the relationship that we're unaware of. But there's no actual constraint.
But, pardon me for asking, what if they do it again?
At that point expectations of future money begin to be set up, and there's a subtle but real (and if the media in general is any guide, quite practically effective) awareness that if you write stuff they don't like, you don't get hired again. That would to a moderate degree be a constraint. Can Wikipedia users be fairly confident that this is a one-shot? Would you change your views about the appropriateness of this behaviour if it looked as if Microsoft intended a longer term or repeating arrangement?

Personally, there's no way on earth I would accept money from Microsoft in specific to do anything that would influence opinion in any way, even if in general I didn't have a problem with the idea of something like this Wikipedia gig, simply because I'm too well aware of many, many instances of Microsoft's massive untrustworthiness, aggressiveness, and propensity for unscrupulous schemes. No matter how much a proposal seemed on the up and up, I would find myself wondering what goals it really served beyond the obvious, and have no confidence whatsoever in my ability to determine them. Indeed, one side purpose may be precisely to undermine the credibility of a pesky open standards advocate. All I know is that the corporate graveyards are littered with outfits who co-operated with Microsoft under the impression that they could profit from Microsoft's enlightened self-interest.

Rick Jeliffe wrote:

"Mark: "Would you care to share your views about the heart of the matter we are discussing now? ""

"See my blog..."

Rick, my name is Mike, not Mark.

The blog entries you link to don't address the questions I asked you.

Rufus: I think MS knows that, in order to win this one, they have to win it fairly and on its merits and with transparency. They have a lot of suspicious eyes on them. Which makes them very susceptible to FUD but it is not a weapon that would do them any good, in this case. It certainly is an ironic position for them to be in, and unimaginable for some people, but not a dishonorable one, nor that bad for the rest of us IMHO.

The trouble here has been caused by too much transparency, paradoxically. I should have researched up on the Wikipedia guidelines and raised the issue on the Wikipedia talk pages before mentioning it on the blog. Newspapers picked it up and ran it as if there were a conspiracy uncovered: "Writer asked to write" is a boring headline. The original version of the blog had me asking readers "What do you think?" but I took it out because it sounded defensive and I had nothing to be defensive about.

Then newspapers interpret it as me whistleblowing on MS, then they take the conspiracy theory angle that somehow I have been found out, then they startle poor Wikipedia people who blurt out the general policy, and then this becomes some kind of war between MS and Wikipedia, and it gets syndicated and today it is lead article on CNN technology section. But in the private mails I have been cced on between a Wikipedia person and an MS person, there has been nothing but civility and mutual understanding, which is different from resolution of course. This is the kind of thing that can be sorted out.

You're assuming you know what they want and what they are trying to win. Consider Microsoft's deal with Novell; it's win-win for Microsoft. Either they create some good FUD about Linux's legal liabilities, scaring people away from distributions other than Novell, or they taint Novell and get rid of a competitor. If they're lucky, maybe both. Novell thought they knew what Microsoft wanted and what they were trying to win; whether or not they do OK out of the deal, it is unlikely that they were right.

[quote]Since you openly admit to being paid my Microsoft you immediately destroy any credibility as a neutral commentator. End of story.[/quote]

Not being paid, asked to be paid. That's fundamentally different.

[quote]there is also a sea of crap being produced[/quote]

Yes, like false emails, it's called 'junk mail', must be something new for you, right? Like dream on.

My dream? Work for microsoft!

Rick Jelliffe wrote:
"Mark: My information comes from speaking with someone working on ODF directly and asking them. (IIRC it was Patrick Durusau, the editor of ISO ODF, in Seoul 2006.) Having an expert familiar with formats is different from there being a design goal and specific process. But I would be happy to be wrong."

Rick, there are literally hundreds of people all over the web attesting to the fact that ODF format can (and in actual fact does) cover all of the Microsoft legacy format capabilities.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#A_new_and_separate_standard_may_not_be_.27necessary.27

"Unquestionably, there is a market requirement for the high fidelity migration of legacy Microsoft Office files to XML. The pivotal issue is whether Ecma/Microsoft's claim is accurate that an entirely new applicative and overlapping office productivity file format standard is necessary to achieve the high fidelity migration to XML that the market requires."

...

"The second plug-in that we suggest JTC-1 arrange to have demonstrated is the da Vinci plug-in under development by the OpenDocument Foundation in aid of OpenDocument support in Microsoft Office for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The da Vinci plug-in provides native read-write support for OpenDocument to Microsoft Word, reportedly using Word's APIs for adding native file format support. Interestingly, its developers claim an ability to achieve 100 per cent fidelity in round-tripping documents between OpenDocument and Word's various binary format versions. We have contacted its developers and they have indicated willingness to arrange a demonstration for JTC-1. The Foundation's President, Gary Edwards, who is also one of the developers of the OpenDocument standard, can be contacted using contact information on the Foundation's web site.

Further information on the Foundation's methods and concepts:

* OpenDocument as the Perfect MS Office File Format: How to: Add native file support for OpenDocument to Microsoft Office.
* Running on OpenDocument Inside of MS Office:

Perfect Conversion Fidelity & The daVinci OpenDocument Plugin for Microsoft Office.

Mr. Edwards has also indicated his willingness to demonstrate the plug-in using test files selected by JTC-1 and suggests that both the Microsoft and the Foundation plug-ins be demonstrated using the same test files, allowing an objective comparison of fidelity. The plug-in has previously been demonstrated for Massachusetts, the State of California, and the European Commission's IDABC. "

Mr Edwards is the person who wrote the original post on Groklaw.

Here: http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2007011720521698&a%0Amp;title=OpenDocument%3A%20Fully%20supporting%20legacy%20MS%20Office%20documents%0A&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=528990#c529349

Gary should know, because he has in fact done it, and demonstrated it. For real. To governments.

Gary says: " It's absolutely true that ODF can handle anything that MSOffice and the legacy of billions of binary documents can throw at it. This includes the years of line of business applications dependent upon MSOffice, the critical day to day business processes built onto the MSOffice platform, and even the low level assistive technology add-ons problematically layered into MSOffice.

ODF handles these issues in much the same way as MOOXML, with equal fidelity. "

He also says this:
"The larger, more robust, more capable ODF can handle MOOXML - MSOffice tasks with ease. We can't however do the reverse. We can't "fit" all that ODF can handle into the comparatively constrained and limited MOOXML."

!!!!

ODF is the larger, more capable format. ODF can handle OOXML, but OOXML cannot handle ODF!

These are the facts, Rick. The daVinci plugin proves it to be so.

Para creer que la propuesta de Microsoft no es ética hace falta carecer de dos cosas: inteligencia y sentido de la realidad. Wikipedia es uno de los sitios más visitados de Internet y es lógico que una empresa que tiene los medios para hacerlo, cuide su imagen en este sentido. Lo malo es que con este panorama, si Wikipedia dice que el almacén de la esquina de mi casa vende huevos en mal estado, pero no es cierto, dificilmente alguien haga lo mismo para corregir ese error, aunque si lo dijese de las hamburguesas de Mc Donalds, pronto se encargarían de corregir el "falso" dato.
Por lo visto, y paradójicamente, Wikipedia podría convertirse en un portal publicitario para las grandes empresas que pudieran pagar por el "mantenimiento" de rigor, y hasta incluso por tener mayor cantidad de referencias relacionadas con sus productos y/o servicios.
Ya era hora de que se convirtiera en una enciclopedia verdaderamente democrática... No?

[QUOTE]
That OOXML uses VML and not SVG is yet another reason why ODF is more suitable for level-playing-field data exchange and for organizations to mandate (and profile) for that use.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your clarifications. And thank you also for making your position clear (fair/impartial v/s ardent OO-XML proponent).

I'll answer to both your comments in this one reply.

1. While bit-masks are not horrifying per-se, they are a maintenance nightmare. So I disagree with you that a few bitmasks here and there are "ugly, but ok". The code for handling bitmasks is always a maintenance nightmare. And the use of bitmasks in XML is baffling to my simple mind. I can conceive no situation that couldn't be solved otherwise, in a cleaner and more elegant manner. That aside, this is a great example of defining a "standard" around an "implementation". This, in my experience, is a bad way as it necessarily limits the people building the standard to one implementation. Contrast that with attacking a general problem in the abstract and formulating a generic solution to it.
2. While SVG may have been born later than VML (or XAML - and MS's behavior in pushing XAML is an important reason why OOXML should never be allowed to become a standard), the fact remains that SVG is the W3C standard and MS seems intent on somehow subverting the standard and presenting a proprietary, Windows-only replacement that "looks" like a standard, but really is proprietary. Vendor lock-in has been MS strategy since time immemorial and, while I have great respect for your integrity and your fairness, I have no doubt that the sole reason for pushing OOXML is to subvert standards and retain MS Office format lock-in.

MS tried this stunt with Java and (fortunately for the world) failed. While your intentions are undoubtedly honorable, the fact remains that MS is an incorrigible monopolist. It MUST be stopped. Forcing MS to play fairly with ODF will be an important achievement for all consumers of office suite software.

I agree with you that FUD is not the way to do this. But I am also of the view that creating a standard against a (provably flawed) implementation is not the way standards should be created.

MS is the person on death-row that is pleading for a 10th and last chance to change itself. One must remember that although one might not have been directly affected, or even around at the time, MS has abused all the previous 9 chances. It is now time to execute the sentence.

Here is some other interesting info that can be dug up about Microsoft and their recalcitrance when it comes to ODF.

Find the text on this page:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=2007011720521698&a%0Amp;title=OpenDocument%3A%20Fully%20supporting%20legacy%20MS%20Office%20documents%0A&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=528990#c529349

"But hey, this issue itself could have been dealt with back in 2002, when Microsoft first joined the OASIS Open Office XML TC. Sadly they chose to the quietly secretive role of "observer", never once breaking their silence with some measure of participation or comment. Not once.

That's not to say Microsoft wasn't well represented on the ODF TC. Some of the greatest reverse engineering experts in the world worked on ODF, including Stellent's legendary binary file format expert, Phil Boutros. I often wondered if there was actually anyone working at Microsoft who could match his knowledge of their legacy file formats."

Given all this, and given the fact that 100% perfect round-trip interchange between Microsoft legacy formats and ODF can and has been achieved, I think it pretty much kills any chance that your thought that "ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document" is totally wrong.

Microsoft simply assert (without any proof whatsoever) utterly false positions such as "ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document" so that they can then say "we won't support ODF, instead we will submit our own format for approval".

Give it up, Rick. Microsoft's bluff has well & truly been called here. Microsoft's OOXML format is an utter sham, the sole purpose of which is to try to undermine the fully open and fully capable ODF format.

G. Fernandes: No, standards are dealt with on their own merits at ISO, not the merits of other acts of one stakeholder in a standard. ISO committees are not anti-trust courts. That is not the way it works.

On the subject of Java, of course you would remember that Sun was going to standardize it through ISO, then pulled out to keep it proprietary. They instigated the JCP as a way to keep control of their baby. That is their right, but in doing so they lost the ability to say to MS (when it pulled the J++ stunt) and to IBM (with the SWT stunt) "Oi, you should be following the standard!" On the other hand, the presence of two "standard" graphical languages for Java has lead to a richness for users as well as a wasted duplication of effort: the calculus of benefits and costs is not as simple as the mono-culturalists would have you believe. All these big companies play hard, and adopt standards or not as suits their advantage; that is OK, ISO is not designed to hinder competition, even self-defeating competition, but to facilitate agreement(s) fairly.

Mark: (Sorry about the name confusion earlier.) It doesn't matter how many parrots say something. We can look at the ODF committees records: they are online at http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/

Their search engine wasn't working for me, and when I tried Google it had not indexed all the entries. (The search on Google revealed two mentions of Microsoft in 2006. One of them was a discussion on what to do when Microsoft tried to interfere and block ODF at ISO...of course, MS did no such thing, it let ODF through entirely without a campaign, almost without a whisper...I was attending ISO meetings at the time so I remember it was very interesting...but now the ODF people are doing exactly the kind of thing that MS didn't do. Don't be fooled that these are guys who care about gentlemanliness or other fluffy goodness.)

So, please, show me where in the archives there is this systematic attempt to support MS Office's features. It should be there in the record. I am happy to accede to facts, and would be delighted to be wrong. Facts are good.

But another part of your comment confused me. I thought the ODF people were saying that OOXML was bad because it was impossible to implement completely without getting access to old binary formats. But you are saying that it has been implement 100% already. This is great news: I thought, for example, that ISO ODF did not allow tables inside presentations. (The content model in the ODF spec at OASIS v1.0 2nd edition allows tables in the prolog of presentation s whatever that means, but doesn't seem to allow them in draw-pages.) So how does this work?

There is a 'fork' of wikipedia's policy which disallows original content to be authored and posted:

http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php

One can post non-neutral point of view wikipedia-like articles on wikinfo.org then link to them from the wikipedia entry.

Microsoft in this case should be able to post their own point of view without hiding the fact, thus preventing edit wars and its consequential coverage in online news and the blogosphere.

Rick,

I'd go ahead and write what you think needs fixing. Half the people commenting on this say people can just correct you anyway, according to them... The other half think bad information should not be corrected because their football team is "Open Source" not "Microsoft". No amount of logic will sway them from their opinion (team) because they aren't in it for objective information. They are in it to stick it to the man, the "evil empire", the big bad corporation. (The other team.)

Whats wrong with Open Source vs Microsoft, etc and for that matter our electoral process is that many people stop mentally participating and it just degenerates into a my team vs your team debate with little objectivity.

Either you will be able to fix you think is wrong or you won't. If you can't, Wikipedia becomes nothing more than a sounding board for misinformation and opinion.
If you can, by all means, let Microsoft pay you for your time only and not biased information and praise. If you do that, Wikipedia and you will gain some credibility.
If you let Microsoft pay you to put out misinformation, you both lose credibility.

So keep your objectivity, and do the right thing.

It's really a bad idea to accept this offer! I think that wiki was not a website to be paid to write some article for a compagny and be paid for this. Wiki was an encyclopedia for everyone and made by "normal" person. Not by a guy who want to make some money!! PLEASE, don't accept that and Wikipedia must do something to counter this kind of thing!

An simply surfer.

I'd like to reply to Finite who wrote:

"That is just crazy talk. There is nothing wrong with accepting payment to contribute to Wikipedia. 'Astroturfing' doesn't really apply either, as long as he is documenting (on his wikipedia user page) who his employer his. It certainly would seem, to me anyway, dishonest if somebody were to do something like this and _not_ disclose that they were being paid... but DISCLOSURE is exactly what this blog post is and Rick should be commended for that."

I think that this is correct, except that the disclosure would need to be on wikipedia, not on this site. It's only meaningful if the reader of wikipedia knows that what he or she is reading is a paid comment from a contracted employee of MS. Since posting to wikipedia is anonymous (how many readers would bother to check the user page?) there is no way to make this disclosure, without which the posting would be completely unethical.

Unfortunately (Fortunately?), the media coverage of this has opened a can of worms that is shining a very bright light on the whole issue at hand: How should competing ideologies exist in Wikipedia. The nature of the Wikipedia beast is that the mob wins. A good example of the kind irrationality that is going on can be seen in the comments of this blog entry:

GASP! Microsoft Caught Trying to Change Wikipedia Entries

Update I have now looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for conflict of interest pretty carefully, and I don't believe there is actual conflict of interest under their rules. There would be if MS paid someone to correct entries on MS or its brands, but draft ISO OOXML is not an MS brand. See What actually is Wikipedia's guidelines for conflict of interest?

I'd like to thank all the emails and comments of support I have been sent in the last few days. People can see through a media beat up, or at least, through this one.

I wonder what Alexis de Tocqueville would think of this case. Not so much the ISO clarifications but just the idea of paying a person to edit an entry on one of the best examples of a democracy (and not to confuse with capitalism) ever displayed to a world audience.

Wikipedia is designed and built with all intentions of peer-reviewed and maintained community.

The MSFT idea falls under an axiom of economics (Howard S. Piquet):The Pursuit of Self Interest.

If you want a capitalistic based information-community, go to godaddy.com, register/build a website for that very purpose. Leave the pure democratic qualities in Wiki please.

Rick Jelliffe wrote: "So, please, show me where in the archives there is this systematic attempt to support MS Office's features. It should be there in the record. I am happy to accede to facts, and would be delighted to be wrong. Facts are good.

But another part of your comment confused me. I thought the ODF people were saying that OOXML was bad because it was impossible to implement completely without getting access to old binary formats. But you are saying that it has been implement 100% already. This is great news: I thought, for example, that ISO ODF did not allow tables inside presentations. (The content model in the ODF spec at OASIS v1.0 2nd edition allows tables in the prolog of presentation s whatever that means, but doesn't seem to allow them in draw-pages.) So how does this work?"

I hope I can clear up some confusion for you here. The Gary Edwards daVinci plugin is explained here: http://www.fr0mat.net/

It is a plugin for Microsoft Office. Microsoft Office already understands the old legacy binary formats, and can read those formats into the office applications.

The daVinci plugin can then save the internal contents of Microsoft office applications (ie, the current document in memory) in ODF format ... with perfect fidelity. It can ready the ODF files back in again, and they can be save back as legacy formats using the normal Microsoft Office saves. The point is, the documents survive this "round trip" perfectly. 100% intact.

This proves the point that the ODF format can handle anything (any formatting, any data) that legacy format Microsoft documents can contain.

If you think about this fact for just a moment, it also shows Microsoft were not correct when the refused to support ODF in the first place, giving as their reason the "ODF cannot support our legacy formats". That claim was not correct. ODF can support their legacy formats.

As for the bit about the legacy binary bits being still present in OOXML, and why that is a bad thing, please understand that it is a bad thing for competition. The daVinci plugin still uses most of Office to decipher legacy format data. This trick therefore still requires most of Office.

Hence, keeping the legacy formats in any way, including as binary blobs within OOXML, still precludes and competing Office applications from other vendors. The legacy formats are still not vendor neutral, and they never will be.

The best transition then at this point is for the world to move as one to ODF formats. These are the more capable of the two formats, and the more open and unencumbered. The ODF formats are proven to be able to store all of the information in legacy documents, and the daVinci plugin plus a copy of Microsoft Office gives us a tool to convert all legacy documents to an open, unencumbered and vendor-neutral XML format in ODF.

Finally, I'll finish with some quotes from the linked page, just to hammer home the crucial point: that ODF formats can handle everything in legacy documents, despite Microsoft's false claim they cannot.

Please bear in mind as you read this how thoroughly it all undermines Microsoft's whole rationale for submitting a new proposed standard which heavily conflicts with the existing approved standard ISO 26300.

Now for the quotes:
"The OpenDocument format ("ODF") is able to handle anything Microsoft Office can throw at it, and handle it at least as well as Microsoft's new EOOXML file formats. That includes the bound business processes, assistive technology add-ons, line of business dependencies and advanced feature sets unique to various versions of Microsoft Office. "

"Full fidelity is a term used by the file conversion congnoscenti. It refers to the quality of conversions from one file format to another. Full fidelity means the conversion from one format to another cannot result in data loss. If data loss is possible, for example depending on what software features are invoked in a given document, then we refer to the conversion as lossy. For example, there is the always problematically lossy and always one way-only conversion of a Microsoft Word 97 binary file format (.doc) to a Microsoft Word 2003 binary file format (.doc). There is also the common file format conversion of a Microsoft Word binary .doc to Rich Text Format ("RTF") and back. "

"For our purposes, we are concerned with the fidelity of file conversions between OpenDocument and binary files bound to Microsoft Word versions from Word 97 to Word 2007. Microsoft is able to perfect a full fidelity conversion of those same binary documents to and from EOOXML, using the Microsoft XML compatibility pack plugin. We argue that the same full fidelity of conversion is possible between Microsoft Word and OpenDocument, using the daVinci plugin for Microsoft Word. In fact, the process of how this is done is very similar to that used by the MS XML compatibility pack."

"Enter daVinci. The conversion of binary documents occurs at the headpoint of the process, Microsoft Word, and it is full fidelity. No need to waste expensive human attention fixing conversion artifacts. "

"To exchange documents, participants first have to synchronize the versions of Microsoft Office used to produce these usually compound and data centric transaction instruments. They call it version madness in that there is no way to exchange Microsoft Office documents without first having everyone involved using exactly the same version. Meaning, the quality of fidelity conversion between different versions of MSOffice is a killer. Data loss occurs unpredictably. It is unacceptable."

"However, try to convert one of these documents, and risk dropping formulas, data bindings, rules based routing, or workflow scripting, and the whole process will come to a screeching halt. As it should. This is but another way some proprietary vendors lock in their customers. If you can't do a full fidelity conversion, and be confident of the results, the only alternative is to turn to a single vendor and year after year pay the price."

"When Massachusetts put out their request for information, as it happened we were only an installation program away from our first ODF 1.0 compatible plugin for Microsoft Word, the most heavily-used application in Microsoft Office. In June Massachusetts sent us our first set of 150 primary importance test documents. We sent them their first plugin install, which was dialed for perfect interoperability with the ODF 1.0-compliant reference implementation, OOo 2.0. In August, we sent Massachusetts the first da Vinci version of the plugin, which was dialed for perfect, 100% round trip conversion fidelity with the legacy of Microsoft Word binaries."

"The Microsoft assistive technologies were never an issue for us because the plugin works natively within Word. Microsoft Word handles the assistive technologies, and all the plugin does is the conversions from Word's in-memory-binary-representation to ODF and back."

"The situation with the MSOffice bound business processes was such that everyone agreed we had to have a much higher fidelity converting those binaries than the extraordinary 85 per cent fidelity credited to the OpenOffice.org file conversion engine. We had to have perfect fidelity because there was no reasonable expectation of ever successfully migrating those business processes to a Microsoft Office alternative like ODF-ready OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, WorkPlace or Novell Office. Such a re-engineering of the business processes would be costly and beyond disruptive. If however we could achieve full fidelity conversions of legacy Microsoft binary documents to ODF, and were able to guarantee the roundtrip process of these newly christened ODF documents in a mixed desktop environment, one comprised of ODF-enabled Microsoft Office, OpenOffice.org, Novell Office, WorkPlace, and KOffice, the existing MSOffice bound business processes could continue being used even as new ODF ready workstations were added to the workflow. Massachusetts could migrate to non-Microsoft Office software in manageable phases, restoring competition -- and sanity -- to the Commonwealth's software procurement program."

"Most people believe that full fidelity file conversion is impossible, largely influenced by the poor fidelity generally experienced in converting documents from one vendor's binary file formats to another vendor's binary file formats. The major reason some people transfer such beliefs to the daVinci plugin is that they do not realize the plugin works natively inside Microsoft Word. The Word program itself performs the conversions using its internal processes for native support of a file format. The da Vinci plugin triggers the native Microsoft Word conversion process, intercepts the output at precisely the right moment, and maps it to ODF. When opening an ODF document, da Vinci simply reverses the process (although there is nothing simple about what da Vinci does or how da Vinci does this)."

"Think of it this way. The Microsoft Compatibility Pack is a EOOXML plugin for older versions of Microsoft Office. If these versions of Microsoft Office can use a plugin to perfect a conversion process between legacy binary formats and EOOXML, the same process can be used for ODF. In fact, it's actually easier to perfect a similar conversion process to and from ODF instead of EOOXML, particularly for Microsoft. Easier in that the ODF specification is lean and clean by comparison and very carefully structured. Even easier if you have the blueprints for those binary file formats."

"My educated guess is that it would take all of two weeks for Microsoft to write an Microsoft Office ODF plugin. Indeed, Microsoft developers reportedly told Massachusetts that it would be "trivial" for them to implement ODF in Microsoft Office. In all three of the major apps. If they can do it for something as complex and convoluted as EOOXML, ODF will be a snap. The trick is not in XML. It's in having the secret legacy binary format blueprints."

"There's a reason we call our plugin "da Vinci". Yeah, you guessed it. There is in fact a secret code needed to unravel the remaining mysteries of the legacy binaries; the elusive 15% just beyond the reach of the OpenOffice.org conversion engine."

"The da Vinci plugin is conformant with version 1.2 of the ODF specification still working it's way through the OASIS ODF sub-committees and is dependent on features of the draft specification that may conceivably change. Massachusetts was well aware of this fact, and knew we were treading on dangerous ground because ODF 1.2 was not yet final. They gave us the go-ahead anyway. Such is the importance of round trip high fidelity with the legacy binaries."

"Why ODF 1.2? Microsoft is notorious for frequently changing its file formats. There is even a Microsoft document jarred loose in the antitrust litigation where they brag about maintaining a "moving target" for other vendors' efforts to achieve interoperability with Microsoft applications. For example, there is no single "DOC" file format. There are versions after versions of just the word processing format, all different. And their specifications are still secret. Imagine the volumes of unspecified binary objects, application version specific or add-on specific processing instructions, and aging system dependencies buried in those billions of legacy binary files. There is no telling when or where they will pop up and da Vinci will have to somehow handle what are otherwise one unmappable black hole after another."

"As a proof of concept, da Vinci provides a most valuable service. First of all it proves the ODF can handle anything EOOXML can handle. ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Word can throw at it. Second, da Vinci proves that Microsoft developers could at least as easily have written an ODF plugin for Microsoft Word as they did an EOOXML plugin. For Microsoft, knowing the secret binary blueprint as they do, this simply can not be seen as a technical challenge. It was purely a business decision. Third, da Vinci demonstrates that it is possible to perfect a migration to ODF at minimal cost of disruption to existing business processes and application bound routines. The migration to ODF is possible. The starting point of this migration is exactly where Massachusetts ITD thought it would be - with ODF plugins for Microsoft Office."

Mark: Thanks for posting the very long press release for an unreleased product (is it open source? is it commercial?) that generates a non-standard version of ODF based on plans for ODF 1.2, and for which Google provides no test results or even home page.

It seems that daVinci is an Word plug-in, not a general Office tool: so is your claim actually some ODF people assert without providing any evidence so far that a future version of ODF can handle everything that OOXML's WordProcessingML currently handles, and they have a tool now that proves it? That would not surprise me. But it is still several thousand pages of spec. short of the full claim, isn't it?

But what it means also is that only now, after the OOXML is well under way, is ODF getting the features available in OOXML. Hmmm, good for ODF and everyone I'm sure.

Have you seen it?

Rick said: "Thanks for posting the very long press release for an unreleased product (is it open source? is it commercial?) that generates a non-standard version of ODF based on plans for ODF 1.2, and for which Google provides no test results or even home page."

The Opendocument Foundation (sponsors of the plugin) say this:
http://opendocument.us/
"The infamous ODf Plugin is not yet available for download. Our plan is to submit the plugin to participate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts trials. Following the trials, and completion of development, the plugin will be available to the public. National and State governments, governmental agencies and systems consultants having an interest in the trials are welcome to contact us for information, and possible contribution - participation suggestions. We're not yet aware of how the trials are to be structured, but input and advice is most welcome."

I'm fairly sure that the Opendocument Foundation is waiting for Microsoft to release Vista and Office 2007 to the general public, in order that the daVinci plugin can't be sabotaged in the way it works at the last minute.

Rick: "It seems that daVinci is an Word plug-in, not a general Office tool: so is your claim actually some ODF people assert without providing any evidence so far"

Sorry, that is not correct. The plugin has been demonstrated to Massachusetts, to some other government interested parties, and to a commission in Europe. There is an offer on the table to demonstrate it to the ISO JTC.

Refer to: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#A_new_and_separate_standard_may_not_be_.27necessary.27

Rick: "that a future version of ODF can handle everything that OOXML's WordProcessingML currently handles, and they have a tool now that proves it? That would not surprise me. But it is still several thousand pages of spec. short of the full claim, isn't it?"

No. They had the capability of "100% able to handle MS legacy formats" with ODF version 1.0 too. Going to ODF version 1.2 exposes more of the legacy format information to other non-MS-Office applications, and so is better for interoperability with non-MS-Office applications.

"But what it means also is that only now, after the OOXML is well under way, is ODF getting the features available in OOXML. Hmmm, good for ODF and everyone I'm sure."

No. ODF has had the ability to handle everything in MS legacy formats from version 1.0. MS engineers knew this also, and said as much to Massachusetts representatives. MS engineers told Massachusetts representatives that it would be "trivial" for them to make MS Office fully capable and compliant with ODF (even at ODF version 1.0). Still Microsoft management killed that idea, they came up with OOXML instead, and they had the audacity to make the utterly false excuse that ODF could not handle their legacy formatted documents. It could then, it still can now, and Microsoft knew it.

"Have you seen it? "

No, I have not. It is not yet released to the public. But it does exist, and it has been demonstrated, and it does work. As advertised.

And hence, it does proove the essential points.
"As a proof of concept, da Vinci provides a most valuable service. First of all it proves the ODF can handle anything EOOXML can handle. ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Word can throw at it. Second, da Vinci proves that Microsoft developers could at least as easily have written an ODF plugin for Microsoft Word as they did an EOOXML plugin. For Microsoft, knowing the secret binary blueprint as they do, this simply can not be seen as a technical challenge. It was purely a business decision. Third, da Vinci demonstrates that it is possible to perfect a migration to ODF at minimal cost of disruption to existing business processes and application bound routines. The migration to ODF is possible."

All I would ask is that you keep all of these facts in mind before you go trying to *cough* "correct" *cough* anything to align it better with Microsoft's spin. You would end up with a massive amount of egg on your face if you just took Microsoft's word for things at face value.

Mark: Again, no proof, just press releases.

On the example I gave before, what about tables in presentations? ODF 1.0 did not allow that AFAIK. You can see in the schema for ISO ODF that it doesn't. But the OOXML format does. So I don't see by what magic it is possible, sorry. One schema says one thing, the other schema allows something different.

The most charitable meaning I can think of is that there might be some "trivial" changes to both ODF (e.g. ODF 1.2 might meet the mark) and Office that would make them compatible.

"I have now looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for conflict of interest pretty carefully, and I don't believe there is actual conflict of interest under their rules. There would be if MS paid someone to correct entries on MS or its brands, but draft ISO OOXML is not an MS brand."

Excuse me? I was trying to work on the assumption that you're an honest person seriously thinking about the problem, but that assumption can no longer hold. This is ludicrous sophistry. I can no longer trust a thing you put in that entry. You've shown that your intellectual independence has already been sufficiently compromised by the stance you've taken, whether because of the money or because of the tendency for people to harden their stances once they've entered an adversarial position, that you cannot be trusted and are no longer independent in this matter. If you're willing to squirm around the letter of the rule to this extent, your credibility as an independent with integrity in the matter is gone. The question of whether you're technically allowed to say what you want and therefore technically might be imagined not to be swayed in your opinions by the money is out the window. It is utterly clear what the purpose of those guidelines is: People aren't supposed to be commenting on things when they've been paid by someone with a significant vested interest in a non-neutral point of view. OOXML is Microsoft's baby, they're pushing it because they have a strong financial interest in blunting adoption of ODF, and whether it "should" be a standard or not there is no real argument that it was created purely as a definition of the behaviour of a specific Microsoft product/group of products. Oh, but it's not a "brand"! Give me a break. This is blatant intellectual dishonesty, and if you're capable of it over this, you're capable of it in your edits to Wikipedia itself.

Here's the thing, once you take money from Microsoft to perform a service, you are an employee of Microsoft. Once you are a Microsoft employee, there is a serious conflict of interest with regards to your editing of content pertaining to Microsoft or any of its competitors. Even if that employment is as an outside contractor, the fact remains that Microsoft is then in a position to reward or punish you financially based on their view of the content you create or modify.
To truly put this in perspective, you have to consider the precedent. If it is OK for you to take money in order to edit pages in a manner that you personally feel comfortable with while taking money from an interested third-party (and therefore being in their employ), then it is OK for any person to work under the same principals. This means it is OK for a lobby firm to have its employees make changes to articles related to their clients or political motivations. It doesn't matter that you have a personal code of ethics that you feel keeps you neutral. The individuals working in the lobby firm feel exactly the same way. They might feel that a certain scientifically-based fact is not sufficiently proven, and therefore deserves ommission in their eyes.
Taking on this task at Microsoft's bequest can only be done if you feel comfortable with corporations and interest groups having their employees take on the same kind of tasks. The difference in motives can't be the measuring stick of whether or not one person's editing for money is more appropriate than another's. For no two people will ever agree on what that measurement is, nor would it be reasonable to expect the site owners and readers to be able to tell what motiviations another person had when making changes.
When dealing with issues of interests, the best policy is to act in a manner that is not just devoid of interest conflicts, but to act in a manner in which not even the appearance of the potential for a conflict exists.

Rick Jelliffe: "Again, no proof, just press releases."

Proof has been provided.

Sorry, but demonstrations of functionality to official bodies are not "press releases".
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671#Alternate.2C_standards-based_resolution
"Mr. Edwards has also indicated his willingness to demonstrate the plug-in using test files selected by JTC-1 and suggests that both the Microsoft and the Foundation plug-ins be demonstrated using the same test files, allowing an objective comparison of fidelity. The plug-in has previously been demonstrated for Massachusetts, the State of California, and the European Commission's IDABC."

Now, in your head, put the shoe on the other foot. Ask yourself what evidence, other than Microsoft's say-so, has ever been put forward the ODF is not fully capable of handling everything in Microsoft's legacy formats.

On the ODF side, you do have evidence, and it has been presented to independent official witnesses. On Microsoft's side, they have no evidence whatsoever of any failing of the ODF format, and indeed Microsoft engineers have stated that a full ODF capability for Microsoft Office is a "trivial exercise".

Rick Jelliffe: "The most charitable meaning I can think of is that there might be some "trivial" changes to both ODF (e.g. ODF 1.2 might meet the mark) and Office that would make them compatible."

The most charitable thing I can think of is that you are desperate to see a way that Microsoft's spin could in any way be remotely feasible to be true.

One has to question exactly why you are so keen to see this issue in Microsoft's favour. One has to wonder if you have been offered any monetary incentive to see it that way.

Oh wait, ... isn't that exactly where this whole topic started ...

So what if MS OS their file formats. It is of no use to the average PC user.And only use to some programers.Besides is it really that safe to edit MS programs and files ,it may all come crashing down at your feet and then you may stand in something sticky.:) There are far better OS to use. Microsoft can not baffle us with bull shit. They try.....

"Gerard said the situation is regrettable though. "We're disappointed that Microsoft thought it had to work by stealth like this," he said. The company would be better off donating the money to Wikipedia and earning the goodwill that would result, he said."

Why don't they do this. They could also send me some money as well it's not like they are short of cash.

Mark: I did some digging myself. The very first ODF TC meeting minutes, say "The TC agreed that transformability into potential Microsoft office XML formats could be sensible, but is not a formal requirement." Unless something changed later, I stand by my original statement ODF has simply not been designed with the goal of being able to represent all the information possible in an MS Office document.

On the subject of daVinci, I have found the download page, at Open Document Foundation. I downloaded the MS updater they suggest, and downloaded it (twice) but it would not install on my system. But it hasn't been released you, in any case. So it isn't quite vaporware after all!

daVinci looks quite interesting. Readers should be aware of bait-and-switch. Now seems you can round-trip any format (in ODF or OOXML) by embedding it as binary object. For example, ODF has an element <office:binary-data> that allows you to have a graphics file in any format (Waaa, I thought that OOXML had to be rejected because it allowed Windows Metaformat as a clipboard type?) So the bits that are easy and exposed in the relevant API (the daVinci material talks of MSXML here: I don't get it) can be converted to ODF, and parts that are based on legacy formats have to be reverse engineered or embedded as binary. That seems to be the way. So round-tripping doesn't necessarily mean exposing the information.

From the sound of it, daVinci can do at least the 85% conversion that the MS/Novell -sponsored ODF converter aparantly claims, and can round-trip data, but they have trouble that they cannot figure out all information from IBMR the way that MS do. Testing will tell how far they go.

Of course, another approach is the multi-version file approach: save it as some native format for the originating application for immediate round-tripping, to ODF for interchange, and as PDF for fast display and printing, all in the same ZIP. Fat but it would meet a lot of different needs. Not quite all the needs that OOXML does (see Peter Sefton's comment to another blog entry) though, it seems to me.

Patrick Durusau, the ISO ODF editor, emailed to say about his amusement on some of the stories and to ask me to post this: "Apparently rumor has it that we will have to wait 5 years to do any corrections to ODF 1.0. Actually OASIS is the maintainer of ODF and I expect to see ODF 1.2 out this coming year, with lots of corrections and some additions, so the 5 year stuff is just a misunderstanding of PAS maintainent."

Now, after this week of Chinese Whispers, I would be entirely unwilling to say that this is FUD or even real. Even Patrick doesn't seem to have actually heard it, it is just an apparent rumour to him. I hope every time someone asks a question on a blog, or puts a question in the form of a statement, this doesn't lead to some big round of accusations of FUD! That seems to have been the trouble that happened out of this entry: a blog comment is part of a conversation and shouldn't necessarily be quoted as if it were a well-researched statement or part of some massive conspiracy. There is enough trouble with explicit statements of FUD with URIs, I think we need to be very careful before we react at all to rumours of FUD. Perhaps Patrick is trying to give me the opportunity to have show balance, or perhaps he is concerned that the ODF side looks so bad out of all this that he wants to show that the OOXML side has its share of FUDmeisters too (er, well, apparant rumours of FUD...)

But happy to oblige!

A breath of fresh air. I wish some of the FUD-pushers currently jumping onboard the ISO/IEC Sub Committee that will look at this, would be as honest in declaring their affiliation and backing from IBM - the only ECMA member organisation that voted against the European standardization of OOXML and who now seem intent on a spoiling operation, having lost all the arguments around the table at the first stage...

The issue for me is functionality offered by both offers - I do not think that they occupy the same problem space, so I think the arguments that OOXML "contradicts" ODF is like saying JGEP contradicts RAW, or AAC contradicts MP3...They offer different functionalities for different needs, and I for one will not throw out Word (which can open and save ISO-compliant ODF) in order to step down to more limited functionality and be "interoperable" on a lowest-common-denominator (LCD) basis. Word offers, by design, thousands of options, any small subset of which is valuable to one community of users or another: It aims to please all by a "something for everyone" aproach, like it or not, that is its strength. ODF on the other hand offers a simple LCD solution that has its value for simple document exchange but please spare us the BS that it is the only document format that avoids lock-in and is "free"...

On another note: can anyone point me to software that implements the ISO-approved version of ODF (not the other ODF versions, approved by OASIS, that are the basis of, for example, OpenOffice offers)? The irony is that Office2003 and 2007 offers ISO-conformant ODF already....

As Rick pionts out, ODF was rushed through ISO-fast tracking last year, without any reference implementations available and Microsoft are at least falling over themselves to play the ISO game according to the rules.

The sea of Crap, with Microshaft in the middle. You folks all forget the saying "It is not what you know but who you Blow and how much Money you grease the palm with!". Now as far as Massachusetts look at who you have for politicians(example Ted and John). Remember when I.B.M. did not play nice with bully billyboy? Microshaft wants to be the one the only HO you will ever have, even if there is better. Free enterprise to Microshaft means we have money if we can not bully you, we will buy you or sue you. Remember microshaft, Linux was around long before you and competition is good, bully's are not.

Short remarks to Rick Jelliffe "FUD enrages" "My first computer was a Mac Plus"( "An interesting offer: get paid to contribute to Wikipedia Monday January 22, 2007 10:13AM by Rick Jelliffe in Opinion"): "Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon"[ http://209.85.129.104/jargon ]. In my later years I worked on an Amdahl too. Embedded scientific writing seems
to me nowadays canononical? And xml is data .
It's me who works a lot with such xml_hooks. But I more enjoy xml
and find the whole MSOffice spreadsheet or other text editor stuff
(compare please the W3CxmlRelease'07) rather a funny redundancy.

>>> ...If anyone sees any examples of incorrect statements on Wikipedia or other similar forums in the next few weeks, please let me know: whether anti-OOXML or anti-ODF. .....

Alberto: There is nothing unethical about doing an honest job respecting the Wikipedia rules and editors, under the full scrutiny of the world and with transparency. AFAIK we haven't talked money terms to MS yet, and I don't even know if they want me to go ahead. I have started to suggest some minor changes in Wikipedia, some of which have been accepted so far, but I am not doing any direct edits.

We don't need to analyze and understand OOXML and ODF to know what's really going on here. Microsoft itself holds the keys to interoperability. They have had the ability all along to publish APIs and specs, and to create tools for cross-platform data compatibility. All those gigabytes of open source code have always been there for them to study and use. The obstacle to interoperability and open, cross-platform data formats has always been, and still is, Microsoft.

Despite stiff resistance from MS, we already have a fair bit of .doc, .xls, and .ppt compatibility in the FOSS world. At any time they could have opened up .doc, which has become a de-facto standard. But they haven't, and they won't. Anyone who thinks MS is offering a genuine open standard in OOXML is too naive to live on their own- their record, and their current actions, speak louder than their twisty double-talk and 6000-word "spec". That's not a specification, that's plain old obstruction.

The offer smells, and not because of any arguable ethical considerations, but because of hard cold facts. And as usual it's the cannon fodder (that would be you, mr Jeliffe) that takes the hits, not Microsoft.

I for one have no problem with Rick editing articles for Microsoft, so long as they are neutral and factual. If they are not, then the edits will get changed anyway. But I doubt Rick will do this.

Incidently, I'm no fan of Microsoft, yet I wrote most of the Windows 2000 and MDAC articles. Both are featured. What does this say about me?

Dear Rick. The issue of contradictions is deeper than you state. OOXML should not contradict any significant existing ISO standard -- not just ODF.

It is unfortunate for OOXML that it redefines some basic ISO standards -- such as dates and distances. In the case of distances it also introduces new units which are not compatible with existing ISO units -- twips being the most outrageous, being a non-decimal fraction of an inch.

Note that OOXML had no deployment when the contradictions were submitted, so it makes no sense to argue for "twips" and the like in terms of "compatiblity with installed base".

The Chinese wireless proposal did not reach into fundamental measures and attempt to redefine them. The Chinese wireless proposal was also complete. From my reading of OOXML it is not complete., referencing non-ISO and sometimes non-published materials.

The OOXML proposal is also missing some major work on compliance. The trend at IEEE and ISO has been to specify comprehensive compliance tests within the standard, as a device leading to better interoperability. Such a complex proposal missing a comprehensive compliance section raises eyebrows.

OOXML may well be a good thing -- XML software isn't my field. But this proposal for this OOXML is simply too shoddy.

Do an interview with Wikinews, you've been playing, might as well set the record straight.

Glen: The discussion page of the Grocdoc site has lots of interesting points. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Talk:EOOXML_objections

It notes that the twips are based on PostScript units (I have not verified this). It is interesting that the comment from an anti-OOXML person when the objection is found to be flimsy is No one is pretending that any of the flaws described in that section, taken individually, are reasons to reject Ecma 37 and yet, actually, someone is "pretending" exactly that: err, you. If we take the time to argue about some technical issue, I think we need to make sure we are up-to-speed on which claims are wobbly.

Have you actually read the OOXML spec and the ODF spec and other IS document type specs such as ISO HTML, RELAX NG or Schematron, for comparison, to know what is "shoddy"?

Ed: I have put in a request on the Wikinews page to challenge the article. I have had several friends ask me why I am not suing over some of the more extreme press articles and blogs; a friend from a major three-lettered company (not *that* one, the other one) warned me against sueing people from billion dollar companies. The thing I have asked Wikipedia is for them to clarify that the underlying basis of the story, that there was some kind of clandestine scheme to do something not allowed by rules uncovered, is incorrect; since that is the whole basis for the story existing, it doesn't matter that the article itself is moderately inoffensive. Neutrally reporting rumour, and especially reporting off-the-cuff answers by people to questions with incorrect factual bases is not, in fact, neutral at all. If some is asked "MS has paid someone to secretly change articles" then an answer like "That is disappointing" is appropriate; if the question was "MS is trying to find productive ways to counter bias and bending over backwards to try to respect the rules" than an answer like "Oh, good, I am sure we can work something out" is appropriate.

On this subject, look for an announcement from Wikipedia on handling enterprise complaints soon!

Microsoft corrupt? No way! OK, let's review some history:

23-Aug-01 Microsoft Astro-turfs Again
Yet again, a Microsoft front organization gets caught trying to influence government with a phony "grass-roots" letter writing campaign.
...
[One state attorney general said] "This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries".

From April 10, 1998:
In related news, the Los Angeles Times reported today that Microsoft secretly has been coordinating a massive media blitz with outside firm Edelman Public Relations. Citing confidential internal documents, the article says that campaign was designed to plant articles commissioned by Microsoft "but presented by local firms as spontaneous testimonials."

How about the time Microsoft offered higher education instructors a $200 reward for mentioning Microsoft products in a classroom setting?

No, Microsoft's behavior hasn't changed since before the Windows 3.1 beta release.

Exodus 23:8 "And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous."

Dan, you are clearly a troll (in the technical sense). Please try harder. Jesus dined with publicans and spoke with women. I have no problem with doing a short, honest, open job for them, as allowed by the Wikipedia guidelines. If the ODF people or even some government or other body would pay me, I would have no problem with that either. Honi soit.

Rick,

rise above and beyond. Be strong. Do you don't need the money; it shows. Don't take it. Not because it's wrong, because it's not for you, seemingly, but because succombing to temptation of money is such a sign of weak character, which I hope we can all agree that is not FUD. You seem like you have the mettle to rise above this. Just do the corrections. For free. For yourself. Prove to everyone, and most importantly to yourself that money doesn't and never did play a role in your intentions. Many of us "kids" look up to older folks like you and some of those in the comments section. People of strong, virtuous, morally unblemished character. Prove them, us, all wrong! And don't worry, it's not "them" that win, it's everyone that wins, including you, heck, even including MS! (if their original intents were as you assumed they were)

Adios!

The problem is that people are doing it wrong. If you're going to game Wikipedia, the key is to do it anonymously.

As long as the articles conform with wikipedia standards there is nothing wrong with it

where is the offer? And wiki is a free contribution system. Why would they be paying to our contributions?