US V1 technical committee votes to recommend Approval of DIS 29500
I just got off a 3-hour call with my colleagues on the V1 technical committee, in which I and the other members of the US delegation to the BRM presented our thoughts on what happened at the BRM. Then we all voted on what to recommend to the INCITS Executive Board for the final US position on DIS 29500.
The final outcome: we are recommending that the US maintain its Approve position on DIS 29500. The next step will be for the INCITS Executive Board to conduct a letter ballot to approve this result.
After all the hard work in V1 going back to the beginning of last year, it's great to have finished up our review of DIS 29500 on a positive note. I think the interests of the United States have been well served by the process, and the spec is much better now than when we started.
More details later. For now, I'm looking forward to a weekend at home!
Comments
Anonymous
March 07, 2008
Doug Mahugh just posted about a call this afternoon where the U.S. V1 technical committee voted to approveAnonymous
March 07, 2008
I just saw this come through in email, and would point you to Doug Mahugh's blog that the US V1 technicalAnonymous
March 07, 2008
I had little doubt about that vote even though I was rather surprised to see the voting of the US delegation at the BRM.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
Did the BRM actually publish the full list of changes? I haven't seen that publicly available, but obviously the technical committees would have access to non-public info. Have you had a chance to read through all of the changes that were approved and those that were rejected, and made sure that they were all consistent? Or, did you decide that the BRM's result was sufficient without needing to do a detailed review?Anonymous
March 07, 2008
"we are recommending that the US maintain its Approve position on DIS 29500." You people should hang your heads in shame.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
Methinks that the USA has made a mistake on this issue. I've been involved with standard in the past with Underwriters Laboratories, Industrial Truck Standards Development Foundation, and ISO. The rule is that when there are serious problems with a standard, you bounce it back. And there are serious problems with this standard. References to things that are not in the standard (or in any other standard) are probably the biggest issue, but there are others. I cannot see how the US position on MS-XML is justified. ConradAnonymous
March 07, 2008
@hAl, me too. @gopi, I've read the changes approved in Geneva (and I was there), and I've read nearly all of Ecma's proposed dispositions that were accepted. I think the changes are improvements for the most part. FYI, I know we have at least two people on V1 who have read every disposition. @krp, let's get out and get some fresh air and perspective this weekend, OK? I'll go first.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
@Conrad, do you have any specific facts you'd like to discuss, or is this just a "feel it in my gut" thing for you? If it's the former, I'd be glad to discuss the details.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
I get fresh air every single day. You people should still hang your heads in shame.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
Doug, I was thinking specifically of the references to the older binary file formats, which aren't properly documented, are the biggest issue. In fact I think that this is a killer issue - a standard which references unknowns is not a standard. ConradAnonymous
March 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2008
Please provide links to the ANSI or INCITS documents that provide the bylaws, guidelines, principles, or other criteria that V1 and the INCITS board are obligated to follow when acting on an ISO standard item. Thank you.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
@Dave Fortunately for the rest of the world, not everyone subscribes to your view that "first" to standardize precludes other choices. If everyone thought like you, TCP/IP and the internet would never have happened. We would all be trying to figure out Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Systems_Interconnection No Internet. No web. We woud not be having this conversation.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2008
I should clarify, @mordonez: I don't believe that any standard should stand still because that blocks innovation. I also don't believe that a bad standard that cannot be implemented should block the standardisation of a better standard. I do not, however, think that anyone could make a solid case for the fact that OOXML is a better standard than ODF. I also believe that my first point still holds. Multiple implementations of a single standard are always preferable to multiple redundant standards. DaveAnonymous
March 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 07, 2008
[quote]I do not, however, think that anyone could make a solid case for the fact that OOXML is a better standard than ODF. [/quote] There are areas where OOXML is a lot better than ODF. If those areas matter to you then there is a solid enouhg case for calling OOXML a better standard than ODF. If for instance you are looking at applying the format for business integration purposes using custom data then surely you would take OOXML over ODF. If you look at the OPC packaging of OOXML then that is superieur to ODF's packging. If you you look at the DrawingML markup than the chaotic OOo draw based shambles that is in ODF (aka 'the non SVG compatible format') is definitly not better. The current conformance clause of ODF is total joke. I have no idea how that passed trough ISO. In addition to that the maintenance regime with OASIS having full control and ISO with no influence on the ODF format makes ISO members very unhappy. For instance OASIS has not submitted any 1.1 version to ISO because it could not afford to have the standard scrutunized in a standards proces side by side with OOXML because it would not have passed so easy again again without similar major changes as are applied to OOXML.Anonymous
March 07, 2008
@Dave Several of those "independent" projects have also implemented Open XML (Gnumeric, Novell Open Office). The example illustrates the point that "first to standardize" should not preclude other choices. If you think that one solution is superior or better meets your needs then that is your choice. I hope that you agree that others should have the same freedom to choose. I'll call your Metric / American Standard, and raise you CORBA / web services. :-)Anonymous
March 08, 2008
Doug Mahugh's blogged that the US V1 Technical Committee recommended approval of DIS 29500 (Open XML)Anonymous
March 08, 2008
Doug Mahugh blogged that the US V1 Technical Committee recommended approval of DIS 29500 (Open XML) toAnonymous
March 08, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 08, 2008
The discussion in the comments here is a good one, to my mind it is highlighting why the choice of something like a document format has to be a market decision, not a technical or an ideological one.Anonymous
March 08, 2008
@dmahugh: "I've read the changes approved in Geneva (and I was there), and I've read nearly all of Ecma's proposed dispositions that were accepted." So, at the BRM, did you vote in favor of Ecma dispositions that you hadn't read? I wasn't there, of course, but I tend to feel uncomfortable voting for things I haven't read. "I think the changes are improvements for the most part." Are some of them simply neutral, or do you think that some of them make the proposed standard worse? Given the huge number of changes that have been made at the very last minute - and the number of people at the BRM who felt unhappy that they didn't have the opportunity to have important issues heard, I'm surprised at the push from Microsoft to keep moving forward in this manner. I hear people from Microsoft and Ecma arguing that the standard should be approved as it is now and that the remaining issues should be dealt with during maintenance. This really makes no sense to me. I thought the point of an approved standard was that it was something ready to be implemented. If there are known, outstanding issues that should be dealt with, and the issue is one of time, why not delay the ratification of the standard until the issues have been dealt with? As it stands, your recommendation seems to be, "Approve this standard, don't worry about the problems we didn't have time to fix, wait for rev2 and it'll be better." If the standard really is good enough as-is, then you guys need to stop telling people to not worry and wait for maintenance to deal with the rest of the problems. If the problems that are outstanding are actually relevant and important, then it's a serious mistake to knowing approve a standard with mistakes for some strange sort of expediency. A flawed and about-to-be-fixed standard isn't useful; I can look at the beta version of the standard now. Releasing the beta and calling it a 1.0 is misleading. The whole point of a document format as an officially recognized standard is that it is well documented, with clear and complete information that is consistent. The specification as initially proposed by Microsoft was not of appropriate quality for a standards document - it was, rather, a description of how Microsoft had chosen to implement a file format. Many parts of the spec looked to be done a certain way because that's what a software developer thought was convenient, rather than something that was intentionally designed and considered as the "right way" to do something. Given the incredible shortage of time at the BRM, wouldn't it be better to slow down and at least give the people who wanted to be heard fully at the BRM the opportunity to be fully heard? I find it very difficult to resolve the conflict between the very positive sounding picture you paint here, and the fact that people left the meeting unhappy that they didn't even have a chance to get their viewpoints properly heard.Anonymous
March 08, 2008
“I wish my neighbor's cow would die," Je trouve ce nouveau post de Patrick Durusau particulièrement pertinent.Anonymous
March 09, 2008
There is many Arabic issue in OOXML (including mistakes in the specs). For example the use of different notations for the HINDIARABIC switch argument and the hindiNumbers ST_NumberFormat enumeration value is not clear. Also the use of HINDIARABIC switch argument seems is for another type of digits not Arabic-Indic digits. and many others. This proposal didn't have a chance for careful review due to iso fast track very limited period.Anonymous
March 09, 2008
mordonez, gnumeric, novell: yes, they at Novell support Open XML because they believe in the format. A belief in the format that is documented by contractual obligations and hard cash from Microsoft. No market player implements the format independently! () The "Open XML community" is a Potemkin village of hired cheerleaders. () Oh yes, IBM lets you parse the XML with XML editors, what an "implementation" of the format.Anonymous
March 09, 2008
Hi Doug, I would appreciate a set of links to INCITS and ANSI that provide the bylaws, principles, and guidelines that provide the governance and decision criteria used by V1 and the INCITS board when voting on ISO standards proposals on behalf of all citizens of the USA. Thanks!Anonymous
March 09, 2008
Thanks for all the feedback, everyone. In no particular order ... Patrick Durusau, the chair of V1, has posted his thoughts on the outcome of Friday's meeting here: http://www.durusau.net/publications/russianpeasant.pdf @krp, your opinion and lack of supporting facts is duly noted. @Conrad, ditto. (Sorry, a vague reference to things that "aren't properly documented" isn't the same as referring to specific text in DIS 29500. Section #? Specific quote from the DIS?) @Dave, regarding the name, I use the name that appears on the cover of DIS 29500, less "Office" which feels redundant to me. Your suggestion, on the other hand, is a fabrication used by various lobbying groups that has never been used by ISO/IEC, ITTF, Ecma, or any other organization officially involved in the standards process. I'm comfortable with letting others reach their own conclusion on which of those approaches constitutes taking "unwarranted liberties" with the name. @Tom, I don't know where those bylines are so can't help on that one. I'd recommend you ask INCITS or ANSI for such information. For what it's worth, nobody involved has suggested that any rules have not been followed properly, including those who have consistently voted against DIS 29500. The chair of V1 specifically asked whether anyone had concerns about voting procedure at the end of yesterday's call; none were raised. @gopi ... > So, at the BRM, did you vote in favor of Ecma dispositions that you hadn't read? I wasn't there, of course, but I tend to feel uncomfortable voting for things I haven't read. Me too, and that's why I recommended that the US take an "abstain" position on the comments we had not reviewed within V1. As of Thursday afternoon we had 100% consensus within the US delegation that "abstain" was the only reasonable position to take, but early Friday morning I found that several members of the US delegation had decided overnight to recommend "Disapprove" instead. You might ask some of them why they chose that position, or share with them your discomfort on the US taking a position on things we haven't read. > Are some of them [accepted dispositions] simply neutral, or do you think that some of them make the proposed standard worse? Some are neutral. I know of no disposition that was approved at the BRM which makes the standard "worse" in any objective sense, and I've found the lack of specificity in complaints about the BRM results rather interesting. As for your comments about whether it would be "better to slow down" at the BRM, I personally had no say in the process for the BRM. But I think Alex Brown an Gabriel Barta did a good job of maximizing our collective productivity under the circumstances, and most people who were there seem to agree with that perspective.Anonymous
March 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 09, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 10, 2008
Yeah, it sure does look strange. I don't know how soon we'll be able to share details of specific votes and dispositions, but there are cases where the US asked for something in a comment, Ecma said "agreed, here you go ..." and by our blanket disapproval we were the swing vote that then rejected that disposition. In other cases, our request was granted in spite of our own No vote. As for the considerations of who could lobby whom overnight Thursday, I was clearly not thinking in terms of the politics and got blindsided by the Friday morning reversal. When our HoD congratulated all of us late Thursday on our ability to work effectively together despite our commercial differences (immediately after we had all agreed that Abstain seemed the only reasonable position on the undiscussed comments), I had no idea we were just positioning and hadn't actually decided anything yet. Live and learn.Anonymous
March 10, 2008
Some perspective for the V1 committee vote from the blogosphere: " The thing to remember is that the US decision is not made by V1. It is made by the INCITS Executive Board (EB), and they have until March 26th to make their decision. V1, the technical committee, has been heavily stuffed with Microsoft business partners and the 12 of them comprise over half of the committee. Combined they submitted zero technical comments on OOXML. They have voted as a bloc on every technical and procedural vote since they joined V1 last summer. Luckily, the EB is more balanced. They are the ones, for example, that picked the US BRM delegation. So, the EB decision will be the important one. "Anonymous
March 10, 2008
Well, Anonymous, I'm not sure you're going to find many people, in V1 or the EB or anywhere else, who agree with the "perspective" you're providing here. The vote in V1 on Friday was overwhelmingly lopsided. Let's just say that it was a lot more than Microsoft and Microsoft partners on the Approve side, and many more than the 12 you mention, including people who voted against DIS 29500 last summer. As for "since they joined V1 last summer" I'll just say that half the votes in IBM's block came from the very last organizations to join V1 last summer, period. As for the balance of the EB being reflected in how they picked the US delegation, many have noticed that after the EB picked a "neutral" HoD (in their second attempt), that HoD was then the lead cheerleader for the anti-DIS 29500 crowd in the days after the BRM, being quoted on the home page of NOOOXML.ORG and similar sites. Does that make the EB look "balanced"? The public will have to decide on that.Anonymous
March 10, 2008
Hey, Microsoft, We Love You! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXwuw8idk7UAnonymous
March 10, 2008
I wonder how the HoD and other disapproval voters in the US delegation would explain to INCITS voting no on fully granted dispositions made to the US own comments ? That is just terrible.Anonymous
March 10, 2008
Courts will decide if your company stuffed the committee in the US with your 12 business partners. See you in court after the 29.Anonymous
March 10, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 10, 2008
Microsoft's technology can't stand on its own technical merits so it has to bribe US Politicians to forward its monopolistic agenda. Its truly sad that our politicians are so unbelievably stupid.Anonymous
March 10, 2008
Well, Bob, I agree with your sentiment about our politicians, but I'm not aware of any politicians -- or bribes -- involved on the topic at hand. Feel free to share some facts if you'd like. By the way ... are you related to Pam?Anonymous
March 11, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 13, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
March 13, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 02, 2008
I just got off a 3-hour call with my colleagues on the V1 technical committee, in which I and the other members of the US delegation to the BRM presented our thoughts on what happened at the BRM. Then we all voted on what to recommend to the INCITS ExecutivAnonymous
June 05, 2008
I just got off a 3-hour call with my colleagues on the V1 technical committee, in which I and the other members of the US delegation to the BRM presented our thoughts on what happened at the BRM. Then we all voted on what to recommend to the INCITS Executiv