Jump to content

Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

EU recommendation?

I just want to add a lie that was corrected several times and discussed "In May 2004, governments and the European Union recommended to Microsoft that they publish and standardize their XML Office formats through a standardization organization.[16][17]" has been reverted several times. We had lengthy discussions. The links provided do not source the factually incorrect statement. As I argued before I believe the unfaithful editors have a "target text" and regardless what edits or improvements are made they wash down the text to become the target text again. Formulations which were discussed and proven misleading do not reappear by accident. It is time for Wikipedia management to take action and block the responsible persons. The "we must use reliable sources" argument is unsatisfactory as long as the article includes statements where sources that do not confirm the claim, or the argument follows a riddiculous positivism. --Arebenti (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that particular statement (modified to say what the sources support) belongs on Standardization of Office Open XML, not here. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Alvestrand that this would be better in the standardization article. And Arebenti seems right in that the Brian Jones blog post seems irrelevant here. But one of the recommendations of the TAC (the other citation) is that "Microsoft should consider the merits of submitting XML formats to an international standards body of their choice". Perhaps it would be better if this was stated directly (both the body making the statement and the actual words) rather than the loose summary which is there at present. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
More - it turns out this reference was already included in the standardization article, so I have removed it from here. Also removes some similar speculation from this Background section Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The EU recommendation predates the standardization by a year. It is very significant as background as without that recommedation to Micrsoft and OASIS we likely would not have seen this article exist but in stead have been at a "Microsoft Office 2007 formats" article. That the EU recommends Microsoft to submit their existing office xml format and that Microsoft has done so a year after is a significant part of how the format came to be. hAl (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree this belongs in the article. The Office Open XML standard might not exist if it was not for this EU recommend. We would be looking at the MS Office 2007 XML format article then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.171.246 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Standardization"

I see the "History" section is back to being "Standardization". The reason I originally changed this was more to avoid the cross-Atlantic spelling divide than anything else; is there any way we could phrase this succinctly to avoid the use of that Z? The same obviously applies to the parent article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much bothered by the transatlantic Z, any more than I'm bothered by the lack of an U in "color". I don't even want to insist on consistency. If you really want to bother, maybe we can use "Creation of a standard"? --Alvestrand (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reason not to just go with "History" again? That also allows the section to grow by adding adoption details et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The 'z' looks as foreign to me as to anyone, but I introduced it here for consistency's sake. I think it is wise to name the section after the sub-article it summarises, and the title of that has a z. I imagine, from past experience, that with regard to file formats invented by a US corporation, it would be impossible to maintain that that the articles should not follow US spelling. Even on truly international subjects like World Wide Web someone always comes along pretty soon and puts all the spellings into the American vernacular. So I thought, it's one argument that's not worth starting and used US spelling and punctuation from the start (including "hello." not "hello".) --Nigelj (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK "American punctuation" is discouraged by several formal bodies in the States (as it should, being wrong and all). This one was more of a niggle; I don't really mind one way or another, but it's a good way of heading off future disputes early. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that words spelt with the '-ize' ending are perfectly acceptable in British English. They always have been. The '-ise' spellings are simply something most Britons have become accustomed to. See here. Xyiyizi 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As Fowler was at pains to point out, what is "acceptable" in a given dialect is what the speakers and writers of it find acceptable. Whether or not a textbook may say that -ize is "acceptable" in BrE it's seldom used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and ISO use "standardization" - so that is (ahem) the standard spelling ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is where I mutter something about "aluminium", I suppose. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

This isn't productive. I'm removing it again. Scientus, consider this a warning for tendicious editing; either you can work with other editors to collaboratively improve the article or you can join hAl in the group of editors who disagree with the direction of the article but who are unable to do anthing about it due to being blocked from editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. You mean Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. At this time, it's not appropriate to place the COI hatnote on top of the article. The issues need to be debated first, before we resort to tagging.--Lester 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that tagging isn't productive at this time before any attempt has been made to flesh out the issues here on the talk page. At the same time I agree with Scientus that there is a potential conflict of interest regarding Alex, and I protest thumperward's harsh characterization of the move. Indeed, talk before tagging! Yet the tagging was not entirely out-of-place. We should welcome Alex's expertise in the article, but also carefully weigh his contributions in the context of his intense involvement in the issues. A simple claim that "Well, I have been criticized by both sides", as Alex has stated on this talk page in the the past, is not sufficient reason at all to disregard the possible conflict of interest for someone who has been the object of such intense public controversy. It is up to Alex to prove that he can contribute neutrally, especially in the manner he presents (or even allows for the presentation of) positions he disagrees with and the sources for them. Indeed, to show neutrality, he should be going out of his way to help this article include documentation of criticism of himself, his role in the process, and links to verify them. If he can fairly document both sides that is even better. Dovi (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure I need to "prove" anything - Wikipedia provides a nice history of my actual contributions (which you may find differ in nature from how they have been reported in some quarters). I think it is rather presumptious of you to imply you know what I agree/disagree with and that I'm in danger of not setting aside any bias I may have. As to myself - I am not a notable figure: despite some "intense" coverage in the sillier blogs my role has received very little coverage from authoritative citable sources (e.g. the trade press). As a matter of personal policy and COI avoidance I try to avoid making any edits to material directly concerning my "role" in the process. As to COI generally, I'm waiting to hear what "interests" are in conflict exactly. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The "interests" are hinted at within this very comment of yours. Only the trade press is authoritative? Open Source organizations are not? Some of the "silly" blogs that have criticized you (not all of them) are written by recognized experts. Because of the nature of this article's topic, of intense interest to technical people but not high on the general public's agenda, selected blogs and other sources from outside the "trade press" are called for here in order to document the POV's from both sides. That, by the way, is what NPOV means: Not citing supposedly neutral analysis, but by fairly documenting all relevant perspectives. Dovi (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
We need to maintain/improve the quality level - allowing "selected" (by whom?) blogs and collecting all shades of POV from "both sides" (the existence of "sides" is in itself a POV) is not what we should be doing, and in fact it is what this page has suffered from with edits and counter-edits from over-zealous OOXML opponents and enthusiasts. It's interesting you want to re-interpret what NPOV means to include "all relevant" (according to whom?) perspectives; we should confine ourselves to more mainstream, verifiable views (and yes, that might include FOSS organisations' and commercial organisations' views). I suggest you read WP:SOURCES carefully Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV is not for debate. It is for showing the neutral information on a subject. Only when the facts describing the subject are disputed both sides of the dispute should be shown. Discussions on wheter or not OOXML is good or bad should not come into the frame of the article. The article is not about critisising the format but only about describing the format. For discussion go to your blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.171.246 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not for us to make our own criticism of OOXML, however it is fair game to include criticism by notable others of the format. The statement above (by IP user) that the article can only describe the format is also not true. OOXML was the most controversial ISO standard in history. Of course the controversy must be included.--Lester

ISO/IEC in article lead.

This is an ISO/IEC standard article. That info belongs in the article lead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.133.168 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it is also an Ecma standard (the two texts are published in parallel) - this is why I kept the wording generic here, to avoid descending into detail in the intro. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Licensing section

This is full of opinion. Unnessesary opinion. All of that is WP:NPOV. I tried to remove it but other users block that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.133.168 (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All that stuff is one of the aspects of OOXML that has gathered the most interest. The fact is that there's a lot of WP:RS sourced opinion out there, a lot of it critical. It's necessary to report it. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with these opinions is that they do not represent any actual factual info. Some think the license is fine and others claim it isn´t. These opinion seem related more to the protest surrounding the standardization than to the actual license itself which is very much in line with normal standardization licensing. The opinions do not represent that in any way. 200.72.157.145 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want pure facts, read the spec or the licence. The purpose of parts of this article (not all of it) is to introduce some of the various notable opinions, arguments and other things that have followed from the simple existence of these things in our world. All with reliable sources and due weight and balance of course. It's an encyclopedia article :-) --Nigelj (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is little use in using speculative arguments. Fact is that thousands of applications already implement the format with these licenses many OSS implementations. Fact is that this is the kind of licensing common for open standards (onesided royalty free licensing).
I already removed some WP:OR about not deviating from the standard. This was incorrect in two ways. Firstly software that deviates from the format produces another format that is not OOXML anymore. That is outside the scope of this article. Secondly the license would still grant rights to the software parts that do comply with the standard which wat not correctly worded in the article. 200.72.157.145 (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and quite rightly, your deletions got reverted. The thing about a balanced article about various opinions is that some of the opinions you personally may not like. But you mustn't just delete them! If material is cited to a reference, then it is not WP:OR, if the reference is just someone's opinion and the text says, 'Ecma International asserted that, "..."' or 'Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has stated that "..."', then that is the correct way of stating it. As long as there is due weight and everything quoted is suitably notable, then that is as it should be in an encyclopedia. If someone comes along and deletes all the opinions they don't agree with, then that ruins the balance. If you think it needs tweaking in one direction or another due to weight or notability, then that's something we can discuss. What's there at the moment represents the consensus last time it was discussed. --Nigelj (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The adoption section contains many meaningless announcements of adoption

It would be nice to know what the weight of adoption is within a given countries strategy. Some of the information conveyed could equally imply that OOXML is such a small part of that countries strategy that it amounts to a token gesture. 210.49.194.227 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. In particular such statements like Belgium's "... in 2006 was evaluating the adoption" is ridiculously meaningless. Also, Denmark's entry needs to be updated since today's decision. Thrapper (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree too. If you follow some of the refs, or just read between the lines, it is also clear that, some years ago now, these countries were evaluating the benefits of adopting 'open standards' in general for their documents, for which OOXML may have been one of the options. If someone has access to more recent announcements, or some actual facts, it would be really good to improve and update that section. --Nigelj (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
So can we at least agree to delete Belgium's entry seeing as it's now so meaningless? Thrapper (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

OOXML Implementations

I think we should add a new Headline "OOXML based Applications and Implementations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rassisi (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the article, we already have one: List of software that supports Office Open XML. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

ZIP-compatible

What does that mean, it would seem to be important, since it's in the first sentence? Is it just a reference to: ZIP_(file_format)#Combining_ZIP_with_other_file_formats "it is possible to author a file that is both a working ZIP archive and another format, provided that the other format tolerates arbitrary data at its end, beginning, or middle." Or does it mean you can add Office Open XML files to a zip archive and effectively compress them? Is it in contrast to some other file type that is not Zip compatible? Could someone please clarify or have the guts to remove the fragment? Mathiastck (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reference to the fact that if you ask a zip program to unzip an .docx file, you end up with a bunch of smaller files, each containing part of the file content. Should probably be "zip-based", not "zip-compatible" - although (more) strictly speaking, it is the Open Packaging Format that is zip-based, not the document format as such. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it was meant to mean that the zip compression algorithm was originally proprietary, but did not belong to Microsoft. So the compression algorithm they use to compress all the XML files into the docx (or whatever) archive is not 'zip', but it is compatible with 'zip'. And no, I have no idea how you condense that into a few crisp words in an opening sentence either. It's covered again in the 'File formats' section, but is still not that clear to a non-expert IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Alvestrand above; I interpreted it as referring to the fact the file format is basically a ZIP file containing a bunch of files. A bit like JAR. I've altered it to "ZIP-based". Even taking into account what Nigelj says, "ZIP-based" still works for "a file format based on or derived from ZIP". mmj (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Although Office Open XML is ZIP-based format, this is not important enough for the first sentence of the article. It is certainly worth a mention in another section of the article (Delafield (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Softmaker

Notice a mention of this has been removed on grounds of non-notability. Not so sure about that -- in my own experience it is mentioned quite a bit (when discussing OOXML), and it has attracted some third-party attention also e.g. from Andy Updegrove Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think it ranks above OpenOffice.org, Apple TextEdit and iWork, IBM Lotus Notes, Corel Wordperfect and Google apps as being important software that supports OOXML? How many users does it have? Is it fully compatible, in that it can read and write all the formats (docx, xslx, pptx, etc)? I've never heard of it, so I'm just asking, but a citation would be good too. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No, wouldn't want to "rank" it - those other apps are notable too. But the SoftMaker suite is unusual in claiming to save (not just load) OOXML (at least DOCX and XLSX files). I've no idea how compatible/conformant it is. However, I don't think non-notability is a good reason not to mention it ... I just found an Infoworld article on it too. I have also re-worded the reference to make it more cautious! Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Metro vs Office Open XML

What is the difference between "Metro file format" and "Open XML"? Was "Metro" the code name before it was finished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.85 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Open XML"

I have re-instated the mention in the opening that this format is referred to as "Open XML". Like it or not (and most don't - including me), this name is used, even by those who don't like it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll put back the {fact} tag that prompted me to remove it earlier. 'XML' has always been 'open', this is an application of XML not an opening of it. If you want that one in, then find a WP:RS that says it's its name (clue: blogs are not normally considered reliable sources). --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not its name, it's what it is "known as"; Google "Open XML" too see that it's common usage (e.g. this ZDNet UK article if you want press). It's a characteristic of usages that they are diffuse rather than cited by an authoritative reference, hence the cite tag here is just silly. (BTW, I agree with your opinion about the term "open xml" -- but we're dealing with facts here, not opinions). Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to mention "Open XML", it doesn't seem to be commonly-used enough to warrant a mention (although the zdnet exception is noted). Prominently displaying in wikipedia on the other hand, in bold, in the first sentence, encourages an obviously incorrect and confusing naming. There's enough (deliberate?) confusion in the naming already. Thrapper (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The ZDNet article is from 2007! "Open XML" is included in the phrase "Office Open XML", so a more sophisticated search would be required. And thirdly, a lot of what you find on the web is either mirrored from what we say here, or fact-checked or based on what we say here. In this case I don't think we are following any common usage as much as creating a large part of it. I'm glad it has now gone from our text. --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence is misleading because Office Open XML may refer to the ECMA standard or the ISO/IEC standard, for example. I will try to have that reflected in the first sentence. (Delafield (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC))
Interestingly, the first hits on the Gsearch "open xml" -"office open xml" refer to something that is not Office Open XML. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
It's simply wrong to say that this spec is not known as "OpenXML" (and of course most mainstream media mentions will be from a while back, since that is when the mainstream media was interested in this subject!). Check out: Infoworld for many examples. And of course Microsoft themselves use this term nearly exclusively. Airbrushing the term out of this article is an attempt to alter reality, not to reflect it. As we can see, there is a large corpus of text out there that uses this term -- people coming across it and turning to Wikipedia would expect to have that usage clarified; we shouldn't mislead them, no matter how 'glad' that makes us! Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maintence section

This article needs a substantial section about the maintenance phase of the specification. In particular, a description of the lack of maintenance being done on the standard, as per this and this. (The latter is a blog post by Alex Brown, who convened the OOXML approval committee, in which he says the standard is "heading towards failure") Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention that blog entry too (thanks to the slashdot discussion), but then it appears that the blog author is already fairly active in this page already so I figured he'd be in a better position to write something accurate :) Thrapper (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and more generally a section or two over the controversy around OOXML must be added! At the moment the article reads as very plain and whitewashed. Mathmo Talk 03:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the need for an entire section dealing solely with the controversy. We already have this, for instance,

The ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered, with IBM threatening to leave standards bodies that it said allow dominant corporations like Microsoft to wield undue influence. Microsoft was accused of co-opting the standardization process by leaning on countries to ensure that it got enough votes at the ISO for Office Open XML to pass.

Which appears alongside a link to the Standardization of Office Open XML article, where the controversy is discussed in depth. --Xyiyizi 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
A section about controversy and criticism doesn't really come under the "Maintence (sic) section" but it is a valid suggestion. Controversy about the standardization process is indeed covered elsewhere, but I believe Mathmo was talking more generally about criticism about OOXML. There used to be a criticism section (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&oldid=314111559#Criticism_of_ECMA-376_1st_edition ) but any criticism of OOXML in this page has been persistently deleted by a number of dedicated individuals. Thrapper (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right, criticism of the spec itself. Yes, I agree that should be in there somewhere. --Xyiyizi 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft Employees? Kidding :P But clearly it shouldn't be as whitewashed as is it is now, after all I do believe (IMHO) that the majority of the news coverage OOXML has got is because of troubles it has had.... to ignore this is mind boggling. If people do remove worthy inclusions in the article then it should be reverted and then discussed here on the talk page Mathmo Talk 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you have some time to kill, have a browse through the archives of this talk page (see the small yellow box at the top of this page). It makes for some entertaining reading. Thrapper (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've read through all of the archives too. The vast majority of the contention this article has had can be put down to one rather, err, cantankerous and persistent fellow, who is now banned. I suppose making the article more neutral and getting a consensus about it should be easier now, but we should be careful not to go too far the other way.--Xyiyizi 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about going one way or the other (whether it is "too far" or not). Take note that a number of editors (myself included) worked hard several months back to remove the "criticism" section and disperese its relevant information more usefully throughout the article, in line with Wikipedia best practice. I strongly second the suggestion to study the talk archive as (in addition to the bun fights) a lot of thoughtful hard work has gone into make the OOXML articles as they are today. As well as having pro-format trolls there has been damage from anti-format trolls too! Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IBM Resistance/Controversy

Hi All,

The article states, "The ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered, with IBM threatening to leave standards bodies that it said allow dominant corporations like Microsoft to wield undue influence. Microsoft was accused of co-opting the standardization process by leaning on countries to ensure that it got enough votes at the ISO for Office Open XML to pass.[14]"

This appears to be a nearly verbatin quote from [14]. Unfortunately, [14] does not cite a source for its sensational claim. Perhaps it would be a good idea to cite IBM? Or simply state that IBM opposed the specification (and cite [14]) until the claim can be substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right I modified the section to reflect the fact that this is InfoWorld view only. Until someone finds such quotation from an IBM source. In addition, I do not trust InfoWorld. It employs weasel wording to accuse Microsoft. Fleet Command (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you challenging the statement that 'the ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered'? Do you think it actually went very smoothly and amicably, with just this one publication, InfoWorld, making such an unusual claim? Well. I have no objection to people finding additional references to cover specific details - have a look in Standardization of Office Open XML, you may find something there that'll help - but I think that the general statement will have to be restored, to avoid falsely giving an impression that of all involved, only InfoWorld noticed any discord. --Nigelj (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am challenging the said statement due to the lack of evidence to believe otherwise. If it was indeed embittered, InfoWorld was a poor choice for representing a gist of Standardization of Office Open XML article. Apart from my lack of trust for tabloids, (especially in regard to their favorite sport which is Microsoft-bashing,) I do not trust a journal that employs weasel words.

I just finished reading Standardization of Office Open XML and it gave me no evidence as to the extreme situation that InfoWorld tries to make me believe. InfoWorld is obviously exaggerating the situation. It seems that the process was Controversial but nontheless devoid of any wrongdoing, as stated by two official bodies which further investigated the issue.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It is sourced to a WP:RS. Present a source which contradicts it and add that they disagree. Or use google and find many which confirm it. Takes seconds. Verbal chat 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FleetCommand: Are you claiming that OOXML was never controversial, or that the ISO process for OOXML was never controversial? Are you claiming that there wasn't a lot of discussion at the time? Just because it was investigated and shown to be devoid of wrongdoing doesn't mean that it wasn't controversial - why was it further investigated by two official bodies if it was never controversial? Also here's another link if infoworld doesn't satisfy your personal evidence criteria: http://www.zdnet.com.au/war-rages-on-over-microsoft-s-ooxml-plans-339284737.htm - as Verbal says any search engine will show you several such articles. Thrapper (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The 'Adoption' section

I think this section should be moved out of this article, perhaps into a general article about open standards in government if such an article exists. The premise of its inclusion here is wrong: the introduction says that the following bodies are considering using open standard file formats in general, and then the references (though often not the text in this article) go on to reiterate this. In the references, OOXML is sometimes given as an example of such a standard, alongside ODF and PDF for example. Yet to the casual reader, we see the headings: Office Open XML -> Adoption, and then Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany etc. If you just scan the text and omit the references, you would think that you just read that all these governments have adopted OOXML over all other formats, which they have not. This is misleading, by intention or not, largely due to its placement here, and partly due to shoddy wording that does not thoroughly represent what the cited refs say.. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Since this page does not even hint on how the standardization was done, and all the politics and corruption, it is preferable to put the neutrality tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.149.236 (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article? The "Standardization process" section clearly states that the process itself involved controversy, and even includes quotes and some details about the major players' feelings and concerns/reactions. However, the article here is about all aspects of OOXML (the format itself, the technical details, the support by various software, the approval process, etc.). You concern that there is more to say about the controversy is valid, but there is so much to say that it was all pushed into a separate article, with just a quick summary here. What's left here is a brief summary, as it should be (IMO) per WP:SUMMARY when there is a secondary detailed article about a specific aspect of a major-topic article. DMacks (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The article itself is neutral. Fleet Command (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I find the article is not neutral, and is slanted against Microsoft. e.g. "On July 2 the government declared that they hold the view that formats like Office Open XML which organizations such as Ecma International and ISO had also approved was, according to them, an open standard.[43]" The words "according to them" are unnecessary, evidently if "they hold the view" then it could only be "according to them". It seems that someone who feels that OOXML is not an open standard has felt it necessary to restate this so as to coerce the reader into believing the same. Just one example of a few. Fletchgqc (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org and OOXML

The Sun/Oracle/Apache versions of OpenOffice.org could read OOXML from 3.0 on, but could not write it. Apache hopes to add support in the 4.x line, using LibreOffice patches to existing code that was never enabled. A lot of Linux users recall OOo 3.x writing .docx/.xlsx, but that would be because pretty much all Linux distros switched to the Go-oo fork as soon as it was available (which was still branded "OpenOffice.org"), and that did have OOXML writing support - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

I come to this article knowing little about the topic... look at the headline and first sentence... and the first thing I see is "Open Office XML... Not to be confused with Open Office XML." Yeah, that's clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.0.60 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you quoted it wrong. It's "Office Open XML" that needs to not be confused with "Open Office XML". Most theories about why this particular name was chosen would be indistinguishable from Microsoft-bashing, so I won't mention them. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. So, it appears someone did confuse them while he was being warned not to confuse them. Well, the lesson to be learned is: When you are being warning not to confuse something with something else, expect minute differences. Best regard, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Office Open XML. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Office Open XML. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Outdated standards

The article lists 3rd ECMA specification and ISO/IEC 29500:2008 when there is 4th edition of ECMA (from December 2012) and ISO/IEC 29500-1:2012 was published on 2012-08-22 I think that until this gets fixed this article needs to be rated as C-Class and not B-Class as it is now. Qrilka (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually 5th edition of ECMA-376 is already out --62.192.249.33 (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Open Format?

This page states that OOXML is an Open format. As you can see on Wikipedia's page on Open Formats, there is no consensual definition on what one is, but it presents five different definitions from five different entities. OOXML doesn't comply with the definition of two of those give definitions. Thus, I'd argue that it is controversial to call OOXML an Open Format, and those references should be removed. -- 178.166.49.94 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As no comments were made on this for a few months, I went ahead and removed the references. -- 178.166.49.94 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes. To interpret whether the format is open based on sources that do not specifically mention OOXML is a violation of Wikipedia:Synthesis. The source currently there (Fraunhofer Institute) backs up this claim (and specifically mentions OOXML). If other reliable sources unrelated to OOXML also claim that it is not a free format, then there is a controversy, but personal interpretations on-wiki are not enough. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_Open_XML/Archive_15&oldid=1168797030"