It’s hard damned work trying to make this process look so bad
Ecma TC45 and the project editor are making great progress in the resolution of comments we received from the national bodies a few months ago. The result will be an even better spec than we had last year, and this really helps highlight the benefits of the standardization process. Of course there are a few folks out there who don't care about actually seeing the spec improve, they just want to see it go away (it's bad for their business plans). So we now have Rob Weir from IBM hard at work trying to find a way of turning the positive into a negative.
Well it looks like he's taken his latest shot at the process, so let's see if it sticks. I've had a few folks ask me lately about the comment resolution process in ISO, and specifically why the comments are currently password protected (meaning only the national bodies involved in the process can view them). I was pointed to this blog post by Rob Weir (IBM) on the recent batch of proposed resolutions to NB comments posted on Ecma's website, and while I rarely have the energy to read an entire Rob Weir post, I gave it a shot. He opens by claiming the following: "First, Microsoft has managed to get JTC1 to clamp down on information".
Theater at its finest… <g/> Of course Rob knows that Microsoft has no say in this process at all. It's up to JTC1 to set the rules, and JTC1's ways of functioning are fully documented (and no waiver has been granted to Ecma or Microsoft). IBM should be objecting to ISO/IEC, not to Ecma or Microsoft. Why isn't it doing this?
It's an unfounded allegation that shows the typical Fox News style of sensationalism Rob is practicing (sorry if there are any Fox News fans out there). As I said in the past, I would love to have the comments and responses public. There is a lot of great work right now coming out of Ecma TC45 as we help the project editor pull together the proposed responses for each issue, and I think those of you following along will be very impressed with the analysis that has gone in to each comment. Coincidentally, I'm in Kyoto right now at Ecma TC45 meetings and folks on the TC are definitely excited about the work being done (and look forward to the feedback we'll get from the national bodies).
For the layman, finding your way around ISO/IEC resources is not always easy, but if you try hard enough, you can find most answers you're looking for. If you want to build up your own opinion on this particular matter, you should definitely go through the simple guide I'll included at the end of the post. Another great source of information you should check out before jumping to any conclusions is this comment posted by Jan van den Beld, former Secretary General of Ecma International in Geneva, who explains how things work within JTC1 (Ecma doesn't make the rule here). Also, check out the "Ballot Resolution Meeting FAQ", which gives the full picture of that part of the process.
If folks want to compare the OASIS Technical Process to the JTC 1 Directives, go for it. Just don't try to put Ecma at fault. The reports on ODF 1.0 were made public by the SC34 Secretariat – so if there are issues over making DIS29500 reports public, ask the SC34 Secretariat. Or is IBM claiming that Ecma (or Microsoft) has now got the SC34 Secretariat captive? <g/>
The rules of JTC1 may be questioned, but that should be a debate, not an accusation.
The next claim Rob Weir (IBM) asserts is that a "few NB's have requested the password" [NB= National Bodies]. He provides with this link to the National Body Membership list.
From what I understand, the password was distributed to all NBs having voted; they didn't need to request it. Nevertheless, National Bodies who are part of the process have access to the proposed resolutions and can start working on analyzing them, thus giving them more time before the actual discussion meeting in February. There are no roadblocks in the way to prevent them from getting access.
This step of publicly documenting the responses ahead of the January 14th deadline is something that the editor and Ecma TC45 proposed early on to ISO and asked ISO if it was ok. We were told it was a good thing to do, but since the national body comments are considered to be internal documents, they wanted us to put a password on the site so they could control who got access. Remember, that if the editor wanted to he could have just kept everything to himself until the 14th of January. It's a bit annoying to see Rob trying to stir up more controversy in something that is actually a pretty big positive thing (but those are just my personal feelings).
National Bodies will make their decisions in March based on the final Disposition of Comments report approved at the BRM – that is the way the process works, and IBM knows this. Again, if IBM wants to change the way it works, they should be in dialogue with JTC 1 about it!
Ecma TC45 has been hard at work helping to come up with good resolutions based on all the feedback. It's a lot of work and it's really progressing well. There were some really good suggestions, and I think we'll see that this round of review will result in an even better spec than we had at the end of last year.
But for now we still have a ton of work to do!
Background: A simple guide through ISO/IEC JTC1 "Procedural document"
(I've highlighted the key areas):
Look into the ISO/IEC JTC1 "Procedural document" (https://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf),
Here are the rules for documents that must be kept private:
This part lists the documents and how they should be accessed
[…..]
Then here is the key to read the table:
-Brian
Comments
Anonymous
December 04, 2007
I'm curious as to whether ECMA TC45 faces different rules than the ODF folks did, and if so, why? Why did the ODF process manage to be (or at least appear) more open than the current ECMA process? It just seems like they would have had to abide by the same rules as ECMA TC45, and add password protection as well.Anonymous
December 04, 2007
>The result will be an even better spec >than we had last year what are you taking about? you are not "improving" a specification, just for "make the things better" you are now doing the home-work that you must have done before submitting this +6000 page beast to this frenetic rushed, money-driven, standardization party please, skip the PPRR preset-phrases like this and do just one thing: engineering the "better" format will come as a consequence carlos "Anonymous
December 04, 2007
Gotta say, Brian, this process looks totally shambollic. I don't think anybody is dumb enough to believe that you have honourable objectives. Neither Microsoft nor ISO have provided anything like a reasonable answer to the basic question: why do we need 2 standards in the exact same space. We're quite tired of all the drivel about Microsoft's need to innovate, because we all know how ridiculous a fiction that is. Why not just say it like it is - Microsoft can see its gravy train (ahem criminal monopoly ahem) slipping through its fingers and is fighting tooth and nail to slow the descent. Forgive me for not being sympathetic. Why can't Microsoft work within the community to improve the current Office Document standard, ODF? After all, isn't Microsoft on the OASIS committee that designed ODF? Did they always plan to mount a rear-guard operation to undermine the ODF standard? Too open for you? By that I mean, actually open, as opposed to the name-only openness of OOXML... Pathetic. Spin only works if people don't have access to the truth. Sadly, Microsoft, although the desktop's in your control (well, the part that's not being bot-herded), the Internet's hostile territory for you, and your flock of chickens is coming home to roost. Good luck, Dave LaneAnonymous
December 04, 2007
D.C. I don't believe ODF ever pulled together responses to the comments. They never had a BRM, and I believe most of the comments were left unanswered as they recieved enough "yes" votes to pass initially. So this specific rule never applied to them.
Carlos I understand your view here, but it's pretty naive. Any standard will have errata (usually a large amount). That's why it's important to have a good maintenance agreement in place so you can continue to improve. Nothing is perfect (if you disagree, please point me to something that proves me wrong). -Brian
Anonymous
December 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 04, 2007
I absolutely knew we were going to see a posting like IBM's Rob Weir's latest . There was simply no questionAnonymous
December 04, 2007
I absolutely knew we were going to see a posting like IBM's Rob Weir's latest . There was simplyAnonymous
December 04, 2007
@David Lane: Brian helpfully posted a history of the two formats from conception to about a year ago towards the beginning of this whole standardization debacle. I suggest you read it first before accusing anyone of making unfounded assertions. It's common sense that ODF and OOXML were produced in parallel when you consider that they were both released about a year apart and it takes more than a year to develop a full document format. It should also be noted that Microsoft has had XML formats to hold their documents since Office 2k3, which was probably mostly coded in 2001 and 2002. There's some benefit to thinking about things from both sides, rather than just the reflexively anti-Microsoft one. You're likely to learn more that way.Anonymous
December 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 04, 2007
I would really like to be able to at least highlight the NB comments for which Microsoft/ECMA have a response.Anonymous
December 04, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 05, 2007
Well...microsoft and ECMA did not choose the JTC1 rules...but I truly doubt that Microsoft did not review the options before JTC1 was chosen. If Microsoft really wanted an open format they could open their own binary format and grant full rights to use that information by the open source world without fear for patens or other intellectual monoploy methods. Microsoft would end with translators to ODF and could drop all the work wasted on OOXML. Why not do it, you did drop the 2003 XML format already so your customers is used to the office threadmill, right? "If the ODF guys decide to change their design goals, then they are welcome to reference the Ecma standard and change ODF to also be compatible with the existing base of Office binary documents." If ODF can be improved to better support Microsoft only features, Microsoft would only need to tell in what way, and the ODF movement would have every reason to comply. Such support would allow ODF products to convert Microsoft documents better. Facts are that Microsoft are not participating in ODF process and until we see the ODF standard process reject proposals from Microsoft there are no grounds what so ever to say that ODF can not be a perfect format for Microsoft also. As for the many Microsoft rethorics about compability with legacy microsoft binary formats. I am still looking for anyone that understand how partial representational compability with old formats would make ODF a better standard. You can not load the OOXML document to old versions of Office, can you? So why not develop a ODF patch for old versions instead of the still missing OOXML one? We never see any microsoft people claiming that ODF is incapable of describing old microsoft formats since that would open the path for demands of actual proofs about the exact compability problems. Instead we see general FUD about ODF lacking binary compability with old Microsoft formats as one of its design goals. That claim is safe to tell the ignorant since it is vague enough that you can never be called to give evidence about why this ever would be a problem in the real world.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 05, 2007
"Sigh".... Reading totally uninformed statements and phrases like: "Microsoft's unilateral attempt at an alternative to the official ODF standard.." (Dave), or "overly complex, product-specific, dependency ridden, patent-encumbered suspect mess.." (Dave again), or "You can not load the OOXML document to old versions of Office, can you?" (Fiery) makes it all the more important that Brian get his FAQ finished, so that he can just point to the correct information.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
I just want to throw in a little comment that most of you are really missing the point, at least when you talk about ease of implementation. Have any of you ever tried to write a full text processor? The problem isn't reading the information from the file, its trying to figure out what is supposed to happen when you're splitting a table across a page, with the paragraph property "keep with next" turned on, a couple of images with tabs wrapping around them and the cell is merged..oh yes, and maybe you've got document grid turned on too. Why do you think OpenOffice doesn't have perfect support for older versions of Word after all these years? Can you point me to a application that does? Can you point me to two applications that implement ODF in exactly the same way? If ODF is so easy and clean, everyone should get it perfect, no? (Just want to add a note that I know nothing about ODF other than what I read here, nor do I have anything against it. I am very familiar with OpenXML, and well aware of many of its annoying quirks, as well as the fact that Office itself doesn't implement the format right all the time either!) I don't care how complex the format itself is, it's putting them together that's tough. Excel can store its dates in all kinds of weird and wacky ways, but trust me, it wasn't that hard to support. Now trying to draw the cell corners right so that the double border style joins perfectly, now that took time. So I will agree that a format can be "neutral and clean", I doubt that any useful format will be "easy to implement". Plain ASCII text is really easy to implement, but it doesn't really do all that much either. I won't comment on whether OpenXML should be made a standard or not, doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. But it frustrates me sometimes when people pick on some little tiny thing in the format and claim that it will make the format hard to implement fully. Trust me, I've been doing this for over 6 years, I know which half of the problem is the hard part.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
Daca v-ati bucurat de un pic de liniste in ceea ce priveste Open XML, ei bine, IBM declara prin Rob caAnonymous
December 05, 2007
Brian, If you read my post in full you will see that I link to the ODF (DIS 26300) Disposition of Comments report. We had to respond to all ballot comments, just as OOXML will. In the case of ODF this report was and is publicly available to download. Also, you don't explain why the Ecma process lacks transparency. Why are the TC45 mailing list archives not public, for example.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
A: you're right, and I was overstating and simplifying. Apologies. I think the scale and the desire to 'round-trip' features of documents can make it a significant issue though, e.g. implementing graphics using SVG with the help of a library, vs implementing VML + DrawingML to fully interop with MS office.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
Can Brian or any MS employee please answer one simple question: will it be possible for me, an independent developer, to write software that can FULLY read/write OOXML formatted files? If the answer is no, then it isn't an open standard. Full stop.Anonymous
December 05, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 05, 2007
@David: true. However, I want to know if anybody can actually implement the proposal as it stands, from a purely technical p.o.v. So even before I worry about the legal issues, is it technically feasible? (And don't say "Yes, Office 2007 does it." It does not.)Anonymous
December 05, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 05, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 05, 2007
Dave, Yes you can implement everything. Please tell me what you are blocked on right now, and I'll investigate. Here is the link to the OSP. http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx IBM just recently copied this approach as well (although they call it the ISP). It is not just a "promise" but is an actual legally binding document. Doesn't matter if you trust us or not, we can't take it back. -BrianAnonymous
December 05, 2007
@Brian What I'm blocked on:
- there has been no good explanation for why doesn't Microsoft attempt to work with ODF rather than insisting on inventing its own standard based on what's easiest for it rather than what's best for the industry and the user. Your "90% of users" argument (see above) doesn't fly, sorry. Why not simply say what everyone knows: Microsoft cannot afford to let its monopoly go, and will do whatever is required to maintain it.
- Microsoft used various illegal and unethical means to try to influence the first ISO vote on the OOXML fast track process - bribing voters, influencing rules of order, etc. These infractions are well documented. Why should anyone offer Microsoft anything other than contempt now?
- Your colleague, Steve Ballmer, publicly claims that Linux infringes on 250-odd Microsoft patents, and yet refuses to name any of them. Is a corporation that publicly states that Linux and other open source software users owe them royalties for undisclosed patent infringements worthy of anything other than ridicule, much less trust? Those are the first blockers that spring to mind - with time, I'm sure I could enumerate others. The fact that people are worried about the myriad of technical issues which make OOXML unpalatable is totally missing the point. Dave
Anonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
@BigAl I don't think you can implement all of ODF just using the specification. It leaves a lot more things unexplained than the OOXML spec does.Anonymous
December 06, 2007
Hi Brian That fact that you are arguing to the "Open Community" about how OOXML is so open and tranparent should make you sit back from your keyboard and wonder! If MS wants to step into the "Open" world then they should first understand it is about collabaration. The hearsay comments about OOXML developed parallel to ODF is irrelavent. MS is a member of Oasis and said we will "wait and see" and then went on this rampage alone, it was formated in a closed enviroment with no collabaration from others and is simply a deliberate departure that is unneeded and harmful to "Open Standards" One would understand that a company indoctrinated with the culture by a huge contingency of IP lawyers and lawfirms can take time to change. But maybe these lawyers (MS) do not care to change or about ISO and open standards, because it gives them less work and hence, MS complete disgregard for the process. BestAnonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Martin Bryan was the convenor of WG1, he has just left at the end of a three year fixed term, his end of term report sounds like he is quite happy to be shot of it all, especially the vote stuffing by the new P members. http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2007/12/06/commiserations-to-my-successor-ooxml-strikes-again/Anonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Brian- What happened to your blog? It looks like absolute cat-vomit. It was so nice before. Missed you at XML 2007 in Boston this week.Anonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Dave, You are very entertaining, and I thank you for that. It's funny that you think I get flustered having a discussion burried in the comments section of my own blog. I suppose it would be possible to get me flustered, but I doubt it. I always have spelling mistakes in the comment section, as I can't write those in Word (unlike the original blog posts). You have a strong religious zeal, and that is what makes the discussion fun in certain ways. It's like arguing politics. You rarely make any progress, but it still is entertaining. I have no clue why Helen resigned. I've never met her. I don't know how this brainwashing happened, but it's obvious you're convinced that ODF was some great thing, and Microsoft chose to go a different way. Sure, we are members of OASIS, just like IBM is a member of Ecma. ODF was created by Sun, and then it underwent some minor revisions in OASIS. The group working on it was very small, there wasn't much interest from outside. It wasn't until it was standardized that people started to pay attention (and by people I mean IBM). At the point it was standardized, there were only three people who had attended more than 75% of the meetings (and one of those guys, Gary Edwards, now seems to be under attack by folks like Rob Wier). It was by no means some great big community effort. Either way though, we (Microsoft) do indeed support ODF. We've helped fund an open source project that translates between Open XML and ODF and we continue to work on ways to better integrate that into our product. There is absolutely no way we could have used it as a default format though. It's qualified to be an alternative format, but most certainly not the default.
Sam, I would have loved to have attended the XML conference. I'm in Kyoto right now for Ecma meetings though. I talked to Vijay about it a bit though and it sounds like it went well. You don't like the new look? I don't remember why I changed it exactly. Some folks were complaining about the layout a bit. I think it looks ok. -Brian
Anonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Elektro We are indeed changing the format. It underwent changes during the Ecma process, and it will undergo more changes now as part of the ISO process. It isn't our format any more. Open XML and ODF had different design goals. ODF was not designed with the legacy base of documents in mind, and for us that's something that is needed by our customers. We already had a format that was designed with this goal in mind, and based on feedback from various governments we decided we shoudl take that work and submit it to a standards body for long term maintenence. -BrianAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Well defused, Brian. Good work. Actually, I'm intrigued by the fact that you continue to engage, despite the fact that only sycophants will find your reasoning... reasonable. I was considering asking you about brainwashing earlier but decided that would be too patronising, even for me. Religious zeal implies "blind faith", something which I don't have. I do, however, have confidence (based on evidence) that my observations of the world are every bit as relevant as those you have made. I also believe the my perspective of Microsoft's position in the world, being where I am (in the IT "trenches" outside of the US of A), is quite different from - and no less valid then - yours. It's fairly clear to me that, though you're probably a pretty nice guy, you're too closely aligned to your paycheck to recognise how Microsoft's actions ripple through the IT world like a bull in a china shop (with an equally oblivious body awareness, I might add). As I did during the NZ-based OOXML debate I had with your recently emigrated Redmond-based colleague (another casualty of the NZ debacle?) Sean McBreen in the days leading up to SNZ's unfavourable (to Microsoft) ruling, I'll take this opportunity to refer to Upton Sinclair's sage words: "It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it." With OOXML, Microsoft is try to prove to itself that it's influential. Don't worry, it is. But for all the wrong reasons. Eventually, it'll all come out in the wash, and sadly, despite the bulk of Microsoft's empire, it won't be pretty... Just remember, Microsofties - non-Microsoft IT professionals out in the world out number you substantially. It would behoove the team there in Redmond to refresh their understanding of the concept of "goodwill". Again, best of luck - I hope, when the dust settles, that you're still standing. If so, pop down to NZ, and I'll buy you a beer just to show there're no hard feelings. Sayonara, DaveAnonymous
December 06, 2007
Dave, I was hoping to get a trip down there at some point, and if so I'll definitely look you up. Why don't we take a more pragmatic approach for now. Based on where we are now (we can't go back in time), what specifically do you want to see changed in the spec? (I know you don't believe this, but please assume for now that Open XML and ODF were designed in parallel with different design goals. Using ODF as the default format would not work for Office, so we do need another format.) Based on that assumption, what do you want to see us do differently with the format we currently have? -BrianAnonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 06, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 07, 2007
brian, you really are not ashamed of having thrown to ISO fast-tracking this +6000 page "specification" ? you really think that any Microsoft-independent developer can implement 98% of it in a usable timeframe (say, in less than 25 years? ) if your answer to this questions is : yes i think it's useless to try to argue with you ... and i will say the same words that dave said: "good luck brian" juanAnonymous
December 07, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 07, 2007
@BigAl
- OOXML is not a legacy format. In addition, customers do not want two versions of Office. Implementers do not want two specs (that look very similar).
- If OOXML is not an ISO standard the alternative is worse. Multiple interoperable standards = choice.
- Possible, but ODF's feature set is not comparable (ie is limited). See point 2.
- MS has a big R&D spend. Is not Office 2007 a good example of an improved product? Open Office looks shambolic in comparison.
Anonymous
December 08, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 09, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 12, 2007
How can you claim that "It isn't our format any more" when the proposed standard essentially states "do X like Office 2007 does X", without bothering to specify Office's behaviour. That's still a MSFT format, not a standard.Anonymous
December 13, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
December 13, 2007
Tim, Are you really a developer? Do you work on office productivity software? Do you really think the handful of compatibility settings that your refering to ("layoutFootnotesLikeSomeOldVersion") are the secret sauce to the formats? In Office, we try our damndest to get people to turn those settings off. They basically just tell Word to use an old buggy layout behavior that was fixed. We thought it would be better to at least put them in the format so folks who understood that behavior would know what flag to use. OpenOffice has the same type of settings, they just kept them all (even the more useful ones) out of the spec completely (which I don't think was the right decision from an interoperability point of view). So, do you think it is still important to provide the documentation? Or would it be better to deprecate it? Or do you want to see both things happen? -BrianAnonymous
December 13, 2007
The comment has been removed