a 'mooh' point

clearly an IBM drone

Patrick Durusau supports approval of DIS 29500

Now, this is one of the times where I realize that all of us supporting OOXML in ISO are not complete morons ... even though it is the point of view of many of the participants. Patrick Durusau has now openly stated his position on OOXML in ISO, which is: Welcome to the party!

I am sure everyone supporting OOXML in ISO will run around in the next days chearing their heads of ... and that the anti-OOXML-wolf-pack will do the same ... but more in the way of "chicken without a head".

Please read the statement from Patrick Durusau yourself - let me just make this small quote:

That point of agreement is that everyone at the table was heard. That may not seem like a lot to an Oracle or IBM, but name the last time Microsoft was listening to everyone in a public and international forum? At a table where a standard for a future product was being debated by non-Microsoft groups?

Smile

Comments (10) -

Jesper, i thought that you were a "mature" standards participant person... but you make me doubt.

It is no important what the current "opinion" of people like Durusau , nor their daily changes of mood.

There is only one question that will be answered in a couple of weeks:

"Has DIS 29500 ( OOXML ) the technical merits to be fast-tracked as an ISO standard?"

End point.

So, please, grow up!

               Orlando

Ian Easson

Orlando,

Since all that Jesper was doing was letting people know that someone who is well-known and respected has now changed his position, and now supports the fast-tracking of DIS 29500 as an ISO standard, it seems to me that it is you who needs to grow up, not him.

Ian, have you read the reasons mentioned by Durusau?

Are you really saying that this is what ISO has to take in account to upgrade specifications to ISO standards?

My god!

Ian Easson

Orlando,

Of course I read it before commenting.

Calm down.

orlando,

I am sorry if my posting has made you doubt my credentials, but I think you are a bit off the road here. I am not posting the Durusau comment to simply say: All other arguments are now moot and please let's have no more of this debate.

I am posting the link to his comment because it shows that the traditional "pro-OOXML"-side are not the only ones that like the idea of OOXML in ISO and also that is possible to have a balanced opinion on the benefits of both OOXML and ODF.

Durusau's comments touch upon another thing I have been trying to make part of the debate for some time: the benefits of society of having OOXML in ISO. I will post a top-level post of this in a few weeks.

Ian: Do my posts still appear twice with you?

Also: I wonder how Rob will spin the comment from Durusau. Oh wait - I know ... he'll do what he did last time Durusau talked in favour of OOXML ... absolutely nothing.

Smile

Ian,

I am not sure that Durusau endorses Fast-tracking OOXML through ISO. At least I cannot read that from his post. He endordes OOXML in ISO, and given the circumstances he thinks it should get approved, but that is not necessarily the same thing as endorsing the Fast-track of OOXML itself.

Smile

Ian Easson

Hi Jesper,

Oops! I stand corrected on the fast-tracking bit.

And no, I no longer get double posts.  Did you do something?

P.S.  We should meet someday.  (BTW, I once spent a month in Copenhagen, as a visitor doing research in theoretical astrophysics at the Neils Bohr institute.)

Ian,

That'd be great - where do you live?

About double posts: Well, I simply try to "get it right the first time" and not correct it after initial submission.

Smile

It is no important what the current "opinion" of people like Durusau , nor their daily changes of mood.

It might be fairly relevant that Patrick Durusau is chairman of the INCITS committee that decides on the US vote on DIS 29500. Especially since the US delegation was only one of very few that voted against most changes at the BRM.

Mike Brown

The reasoning behind Durasau's "new" position is pathetic and dangerously naive.  I mean, we've got the Beast around the negotiating table, so we need to give it whatever it wants just to keep it there?

Hmmm... where I have heard of that kind of logic before?  Could it have been Neville Chamberlain during the late 1930s, perhaps?  Doubtless he also told his colleagues that what mattered was to keep Hitler and Mussolini at the negotiating table, no matter what the cost.  Too bad for the Czechs though, eh?  (NB: I am not comparing Microsoft to Hitler in any other way here).

As with Rick Jellife's acquiescence, these are the policies of helplessness and surrender.  Their entire approach to this is "well, it's Microsoft, so it's gonna happen anyway; there's no way we can stop it, so we might as well go along with them and try to get the best deal that we can".

I'm sorry, but that's missing the point entirely. Microsoft is only "at the table" now because it *has* to be.  It's making all the requisite noises about "openness" and "interoperability" because it *has* to do so to get the ISO stamp of approval that it so desperately needs.  Does anybody really think that it will continue to play ball once it's got it wants?  


Cheers,

- Mike

Comments are closed