back to article Google gloats over ISO's OOXML rejection

Google has proved unable to restrain itself from gloating over the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) decision not to approve Microsoft's request that the OOXML specification be fast-tracked for approval. The search giant promptly fired off a blog entry slating both the specification and the way the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    generic title

    "...Our engineers conducted an *independent* analysis ..."

    No, really, that's right, the engineers of one of MS' main rivals carried out an *indipendant* examination of MS' specification.

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Fraser

    Impressive. 2 spelling mistakes when repeating a word which you'd not only quoted, but also highlighted.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @anon

    He had a good stab at the apostrophe though....shame it was wrong also.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Actually google is right ...

    "Technical standards should be arrived at transparently, openly, and based on technical merit"

    Nobody, not even Microsoft, should be able to find fault with that statement and whether or not it came from a competitor isn't particularly relevant.

    Far more important is that ODF already EXISTS and is already THE ACCEPTED STANDARD.

    ISO should insist that any "new" standard be BASED on the previous standard with only genuine TECHNICAL features that have MERIT added to it.

    As everybody can see, MS coming out with a "standard" thats purely different and has no particular technical merit that could not also be achieved starting from the existing standard is MS poking its fingers up at the whole standards process and, effectively, making nonsense of the idea of standards altogether.

    Not only should this "standard" NOT be fast-tracked, it should also be vociferously and unceremoniously THROWN OUT the moment that it IS considered.

  6. Leroy Fevrius

    Damn that brings back memories "Microsoft Structured Storage"

    Jesus the sleepless nights I spent trying to get that piece

    of dog excrement to work!

    As for the poster pointing out peoples spelling mistakes,

    seriously that is the ultimate in net Geekdom.

    Make an English sentence out of the following words :

    a Get Life :D

  7. Richard

    FAO: The Anonymous Pedant

    Well put!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    generic title

    Yep, even by my piss-poor standards that is pretty bad. A curse on my dyslexa*.

    *Actually, it's not dyslexia, I'm just lazy.

  9. Robbin Nichol

    @ anon RE @ Fraser

    Perhaps it was debilerate!

    Efros

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Fraser again

    And please stop using 'generic title' as your subject header. It's annoying.

  11. David Brown

    @ Ben and the Pedants

    I feel I may be leaving myself open to the pedants' revolt but, strictly speaking, MS' is just as correct as (presumably the expected) MS's. This is similar to wanting to show the possessions of James with James'. This does not mean several Jameses and in most contexts is adequate and most importantly unambiguous. Similar complaints have been levied at the use of women's instead of womens' but the plural removes all necessity for the latter usage.

    I agree that the spelling mistake is tragic.

    Don't even get me started on stadiums vs stadia!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ anon RE @ Fraser again

    "And please stop [pissing and moaning about typos and subject headers instead of making useful, substantive comments]. It's annoying.'

  13. Dave

    back to the matter of the article

    M$ will not 'learn' from this episode; they have a "perverse economic incentive" (thanks to Bruce Schneier for that piece of terminology) NOT to adhere to truly open standards and to do their utmost to impose their kludgeware on the World.

    The entire M$ ethos is to sell their wares based not on their technical merit, rather on their ease-of-use; to the vast majority of end users, the underlying technology is uttterly irrelevant.

    I do not intend the foregoing statements to mean that all efforts to prevent any M$ 'technology' being adopted as any standard may as well be adandoned - the fight must go on!

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's still true how ever you spell it

    How the hell you conduct an independent review of something you're a rival for is beyond me.

    Actually, my main point is Google might want to keep quiet about open standards until it opens up its search engine as it continues to make money on the back of open source software. The cost of "developing" the open source software it does give away is chump change compared to the billions it currently trousers. You must be deluded if you think Google is some kind of workers co-op.

  15. Morely Dotes

    @ Fraser (*not* an English 101 nit-pick)

    "...Our engineers conducted an *independent* analysis ..."

    Well, actually, they are independent of Microsoft, so in that sense, it's correct.

    But what's important is that anyone who is not an MS flunky can examine the proposal and determine that it is flawed, deliberately proprietary, and designed to lock in MS users to a format which cannot be used by software which does not do things "the Redmond way." Which usually means no software which is not generating revenue for Microsoft will be allowed to use the "standard."

  16. Natasha Live

    Independant analysis

    The fact of the matter is tat anyone big enough to conduct a few reveiw of the proposed standand and then to get their views out there for all to read in the press are going to be in one camp or another.

    It's is up to the person who is reading the analysis to determine if it is leaning for or against the proposal unjustly. Anyone of us can/do look at these things but do not have the backing to make it news worthy.

  17. Pieter Hintjens

    Misleading article headline

    ISO has not rejected OOXML. It's just taken an interim position and will decide finally at a ballot resolution meeting in February. MS knows this full well and is lobbying national boards to send their weakest and stupidest "engineer" to Geneva where they will be wined and dined and probably whored by MS yesmen and gals galore.

    We're talking about a megabusload of money riding on this eventual decision. It ain't over, the fat ladies are not yet singing, and Google is stupid to claim this as any kind of victory, if that's what they're claiming.

    The Fasttrack is completely on track.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "one document format (ODF)"

    You mean Open Document Format! D'oh!

    As to the independence of this particular report, that's irrelevant - anyone applying intelligent thought to the matter cannot avoid the obvious: "MS Open Office XML" is NOT an open standard, by any stretch of the imagination. To claim otherwise is laughable. Even the name smacks of desperation - no less than the BSI states that it is deliberately designed to create confusion with ODF and its name should be changed (as well as that the format should be redesigned from the ground up, based on ODF).

    Let us not forget that ODF is already an approved ISO standard, and that however much Microsoft moans about it not having the correct features to support Windows applications, the glaring irony is that Microsoft was always at liberty to take part in its formulation and standardisation process, yet refused, and (as the standard evolves) still refuses to do so.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "one document format (ODF)"

    You mean Open Document Format! D'oh!

    As to the independence of this particular report, that's irrelevant - anyone applying intelligent thought to the matter cannot avoid the obvious: "MS Open Office XML" is NOT an open standard, by any stretch of the imagination. To claim otherwise is laughable. Even the name smacks of desperation - no less than the BSI states that it is deliberately designed to create confusion with ODF and its name should be changed (as well as that the format should be redesigned from the ground up, based on ODF).

    Let us not forget that ODF is already an approved ISO standard, and that however much Microsoft moans about it not having the correct features to support Windows applications, the glaring irony is that Microsoft was always at liberty to take part in its formulation and standardisation process, yet refused, and (as the standard evolves) still refuses to do so.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @ Fraser

    "Independent" does not mean "unbiased".

  21. Dusty Wilson

    RE "one document format (ODF)"

    I do believe that the name was chosen specifically to be confused with ODF, a tactic Microsoft is well known for.

    Though, according to Wikipedia [1] and other sources it's "Office Open XML" not "Open Office XML".

    I agree with everything you said in your comment.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022