Popular Searches

download information for Search Optimization  Search Optimization
download information for Search Engine  Search Engine
download information for Adsense  Adsense
download information for RSS  RSS
download information for Blog  Blog
download information for Compression  Compression
download information for Audio  Audio
download information for Video  Video
download information for XML  XML
download information for Screensaver  Screensaver
download information for CSS  CSS
download information for Backup  Backup
download information for Software  Software
download information for Spyware  Spyware



Tags

submitted office standard process comment period ballot closed september observed perhaps unusual convened number comments opposition actions during voting various factions strongly Office Ballot results



Web Matches



A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z

Search Articles e.g. mp4
 

Office Open XML Ballot Results

Ecma International submitted Ecma-376 (Office Open XML Standard) to the ISO Fast Track process. After a comment period the ISO held a ballot that closed September 2007. This has been observed to be perhaps the most controversial and unusual ISO ballot ever convened, both in number of comments in opposition, and in unusual actions during the voting process. Various factions have strongly supported and opposed this fast track process: primarily on one side Microsoft affiliated companies in support and on the opposing side free or open source software organizations, IBM and affiliates, SUN Microsystems, and Google.

There have been reports of attempted vote buying, heated verbal confrontations, refusal to come to consensus and other very unusual behavior in national standards bodies. This is said to be unprecedented for standards bodies who typically act together and have typically worked to resolve concerns amicably.

87 ISO member countries responded to the five-month ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions.

For the measure to pass, 2/3rds of "P" members (participating, as opposed to "O" members: observing) must approve and less than 1/4 of all voting national members must disapprove. The balloting shows 53% approval by "P" members and 26% disapproval from the total votes.

The following table shows the results by member of the balloting that ended 2 September 2007:

CountryStandards BodyMembershipVote
Argentina

IRAM

O Member

Abstention

Chile

INN

O Member

Abstention

Israel

SII

O Member

Abstention

Luxembourg

SEE

O Member

Abstention

Mexico

DGN

O Member

Abstention

Peru

INDECOPI

O Member

Abstention

Viet Nam

TCVN

O Member

Abstention

Australia

SA

P Member

Abstention

Belgium

NBN

P Member

Abstention

Finland

SFS

P Member

Abstention

Italy

UNI

P Member

Abstention

Malaysia

DSM

P Member

Abstention

Netherlands

NEN

P Member

Abstention

Slovenia

SIST

P Member

Abstention

Spain

AENOR

P Member

Abstention

Trinidad and Tobago

TTBS

P Member

Abstention

Mauritius

MSB

Abstention

Zimbabwe

SAZ

Abstention

Armenia

SARM

O Member

Approval

Belarus

BELST

O Member

Approval

Costa Rica

INTECO

O Member

Approval

Croatia

HZN

O Member

Approval

Cuba

NC

O Member

Approval

Egypt

EOS

O Member

Approval

Morocco

SNIMA

O Member

Approval

Romania

ASRO

O Member

Approval

Russian Federation

GOST R

O Member

Approval

Serbia

ISS

O Member

Approval

Sri Lanka

SLSI

O Member

Approval

Ukraine

DSSU

O Member

Approval

Azerbaijan

AZSTAND

P Member

Approval

Côte-d'Ivoire

CODINORM

P Member

Approval

Cyprus

CYS

P Member

Approval

Jamaica

JBS

P Member

Approval

Kazakhstan

KAZMEMST

P Member

Approval

Lebanon

LIBNOR

P Member

Approval

Pakistan

PSQCA

P Member

Approval

Saudi Arabia

SASO

P Member

Approval

Bangladesh

BSTI

Approval

Barbados

BNSI

Approval

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BAS

Approval

Congo, The Democratic Republic of

OCC

Approval

Fiji

FTSQCO

Approval

Kuwait

KOWSMD

Approval

Nigeria

SON

Approval

Panama

COPANIT

Approval

Qatar

QS

Approval

Syrian Arab Republic

SASMO

Approval

Tanzania, United Rep. of

TBS

Approval

United Arab Emirates

ESMA

Approval

Uzbekistan

UZSTANDARD

Approval

Austria

ON

O Member

Approval with comments

Bulgaria

BDS

O Member

Approval with comments

Colombia

ICONTEC

O Member

Approval with comments

Greece

ELOT

O Member

Approval with comments

Poland

PKN

O Member

Approval with comments

Portugal

IPQ

O Member

Approval with comments

Tunisia

INNORPI

O Member

Approval with comments

Germany

DIN

P Member

Approval with comments

Kenya

KEBS

P Member

Approval with comments

Malta

MSA

P Member

Approval with comments

Singapore

SPRING SG

P Member

Approval with comments

Switzerland

SNV

P Member

Approval with comments

Turkey

TSE

P Member

Approval with comments

Uruguay

UNIT

P Member

Approval with comments

Venezuela

FONDONORMA

P Member

Approval with comments

USA

ANSI

Secretariat

Approval with comments

Ghana

GSB

Approval with comments

Jordan

JISM

Approval with comments

Brazil

ABNT

O Member

Disapproval

Philippines

BPS

O Member

Disapproval

Thailand

TISI

O Member

Disapproval

Canada

SCC

P Member

Disapproval

China

SAC

P Member

Disapproval

Czech Republic

CNI

P Member

Disapproval

Denmark

DS

P Member

Disapproval

Ecuador

INEN

P Member

Disapproval

France

AFNOR

P Member

Disapproval

India

BIS

P Member

Disapproval

Iran, Islamic Republic of

ISIRI

P Member

Disapproval

Ireland

NSAI

P Member

Disapproval

Japan

JISC

P Member

Disapproval

Korea, Republic of

KATS

P Member

Disapproval

New Zealand

SNZ

P Member

Disapproval

Norway

SN

P Member

Disapproval

South Africa

SABS

P Member

Disapproval

United Kingdom

BSI

P Member

Disapproval


Significant comments by national standards bodies

BR - Brazil - Disapproval comments made by Brazil that are potentially unresolvable center around proprietary Microsoft formats not being available publicly:

BR Part 4 2.15.3.31 etc "lineWrapLikeWord6"

BR Part 4 Section 6.4.3.1 and 6.4.2.10 te - support other formats including PNG, OGG

BR section 7.4.2.5 Pg. 5122 te - windows clipboard values

BR section 7.4.2.5 Pg. 5122 te - specify GUID and FMTID

example: BR-section-2.15.3-Pg. 1368-te-The “Compatibility Settings” are not available to understand how the document is rendered.-The references in the “Compatibility Settings” section should be made to full publicly available information.

ES - Spain- (sic.) There is no possible to get the necessary consensus in the mirrow committee to support either of the other positions

FR - France - The 122 pages of disapproval comments by AFNOR begin with a proposal to split the Office Open XML standard into two sections: core functions and legacy file formats and further to merge the Office Open XML standard into the OpenDocument standard. AFNOR also takes issue with the document itself citing numerous internal inconsistencies and lack of adherence to standard. The majority of the comments are technical and many of these again centre on lack of publicly available information on Microsoft proprietary formats used by the Office Open XML standardization document.

example: F4038 Part4, Section 2.15.3.32 mwSmallCaps (Emulate Word 5.x for the Macintosh Small Caps Formatting) page 1427, lines 13-18 te This definition is intrinsically based upon material that is not part of the Office Open XML submission, and that is not part of any known standard either. As such, it can't be accepted. A proper definition must be provided for the mwSmallCaps feature, or the feature must be removed altogether. Define the mwSmallCaps feature properly or drop it from the Office Open XML proposal.

US - United States - Approval with 44 pages of comments. Since the approval has been given, the significant comments detailed in the ballot do not have to be addressed. Potentially ANSI could reverse their vote if the comments are not addressed, but observers think it unlikely.

example: US ge The use of proprietary file formats within the Office Open XML standard appears to cause potential intellectual property ownership concerns.

BG - Bulgaria - Approval with minor changes requested including compatibility with Date & Time standards, independence from IP, and finally Cyrillic characters.

IN - India - BIS the Indian standards national body submits 16 pages of comments with their disapproval vote. Although short in length there are many issues that may not be able to be resolved before the February ISO BRM meeting. BIS requests that all references to proprietary software be removed. BIS requests macros for legacy translation. BIS states 'The document encoding standard is not hundred percent decodable - it should be hundred percent decodable'. Many of the same objections to legacy format behavior are given, again referencing the proprietary Microsoft formats, and requesting that the formats be made publicly available.

BPS(PH) - Philippines- BPS disapprove comments are comparatively short consisting of 2 pages of comments. They begin with comments about borders, math functions and finally end with the complaint that "exactly how Word 95 autospaces is a Microsoft Company secret". No proposed changes are given in the comments by the BPS.

GB - Great Britain (United Kingdom)- BSI's 98 pages of disapproval comments begins with the observation that the name Office Open XML is much too similar to Open Office XML and should be changed. Further into the document the BSI states that inappropriate PR hyperbole should be removed from the document. After many pages of edit and technical correction suggestions, on page 26 BSI begins suggesting that Office Open XML must interoperate with OpenDocument standard. On page 34 objections to DrawingML and VML are brought up. On page 39 the BSI says It looks very much like it is mapping directly to the arbitrary choices of a single vendor's application. This clause should be rewritten to express this feature in an application- and platform-neutral way. Much of the remainder of comments are about legacy formats and interoperability problems and edit corrections.

Footnotes


Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML.
Microsoft pressed partners in Sweden to vote for OOXML.
Open XML - The Vote in Sweden.
Kim Haverblad (2007-08-30). The Swedish OOXML vote has been declared invalid!.
ISOC.nl regrets absence of Netherlands decision on OOXML. Internet Society Netherlands press release, 17 August 2007.
FSFE formal objection to the UK14 meeting. Free Software Foundation Europe. 2007-08-13.
Appeal to the decision by Swiss Internet User Group. 14 August 2007.
Yusseri Yusoff (2007-09-04). OOXML is not (yet) an ISO standard, as Malaysia votes "No" ... or did we?.
Vote closes on draft ISO/IEC DIS 29500 standard. ISO (2007-09). Retrieved on 2007-09-04.



Related Ads



Add to Google Add to Yahoo Add to Furl  Add to del.icio.us  Add to DIGG

Resource: Part or all of the information provided in this section is brought to you via wikipedia and other similar sites. Please repsect their licenses and for more information visit the homepages of these sites.

Links
Freeware Downloads Download Information RGB Hex Converter Web Colors
Home  Link to Us
Copyright © iFreeware Downloads 2005-2012
All rights reserved