"Dear boy, next time why not try acting?" I'm reminded of this line as well when I witness Microsoft's machinations in JTC1, as they attempt to get OOXML approved. They are mounting an enormous offensive and expending great sums of money to convince ISO members that this specification is an acceptable ISO standard. Someone needs to ask, "Dear boy, next time why not try engineering?" Instead trying to force this ill considered mess through ISO (causing a great deal of collateral damage in the process), why not take your great base of engineering talent and produce a standard that is not loaded with thousands of errors?
Avi says:
I was a member of the technical group that have studied OOXML specification extensively. I learned that it is unbelievable how ECMA (same guys that put together the JavaScript standard!) can think that a wannabe spec like OOXML is ready for submission. It is incomplete (does not provide mappings with legacy standards, since compatibility is OOXML goal), too long (6000+ pages), fully tied to a single product, uses deprecated substandards, promotes bad practices (embedded binary objects), has clear proprietary hooks (like “formatAsWord95″ XML tags), reinvents the wheel all around (date and color formats etc), and most of all does not have a standards-grade look and feel required for a universal and (virtually) eternal document format (doesn’t have to be perfect, but can’t be that imperfect). Shame on you, ECMA. Your position as a trusted standards organization was severely damaged.
First I was unbiased. Then I read the specification.
In my opinion, the YES-voting countries are not reading the OOXML specification, are making a pure political decision or simply don’t have a standardization process.
Hmm.
Posts
