Notes2Self.net

Stephen McGibbon's Web Journal

Rick Jelliffe debunks some popular myths ...

ZDNet Asia has an article, "Open standards advocate comes out in favor of Microsoft", reporting Rick Jelliffe's comments when he was there recently.

"There's been an awful lot of controversy over Open XML becoming an ISO standard, claims that Open XML was developed to stop ODF, that open XML is not an open standard, that the ISO process is too fast to allow adequate review, that open XML contradicts other ISO standards and that ISO officials have been bribed and pressurized. I have never seen a technology with so many strong claims which are so misleading," he said.

Jelliffe ran through those accusations one by one.

On whether Open XML was started to stop ODF, he pointed out that Microsoft had started work on developing an XML data format back in Office 2000, work that predates some of the ODF work.

On the accusation that ECMA is a second rate organization, Jelliffe said that it was a different kind of organization than W3C and Oasis, aimed at standardizing contributed technology. It is not a standards invention organization.

This is not different from ODF, the first version of which is based on Sun's Star Office. He says that the initial version of any standard is always developed from a contributed standard.

Some have suggested the Open XML standard, at 6,000 pages, is too long and impossible to properly read and review. However, Jelliffe said that it grew to that size because during the review process at ECMA, non-Microsoft people demanded more complete documentation and thus it grew to that length because of its openness.

He said that accusations that Open XML contradicts other ISO standards can be explained and are not significant. One case is that Open XML stores dates as numbers, as has been the case in Microsoft Office all along. The other is how drawing routines use a grid format.

He also made some interesting comments about size, and dependencies on non-ISO standards.

"ODF 1.10 has 760 pages. However, it refers to a lot of standards such as SVG, MathML, Open Formula, xlink, zip. These are not ISO standards, these are from the W3C. Once you add them, they are quite comparable in size," he said.

Comments

yoonkit said:

You conveniently missed out this quote:

"If you want something for interchange and if it is platform neutral, then I'd tend to ODF."

Anyway, the rest of his debunking is easily debunkable:

www.openmalaysiablog.com/.../rick_jelliffe_m.html

# June 18, 2007 12:20 PM

Stephen McGibbon said:

Guilty as charged :-) In fact, I missed the whole paragraph:-

"It's very good for Microsoft to be involved in standards again. For many years, the large companies have not been very engaged in the standards world. Being pro-Open XML doesn't make you anti-ODF. They have been developed for different purposes. If you want something for interchange and if it is platform neutral, then I'd tend to ODF. However, if I wanted to make sure that all the data in the document opens up the same way, then I'd go for Open XML," he said.

Sorry if you think that changed the balance of what he was saying.

# June 18, 2007 12:49 PM

yoonkit said:

> It's very good for Microsoft to be involved in standards again.

Agreed, but Microsoft has had a chequered past, and this new effort doesnt bode well. Standardisation of C# was good.

What Microsoft should do to start off is to specify of all the binary file formats first (for legacy retrieval and fidelity), and subsequently then map out in XML a new file format which can capture all the details.

> Being pro-Open XML doesn't make you anti-ODF.

Agreed. Neither does being pro-ODF makes you anti-MSOOXML. In my blog, I have pointed out ways to improve the obvious deficiencies. Simple things like allowing negative numbers to represent dates, or better, encode it in ISO 8601 formats. Renaming the Element / Attribute / Property names so that its easier for non-english speakers, and also easier on the sanity of MSOOXML developers.

This shouldnt be taken as anti-MSOOXML sentiment. Its feedback. Whether Microsoft uses this feedback constructively as in all standards building exercises or not is entirely up to you. However if you ignore these suggestions, then ultimately, you should not blame these so called pro-ODF / anti-MSOOXML folk who have been trying to advise you.

>  They have been developed for different purposes.

Disagreed; From the information we get, the purpose of MSOOXML is

1) High fidelity access to Legacy information

2) Method to encode word processing, spreadsheets and presentation files

MSOOXML does not really acheive #1. If we want #1, then Microsoft should release all the information on all the versions of the binary (and currently proprietary) file formats.

Why bother in defining yet another "layer" in XML just to see what the binary encodings are? Go straight to the source!

If its to acheive #2, then ODF is, unfortunately or fortunately developed for the same purpose.

> However, if I wanted to make sure that all the data

> in the document opens up the same way, then I'd go for Open XML

For high fidelity, id go for the binary specifications of Word6, Office 95, 97, XP, 2000, 2003 and 2007.

> Sorry if you think that changed the balance

> of what he was saying.

Well, it certainly does change the balance. He is saying that if you want interoperability (amongst different vendors) and is platform and technology neutral, then ODF is the better choice.

So "Open Standards advocate prefers ODF for interoperability and neutrality" significantly changes the balance of the article.

BTW, was the event arranged by Microsoft? Because the article was not clear on this information. Can you find out? I think it would be important to know how an Australian got to speak to high ranking CIOs in the Thai government.

After all, the balance of the article would significantly change if it read:

"Open Standards advocate, contracted by Microsoft, comes out in favour of Microsoft at a Microsoft sponsored event"

I hope that is not the case.

yk.

# June 20, 2007 3:42 AM

yoonkit said:

"Open Standards advocate, contracted by Microsoft, comes out in favour of Microsoft at a Microsoft sponsored event"

Guilty as charged?  ;-)

yk

# June 22, 2007 4:55 AM