Talk:Office Open XML

Archives

1 2 3 4 5

Please add new sections to the bottom of this page.

The easiest way to add a section is to click the "+" tab at the top of the page. (It's between "edit this page" and "history").

Confusing Formatting?

This indented text:

   Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification

Has this text "subject to certain restrictions." on its own line not indented. Is that text part of the quote or not? or is it intending to mean that the quote is "subject to certain restrictions"? 71.178.10.40 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The latter. That the quote is "subject to certain restrictions." WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Supporting Specification vs Reading or Writing Format

There seems to be some confusion, both in the Article and in the discussion, between two slightly different ideas:

• Supporting a specification in the sense of approving of it.
• Supporting a format in the sense of reading or writing a subset of it.

To illustrate, suppose a programmer writes programs in C, and the statements he uses happen to be a subset of the language defined by the C99 standard. Is the programmer supporting the standard or the language? In most cases, only the language. It's quite possible for the programmer to have learned to write C programs from a textbook without even knowing that any standard even exists.

Taking this example a little further, note that books that describe the C standard, and books that teach how to write C code, are almost always entirely different books.

When a document-handling program reads or writes a document in a format that appears to be a subset of the language defined by the OOXML would-be standard, does that document-handling program support the OOXML format, or the OOXML standard? In most cases, only the format, with with only a limited meaning of "supports". The author of the program may choose to read or write the format while still being opposed to the standard itself.

The Article begins by saying, "Office Open XML...is an XML-based file format specification." Then it confuses the issue later on by including a section "Application support" in which a large number of applications are listed that are said to "support" OOXML in various ways. The casual reader will have difficulty distinguishing between who supports the specification and who happens to read or write a subset of the document format.

I think this distinction ought to be made more clear, both in the Article and in this discussion. A person may support a subset of the format and still oppose the specification. Or a person may support the specification, while not using, or supporting use of, the format itself.

Rahul (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point. However, I think it's clear from context what's meant by phrases like

• "Microsoft supports OOXML."
• "Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac supports OOXML."
• "Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure does not support OOXML."

Are there specific instances in the text that are ambiguous? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive #5

User:Kilz has stated that he is taking a break from Wikipedia. Therefore, I have archived past discussion content into archive page #5.

If I have archived any discussion that you feel still needs to be resolved, please re-state the discussion here.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 10:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats sad, as soon as you think Im not here, you hide it all so no one sees the issues. I recommend anyone new read the archives. Kilz (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A comment via Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts: I think the discussion has descended into jargon-riddled wrangling where it's impossible to discern the issues (if there ever were any). It would help a lot if both User:HAl and User:Kilz took a break. Remember that you're creating an encyclopedia for the general reader who doesn't care about disputes between XML wank #1 vs XML wank #2. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, anyone new should absolutely read the archives. That should be standard practice before editing any article.

Kilz was the only user arguing his points. And given that Kilz said he was taking a break, I thought it made sense to move his arguments to the archive page.

Now, here's the real question: did I move all of the content from here to Archive 5 verbatim, or did I subtly manipulate it to make particular users look good and other users look bad and to push my POV?? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Move OSP related stuff

I'd like to move some of the OSP licensing discussion to the appropriate Microsoft Open Specification Promise article. Specifically the SFLC statement and the expert views opinions. The issue is brought up in the office open xml standardization proces but is in fact relavant to the OSP licensing and other patent covenant/promise types of licensing and is better suited in the OSP article. hAl (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be taking a break, but I'm not insane. You know full well that the sflc statement was aboiut ooxml. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/mar/12/osp-gpl/ Leave it on the page hal. Kilz (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As except for the sockpuppeteer there seem to be no objections I have already added the info to the OSP article so it can be looked at before removing it from this article. hAl (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You Ad hominem argument does not matter. There is no consensus WP:CON, I refer you to WP:PRACTICAL specificly, to move the material, or remove it from this article. There is nothing that says it cant be on both. You have chosen to use your biased original research form on the Open Specification Promise page. Do not remove a referenced section from this page that clearly is about ooxml. Kilz (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, hAl, register my objection to your moving pertinent information - I am a separate editor objecting - jonathan888

What is the history of DrawingML

It was said (see archive 5) that DrawingML makes up for a considerable part of the lenght 6000 page specification.

It would be good to tell people if it is a Microsoft made up thing or if it relies on existing standards.

Is it used outside Microsoft at all?

What are it's advantages? -- HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not to good in the exact graphics stuff but I found this for you:

Technical analysis between DrawingML and SVG.zip.

Open XML Explained e-book (With a chapter on drawingML) I hope it gives you some info. hAl (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ISO voting irregularities

The the information regarding voting irregularities surrounding OOXML's quest for ISO standardization has been moved to a separate article about OOXML standardization. However, this is one of the most intriguing aspects of OOXML, and the issue the format is most famous for. Although the other article can contain extensive detail about the allegations of irregularities and scandal, there still needs to be mention of it in this article, both 1 line in the intro, and 1 paragraph in the standardization section. Regards, Lester 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No actually is not essential for the format itself. It is something fully tied to the standardization proces but not the the format itself and is descriptive of behaviour around the format and opinionated 'news' surrounding the parties involved in the standardization but it is not very relevant to the format itself. The so called irregularities stories look like they are 90% opponents stories who did not get their preferred voting result in their country. hAl (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't let Standardization of Office Open XML be a POV fork of this article, though. There might be room in this article to talk about the two months allowed for appeals from NBs & there is probably room for criticisms specifically raised about the format (rather than the process) that are currently in the other article. --Karnesky (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still massive allegations of vote rigging against Microsoft (short summary here). There is an ongoing antitrust EU investigation. Given the amount of well-founded criticism against Microsoft's practices and ISO's collusion, as well as criticism of OOXML itself (that it may not be implementable by anyone except Microsoft), I find it very biased to omit these completely from the main article.--87.162.60.222 (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML in both the opening summery and the Background sub heading. Laughton.andrew (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ISO Standard

OOXML is now an ISO standard, and the article should reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.153.60 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, OOXML is still not an official ISO standard, that is only the unofficial vote. Also with Norway's vote investigation, calling it a standard is a little premature. Article- http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9074058&intsrc=news_ts_head168.28.180.30 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Anonymous

Request for an investigation you probably mean. hAl (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

ISO has not yet published final version of the standard, until then we do not know WHAT the standard is supposed to be. Hence - the OOXML is not an ISO standard yet. Further - there ARE restrictions on the implementation of the standard, so it is not really free, and MS specifically says, that you need to consult a lawyer if you want to risk implementing it under GPL - instead of declaring they will not pursue any GPL implementers. 83.5.141.245 (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many definitions of "Open standard", as that article shows.

Your edit summary saying, "you will need some GPLed or at least BSD implementation WHEN the standard is published to call it free and open" may be true for some definition, but not for all of them. If you'd like to use that as an argument, you'll need to provide a reference for a definition of "open standard" that makes that claim, and say that OOXML isn't an open standard under that particular definition.

MS says you need to consult a lawyer because they obviously can't give legal advice. The content of this article shouldn't be comprised of speculation about what it means that Microsoft said "consult a lawyer" vs. "declaring they will not pursue any GPL implementers." WalterGR (talk | contributions) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm affraid that the burden of the proof of being open and free is on the proponents of such claim, so as long, as there are multiple definitions of 'open' and 'free', it's their task to specify, which of the definitions they chose, to make the format fit the description. Your argument about speculation works against you, because it's pure speculation to call OOXML 'open' and 'free' under current circumstances. Conversely I do not speculate, what MS could mean or not. It's just not a matter of legal advice, but of intention and effort. As the authors of the draft, MS had every opportunity to make it as unencumbered as needed by GPL community. This community is a major player on the software market nowadays. Excluding even much smaller players would make the draft unacceptable as open or free standard. The MS chose not to make that effort and did not show intention of making the draft available for implementation by the community. All this in the context of contacting some state's heads to ensure the draft is accepted as an international standard, which in my opinion required much more effort. 83.5.141.245 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a reference stating that OOXML is an open standard. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are no restrictions on implementing the standard (talk. The copyrights are fully free and any MS patents on the technology are released for any implementations of the standard. So unless you or anyone could suggest something in the standard you cannot implement because of restrictions ? hAl (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot talk about the standard, because it's not there yet, but portions of the draft are encumbered, if only by their reliance on previous work by MS, which incidentally is not released as far as copyright and patents are considered. What is more the ability to implement is restricted by conformance to the specs, which is to be decided arbitrarily by MS. 83.5.141.245 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you can talk about the standard because Ecma-376 is already an open standard (as are ALL Ecma standards). As for conformance: Conformance to the spec is actually listed in the specification and thus not arbitrarily decided by Microsoft as you wrongly suggest. And as for reliance on previous Microsoft work there is not a problem as the OSP licensing does not exclude old patents. OSP licensing covers all patent claim you require to implement the format specifcation. So if you require old technology that MS has IP rights on the OSP applies to that as well. This will not change for the new version of the standard when it arrives. So you are not making any valid point so far on any suggested restriction on implementing the Office Open XML standard. So again I suggest you come up with something concrete in the standard you cannot implement because of supposed restriction and I'll show you quickly that it is not restricted in any way. OSP licensing has restrictions but those do not apply to covered formats like OOXML. hAl (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

ECMA vs ISO versions

The article seems to confuse the 2006 Ecma version of OOXML and the 2008 revised ISO version. For instance, all the applications listed in the implementation section only supports the former, not the ISO standard one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.209.194.26 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any objections from anyone if I clarify this on the article page? Laughton.andrew (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not from me! Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about this article and an other article here: Talk:Microsoft_Office#Discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsloose (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that discussion seems to have ended. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OOXML as an "open standard"

There seem to be a lot of drive-by edits removing from the lead the referenced claim that OOXML is an open standard. If you disagree with this claim, feel that it's not neutral, or feel it's pushing a POV, that's not the appropriate way to handle it.

Referenced material shouldn't be removed unless it fails WP:VER. If you feel it doesn't pass WP:VER - for example, if you feel Ecma International isn't a reputable reference - then you need to justify that, rather than simply removing the reference.

Furthermore, if you feel the article is unbalanced in a particular way, the appropriate way to address this is to add information documenting other points of view, not simply removing information that you disagree with.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

All Ecma standards are open standards. hAl (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm just trying to explain to people the proper way to handle this, rather than doing drive-by edits to remove sourced information. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hal that the opening doesn't need a citation. The ECMA white paper is a very poor thing to cite, as it opens with "Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for...." It is not an appropriate reference for the points that are trying to be cited. --Karnesky (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Is it that the paper is so old (written when OOXML was a proposed standard) that it can't make claims about the openness of the standard?

Regarding sourcing it in the lead at all: unsourced information can be removed. If it's not sourced in the lead, people are going to remove it even more often than they already have been when it was sourced. I've already got people accusing me of edit warring by restoring the text when people remove it. If you guys are offering to help me out by restoring the text when it gets removed, then by all means, don't cite it. Otherwise, I think it's a useful measure.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Karnesky, your edit summary for the removal of the source says, "white paper describes it as a proposed open standard & does not give the ISO designation". Are you actually arguing that it's not an open standard? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not an open standard. A standard which says "Do it like Word95 does" (which OOXML does, or at least it did initially) is not open. Raul654 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, being an admin you know how this process works. If you want to argue a particular point of view, then do it in the article, by adding content backed up by reliable sources. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually Raul654 after the ISO standardization process the Office Open XML specification described your point very fully: 2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Incorrectly Adjust Text Spacing for Specific Unicode Ranges) This element specifies adjustments (detailed below) which should be applied to the spacing between adjoining regions of non-ideographic and ideographic text when the autoSpaceDE (§2.3.1.2) and autoSpaceDN (§2.3.13) elements have a value of true (or equivalent). This algorithm typically results in the following: An increase in the inter-character spacing added between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain full-width characters No inter-character spacing between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain half-width characters Typically, applications apply additional spacing between ideographic and non-ideographic characters/numeric characters when the autoSpaceDE / autoSpaceDN properties are applied. This element, when present with a val attribute value of true (or equivalent), specifies that applications shall apply the following adjustments to this logic: Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as ideographic, even though those characters are full-width forms of non-ideographic text: U+FF10­U+FF19, U+FF21­U+FF3A, and U+FF41­U+FF5A. [Note: This results in the unnecessary addition of space. end note] Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as non-ideographic, even though those characters are ideographic: U+FF66­U+FF9F. [Note: This results in the omission of the intended additional space. end note] [Example: Consider a WordprocessingML document with two paragraphs containing a mix of East Asian and Latin characters: <w:p> <w:r> <w:t>ab</w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t></w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t></w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t>cd</w:t> </w:r> </w:p> <w:p> <w:r> <w:t>ab</w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t></w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t></w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t>cd</w:t> </w:r> </w:p> The first paragraph contains characters with Unicode value U+FF66 (). The second paragraph contains characters with Unicode value U+FF12 (). If autoSpaceDE is true , spacing is added in the first paragraph (between the ideographs and the non-ideographic characters), but not in the second (all four characters are not ideographs): If this compatibility setting is turned on: <w:compat> <w:autoSpaceLikeWord95 /> </w:compat> Then, although it appears incorrect, applications should not add space in the first paragraph and should apply it in the second: end example]. In addition each of those compatiblity items is described in detail now in the format specification annex and because they are fully described in the spec they will also covered by the Ecma and ISO copyrights and by the Micrsoft OSP patent licensing. I hope this long explanation of just one of the item shows that any relevant info is present in the article. hAl (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If you guys are offering to help me out by restoring the text when it gets removed, then by all means, don't cite it. Surely my eyes decieve me: you're can't be conspiring with other editors to edit war on a Wikipeida talk page? Most people engage in that sort of behavior by email, not out in the open. ➪HiDrNick! 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Read this entire section - I think I'm pretty clear on my intentions. If you want to accuse me of impropriety, do it on the appropriate noticeboard. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Read my comments. I never claimed it wasn't an open standard. My claim is that the white paper does not say any of the things you'd expect it to say, given the location you had chosen to place the citation (e.g. it neither claims that the standard is "presently" open nor does it give the ISO number referred to earlier in the same sentence). If you feel that sentence need a citation, by all means add one. Just add one that actually supports the statement explicitly, rather than this historical document. --Karnesky (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was just confused by the "ISO designation" text, thinking you meant some kind of designation of openness. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Still, I think the reference is valid. I don't understand how "proposed open standard" turns into "questionably open accepted standard." Rather, it was once a proposed open standard, and now is an accepted open standard. Furthermore, Ecma's download page speaks about the accepted standard and links to that whitepaper as an overview. That seems like pretty strong confirmation that the information is still valid. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it warrants a reference. But a better reference would be something that contained the ISO standard number in it, as that would cite all information from the sentence to that point. Alternatively, reword that hook to make it clear that whatever ECMA documents you cite only apply to the statement of it being an open standard & choose documents that are firmer on that point. --Karnesky (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would not serve a point to use the ISO designation for opennnes. Actually Ecma standards are as open or more open than ISO standards already. hAl (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of drawing other articles into the edit war - check out Open standard and Open format. It should be readily apparent from these articles that 1) there is no common consensus on what a standard has to be in order to be an "open standard", and 2) that ISO designation is regarded by many as neither necessary nor sufficient. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO, it should be clear from the fact that the specification allows the implementation to embed arbitrary binary data (for example, a .doc, which is not an open standard by any definition), the standard itself is not open. Only some parts of it are. Yesudeep (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Standards don't need to specify the format for every item that can be embedded inside it. For example, you can attach files of any kind to an internet e-mail. Would you argue that internet e-mail is or is not an open standard?

Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) is described by RFCs 821, 1123, and 2821. But you can attach arbitrary files to e-mails. Therefore, are only "some parts" of SMTP open?

If you want to argue that OOXML doesn't qualify as an open standard, please provide verifiable, reputable 3rd party references to back up your specific claims. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because it can contain embedded proprietary markup doesn't make it "closed". The spec doesn't require you to process the internal structure of the binary blob. It only requires the blob to be made available to implementations that want to process it. What is required to be done with the blob is clearly specified, anything else is a part of extensibility. You can use that feature to embed an entire .doc file but that would be an abuse of the spec, not an intended use. This is no different from ODF extensibility that also allows custom data to be inserted. Or XHTML, that can use namespaces to embed any other markup (including proprietary ones). Or even XML. Embed anything anywhere. If binary isn't allowed, use a different encoding, but the essence remains the same. None of those are only "partially" open standards. --soum ^talk

Infoboxes

Why are the infoboxes promoting OOXML as MS Office 2007 formats? Office 2007 is just one implementation, like several others. On what basis was the Office 2007 impl chosen for infobox visibility? --soum ^talk 17:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the given reference for the MIME type ([1]). Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where's the answer to my questions in the reference? That Microsoft Office Word 2007 document has .docx extension and application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document was never questioned. The only point of disagreement is that application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document refers to any WordProcessingML implementation, not just Microsoft Word 2007 .docx format. So why was Microsoft Word 2007 was singled out? I propose replacing "Microsoft Office Word 2007 Document" with WordProcessingML Document, "Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 Presentation" with PresentationML Document, and "Microsoft Office Excel 2007 Workbook" with SpreadSheetML Document. I am not sure of the icons, though, but have a hunch that they are not the generic identity across all implementations. Can anyone confirm? --soum ^talk 18:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the article history, you'll see that it wasn't me who added these names. I just tried to point out where they possibly came from. If you got any other information regarding the official names or if you have official generic OOXML icons, please feel free to change the infobox. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn;t accusing you of any POV-pushing or anything. It looked odd to me, I started this discussion to gather feedback. --soum ^talk 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The background section of the article actually calls the format "Ecma Office Open XML". So I'd suggest the following names:

• Ecma Office Open XML Document
• Ecma Office Open XML Presentation
• Ecma Office Open XML Workbook

Or maybe without the "Ecma" prefix. ISO calls the format simply "Office Open XML" ([2]). Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This reads like Microsoft propaganda

In the introduction, it makes no mention of the contentious way in which OOXML was pushed through and makes it all look like it went through like a dream. Neither does it mention ODF or that there is already an existing clutch of fully implemented closed and open source implementations of ODF. I think this needs to be mentioned.

82.24.42.7 (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)11/4/2008 cybervegan

I agree with this. A standard with not even a single complete implementation and only one vendor does not make sense. The term "standard" seems abused, simply because the specification is not vendor-neutral. Standardization ideally occurs when there are several competing implementations varying to different degrees and interoperability becomes a major headache. I would prefer to call this a pseudo-open vendor-specification instead.

It doesn't just read like Microsoft propaganda. It is Microsoft propaganda and all the MS fanbois around here are making sure it remains that way. I'm sorry but I feel humiliated already. I'm out of wikipedia.

Yesudeep (talk) 09:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Size of the OOXML specification

I see that a claim of the size of the OOXML specification has been removed from the article.

It has been claimed to be 6000 pages. I have seen a picture claiming to be of the specification, stacked on a chair, where the pile of paper was higher than the back of the chair. According to [3], the normalized thickness of a piece of paper is 0.1 mm - 6000 pages should then be 60 cm, if printed double-sided, it should be 30 cm. Can someone who's actually held a printout of the complete OOXML spec in their hands confirm whether the copy they saw was around that size, for the print format they were looking at?

That's a hunkin' big pile of paper. But we should quote it in verifiable centimetres, not in offbeat comparisiions to the size of persons. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The size should be given in number of pages. That's how the length of every other printed documents is described. Using a physical measurement would be a subtle attempt at pushing the point of view that the specification is too long. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not very many people are used to dealing with piles of 6000 pages. I could equally well say that it's an useful form of illustration, and that not including it is an attempt to push the POV that it's reasonable to have such a long specification be a fast-track ISO standard. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the idea of illustration, but I think it would be belaboring the point: the length of the ODF specification is already given. Furthermore, to maintain a neutral POV, the "size in centimetres" for both specs should be given. However, this would be completely unnecessary, as one can do the exact same size comparison based on the number of pages, which is already provided. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 07:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest people at least stop using that repeated use of fake picture with a stack of paper suggesting it is the printed spec. It is petty and childish. Leave that kind of behaviour to anti ooxml activists but out of wikipedia. It is a long specification. Some might be critical of that (allthough some have stated that more documentation is actually better) and as such it is fine in the article. Ridiculous suggestions on measurements have no place here. Even the more objective page size number comparison could be debated as for instance OOXML was printed in 1,5 times the linespacing that for instance ODF was printed with. hAl (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the reason for claiming that the picture is fake? (Note - I haven't seen the picture in question - I've seen one, but it may not be the same one) --Alvestrand (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been published on the internet that it was. Actually there is a real pic as well.[4] hAl (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think anybody who prints out a 6,000+ page specification should themselves be criticised for wasting a lot of paper, Nobody.... NOBODY is ever going to make use of that.

It doesn't matter how big a specification is... the quality and usefulness of the information is what's important to a developer. The OOXML spec has piles of examples, lots of big tables, and all sorts of things not narrowly related to the definition of the spec, that make the "page count" grow. Ask any developer who is tasked with creating an implementation, and they'd tell you that they would prefer all that extra information. -/- Warren 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Still people want to add it to the critisism because they think less information is better I guess. hAl (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be of interest that ODF spec is small partly because it does not include any specs on what it claims to be incorporated W3C standards. However if for instance ODF were to incorporate the W3C schemas even if only for for validation reasons then even OpenOffice files would not validate against these schemas. So leaving out the w3cinfo from ODF is also consistant with OpenOffice not corretly supporting the w3c standards that are now only referenced in ODF. So what is not in the spec apperantly does not have to validate in OpenOffice ODF terms. hAl (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. Are you claiming that an XML validator won't validate an ODF document if given the schemas that ODF claims to reference, or are you claiming something different? --Alvestrand (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No actually an OOo document will validate against ODF schemas because reused schemas like w3c mathml schema are not included in the spec but replaced by veryfing anything[5] even if non consistent with the format. hAl (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism that OOXML was standardized too quickly

I know this is common criticism. It has been added, removed, and edited in various ways over the history of this article. I recently removed some content in this edit that had previously been added, removed, and added again, because

• it compared only ISO/IEC standardization time with ISO/IEC and OASIS standardization time, thereby purporting to demonstrate that ODF was examined more closely.

Furthermore, likely due to the controversial nature of OOXML standardization, technical measures were employed to examine the standard that were not employed during ODF standardization. For example, [6] and [7]. A simple "time it took to standardize" comparison therefore isn't appropriate to argue this criticism, and amounts to original research.

Unless some kind of measurement can be derived for "total person hours of analysis" for each document (which is obviously impossible) then a simple "time it took to standardize" comparison isn't appropriate argue this criticism, and amounts to original research.

What isn't original research, however, is specific claims from verifiable sources saying that the format was standardized too quickly or was not given enough analysis.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 11:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph previously stated that: Office Open XML was approved by ISO/IEC in 15.5 months compared to OpenDocument being ISO approved in 6,5 month.. It transformed a criticism about OOXML in an unsourced statement about ODF, which was reverting the meaning of the sentence before. I changed it to The Office Open XML was approved by ISO/IEC in 15.5 month compared to OpenDocument being approved in 3.5 years, comprising 3 years spent before ISO standardization to be approved as an OASIS standard, and 6 months for approval by the ISO members with sourced refs because I thought it was non neutral as it was. This was then reverted to the original sentence. I think it is better to remove all the comparison about OOXML vs ODF in this sentence, which was still unsourced.

It must also be noted that, as stated by the OpenDocument standardization article, OASIS is one of the organizations which has been granted the right to propose standards directly to an ISO SC for "Fast-Track Processing".

Hervegirod (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I should have been more thorough. Thanks for this edit.

Ecma International (which submitted OOXML to ISO) has also been granted the right to make fast-track submissions. So a possibly more accurate comparison would have been OASIS+ISO (ODF) with Ecma+ISO (OOXML). But even that comparison - to argue a point regarding the thoroughness of the standardization process - would likely be flawed, due to the factors I described above.

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 12:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be relevant that when you add an article that has a lot of factual incorrectness (like the Google reference) that people are aware of what that are uses as it basis for its claims. The Google reference make an incorrect comparison of ISO scrutinazition times, it incorrectly states that ODF uses an ISO markup language for formulas whilst ODF does not reference any formula markup language and the refrenece incorrectly states that ODF patent licensing applies to future versions allthough for instance IBM's patent licensing on ODF only applies to existing versions of ODF v1.0 and v1.1 and Sun patent license vaguely only applies to versions they contributed to to the point of incorring an obligation. Three major screwups in such a short document. It is a terrible opinion document and pathetic that Google even has the nerve to put out such misinformed garbage. hAl (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaint I've heard is that it the OOXML spec was inappropriate for the ISO fast track. The fast track was intended for specs that needed few or no changes between being proposed and being approved; I think it's documented pretty thoroughly that many changes have been accepted from the version of OOXML that ECMA proposed and the one that will be produced by the post-BRM editing. The time schedule for ISO processing was pretty constrained once fast track was chosen. FWIW, the processing time for non-fast-track ISO standards is usually measured in years, not months. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The fasttrack standardization proces was actually intended for formats originating not from a standards organization but for format/technology emerging from the industry/marketplace. As these format/technologies are being used in the real world already during the standardization proces it is not of much use to use a prolonged standardization proces which would stay behind the fact and thus the fastracking proces. hAl (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See Also - ODF?

I wonder if this article could use a link to OpenDocument, seeing how it is the only other ISO standard in this area? Particularly so since there are a number of links in the article referencing "OOXML to ODF" convertors and such, but nowhere does it explain what is ODF... -- int19h (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A see also section is appropriate for wikilinks that are not already in the article. As the OpenDocument is already in the article it has little use adding it tot the seealso section as well. hAl (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The sixth word in the article is a link to OpenDocument. What more do you what? -/- Warren 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

ISO/IEC DIS 29500 has been deleted[8]Kevstar.31 (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

ODF is not the only ISO document format standard, just a recent one. Those of us with long memories also remember ODA. It might still be on the ISO books somewhere. And for those who still believe in Goldfarb's vision, there's always SGML. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not DIS anymore and it was split into four parts: [9] 71.112.94.166 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)