Interesting perspective in the ODF / OpenXML discussion over on the Forrester Blog :
… Do we need an open file format standard? ABSOLUTELY! We’ve published in the past why enterprises need an open file format standard to address longevity concerns. And I believe having an open file format will lead to greater innovation. Just imagine the new tools and applications that can be developed knowing that the mountains of information captured and stored in documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and other office documents could be accessed and manipulated through supported and adopted standard means. …
….
- IBM has a vested interest NOT seeing OOXML adopted as an ISO standard.
- Microsoft Office 2007 needs OOXML.
- Without ODF as the leading standard, Sun and OpenOffice.org have little to stand on.
- Don’t assume what’s best for IBM, Microsoft, Sun, or other vendor is best for you.
Source: Can Anyone Be Objective About OOXML? You Can!
Author: Kyle McNabb
Date originally published: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 23:38:06 GMT
“IBM has a vested interest NOT seeing OOXML adopted as an ISO standard”
Maybe it does, but not he one that Mr McNabb sees. Notes 8? He doesn’t even seem to know what the product is actually called:
“IBM’s latest collaboration platform, IBM Lotus, and IBM Lotus Notes 8”
“IBM Lotus” is a division of IBM, not a product in its own right.
So, IBM has been involved with ODF for how many years now? And yet, we’re supposed to believe that it’s all about generating sales for Notes 8, which isn’t even released yet. Remarkable foresight on IBM’s part.
If you want some objectivity on the subject of OOXML, I gave you some on a previous posting:
http://www.peterdehaas.net/2007/07/jerry-fishenden.html
Namely, the spec is full of errors and bugs, and references Microsoft proprietary elements that are not defined in the spec itself. The year 1900 was not a leap year. Organisations such as ISO do not exist to define standards that deliberately perpetuate the legacy bugs of a single vendor.
It would have been interesting to see how IBM and other “vested interested” parties might have voted had the quality of the OOXML spec not been so poor. As it is, it’s a moot point.
Cheers,
– Mike
Mike,
Your point of view on ODF / OpenXML is clear.
Do you honoustly believe that (in your words) if “quality of the OOXML spec not been so poor” IBMs vote would have been any different ?
I for one think there is some truth in the blog article about IBMs objectives …
> Do you honoustly believe that (in your words) if “quality
> of the OOXML spec not been so poor” IBMs vote would have
> been any different ?
That’s an interesting point (which is why I raised it!)
The trouble with OOXML is that it’s whole raison d’etre is to reproduce all of the quirks, idiosyncrasies and even bugs of the Office binary formats. If Microsoft did fix it so that it didn’t do all those things – if for example, it followed the ISO standard for date representation, rather than perpetuating the error that 1900 was a leap year – then you’d be left with something so close to ODF as to be indistinguishable from it. Microsoft’s (already weak) “we need two different standards for two different purposes” argument would no longer hold water. I don’t think IBM would be slow to make that point either, but how it would vote on such a revised spec, I really couldn’t say.
That’s a big Catch-22 for Microsoft, and one has to say, that it’s a problem that is entirely of its own making.
Cheers,
– Mike
Anand,
I fully agree.
The emphasis on IBM was more related to the ‘ discussion’ Mike and I had on the matter and (to my opinion) the agenda of IBM in the whole debate.
But its not over yet and I am confident OpenXML will become an ISO certified standard …
Do you honoustly believe that (in your words) if “quality of the OOXML spec not been so poor” IBMs vote would have been any different ?
Peter, I think you are turning it to IBM only debate. IBM wasn’t the only one opposing it.
MS could have done more homework before tabling it to the world. If MS had really done a good job, certainly IBM would have had difficulties opposing it or maybe IBM would have got into a funny situation 😉