Still no specification of OOXML

Four national standards bodies appeal against approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1136

This means that the specification will be further delayed until the appeals has been considered.

Official Danish complaint to ISO

The organazation OSL (www.osl.dk) (Danish organazation of OpenSource vendors) has officially posted a complaint to ISO (and Danish Standards). The complaint is regarding the process in the Danish National Body.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.computerworld.dk/art/46122%3Fa%3Drss%26i%3D0&hl=da&langpair=auto|en&tbb=1&ie=ISO-8859-1

English update in the Danish thing

This is easier than writing: http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7661

Reaction from Parliament ...

Members of the parliament are angry that they didn't know about the total split in the Technical Committee under Danish Standards.

Several Danish IT policy rapporteurs are surprised that the OOXML Committee with Danish Standard has been totally divided. It will have consequences, "said Morten Helveg Pedersen (R).

http://www.computerworld.dk/art/45845

English: http://translate.google.dk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.computerworld.dk%2Fart%2F45845&hl=da&ie=UTF8&sl=da&tl=en

Behind or ahead

Clarifying versions:

OpenOffice.org 2.0 - 2.3.1	ODF 1.0	Approved by ISO
OpenOffice.org 2.4	ODF 1.1	Has not submitted to ISO for approval
OpenOffice.org 3.0 (upcomming) - ?	ODF 1.2	Under development

The problem with Alex Browns validation test (http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f0384bed-808b-49a8-8887-ea7cde5caace) is, that he is using a document from OpenOffice.org 2.4 and validates it against the ISO-approved standard. Jesper Lund Stocholm claims (http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx) that he has created some documents with various versions of OpenOffice.org that doens't validates correctly. From my knowledge, Jesper hasn't put any documentation to support witch validation method he used nor put forward the bespoken documents. He has not even told us the seriousness (number of errors) of the 'variations'.

ODF file format is maintained by a technical committee under OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office). Members of the committee are developers and managers from Sun Microsystems, IBM and many other companies (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=office) and it is in fact OpenOffice.org and StarOffice, that is 'pulling' the development, because OpenOffice.org happens to be the project ahead in development. OpenOffice.org comes with about four releases each year. A standard specification is not work from an office desk, but experience from real world development. Therefore the technical development will be a little bit ahead of the specification work and approval. Thats how standard specifications are developed.

When the specification is ready from OASIS, it can be submitted to ISO for approval. One important condition for ISO approval is "multiple implementations". It's a question about the hen and the egg. The specification can't be approved if it hasn't been implemented and now we are been criticized for implementing it before it's approved. That doesn't make sense.

Both the standard and the programs are simultaneously developed over time. The question is, if we should make a choice in the program, that makes it possible to 'Save as...' ODF 1.0. This is of cause possible but not that simple. But should we develop OpenOffice.org according to what the users need or what the politicians need ? Probably both. But an extra 'Save as' option could do more harm than good, because it would confuse users. Nevertheless, this problem will be taken care of in OpenOffice.org 3.0. Another problem is, that higher ODF versions contains much more information and is of better quality. There is no need to use any ODF versions lower than the latest, except of cause, the ISO stamp.

So what's the difference between Microsoft/OOXML and OpenOffice.org/ODF ?
The difference is, that Microsoft Office is behind OOXML. OpenOffice.org is ahead of ODF. According to the ISO rules, a specification can only be approved as an ISO-standard, unless it has been implemented.

What really happened in Norway..

The former chairman in Norway speaks about what actually happened:

http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-norway-vote-what-really-happened/

Disgusting is what it is

Microsoft wanted that approval at any cost.

We didn't cheat. It wasn't fraud. It was clean and honest.

All' right then. Then we dont use the same definition of those words. We don't share the same moral.

Take a look at these 37 letters that was received at Standard Norway just before the vote:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/ooxml/37-brev.pdf . 37 letters with exactly the same words. Some of the senders didn't even care to remove the 'Type company name here' text.

Simular letters has been circulating in Denmark as an e-mail from the Danish MD Jørgen Bardenfleth to customers and business partners.

I call it fraud, cheating and disgusting. If I wasn't anti-Microsoft before, I am now. Disgusting !

http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6965

Demonstration in Oslo, Norway on April 9th.

==============================================================
           Demonstration against Microsoft OOXML
                Wednesday 9 April @ 12:00
                       Oslo, Norway
==============================================================
Steve Pepper, the former Chairman of the Norwegian committee responsible for deciding the Norwegian vote on OOXML, is calling for a demonstration to take place outside the building where SC34, the ISO committee that has been landed with OOXML, is holding its spring plenary.

The demonstration will take place outside Håndverkeren, Rosenkrantzgate 7, Oslo, Norway, on Wednesday April 9 at 12.00.

Among the slogans are:

* No to ISO approval of OOXML!
* Defend the integrity of ISO!
* Microsoft: Support ODF!
* Ecma: Withdraw OOXML
* Norway must say no to OOXML!

Steve Pepper is supported by the majority of the Norwegian technical committee who were against approving OOXML, but who were overruled by the bureaucracy at Standard Norway.

"I call on all those opposed to ISO's approval of OOXML to join this demonstration", says Steve Pepper. "Standard Norway defends its scandalous act by pointing to 37 identical letters that were formulated by Microsoft and sent to Standard Norway by Microsoft's partners and customers during the open hearing."

"If they want numbers, we can give them numbers. Join me on the street and show your disapproval. Please pass this message on around the globe.

Let's use *our* technology for everything it is worth."

More (Norwegian): http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=519231

Norway changes its vote to NO

The Norwegian mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 has send a letter to ISO to confirm that the committee agrees with chairman Steve Pepper. Norway votes NO.

http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=519159

Guess what, there will be another round !

ISO confirms approval of OOXML, gives two months to appeal

Microsoft must wait for appeal process to run its course

By Peter Sayer

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9074358&intsrc=hm_list

Sorry guys, defective but still approved

Andy Updegrove reports on his blog that OOXML (the defective standard, you know) has been approved to be an international ISO standard for office documents.

Norway: The chairman posts a formal protest

The chairman of the Norwegian committee ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Steve Pepper has formally posted a complaint about the procedure. http://www.digi.no/php/art.php?id=517414

Don't vote - you can only agree

The order was clear: Don't make a vote in the committee. The order came probably directly from the government that didn't want the committee to make a democratic decision.

So if no vote is made, how can the committee find a solution ? In theory only one way: To agree. But that was only a theoretically possibility. The committee couldn't agree. Of cause not.

This was a very elegant way to hands over the decision directly to Danish Standards (DS) that could do what they wanted. The voted yes as you might be aware.

The rumor says that the committee was 4 (pro) against 8 (con). But because there where never a vote, this was never taken into consideration. The committee couldn't agree and DS took over and made a decision without taking any notice of the committee.

The committee actually said no but DS said yes.

Update on the Danish YES-vote

Danish Standards admits that not all Danish complaints and comments has been fulfilled in the process. But the remaining outstanding comments are not important enough to continue the NO-vote.

The basic problem is, that the committee didn't recommend anything at all to DS.

http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6742

Denmark approves OOXML as a standard ?

The committee asked DS to notice, that the committee did not find consensus on the question.

Dansih Standards then changed the vote to YES !

Denmark will vote NO! [UPDATED]

The committee S-142/U-34 under Danish Standards could not agree to change their vote from No to Yes, so the committee has asked Danish Standards to vote
NO !

This is still unconfirmed !
Danish Standards has told the chairman (professor at Copenhagen Business School Mogens Kühn Pedersen) to keep his mouth shut: http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6718


[Added 22:00]Clarification
The meeting in the committee was yesterday afternoon. The chairman has been ordered to keep his mouth shot and Danish Standards will say nothing until tomorrow friday.

The committee did not reach a consensus decision yesterday and has asked Danish Standards (DS) to make a conclusion. So much is clear. The question is, what exactly didn't they agree on ?

Was the question: "Should we approve the standard ?" or was it "Should we change the Danish vote ?"

A press release from Danish Standards from just after the BRM said: "All the Danish complaints has been fulfilled". This is exactly what the members couldn't agree on yesterday. A complaint has been posted to DS that a conclusion was published long before the meeting. See my earlier
blogpost http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/03/here-are-minutes-of-tomorrows-meeting.html

Today in the press and on discussions:
Jesper Lund Stockholm said: "Read the press release from Danish Standards: All Danish complaints has been fulfilled. Thats the prove."
Morten Kjærsgaard from The Danish Open Source Business Association (OSL) said: "Rubbish. Several items from the Danish complaints hasn't been solved. Some has just been answered to and other items has been rejected".

So it's all up to Danish Standards to decide. Just as it was on the first vote. I can guarantee you, that at least one minister has been involved in the decision.

We will just have to wait until tomorrow. I don't think DS will vote YES. This would be too dangerous for the government. If the question was: "should we change the vote", then DS will vote NO. There couldn't be consensus to change the vote. But if that wasn't the question, DS might ABSTAIN from voting.

If you can't beat them, talk badly about them

You can see this in the kinder garden and in the school yard.

When small children are fighting over something, they often tend to speak in a bad language and talk about each other behind the back.

Now Microsoft is showing us a very adult and much more mature version of this behavior.

In New Zealand Matthew Holloway has been working as an adviser for the National Standard Body in the matter of voting for or against the approval of OOXML at the ISO BRM last month. As far as we know, he has done a great job.

But Microsoft apparently doesn't share this feeling and so much that they had to write an e-mails to members of another national body in another country, about how badly Matthew did his job in New Zealand.

How low can you go ?

The Standard National Body in New Zealand found this so serious that they found it necessary to send out a message trying to rescue the honor and integrity of an employee.

This is another example of how Microsoft employees are willing to use any method to reach their goal.

http://nzoss.org.nz/news/2008/old-dog-same-old-tricks

Here are the minutes of the tomorrows meeting

Yes thats how it works in my country. I wonder when we will see the agenda ? After the meeting, perhaps !

The meeting is at Danish Standards (S-142/U-34 Document standards) on Marts 26th. and the information is in this press release: http://www.ds.dk/4196 . The press release was published by Pia Elleby Lange, lead of the Danish delegation in Geneva.

All Danish comments has been approved.

Thats what she says. Even that not all Danish comments was even discussed at the meeting.

The committee will meet on Marts 26th. where the result of the delegation will be presented to the committee.

Didn't she just do that when she claimed that all comments was approved ?

The scope of the meeting is to discuss the next step...

and then:

The next step is to ...

Is this putting words into the mouths of the members or what ?
What is the purpose of having a meeting when the chairman has already made all the decisions ?

I call it another scandal in the ISO process.

It didn't make it !

The BRM meeting in Geneva is over. The plan was, from the Microsoft point of view, that OOXML should now be an ISO standard. It didn't make it.

OOXML was proposed an ISO standard by the industrial organization ECMA in a fast track route. The basic philosophy behind this is, that a standard that has already been prepared by one organization can be submitted to a fast track route in ISO. This requires that the submitting organization does all the work and make the proposal ready to be confirmed before submission. In this case ECMA didn't do their homework properly.

At this BRM meeting there should be no outstandings and the process should have been a core formality. It wasn't. Still there are several open issues and the meeting couldn't even get through all the issues. The head of the U.S. delegation at the meeting, Frank Farance says:

At this week's ballot resolution meeting (BRM) in Geneva, the sponsor of the draft standard, industry consortium ECMA International, presented 1,100 recommendations for changes to the draft.

However, delegates only had time to discuss and modify around 20 percent of those, said Farance, an industry consultant with expertise in standards issues.

http://www.cio.com/article/190752/Changes_to_OOXML_Draft_Standard_Waved_Through

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319727

Open ? - Yah right !

Microsoft has announced that they are open.
http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6341 (Danish) about Steve Balmers announcment from yesterday

Yah, and I believe in Santa.

Of cause I see any approach from Microsoft towards openness and interoperability as positive. But my experience with that company is, that they say one thing and continues as nothing has happened.

http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6346 (Danish) about the European Commission in doubt about Microsoft being honest.

From my own point of view, this is just Microsoft trying to catch a few votes in the BRM meeting in Geneva next week. Many of the outstanding objections to ISO approval of OOXML is about referencing binary and proprietary file formats. Some participants might change their vote to a yes if Microsoft can convince them, that these file formats are open in some way.

The big problem is, that none o the participants have time to find out whats behind all this.
http://www.version2.dk/artikel/6340 (Danish) about warning: It's happening too fast.
They can only read the headlines, not the complete articles. Microsoft hopes that they can change votes from the headlines only.