[News] [Rival] Microsoft Broke Office Compatibility with I..

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Microsoft's Web Apps Give Older Office Versions Some Difficulty

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is optimizing its upcoming Office Web
| Apps for .docx, .pptx, and .xslx, which will
| boost the online accessibility of documents
| uploaded from users' desktops—but in the process,
| perhaps making life more difficult for those
| using older versions of Office. During testing of
| the Web Apps technical preview, eWEEK found that
| documents with .xls and .ppt file extensions
| could not be edited through the browser, although
| they could still be viewed and downloaded.
`----

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsofts-Web-Apps-Give-Older-Office...rsions-


Recent:

The Final OOXML Update: Part III

,----[ Quote ]
| However, in other cases (in fact most of the
| cases), the Microsoft-dominated WG4 appears
| to have overstepped the permissible bounds
| for corrigenda, and indeed gone far, far
| beyond what it stated it would be doing in
| corrigenda. Let's look at a few examples.
|
| (Sadly, the general public is not given
| access to the text of the draft corrigenda
| (the DCOR) but those on the inside can
| follow along by reading N 1252 in the SC34
| document repository.)
|
| [...]
|
| I invite you to go back to the defect log
| [PDF] and search for "BRM". You will find
| several oddities. For example, among these
| proposed changes are some that actually
| reverse BRM decisions. Yes, you heard me
| correctly. SC34/WG4, the Microsoft-dominated
| committee that maintains OOXML, is undoing
| various BRM decisions that enabled OOXML to
| be approved in the first place. Why? Well,
| of course, to make the standard conform more
| to Microsoft Office.
|
| [...]
|
| So although Microsoft Office does not
| conform to ISO/IEC 29500 today, I have no
| doubt that within a few months it will fully
| conform. But not a single line of code will
| have changed in the Office product. Office
| 2007 will be retroactively made to conform
| to ISO/IEC 29500. What will happen is the
| standard will be modified to match that
| single vendor's products, by misapplication
| of an ISO procedure intended for fixing
| minor drafting errors.
|
| So why go through all this trouble? I
| believe this is all about getting the OOXML
| standard "corrected" so Microsoft can push
| for it to get it officially adopted around
| the world. The only reason they've held back
| so far is because MS Office does not
| actually implement ISO/IEC 29500 today. So
| it would have been counter productive for
| them to push for official adoption. However,
| once this oversight is remedied, by changing
| the standard to match their product, then
| watch out.
|
| [...]
|
| So Microsoft is now off extending OOXML, and
| this whole ISO escapade with OOXML seems for
| naught. (I hear also that Microsoft is also
| backing off the submission of their
| Extensible Page Specification (XPS) to ISO
| as well, saying that "an Ecma Standard is
| good enough".) It appears that Microsoft got
| what they wanted from ISO and is moving on.
| Who said it would last more than a night? As
| my grandmother used to say, "Why buy the cow
| when you can get the milk for free?"
|
| [...]
|
| The pattern is clear: OOXML will be extended
| by Microsoft much faster than it will be
| standardized and corrected by ISO. This will
| make the ISO version of OOXML, currently not
| supported by Microsoft, even more irrelevant
| in the future.
`----

http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html


Rob Weir's OOXML Update, Part III - Making OOXML Conform to Office 2007

,----[ Quote ]
| Rob Weir has an eye-opening report on how
| the Microsoft-stuffed committee implementing
| fixes to OOXML is extending the "standard",
| which turns out to be not exactly standard,
| to better conform to Microsoft Office 2007,
| and without following usual procedures. That
| is utterly backwards. Normally, vendors work
| to make their products conform to the
| standard, and it's very unusual for a
| "standard" to be made to conform to one
| vendor's proprietary product. I want to
| reproduce the article here, because it is an
| object lesson, a timely one.
`----

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009102810072196


ISO will meet in Redmond, dinner paid by Microsoft

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-174347/iso-will-meet-in-redmond-dinner-...d-by-mi


800 pages of defect for OOXML, here it is

,----[ Quote ]
| 800 pages of defect for OOXML, here it is. ISO is such a transparent
| organisation that they are afraid of the web, and the public light of the
| blogosphere. Here is the leak for you.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-174349/800-pages-of-defect-for-ooxml-here-it-is


Microsoft, OOXML and the ISO

,----[ Quote ]
| Taken individually, these dubious actions might be dismissed by Microsoft
| as "minor lapses", "misunderstandings" or actions of an atypical "rogue"
| manager – as was done in Sweden, where an offer was made to support partners
| financially if they attended the key meeting of the national body and voted
| in favour of OOXML. But taken together they suggest a consistent philosophy
| of being prepared to use whatever means necessary in order to gain the
| required number of votes.
|
| Since there are very few laws relevant to this field, I doubt whether
| Microsoft has broken any with its actions during the ISO standardisation
| process, either through those already disclosed, or others that may come come
| to light (although the European Commission may have its own views on this).
| But as well as the letter of the law, the spirit matters too, and I would be
| interested to hear to what extent, against a background of skewed committees,
| misrepresentations and overt pressure, Microsoft thinks it adhered to the
| spirit of the collegial, consensus-based standards-making process in finally
| obtaining that much-coveted "win" for OOXML.
`----

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/microsoft-ooxml-and-iso


Related:

Microsoft, OOXML and the ISO

,----[ Quote ]
| Taken individually, these dubious actions might be dismissed by Microsoft
| as "minor lapses", "misunderstandings" or actions of an atypical "rogue"
| manager – as was done in Sweden, where an offer was made to support partners
| financially if they attended the key meeting of the national body and voted
| in favour of OOXML. But taken together they suggest a consistent philosophy
| of being prepared to use whatever means necessary in order to gain the
| required number of votes.
|
| Since there are very few laws relevant to this field, I doubt whether
| Microsoft has broken any with its actions during the ISO standardisation
| process, either through those already disclosed, or others that may come come
| to light (although the European Commission may have its own views on this).
| But as well as the letter of the law, the spirit matters too, and I would be
| interested to hear to what extent, against a background of skewed committees,
| misrepresentations and overt pressure, Microsoft thinks it adhered to the
| spirit of the collegial, consensus-based standards-making process in finally
| obtaining that much-coveted "win" for OOXML.
`----

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/microsoft-ooxml-and-iso
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkrtmnYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6zyQCfV9pWxlirXHNa+ahbPOzEIOhd
ChsAmwbuuq5DNxvd4nkKRHUKvLgheEV4
=XScB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----