Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms 1407 org>]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > > > 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
> > > > >    with it.  The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
> > > > >    questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted.
> > > > 
> > > > Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve
> > > > the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything.
> > > 
> > > That statement is false.
> > 
> > Are you using ddate? :)
> parse error:1:huh ?

Install ddate and play with ddate +% (sometimes it's really funny) :)

> > > The SpreadsheetML rep may not have been thrilled with my questions,
> > > but the majority were answered.  More people could have joined ECMA,
> > > or participated in the ISO review process constructively had they
> > > wanted to. 
> > 
> > ECMA is out of the board right now, since it's JTC1 who makes changes
> > and not ECMA.
>
> That is inaccurate.  Whom do you think will be responding to
> national body issues ?  ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to
> propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their
> own issues preemptively for resolution.

AFAICT ECMA will be inquired, but the changes will not be decided by
ECMA. JTC1 can do things like: "is there a way to define
autoSpaceLikeWord95? No? Then that tag is out." or even "dates must now
support at least double double int seconds since 1970" (which would be
worse but just for the sake of an example).

All ECMA could do at that point is remove the proposal.

> > Who are you insinuating about a not making a constructive process at ISO?
> Some of the corporate manipulation of national bodies has been quite
> disturbing.  If ODF had been subjected to a fraction of this
> response it would never have passed.

You Bet! Fortuantely ODF had interoperability in mind, and many people
actually participated in it's long development.

> > Are you conscious that SC-34 is virtually stopped because the Microsoft
> > stoogies who have the obligation to vote do not vote on issues that are
> > not Microsoft related?
> Yes.  As per usual parts of MS have managed to descend into the
> gutter.  However, that does not mean that the FLOSS community should
> follow suit.

Fortunately it hasn't. 7 of the countries which upgraded to P voted YES
on OOXML and nothing else, the 8th abstained (and nothing else so far,
IIRC).

> > It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can
> > bet Microsoft is spinning around that "open source likes OOXML" thanks
> > to that.
> People can spin things however they'd like.  I'll implement any file
> format users request.  If people are comfortable citing Gnumeric for
> ODF, they can cite it for OOX too.   At the end of the day, if
> people use Gnumeric, or free software, we've won.

Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much
more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely).

> > It's statements like some of yours that are detrimental, but nothing
> > that you can't fix by making a better job for the community, if you can,
> > of course, since nobody demands of you to loose family time, etc...
> 
> Shall I find a convenient bus to walk in front of :-)

Hope not, too many Free Software developers have died recently (just
recently Itojun)...

> Having worked on filters for both formats, I'll trust my judgement
> over the various position papers with obvious biases littering the
> net.  Both formats need work, the black and white characterization of
>     ODF == good
>     OOX == bad
> does not fit what I've seen while implementing things.

Naturally, Gnumeric follows the design of Excel, which follows the
design of it's file format, so its structure and logic are naturally
reflected in a document format which is designed to reflect status quo.

I'd be surprised if it happened otherwise!

> My calculus is simple.
>     - At least one person will use OOX
>     - That person may want to use free software at some point
>     - If we can support their files they will use free software again.
>     - Therefore we should implement filters
>     - Documentation makes filters easier
> 
> What kind of 'making a better job for the community' do you envision ?
> My opinion the best thing the community can do is to get interested
> domain experts onto the TCs and get better docs.

If you were saying «we already did a terrific job making it be as
documented as it is, but it still needs more», nothing to point at you.
AFAICT you did some good work there.

But you're actually advocating it become a standard as it is...

I would personally not care much if the only problem between ODF and
OOXML were of being two standards for the same target, but Microsoft is
procuring ways to go around those pesky governments who want open
standards (ooxml pretends to be "open" and "xml") and free software
(they have already been caught telling that OSI approved Shared Source).

Best,
Rui

-- 
Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12nd day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?