Author: John Hunt Date: To: Alan Pope, Hampshire LUG Discussion List CC: Subject: Re: [Hampshire] FWD: [Please help prevent Microsoft creating a bad
ISO standard]
Can you dumb it down a shade?
On 1/26/07, Alan Pope <alan@???> wrote: > Apologies to anyone who has seen this before.
>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
> Subject: [UKUUG] Please help prevent Microsoft creating a bad ISO standard
> Date: Monday 22 January 2007 19:26
> From: Alain Williams <addw@???>
> To: members@???
>
> Summary
> The document format used by OpenOffice.org and other applications is an ISO
> standard. An open standard has been needed in this area for many years to
> allow competition and for a range of tools to be developed that all use a
> common data format. Until the ISO standard all we had (in the main) was
> de-facto proprietary binary standards.
>
> The ISO standard is now seen as being under threat from a competing standard
> proposed by ECMA based on Microsoft Office Open XML. We think that you may
> want to object and if you read below, you can find out why and how.
>
> You must act by Friday 26 January.
>
> Detail
>
> An open standard (ISO/IEC 26300:2006) for document formats is currently
> implemented by a number of office software suites, probably the most
> notable of which is OpenOffice.org
>
> Microsoft played little or no part in the ISO/IEC 26300:2006 process and
> subsequently made its own proposal to ECMA (European Computer
> Manufacturers' Association) for 'Office Open XML'. That was approved by
> ECMA and then submitted to ISO/IEC for ratification as an independent
> standard on a fast-track process. A 30-day contradiction period is now
> running which terminates on 5th February.
>
> The fast-track proposal severely overlaps the existing ISO standard and
> apparently contains numerous technical issues which deserve serious
> consideration. There does not appear to have been any effort at providing
> a gap analysis to see where the existing standard does not provide support
> for proposals in the ECMA document and hence no corresponding effort to
> produce a single combined standard to meet the needs of both parties. The
> presence of more than one standard covering the same areas will inevitably
> lead to confusion amongst users of standards.
>
> Any voting national body (of which the British Standards Institute, BSI,
> is one) can register a contradiction with ISO/IEC to cause the fast-track
> proposal to be blocked and for a resolution phase to begin.
>
> We have written to the BSI on behalf of UKUUG requesting that they
> register a contradiction. It is our belief that the more people who write
> to them, the more the effect will be.
>
> We urge any UKUUG member with an interest in this area to read
> http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections and then to register
> their view with the Chairman of the BSI panel looking into this area:
> Francis Cave <francis@???>, objections MUST be received
> by 26th January to have effect.
>
> To object to the fast-track procedure is not necessarily to object to the
> proposal itself but it will at least cause a pause for thought and may
> give time for more detailed scrutiny of the 6,000 page document.
>
> If you do wish to object, please read the objections document and then
> write to Francis Cave (copy-and-paste from this letter would be a bad
> plan) requesting that the BSI formally object to the fast-track proposal.
>
> --
> Alain Williams
> UKUUG Chairman
> #include <std_disclaimer.h>
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire > LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk > --------------------------------------------------------------
>
