What else is broken in ooxml?

While the hard work continues at the various national bodies to plough through the 6000+ page ooxml document, here is an analysis that the specs are broken as is. Those from MS reading this post, please do us all a favour and bring it back to the drawing block and fix the issues OR just adopt ODF! Let’s work together to make the IT industry fun and not contentious. Check Yoon Kit’s comment as well.


    • Re: Is this response any good?
      Actually, Brian Jones’ reply is spot on in acknowledging the shortcoming of a “standard”. Without going into any of the details of the standard, the “gentlemen’s agreement” that is between ECMA and ISO that one entity’s standard is fast tracked into the other entity’s standards process has to imply that the 1st entity has done their homework in ensuring that the standard is clear, unambiguous and fair. Obviously, ECMA has been sidetracked and blinded by Microsoft in pushing Microsoft’s agenda. ECMA in my mind, has lost credibility in letting Microsoft do this. The 6 month fast track is on the basis that the requesting entity has been diligent in doing it’s work. It is clear that ECMA has failed spectacularly. If I were ISO, I would question ECMA on their motives. I would ask ECMA to explain the wasteful time spent on what is supposed to be a shoe-in process in people discovering many issues with an ECMA standard.
      Microsoft has and continues to be dishonest in what they are doing with OOXML. Go back to ECMA, fix the stuff, and then resubmit to ISO for fasttrack.

    • Re: Another voice on the subject
      Alan –
      Thanks for the note. In your post on your blog, you mention:
      “I do agree with Harish that we should “work together to make the IT industry fun and not contentious. But there is a point I am not clear where he mentions Open XML should be fixed “OR just adopt ODF”. In such a case we would have two standards … especially so as Microsoft would address and fix OPEN XML issues in the ballot resolution meeting.”
      The intent here is to acknowledge that if indeed ooxml is a useful and valuable standard, by all means, fix the issues cited and then resubmit for consideration. If MS, as it seems increasingly obvious, is not at all interested in fixing the problems as has been highlighted, just adopt ODF.
      I heard a comment from someone that it is probably a good idea to approve ooxm as it stands now PROVIDED it DOES NOT provide ANY ADVANTAGE to a particular company. Clever words, am sure it will bring a smile to the MS crowd, but then again, they are smart folks who will quickly realize that they are being shafted in the process.

Leave a Reply