Share via

Ecma Posts Next Set of Open XML Dispositions for Review by National Standards Bodies

  • Article

Just a quick note: Ecma International posted a statement that they have dropped the second set of dispositions for review. That brings the total to 1,795 dispositions of the 3,522 comments submitted during the Sept. 2 ballot.

These dispositions represent changes to the specification based upon the comments. Rather than my trying to (and most likely mangling in some way) talk about this - check out Brian Jones' blog posting on this.

Jan van den Beld, the former Secretary General of Ecma, has posted a blog posting on this as well. He points out some interesting facts about the volume of comments and how they compare to other specs (completely normal - one comment for every 4-6 pages).

Comments

  • Anonymous
    December 12, 2007
    >completely normal - one comment for every 4-6 pages ok, thank you ISO: put the stamp on DIS 29500, it is "normal" , forget about the comments, errors, undefined terms, inconsistencies, references to closed formats, wheel-reinventing, no-standards-reusing, lack of quality , lack of proper review, etc, etc. If Microsoft and ECMA guys say that all is normal, trust them.

  • Anonymous
    December 14, 2007
    You might want to check my blog entry: Good PR, poor arithmetic: http://lehors.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/good-pr-poor-arithmetic/

  • Anonymous
    December 16, 2007
    Omz, Your statements are disingenuous.  First, it is not the standard that is claimed to be normal, only the number of comments per page that is in the normal range.  Second, as for your list of "comments, errors, undefined terms,..", that list of supposed woes has produced precisely the number of comments per page that is normal.  You are clearly just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The only thing that is significantly non-normal about the standard is the attention it has gotten, which invalidates Arnaud le Hors' comment that there would have been many more comments if the NB's only had time to evaluate the draft.

  • Anonymous
    December 18, 2007
    Reading the comments here and elsewhere, seldom have I seen this clear case for closing processes and having a very tough chair run the meetings.  This is the example of precisely why in some cases, openness doesn't work. Starve the combatants for oxygen.  

  • Anonymous
    December 22, 2007
    You seem to be slightly confused. 1 comment per 4-6 pages may be normal. What is not normal is the severity of the comments. In the case of MS-OOXML address to fundamental problems, exactly the list that omz mentioned. There's nothing "disingenuous" about omz's statements. The sarcasm may be attributed to an overdose of Microsoft spin accumulated over the years. You and Matusow are using the exact same logic that Microsoft used in its sponsered "independent" studies that "proved" that MS product where as secure as competitors product: count the number of security issues risen over a certain time frame, neglecting the severity of the problems. Of course, when the severity of the security  issues was taken into account, Microsoft did not quite come out on top.

  • Anonymous
    December 24, 2007
    Thanks for your contribution Len. The marvelous result of a closed process with a very tough chair is the Microsoft lock-in we witness today.

  • Anonymous
    January 14, 2008
    The comment has been removed