ISO Ill at Ease Over OOXML

The nominal approval of OOXML last month unleashed an unprecedented outpouring of anger, with much of that ire directed at the ISO for failing to uphold basic standards during the process. This has prompted it to respond with a rather interesting FAQ in which it desperately tries to defend itself.

For example, try the following for size:

As stipulated in the ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives under the section relating to the fast-track process, the criteria for proposing an existing industry standard for the fast-track procedure are a matter for each proposer to decide. In the case of ISO/IEC 29500, Ecma International considered that the fast-track procedure was appropriate.

Translation: don't blame us for the ridiculous fast-tracking, it was all ECMA's fault. Except that you would have thought that ISO might have some say on the matter - unless, of course, ISO is little more than a rubber-stamping service these days.

Then there's this:

More Here

Also: Microsoft's OOXML trophy is conditional




Thanks for ISO Stuff

Thanks for posting some less Linux-focused items. Also to consider:

ISO Fantasy

What OOXML Is · The ISO process, brutal and corrupt as it was, has been covered to death by everyone. Its output, soon to be known as ISO/IEC 29500, differs from ECMA-376 in two ways. ¶

[...]

What Microsoft really wanted was that ISO stamp of approval to use as a marketing tool. And just like your mother told you, when they get what they want and have their way with you, they’re probably not gonna call you in the morning.

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2008/04/15/OOXML

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.