8 reasons why Ecma's OOXML Disposition of Comments is lacking

Countries should vote "No" to OOXML as an ISO standard. In the coming round after a Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) on 25-29 February 2008 that discusses the draft proposals by Ecma to address comments raised by country National Bodies (NBs) on 2 September 2007, countries are to vote again, changing their vote from the previous round if necessary. Countries should vote "No" this time.

As seen from the ODF Alliance document just released called "Ecma's Proposed Disposition of Comments on OOXML: How we got here; What is missing; Why you should vote No," there are at least 8 reasons why Ecma's proposed "dispositions" or handling of the NB comments are not satisfactory:

A. What is Missing? Time. Legitimate defects acknowledged by Ecma, why rush?

B. What is Missing? Harmonization. Why not move toward one standard?

C. What is Missing? A Clear Name. Why deny obvious confusion?

D. What is Missing? A technically sound standard. Why introduce new errors?

E. What is Missing? Interoperability. Why ignore re-use of proven standards?

F. What is Missing? Support for legacy documents. Why deprecate in Version 1?

G. What is Missing? Consistency of Fixes. Why does a disposition of a comment made to one National Body contradict one shared with another National Body?

Have a read.

Comments

[Jeffrey]

The ODF alliance document is discussed in this blog post:
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/01/odf_alliance_now_loves_me.html

[Winter]

Jeffrey,

So stacking of NBs with people who are ignorant and uninterested in Document Standards is OK when it is along the rules?

I know for instance, that the Dutch NB was furious, because the MS representative was NOT contributing to the discussion. They said YES without discussion and prevented any objections or comments to be send on. They gave no reason, nor any arguments. They didn't even wanted to discuss why they thought the objections of the other members were wrong.

It went the same way everywhere. And an offer to bribe, is an offer to bribe. Even if you default on it.

The Swiss NB had the rules changed so the only possible vote was YES.

Both of Malaysia's bodies voted unanonimously NO, but a government minister changed to vote to abstain for political reasons (he even said it was for political reasons).

In short, OOXML (Open XML is an oxymoron) should never have been on the fast track. And even MS admitted that, but blamed it on advice from ECMA.

MS gamed the rules to enter a unfit standard into the fast track. There was and is no consensus. The yes votes are mostly from nations where there simply was nor is any expertise nor interest in document standards.

OOXML remains a very bad pseudo standard that is just a description of Office2007, as Bill Hilf himself admitted.

Winter