Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Reference is missing

"Microsoft has assured the European Union that the Office Open XML standard meets the European Union definitions of an Open Standard, meaning the specification is freely available and implementable by anyone." -- Reference? Podmok 19:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Below we find the same claim and as a reference: "Pan-European eGovernment Services Committee (2006-12-06). Conclusions and recommendations on Open Document Formats (see §3.3). IDABC Expert Group (European Union). Retrieved on 2006-02-13." However, first of all IDABC is an EU agency for eGovernment. Second no formal document/letter from Microsoft is referenced here. I would like to see an opinion from DG Competition. Podmok 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not trust that if an EU agency states there is an assurance by MS that there actually is an assurance ? They would make it up ??? hAl 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above under references. IDABC confirmed that a) the document is NO official EU document b) they did not receive such letter. c) the paper says that the group (which is not the EU) knows what everyone knows. The statement that Microsoft informed the Commission is unsourced as the document does not express that-Arebenti 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So it should actually be more accurate to state that an expert group working for the EU was assured by the publicly availalbe information of Micrsoft and Ecma information that the standard is free and can be used by anyone ??? hAl 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact there is no knowledge about such a letter at IDABC. And the original reference posted did not support the claim made. In fact the information seems to be irrelevant. Arebenti 12:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

no<ooxml> petition URL got removed?

User:HAl removed the reference to the petition organised by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), claiming that mentioning the petition does constitute NPOV. I believe it is important to mention the no<ooxml> petition because it is a major petition and relates to a significant future developement of OOXML. Simosx 15:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not about removing references to partisan information! NPOV relates only to the wikipedia article and means "all sides". The no OOXML effort is in fact the strongest lobbying effort. And there is also a pro-petition. Arebenti 12:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it also isn't a resource about the subject. Pettitions never are. As for WP:NPOV the top of the pettition reads I ask the national members of ISO to vote "NO" in the ballot ..., fairly POV IMHO--Hu12 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand what POV is about. The article has to be NPOV. Not the references to external POV sources (criticism). Arebenti 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I also have serious objections to this link listed in the critisisms references: http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-questions. As for a resource of information it only really refers to other sites that are already in the article and it seems also to be only about blocking ooxml standardisation trough influencing national bodies. That does not contribute anything to serious information gathering. hAl 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"...seems also to be only about blocking ooxml standardisation trough influencing national bodies", i.e. it is a central link relevant to criticism of the standard. It should certainly be put back in the article, and in the interests of fairness you are quite free to add the pro-Microsoft petition too. hAl, don't you realize that your edits would earn more respect if you would go out of your way to give credence to the POV with which you disagree, rather than constantly censoring it? Dovi 19:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It adds no value the the article as it is referring to other sites for information. So it isn't a central link in information about Office open XML. This article does not just revolve on giving a platform for critisism on the format but should mainly be about explaining what Office Open XML is !!! The existence of critisism is present as part of that information but the article is already have a serious abundance of that critisism compared to even some of the most controversial articles. To be honest I am amazed to the ridiculous ways that mainly ODF supporters go to dump on OOXML. It seems that some people on wikipedia even object that in lists Office Open XML is listed before OpenDocument alphabetically. hAl 22:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is <no>ooxml and not no<ooxml>; the emphasis is on the NO, since that's what we recommend the National Bodies to vote. And we can expect Microsoft zombies to do not link to our site, even if there is a lot of information on OOXML. --zoobab

Whatever you want to recommend the national bodies do it elsewhere. write them a comment. Wikipedia is not a platform intented for protesting ooxml so that the national bodies wil vote against it. Your comment ("we recommend") shows perfectly why that link should not be on wikipedia. The article should be an unbiased source of information. (p.s. Moved your comment because it distorted the logical comments ordering) hAl 11:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

hAl, noooxml.org is a source of information of OOXML, and you are able to find useful comments on why the standard has bugs, and if you think our information is biaised, please report say why. We recommend to vote NO to OOXML because there technical problems with the standard, and ISO members, according to ISO rules, should vote NO if they have technical problems with it.

Can you name one item on that site that is not listed in all the issues listed on all the other sites already mentioned in this article. So does it actually add a reasonable amount of information to al the already mentioned sites in the article or is it just a repetition of the same arguments but then including a petition for no voting which is clearly biased in itself. Of course I think the information on that site is totally biased to. Do you actually balance the information from rob weir, grokdoc and other opponents of OOXML with information provided by Ecma, Microsoft or even more objective specialists. You put Sam Hiser to word on patent issues but not a standards layer like Lary Rosen or a legal firm like Baker and Mckenzie. Can you seriously look at the no-oxml site and even remotly think the info is not biased ? If so I can only presume you are brainwashed. hAl 15:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait. Now I see. I misread your comment. You are actually the one responsible for the site and the info on it. That makes it even worse really as linkspammoring your own site is also not really a good idea on wikipedia. hAl 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"This article does not just revolve on giving a platform for critisism on the format but should mainly be about explaining what Office Open XML is !!!" -- No, not just about international criticism of the stardard but certainly also about such criticism. You have been censoring the also for weeks. The article is unbalanced because of your bias, and it lacks clear links to highly notable events because of your bias. Dovi 03:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV == "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views". But NPOV according to HAl means "truth" or "what I want to be non-partisan", " don't report about strong or offensive views" or "partisan positivism". Arebenti 13:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Weir - V1 no consensus position

Weir states in, http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/ooxml-fails-to-gain-approval-in-us.html

"The result is that V1 will report out a large list of technical comments for consideration by INCITS, but will not report a consensus position on this controversial ISO "Fast Track" submission."

Most interesting is that he highlights a massive increase in late V1 memberships in which Weir suggests about the results, "This is not surprising since the new members were largely Microsoft business partners.".

Initially to me I felt any XML can be made into any other XML given enough Perl scripting but Weir has highlighted some very sloppy work in the definition which on reading suggests it would be a bitch to get it right so I'm not impressed. This 'meat puppetry' in the V1 committee is encyclopaedic (just give it a few days for that word to be used so we have a secondary source ;) Ttiotsw 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Once things become a little clearer and more info is available, the stuffing of ballot boxes all around the world by Microsoft has got to become part of this article! Dovi 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the lack of consensus in the INCITS/V1 committee to the national bodies activities section with the meeting notes of the voting as a neutral webreference. hAl 22:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Your addition is as fascinating for what it avoids noting as much as for what it does say. I'm sure others more qualified than myself will help balance it out better.Dovi 03:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you would preferred entering the information seen from the point of view of an organisation that voted against the ooxml recommendation and that some of the very few MS supporters might have preferred the Microsoft view on that vote both of which are also available on the web on the blogs of Rob and Doug. However for an encyclopedic article the neutral point of view is best served with the actual factually correct information which is what I chose to add. It scares me that people when confronted with factual information consider that it needs balancing out as that in general can only mean they think they need to add their particular point of view to it. hAl 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The addition you put in has a number of problems. Firstly it links to an .eml file which isn't readable in Firefox/IE. Your edit seems to show two camps of Microsoft, Ecma TC45 members and Microsoft partners on the one hand and IBM, Sun and ODF supporters on the other hand - is this your own interpretation/synthesis ? Who else divides this group like that ? References please !.

Weir has it has "longstanding" verses "newer" members, though goes on to state that "new members were largely Microsoft business partners.". We should cite that and also highlight the sudden increase in new members e.g.

"The INCITS/V1 committee failed to reach the necessary majority agreement on a recommendation for it's position on the ISO ballot. In his blog, Weir observed the sudden increase in the V1 voting members and his view is that, "there was a clear pattern in the voting where the long-time V1 members voted for the "Disapproval, with comments" position as well as "Abstention, with comments" while the newer members voted overwhelmingly "Yes, with comments" and against "Abstention with comments." (ref). Weir further noted that, "This is not surprising since the new members were largely Microsoft business partners." (ibid). The ref would be to permlink here

Now that sounds much more fairer as it highlights the facts i.e. there is a longterm set of members of very well known industry groups like Sun, IBM and Microsoft which the balance was "disapprove" and a big bunch of new members who all of a sudden vote in the majority "approve". These are facts. In the end you're going to have to argue that Weir is not a reliable reference. Ttiotsw 08:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Rob could of course also just as well have stated that those members already there in the beginning of this were mainly in that V1 committee to guide OpenDocument trough ISO standardization in 2005 and that that showed in their attitude to the vote on OOXML. You can look at such things in two ways. hAl 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but he didn't so we can't really add that. What we're discussing is replacing your edit here with something someone else has said. I'm arguing Weir is a reliable enough of a reference but your edit of "The INCITS/V1 committee divided by Microsoft, Ecma TC45 members and Microsoft partners on the one hand and IBM, Sun and ODF supporters on the other hand..." has no reference I can compare to. Who said what you've added ? ...so being bold I've edited it out. Ttiotsw 14:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My reference actually contains the actual voting lists in the V1 committe on the DIS 29500 recommendation subject. It show the mentioned divide easily in three diffrent ballot votes. You argue Weir is a reliable source but he was actually part of the voting as a representative for IBM and as such is an extremly biased source. antoher reference could be the blog entry of Doug Mahugh who was at the same vote representing Microsoft (US Technical Committee Reaches Deadlock) but for that applies the opposite bias. At least what is evident about your choice of reference is that you support Rob Weirs bias in stead of Doug Mahughs bias. I however think that especially in such a case as this the neutral link with the voting list is much better. hAl 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like you've reverted without paying attention to my complains about your edit. The link you provide, i.e. here DOES NOT WORK. I cut+paste or click it from the article and end up with some show-source from an email. I cannot read it in either Firefox or IE 6.0. What am I supposed to use ?

The next thing is that as far as I can see it is only your claim that the "INCITS/V1 committee divided by Microsoft, Ecma TC45 members and Microsoft partners on the one hand and IBM, Sun and ODF supporters on the other hand". I've asked before but so far you've missed that, so I'll ask again - who other than your own interpretation of the events says that is the case ? Weir sizes up the division by how long the V1 members have been around rather than pro-Microsoft verses pro-ODF. Please give us the reference that interprets it your way. Doug Mahugh also highlighted the fact that there was a recent surge in V1 memberships, though didn't elaborate. I wouldn't go too far analysing my choice of reference as it really has too many "you's" in it. Ttiotsw 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You can set most email clients to read eml files. MS Office outlook or Outlook express for instance ;-). Strangely you never objected before to the link of the entire V1 email archive in eml files which is still a few lines up in the article. I do not exactly see what is your problem with the reference. Are you unable to distinguish between who is who in the voting list ? That is ok because you look at rob weir explanation. For instance he mentions that Nextpage is a Micrsoft partner but they are actually also a IBM partner and also a member of the Ecma TC45. And BP is actually hosting a lot of it's stuff on IBM making them a huge IBM cusotomer but they also an Ecma TC45 member. Allthough I do not reference the exact alliance of each committee you can better find out for yourself using the list than just refer to Weirs blog as he only list affiliations to MS when it is supporting his claim. Did Rob in his unbiased article for instance actually mention somewhere hat the committee chairman working for Snowfall actually used to work on the realisation of OpenDocument ? Of course I could remove the information on the divide between the two parties if you think it isn't supported by the refenrece (and what you can look up on those voters in public information) and leave the conclusions to that on the peopel actually wanting to read the voting. hAl 17:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• indent reset*

People do not browse Wikipedia with an Email client !. They use a Web browser probably IE or Firefox, maybe Opera or similar. That there is a link to the entire V1 email archive in eml files doesn't mean it's a handy catchall reference for your synthesis. Many of the .eml are plain text so they can be read with a browser (albeit rather messy), but the issue with your reference is that it is a mime encoded PDF file. If it isn't easily accessible by me it certainly isn't obvious what the reference means to the average Joe. The idea of Wikipedia is like standards and they should be accessible. Your use of a .eml as a reference is the first in my many hundreds of edits. I don't see it as acceptable. So, yes, please remove your information as it's original research, or find someone else who says this and says it in a more accessible format - heck I'm guessing we'd even accept a Word Document, though a PDF is more, well, portable. Ttiotsw 18:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

eml is the most common extension for files that actually conform to RFC 2822. I wish there was a more acceptable weblink that showed the same pdf file as it is the original source for the meeting voting information. I will try to accomodate with better explanation in title of webcitation. hAl 18:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yes and if you save the link to a local file and then open it, you'll probably get your email client to read it - it works OK in Outlook or Thunderbird but the point is if this is accessible enough for the average Joe ?.

The most important matter is how you characterise the divide in the V1 voting members by Microsoft affiliation. Reading the PDF I don't find that association unless you want us to interpret the Roll-Call Vote tables ? We are not allowed to do that - we get secondary sources to do that for us. So ideally please remove the way that you have characterised the groupings or allow other secondary sources to characterise the groupings (of which Weir is my suggestion and he uses time as members as a primary consideration and new members being Microsoft partners as a secondary consideration). I'm quite open to suggestions for other secondary references which group the voting members. Ttiotsw 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I already changed that. It no longer is stating affilition but only mentioning that the voting was split between two groups and mentioning several members of those groups which is no longer interpretation but can be easily read in the reference. hAl 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's OK - I'll let the dichotomy ride even though truthfully it still is a bit of synthesis to even show any pattern in the voting unless you reference it from a secondary source. Funny enough looks like it has happened in Italy too , [1] though as the reference says "I cannot publish the list of voters/members, but it is available for cross checking in case anybody doubted my word.". Maybe you, hAl can interpret the Italian JTC1 results for us seeing as you've done so well with interpreting the V1 votes ? If you've got the time. Ttiotsw 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable only seems that also there the opponents of OOXML were able to enter enough organisations to block approval (at 2000 euro's each). hAl 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)'

Funny edit

I like this one by Pieterh "(Removed Dare Obasanjo's comments as he is not neutral and cannot claim to be "an outside observer"; he is employed by Microsoft. Quoting him into the article breaks the NPV.)"

Nearly all comments referenced in the article are made by non neutral parties. There are comments by other Microsoft employees like Brian Jones an Doug Mahugh or also not so neutral comments by Rob Weir, Sam Hiser, The ODF alliance and Groklaw. I suggest Pieter removes the rest of the article and leaves only a reference link to the Ecma format spec. hAl 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dare's comment was completely misrepresented, and it is inappropriate to fill a section about the criticism to Microsoft with a comment from a Microsoft employee. I had considered adding a balancing comment to Dare's comment, but this page is not meant to be a forum. So I removed the comment entirely. If you want to add it back, you should clearly mark it as "Microsoft's view" and not try to make it look like an independent viewpoint. Pieter Hintjens 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in readding it but I found your comment that you removed his because it wasn't neutral very amusing especially when looking at the complete lack of neutrality of comments in this particular article. hAl 18:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections on Wikipedia often have rebuttals, thus balancing the section out. Having said that, entire paragraphs of quotes isn't the best idea; instead, it should be summarised. -MarkKB 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Petition censorship

It is clear to all of us that the anti-OOXML petition and its over 36,000 signatures is not just a notable example of opposition in the FOSS community, but an extraordinary one: What other previous standard proposal ever generated such an effort?

This is one of the most amazing facts about OOXML, regardless of what one thinks of its technical merits. And this article is about OOXML in all of its facets, including international opposition to it. Think of the petition what one may, sign it or not, it is extraordinarily notable. However, User:HAl has more than once removed all reference to it. I suggest that other editors not allow his censorship to continue, and to reinstate the material if and when he removes it again until he both explains his reasons here on the talk page and convinces the rest of us. Until both those things happen he should show a bit of self-restraint and avoid deleting that information.

By the way, User:HAl, I once again invite you to provide additional data about the pro-OOXML petition. Why keep that useful and notable information out of the hands of readers? Dovi 18:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsss, can't you even see that the only thing that you and several other contribute to this article is only anti-ooxml material mostly provided by parties with an alternate interest but never provide a single piece of objective information about the format or information that is pro-ooxml to balance your info. You yourself for instance could also have added that it is the first time so many organisations pledged written support for any standard being considered by INCITS in the USA. However the article is not about support for ooxml or anti-oomxl campaigning. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and it should be about providing as mucobjective information about the format as possible.

Most contibuters that add critisism repeated from information they read on a few dozen blogs and mostly those critisisms even only origination from two or three not very objective sources like IBM and groklaw. A company like IBM is spending tons of money, mayby even millions in a campaign against OOXML an effort for instance shown by IBM in the US submitting 4 times more issues with OOXML that all other interested parties together in the US together. The article should certainly not hide critisism in the format (and it doesn't as the article seems to contains more critisism that info on the spec already) but also should not become a place for campainers against ooxml to try and draw petition votes or for Micrsoft to draw pro petioners. That is not the place here and is already done of a ton of oppinated blogs elsewhere. There is even a reward for the most effective campaign against OOXML and an editor of the site you suppurt already added it to this article as well possibly influenced by that reward. That whole campaign against OOXML spreading into Wikipedia is totally embarrasing and the article would probably be beetr of if vboter on those pro or againt petittions remained claer of the article alltogether. hAl 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that hAl's misconception is that any criticism on OOXML is backed by IBM, and this position is visible in his many changes in this Wikipedia entry. As if national bodies are not capable of making their own decisions for their citizens. One thing that is not clear is the affiliation of hAl.

hAl (Albert H) has not stated his affiliation. His comments and edits reflect a strong pro-Microsoft position. Pieter Hintjens 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Allthough you seem to confuse me with someone else (someone from MS ??) I would rather say that my position would be rather against pure anti-ooxml and not nescesarily pro-Microsoft as for instance on Microsofts Brians Jones blog I can easily discuss issues with ooxml and suggest changes that Microsoft can make to OOXML but in a more constructive attitude towards improving the suggested format rather oppose it because "microsoft is evil" and odf is the holy grail. Working with millions of Office related documents for quite a lot of years at the moment it seems to me availability of a good Office spec that will be available wideley in a relativly short time is would be a valuable asset for a lot of organisations. Not dismissing ODF which I find very interesting but that does not have a likely widely (80%-90%) spread full support in the next 5 years and seems more a format for the longer future. So rather than be against ooxml for commercial, political or emotional reasons related to Micrsoft I would support an effort to standardize microsofts office formats but also take the change to see the objective technical critisism and improve upon the format. The fact that a position here on this talk page is described as being pro-micrsoft I find laughable as firstly it should not be about positions and if anything it should not be about microsoft vs ... but about an office document format. hAl 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what the affiliation of hAl is. That is irrelevant to the notability of the OOXML petition. For the OOXML petition to stick in the article you must find a 3rd party (ideally someone non-partisan to the debate but notable enough) who cites it as 'interesting'. Then I'll support it sticking in the article. Right now I'm not convinced of the merits of the petition. The sponsors are notable but so far not this one campaign. On the other hand I think OOXML is a bizarre standard that reads like frankenstein-in-a-blender. Someone in Microsoft mistook Web 2.0 mashups to mean they could mashup the standards too. Ttiotsw 14:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, you won't find anyone "non-partisan" in this debate unless they don't care or uninformed. There is a pretty clear fight going on, between those who want open standards on the one side, and Microsoft on the other. The petition makes this clear. I apologise for re-inserting references to it, but there must be an accurate reflection of the widespread popular anger at what Microsoft is doing here - not just the quality of the standard, and it's role in maintaining Microsoft's monopoly, but also their shenanigans in the ISO process. This is relevant to the student of the history of the format. Pieter Hintjens 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Als speaking about affiliations !! I have serious objections to people from FFII adding in information about their own petition/campaign agianst OOXML to support their own website and protest. People like for instance Pieterh and zoobab and mayby even others. Spammoring your own website is a big NONO in any place and especially on wikipedia !!! hAl 14:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

hAl, are you encouraged in any way from Microsoft or its allies for the OOXML-related edits in Wikipedia? Are you sponsored in any way for those edits? I added before the petition information on this article and I am not member of the FFII.

I think only very sad people think because you are not against Microsoft you must be paid by them. You should understand that there might be actually people seeing a benifit in Microsoft supporting a fully open ISO standard (preferbly with improvements) in their products which isn't likely to happen with odf which noone seems to fully support after years of implementing even without formula's. I would not see much advantage in Microsoft taking years to moderatly support ODF and introducing a ton of it's own extensions to that to harbour compatibility and Office feature requirements. (soon to be called MS ODF) hAl 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

hAl, you did not actually answer the question. My own position and affiliation is quite clear (and I'm not sponsored by anyone, my work on open standards is entirely voluntary). Pieter Hintjens 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Voluntary mayby, but I would call your affiliation to an organization campaining against OOXML, (in fact being the president of that organisation), very relevant as I see you edditting out comments by Microsoft related sources and adding stuff supporting your own organisations point of view and it's anti-ooxml campaign. To an unaffiliated person, like myself, that is quite a disgrace. If Microsoft were to remove opinions of OSS organisations and put in their own opinions in stead it would be critisized all over the OSS community and probably even with independant news as well but OSS organisation doing that the other way around hardly raises an eyebrow. hAl 22:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to the only relevant issue here, notability. Above, Ttiotsw wrote: The sponsors are notable but so far not this one campaign.

Really? 25,000 signatures isn't notable? The first petition of its kind in history isn't notable?

A petition being supported by a ton of OSS organisations with banners and links and supported by a fairly a large blogging community like groklaw and active members spammOring promote it's link to the petition that only get 25k votes ? 1 million would be notable. hAl 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wishfull thinking. There are international human rights campaigns with huge press coverage, computer-savvy promoters, and huge blog support that get far less signatures. 25,000 individual signatures about a word-processing spec? That is extraordinary. Dovi 03:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Above, User:HAl wrote: ...it is the first time so many organisations pledged written support for any standard being considered by INCITS in the USA. Really? If that is true and can be documented then of course it is notable and should be in the article. Please put it in and document it. All relevant and notable facts should be in the article; the problem is that sometimes when they are uncomfortable to some, they tend to disappear. That should not be tolerated. Dovi 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No thank you. Then it would be only a matter of how MS persuaded those organisation to mail the support which is probably right but seems simular to this petition vote gathering and completly non relevant to the standard. It is mostly about how many people and organiosations you can reach easily. I am sure 90% of people voting on the petition would vote against MS whatever the subject would be just like many partners of MS would not mind supporting them with a standards organisation. Wy would I take such a vote serious if people are sent there from blogs that cry out that OOXML is bad and it is all because MS want to keep a monopoly on office and that they want to kill odf or whatever. The only surprise might be that all those referral sites together only get so limited readers that they cannot muster more than 25k votes in a month or so. I thought OSS followers with a grudge against MS were more numerous. Wikipedia is not a campaigning ground and not a popularity contest. hAl 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:HAl, there is a question to answer above. Are you encouraged in any way from Microsoft or its allies for the OOXML-related edits in Wikipedia? Are you sponsored in any way for those edits? I am not sponsored by anyone and my work on open standards is entirely voluntary. Simosx 21:16, 26 July 2

No of course not, you nut. If would scrap half the article then. hAl 22:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I was just reading the non-denial denial article and this fits quite well. I think your credibility is quite low. You should come out of the closet. Who are you, hAl? Have a blog?

I suggest you ask the affiliation of every person editing this wiki article and not just people you do not agree with. I bet that I am actually one of the few unaffiliated ones to any party and that most editors have some kind of interest in OOXML due to their affiliation to certain organisations and mostly those that have an interest in blocking ooxml. I also find your suggestions of a relationship with MS for money or whatever and calling my credibility low VERY VERY offensive. Especially so as we can clearly see a few paragraphs up that it is actually OSS organisations that are blatantly editing this article to support their anti-ooxml opinions in it. hAl 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, hAl? I am simply someone who uses office software for educational purposes. I would like to be able to use whatever software I want without running into compatibility problems. But with MS (either on my end or on others' end) I run into such problems all the time. I want a fully level field for competition between software products for my own good, not any company's. And I don't want my government certifying any standard that is biased towards a single product. Funny thing is, it is my own interests and opinions as an individual (as opposed to the corporate interests of MS or IBM) that are not represented on the national bodies who vote.

So yes, I am entirely unaffiliated. Unlike yourself, who at the very least seems to have done professional technical work in the OOXML field. Some of your edits to this article have reflected technical expertise. But nearly all of them have reflected bias, intolerance to opposing views, intolerance towards those with whom you disagree, and no sense of neutrality or mutual respect.Dovi 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are insulting me and then call me intolerant too. Also you fail to read what I say or just ignore it. Talking about mutual respest therefore sounds strange coming from you. I will now rest this conversation as it is useless. You asked an answer to a question and when you get it you ignored it. hAl 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent a bit) I hinted at notability. The issue of notability rests not on absolutely how many people have signed it (compare 25,000 miscellaneous people verses say 25,000 University lecturers), but who reports on this petition. I was basically waiting for it to hit the big name wires....So far, Yahoo New mention of petition story (or direct link to InformationWeek) looks good enough but nothing on BBC or CNN or other big name wires. This is why I didn't think it was notable enough though it's just OK now that InformationWeek (part of CMP) have a story on it. Ttiotsw 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the petition - and the whole OOXML question - has not been widely publicised in the mainstream press. However if you search for 'noooxml' in Google you'll see that it has been very widely reported in the informal on-line media. Pieter Hintjens 11:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Removing parts that cause so much discussion"

I have reverted to before this edit by User:HAl. This seems to me a blatant example of editing in poor faith, and it is my opinion that User:HAl should be restricted in the ways he may edit this article. I would like to see some input from admins. Dovi 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed edits that were made in a large part by members of OSS organisations including a president of FFII who removed opinion from a micrsoft related source critising IBM and instated in stead information on their own campaign against OOXML. If anything is bad faith it is adding link and info on your own site and campaign and at least it is higly debatable content so I removed both the critisism on IBM campaign bias and the anti-campaign by FFII. hAl 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To add to that User:Dovi removed also edits in the licensing section that are non related. hAl 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that hAl is biased and follows an agenda. His comments and use of words try to make the OOXML case look like a battle between Microsoft and IBM, and a sort of vendetta of open-source groups. He claims he has been offended, though he is the only one resorting to swearing (No of course not, you nut. - source). I too believe the admins should take action on this. Simosx 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. The both of you have not contributed a single unbiased piece to this article and call me biased. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. hAl 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples. In this, you state Massachusetts has amended its approved technical standards list to include Office Open XML creating a feeling amongst ODF supporters that that might halt the progress of Opendocument. Simosx 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Including referencing to statements made this week by prominent ODF supporters including an actual member of the OASIS OpenDocument technical committee. I am on the ball and you seem out of the loop is what I could say but on the other hand I think that even if you had read it you would not have added it. Because of this discussion of your I actually revisited a lot of releant info site to see the attitude on the subject and stumpled upon this news. Strangely allthough I found it on an OSS site which generally hosts a lot of ODF interest the news did not find it's way to the article. The whole massachusetts issue was a landmark case where the supporters of ODF somehow gained an incredible incentive in being suggested as only format for governmental use as was as such even referenced in the article. As such the information required an update and having a member of the OASIS Opendocument TC commenting seems fairly unbiased. Would you think it would have been better to look for a ooxml supporting source that complemented the legislative bodies of Massachusetts for their understanding of the matter ? hAl 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought that bold/italic would be enough to highlight the issue. Wording such as creating a feeling amongst ODF supporters that... does not look right for an encyclopaedia. hAl, you are a troll, taking up precious time from adding relevant information such as Japan's recent announcement for open software standards. Simosx 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The information is there. If you don't like the wording change it. It just seemed to sum up the essence of the posting in the reference but mayby I interpreted it to much. hAl 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I could have expected nothing else then you completly editting out the Massachusetts info and the reaction to that. At least we know who the biased troll is Simosx !!!! hAl 05:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly the section regarding the adoption is replicated in the separate page on OpenDocument Adoption, which makes it a really big job to bring together. Shall we erase the adoption section and point to the adoption page? In the meanwhile hAl is trying to hide his affiliation though his writings are quite peculiar. Simosx 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Today anon has twice deleted the sections on Opposition, Accessibility, and Criticism (quite similar to hAl recently before him). As above, these things are clearly notable and important aspects of OOXML, and hAl above did not succeed in showing otherwise. These deletions are claimed to serve "neutrality" but instead of making the text NPOV the entire issues are removed along with links to information! It is quite clear that the very existance of the topics in the article bother the editor(s) doing the deletions, not what is said about them, because they are all critical of OOXML.

I am putting back the text on these topics a second time. I repeat that there is no consensus for such outright deletion of them, and that their notability has not been shaken. Request that other editors besides myself restore the sections if and when they are deleted again, and that an RFC on 3RR then be filed. Dovi 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading above discussions there was no consensus for adding the information. If you would understand wikipedia you should understand that other people can have other opinions. The cleanup removed double links and disputed materials. Feel free to delete more disputed materials. 69.73.191.92 17:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading above discussions there was a clear conclusion that even the anti-OOXML petition was notable enough for the article. You have removed not only that, but all information and links, i.e. entire sections, on criticism, opposition, and accessibility problems. Dovi 18:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. I found some the sections to be a serious breach of NPOV article writing and also of linkspammoring by organisation to promote their own campaign links. I was seriously pathetic hAl 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Restored —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.160.118.227 (talk) 07:08:15, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret NPOV. Arebenti 13:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with HAl that information about petitions doesn't belong in the text of an encylclopedic entry. I can't ever recall reading about a petition in a hard copy of any Encyclopedia. I have no link to prove this, but if you have one to disprove it, feel free. I also believe that those who are accusing HAl of having ulterior motives for his editing to be a bit biased. It is obvious HAl is a supporter of Microsoft software. He may very well be a "True Believer", just as many OSS people are. So naturally he is biased, but he needs to be aware of his bias and not include it in the article. HAl you talk of writing NPOV, but you put in weasel words like that part about feelings of the OSS community in the Mass. hullabaloo. These types of statements do not belong in an encyclopedic context. Those types of comments belong in a news article but not in a reference article. Overall, having read the article, I would have to concur it is biased toward adoption of OOXML. The thing that I find obnoxious about the whole thing is the tricks MS has used to get this proposed standard approved. I work in both MS software and OSS. I am a full-time consultant. Many of my projects are closed source, but I retain ownership of the copyrights should I ever have useful code to contribute. I have to be very clear in this, that there is no way I am ever going to implement a 6000 page standard that is quite likely booby-trapped with patent infringing, and undisclosed requirements. It would destroy my company should MS ever change it's mind about anything, and there is nothing in any pledge I have seen yet that would prevent them from doing so. I do plenty of work with using MS Office COM objects, and hope to be able to include some ODF support someday soon. I don't see a need for two standards for an XML document format. I remember the PC standards wars. Let's not replay that, but here we are, doing it. Enjoy your war. A very wise computer once said, "the only way to win is not to play". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celtic hackr (talk • contribs) 20:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Reference bias example

Anonymous user 62.49.39.98 today added this link http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/organizations/ODFA%20UKAG%20Technical%20White%20Paper.pdf suggesting it as an up to date detailed and fairly neutral technical comparison of ODF vs OOXML

But actually I see a lot of issue with that whitepaper making it not nearly as neutral as stated. To name a few:

Firstly this document is indeed serieusly misrepresenting history history on OOXML suggesting ODF has a muc longer pedigree where both XML office formats started about 1999-2000.

Secondly it is putting examples up from OOo and MS Office which allthough using each format are not per se good implementations of each spec and also with OOo at least two years longer to implement an implementation of ODF.

Thirdly allthough ODF is supposed to support SVG the examples in the white paper shows that pasted SVG in ODF (which is supposed to support SVG) is embedded as a seperate file which is probably also allowed in ODF but makes the whole reusing of SVG in the spec sort of redundant where the pasted SVG is actually converted to VML in MS Office 2007 and becomes a native part of the document. So even allthough ODF has native SVG support the ODF implementation forgets that whilst the OOXML implementation of MS Office is the one to recognise the SVG correctly and convert it to native VML. This example only shows why it is sucky to use a comparison in ready made implementations in stead of comparing to the actual spec and it would have better a lot more logical to paste a jpeg image into a document to compare both specs in a simular way.

Fourthly this document supports reuse of standards like SVG and MathML which is basicly a good thing but does not notice that these are not document standards but webstandards which for instance do not support the rest of the ODF specs tags for revisions, bookmarks, footnote or anything else that might combine into the markup. When revising a single digit of a math formula in an ODF doucment that would therefore require the entire math to be marked as a revision or (if possible) the math to be split up in multiple parts whereas in OOXML the OMML match languages can integrate other office open xml document markup.

Fifthly this document suggests that using shorter tags in OOXML requires more tags ? However this is not substantiated. Also it seems the OOXML spec mainly uses short tags for those item that are uses most like the main namespaces w=wordprocessingml and command tags for line, rows, colums and cells and uses longer descriptive tags for less frequent items. Also OOXML tagging use shows the relation between certain parent and child elements actually making implementation easier rather than harder as this document suggests.

Sixtly the document does mention the redundancy of data in the spreadsheet cell in ODF as an advantage because the formatted version of the data is easily retrieved. That is correct but also it requires any implementation to make certain that the data and it's formatted version are always synchronised. The ODF spec does not state how to deal with inconsistensies in the cells value and it's representation. Also it does not specify or whether a document should verify on opening that these are correct. An application not verifying this could potentially be at risk from hidden data in spreadsheet value item. Especially at risk when this that value for instance could contains (references to) script or embedded executable elements.

Sevendly the document suggests that OOXML cannot handle ODF Office settings whilst ODF could handle OOXML compatiblity settings. However the author seems to be unaware that OOXML actually contains a feature that is called custom settings. By creating a namespace and XML with your implemtations seetings you can add custom application settings to OOXML as well and even make them validate using a schema. Particularly bad in this white paer is that it suggest its wrongly perceived lack of compatibilty with ODf settings as a reason not to choose for OOXML. Very poor thinking as OOXML actually has built in extensibility even beyond it's custom setting that could also manage any compatibility issue with ODF.

Eigthly this document suggest an inconsistency with ISO 216 (paper sizes). OOXML actually support non ISO paper formats which is as it should be because those iso formats are not covering all common office paper formats in use. ODF uses a flexible paper format allowing for even more variation of paperssize but also possibly requiring more implementation for validating whether a given paper size size is actually available and or how to handle near exact sizes. With ISO 216 not being the only papers in use in for Office documents inconsistensies seem normal.

Nine-tly The documents objects to OOXML referencing windows meta files and clipboard objects as they are propriety windows related formats. However these are only mentioned as optional enumeration values for embedded items. So these values can even be used on a linux platform to easily identify that the document contains embedded objects it cannot handle without having to open the embedded file. If an ODF file contains these windows related items (which it also can) it might have to verify the embedded filetype purely on it's extention or even open the embedded file. On the other hand the dismisses the references to java in ODF's java applets because the java standard is supposedly well documented. However it fails to mention that any implementation of native embedding of java applets actually requires a java virtual machine which for instance Microsoft isn't allowed to make themselves after it's legal issues with Sun (who were in part responsible for the addition of java appplets to the spec) making full implementations dependant on 3rd party Java VM licensing.

This document presents itself as an independant white paper and suggests to look at technical merits as well as flaws but actually is a document looking for technical flaws in OOXML comparing those unfavorably to ODF whilst ingnoring flaws in ODF (for instance the lack of spreadsheet formula's !!). Also on the merit side it is generally only ODF merits that are mentioned. Even though it does also seems to contain what I would call valid technical issues with OOXML it is full of a load of suggestive and incorrect or at least very biased statements. The addition of such 'white paper' links or for instance the grokdoc critisisms list does suggest that all mentioned critisism in those document are correct or at least undisputed. This however hardly seems the case but this article is filled with such links that produce percieved issues as facts and in general the sites publishing have an interest in negative information on ooxml and are unlikely to correct or remove any inconsistensies in their information. hAl 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to FFII press release

User 205.234.195.118 "Removed edit from president of FFII promoting his own organisation in a very inproper manner in Office Open XML article." The list of references in this article is heavily biased towards Microsoft announcements, websites, and documents. The press release of the FFII is relevant material because it shows that the FFII's unhappiness with OOXML predates any assumed collaboration between the FFII and IBM, which some have used as an excuse to dismiss our comments. This press release is relevant material in the list of criticisms and should not have been removed. I'm not going to undo user 205.234.195.118's edit but perhaps a Wikipedia editor or another user would review this and make a call. Pieter Hintjens 19:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You editted in links to your own articles again ???? How sad is that !!! And now you even suggest there is a relationship between you and IBM who is one of the main commercially interrested parties in blocking OOXML. So you were against OOXML before that ? Ok. But did you also put up the no ooxml website before you were involved with IBM ? Did you put up the 2500 euro reward before your association with IBM ??? How can you look objective on this subject anymore if create an association with a company with a big financial stake in blocking OOXML and why would you still try comment on the subject. What would be a good idea however is that you amend the FFII article to state that you are involved with IBM. hAl 18:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

hAl, you the last person to talk about objectivity. There have been requests on who you are, that have been left answered/evaded. Simosx 19:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not talk about objectivity. I added the only story about Opendocument that hit the news in 3 weeks and you removed it from the OpenDocument article and added an article about Japan choosing for openstandards which would have been relevant to OOXML just as much as OpenDocument. Your edit smelled bigtime and your one/two with Pieter here smells bigtime. You have not added any objective information on OOXML but only editted critisism whilst I wrote half the article. hAl 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can see my changes and decide how objective I am. But the big issue is, hAl, if you have nothing to hide you should simply come out. Simosx 01:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't and you have no right to ask for any personal information about an editor. You have to take it on good faith that everyone here is aware of what a conflict of interest is. People should also read writing for the enemy.Ttiotsw 02:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for hAl's affiliation, and the purpose of his involvement in the OpenXML and OpenDocument wikipedia pages. His actions and his writings indicate a conflict of interest that would be beneficial for Wikipedia if it was cleared out. For example, in his statements in the discussion page he presents beliefs such as the document format issue is simply a war between MS and IBM. In addition, he says ODF is at the moment not an option for organisations that I work for and won't be for quite a while. So we are going to use OOXML in the near future. There is little progress in the development of the document format pages on Wikipedia if there is such mistrust between the parties.

hAl, it's cynical of you to twist things like this but it seems on form. The FFII worked on patent issues with IBM, this was raised here as a cause to doubt our independence. We also work in close fashion with Red Hat, Canonical, Opera, FSF, FSFE, EFF, OFE, and thousands of other organisations. All of these are firmly against Microsoft's attempts to maintain its monopoly via OOXML. You have repeatedly tried to spin the anti-OOXML campaign as a commercial issue, but it is not, any more than the GPL is a commercial issue. It's about freedom from Microsoft's monopoly. Our funding comes from many sources, mostly from donations, and IBM has never, to the best of my knowledge, ever given a dollar to the FFII. However, believe and say what you like, it makes little difference. It is ironic that while I provide you with my full name and affiliations, you hide behind an alias and deny the obvious links you have with Microsoft. You pretend to be independent, while submitting endless links to your employer's material. You are an obvious and transparent troll and to be honest I wait with delight each day to see what tripe you will post and say next. Pieter Hintjens 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I am unaffiliated (unlike you). I do not work for MS, any MS related company nor do I know anybody with them nor do I care. What I find amazing is that you do not understand that as president of ffii adding links to promote sites of your own organisation is pathetic and sad. And that I think that to spin the anti-ooxml campaign partly as an IBM commencial issue is a fact. IBM has just brought an entire productline using opendocument as it main format and needs an IN with governments that were massive switchting away from the old notes products. Using opendocument is only a selling point if it is the only ISO standard especially as they are unlikey to have full support for all of ODF yet as nobody has. Do you really think that IBM's Rob Weir has on his own found 80% of all US reported issues with ooxml and still finds time to write about them and also be busy with openformula and odf TC and other standards meeting unless he had a whole team gathering the info on ooxml for him ?? IBM gathered more onfo on OOXML then the entire free software community did together but of course it was just because they are motivated by idealism. Are you serious or are you already on their payroll. Even several newssites have already reported on IBM's involment and the related launch of their new productline. But may you read only your own site ?

What you state about it being about freedom from the Microsoft monopoly show your motivation which also shows that Office Open XML itself does not matter, but that it is the main format supported by MS Office products that motivates your campaign more than anything. I however do not care about Micrsoft having a monopoly or IBM selling their notes 8 suite or OOo replacing MS Office in governments. To be simple ODF is at the moment not an option for organisations that I work for and won't be for quite a while. So we are going to use OOXML in the near future. And when it becomes an ISO standard, I, and with me several others, are convinced that Microsoft will have to support OOXML for a long time in future as well because it will be commercial suicide to go away from an ISO standard. For people actually using Office documents in applications that is an excellent development. And having competition from ODF will be good to but for now it will be better if MS does not interfere with ODf development or goes to adopt it's own dialect of it. hAl 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to have a biased opinion and write a good wiki article. But a wikipedia article should not become a political arena. The current version of the article is crap, 1000 irrelevant details but not even the <no>OOXML petition gets mentioned or a download linke below to the specification. The article should not be abused to argue over OOXML but it has to present both sides of the argument. Arebenti 20:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

6 questions or 6 innuendo's ?

Regularly I see the six question link appearing in the article. This link focusses on six question on the ooxml standardisation. I have sevral objections to that questions: Firstly the question are suggestive in the way they are asked in a way to make it look that OOXML does not comply for the ISO fasttrack standardization. Especially by putting unsupported statements right in front of the questions Secondly the questions suggest that all the question are actually relvant for iso standaridsation which they seem not Thirdly the site does not provide answer leaving only suggestion but no factual information that supports this suggestions and that for instance Ecma could react upon. Fourthly the site does not ask any of the questions to the Opendocument spec which in most cases would get you a simular answers.

Wouter van de Vlugt also critisised the questions in his blog post [2]

Just to take a little example I pick question 4 (which is actually three questions) and change them to apply on Opendocument.

• Does Opendocument allow proprietary extensions?

YES

• Is Sun's implementation of OpenDocument faithful, i.e. without undocumented extensions?

NO

• Are there safeguards in OpenDocument against such abusive behaviour?

NO Weird that the free software foundation never asked this questions when Opendocument was at the table in ISO. hAl 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting but irrelevant. Tu quoque is cheap. But when it's ISO approved its to late to object. Arebenti 13:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It show that even with flaws a spec can be agreed upon to be an ISO standard. The spec can be further developed and improved. ODF that has obvious big holes in the spec is still busy improving the ODF spec. The same can apply to OOXML. There is no requirement in ISO that a spec has to be perfect. If obvious flaws are adressed in the ballot resolution meeting it does not require the spec to be perfect to be approved. hAl 15:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguments in Support (of OOXML)

I removed all but one argument (and I'm not sure if it is an argument, or simply a contextless statement of fact) as they were unreferenced. In my opinion, they should probably be included, if proper reliable references can be found for them (that's Wikipedia policy).

One point I think that was not included (or at the very least not properly referenced) is the point that OOXML defines ZIP as used in its container file (not sure if it's by reference), whereas 'ODF' (sorry for the shorthand) does not, and really should. Rick Jeliffe makes passing reference to this in the reference given in the pro-point.

In addition, I noticed that one criticism is unreferenced. I've left it in pro tem, with a 'citation needed' tag attached to it.

It's the:

• Use of DrawingML and VML instead of SVG, and of a new mathematical format instead of MathML. MathML and SVG are W3C recommendations. VML is deprecated and should only occur in uncommon files converted from the MS Office WordprocessingML 2003 format.

point. I don't have the time to find a reference for it now, but I have read notes on this topic, which is why I have left it in. If someone thinks this smacks of unfair/unequal behaviour, feel free to delete it as well. WLD^talk|edits 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I listed those items. You might have asked for references before removing them by adding the 'citation needed' tag. Most of the items were just factual features of Office Open XML. For instance that Office Open XML is the first open document standard that defines spreadsheet formulae. Also most arguments had the relevant paragraph in the format spec as a reference already (which may nog have been completely evident but could have been clarified).

As a long time editor, you know that any editor can delete uncited material. I thought about putting 'citation needed' tags, but decided deletion was just as good - and at least it has meant some references have now been forthcoming. WLD^talk|edits 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And seriously, is it worth referencing an independent source to verify that the zip compression makes the files smaller than the binary equivalent. This should a well known fact that isn't in any dispute. Actually I don't think any of the listed arguments was in any kind of dispute or doubtfull.

Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. Note also that zip compression does not necessarily make files (in general) smaller. Zipping an already compressed file will make the resulting file bigger, due to the addition of file headers etc.WLD^talk|edits 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually seriously challenging the argument that OOXML files are smaller then their binary equivilants. ? hAl 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, and if you read my text carefully, you'll see that I am not. Sloppy wording about the use of zip will allow people to come to the incorrect conclusion that zipping the file will always produce a smaller one. That is not the case. It is quite easy to construct a pathological example that demonstrates this. WLD^talk|edits 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a citation for evy bit of information in the article ? Than again we can remove half the article as a lot of information is not sourced.

Wikipedia policy is that uncited information can be deleted by any editor. See Wikipedia:Citing sources, "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." - actually, rereading the policy means I need to apologise - apparently I should have put 'citation needed' tags on it all, i.e. challenge first. Sigh. Sorry. The policy goes on to say "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.". In an article as eagerly watched as this one, I think any assertions need to be backed up by references.WLD^talk|edits 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Uncited material" vs. sentences of an article. In the interpretation here each sentence about a factual statement needs to be sourced. That is nonsense. Most Wikipedia articles do not adhere to source radicalism as foudn here Arebenti 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You however did not challenge the material (as far as i can see) nor did anybody else. You just removed it. As I read that policy it states that material that is not challenged does not really require referencing. hAl 12:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. My apology wasn't clear enough in the text above. I am challenging now, though. WLD^talk|edits 13:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And if a source is really required one could easily use a source already in reference as these item (and some more) are listed also in Ecma's white paper. hAl 11:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So why didn't you cite those sources? WLD^talk|edits 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually because I listed what I would call a list of features and not exaclty points of view that would require citations. hAl 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The title of the section is "Arguments in support of...", not "List of features of...". The entire section needs to have arguments in it - currently it does not. WLD^talk|edits 13:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I contradict that Office Open XML is an open document standard at all. Wikipedia should display other views only as a possible point of view and not as the truth. --mms 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually the critisism section list a reference to Sam Hisers document that in which he explains that he thinks that Office Open XML is not open so your view is probably represented in the article. Allthough after after reading Sam's arguments I failed to see that the open licensing would prohibit someone from implementing anything that is in the spec and also noone has provided an example of anything in the spec that isn't implementable with current open licensing. hAl 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reread the section and the cited reference for most of the bulleted points. I intend to delete this section if it isn't radically improved. No citation is given for organisations offering the bulleted points as arguments. They are, in fact, not arguments, but mostly simple assertions of OOXML properties, taken from the reference cited, which is an overview of OOXML, and it does not pretend to be a document listing arguments in favour of using OOXML. There are certainly arguments for the adoption of an open, freely implementable, comprehensive and extensible document standard. Those arguments are occasionally co-opted to provide support for OOXML becoming a standard. However, there is controversy over whether OOXML is open, freely implementable...and so on. Of course, one of the main arguments in favour of OOXML adoption is that it is backed by the largest vendor of office software. This may well trump any technical deficiencies, real or imagined. WLD^talk|edits 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The so called controversy over whether OOXML is open freely implementable to me sounds just like a hoax created by opponents of OOXML which has no factual base. In fact organisation that intend to implement a likely very full implementation of the spec like Corel and Novel seem to have no objection. So unless someone can actually prove that there is an item in the specifications they cannot implement due to a lack of open licensing I cannot see the argument about the standard not being open at all.

And as I see it a main argument for using OOXML has been always about compatibility with features in billions of existing document. hAl 14:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is by no means 'so-called'. We know that Novell have come to a separate agreement with Microsoft about using Microsoft 'intellectual property'. I don't know about Corel. The proposed OOXML standard includes 'non-free' technologies by reference; and Microsofts covenant not to sue or promise or whatever is the suject of detailed criticism, as indeed is the equivalent Sun text.WLD^talk|edits 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is any non free technology in the spec then it should be a ten minute work to produce a file that licensing would prohibit. However nobody does. The non free technology you speak of is not a part of the spec nor does it need to be. For example there is nothing holding you if you have a wmf file to create an ooxml and embed the wmf file in it on any platform, even if wmf files are not an open technology. As for being the subject the detailed critisism I only read some legal comments on groklaw but it was hard to comment on their wierd analysis as they moderated away my comments (and those of any others that do not agree with the groklaw view). hAl 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And that is misinformed, as the plug-ins produced that worked with the beta-versions of Microsoft Office 2007 used ODF to provide the same. It is Microsoft's choice to prevetn that from working. WLD^talk|edits 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You should be well aware that that specific plug-in actually embedded some of the file data as binary blocks without converting them making them useless in ODF implementations. That was only interesting to demonstrate the ability to convert and revert the conversion. hAl 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

hAl - you have so far not provided arguments for the adoption of OOXML specifically , and you have not provided citeable rebuttals of the criticism in the article. I can see no reason to keep the 'arguments for' section. WLD^talk|edits 15:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the arguments are actually specific for OOXML. The zip container format in the specification, the formulas, the alternate content block, the aditional features for internationalization, the use of the open packaging convention for instance. But other arguments that might not be specific for OOXML like the improved filesize due to zip compression are still arguments that are relevant for instance for people interested in why ooxml could be a better option than the current most widely used binary office file formats. Your underlying suggestion seems that arguments supporting OOXML are only valid if they compare favorably with ODF. That however is not a requirement for positive info on OOXML features allthough some of those arguments still might be favorable. And btw this is not a comparison article with just ODF allthough some odf proponents might see it as such. In fact the format comparison article of OOXML with ODF was recently deleted.

Also there is no need in the arguments supporting OOXML to be a rebuttal to OOXML critisism. Some of those technical critisisms seem quite justified. Something can have both positive and negative aspects and it does not nescesairly mean that they match each other. Also with standardization still underway it is likely that critisisms will in parts be adressed and lead to improvement of the format directly or in future version. That seems fine with me. Except for the ridiculous argument about the 6000 pages that is but then again if anybody elese thinks that is a serious argument... hAl 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

6000 pages was extraordinary large. It was intended as a means to sell the standard but heavily fired back. After all Committee members are supposed to read it. There are no real possibilities for adressing comments as its fast-track. And as far as I can see Microsoft did not offer to clarify the patent license terms or lay open unspecified aspects of the ECMA standard. I agree that OOXML can also be viewed independendly from ODF, but in the case of ISO standardisation that is the core of the objections as there already is an ISO standard. So the argument has to be made why OOXML is necessary as an additional standard. A case that can be made. Arebenti 12:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sun Approval of the Format?

"Sun Microsystems, on the other hand, is on record as supporting OOXML becoming an ISO Standard.[45]" -- Here the article says that SUN Microsystems supported OOXML standardisation. That is misleading. According to the referenced text: "Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as presently written is technically incapable of achieving those goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an ISO Standard that would enable them."

Their position is "disapproval with comments". The difference is: as almost anyone else they are not in principle against OOXML becoming an ISO standard. They basically want OOXML to get fixed. In the current fast-track procedure there is really no way to improve the specification and Microsoft did not make any offers so far. Arebenti 14:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arebendi, you're putting some words in people's mouths. The current entry does not say (as your title does) that Sun "approves" the format, but that Sun supports it becoming an ISO standard. You say this merely means "they are not in principle against OOXML becoming an ISO standard", but that's just not what their statement says -- it puts a positive, not a negative position: "we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes". Their approval is conditional on "specific changes already agreed upon by consensus in V1" being made to the text. Alexbrn 15:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Arebenti, the fasttrack procedure does allow the standard to be significantly improved. After ballots with comments are all send in (at 2 september) Ecma can propose changes based on those comments. Then on the ballot resolution meeting agreement can be made on those proposed changes and mayby even some others if those are important enough. Also Ecma could state commitment on more elaborate changes regardingthe comments made by the members to be resolved in in a future version which might be acceptable for some of the ISO members as well as it seems that for instance ODF is also still busy to complete their format specification more thna two years after it's standardization in OASIS. hAl 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

1. The Office open XML article lacks a reference to the original ECMA 376 specification, yes we have "full copy of Ecma 376 or a copy in bits can be downloaded from Ecma international." but I mean below. External Links do not belong into the corpus

2. The petitions such as noooxml.org (contra) and Voicefor Innovation (pro) have to get mentioned.

Why ? This is no site for an anti ooxml ISO standardization campaign. Those sites do not belong here at all. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling. I found them the most useful informative sites. And both campaigns present just ~ 7 pro / contra arguments. Far better than the wikipedia jungle. It would be deceptive to ignore these ressources. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it a site of disinformation. It is all about influencing people and even blatant lying to make that happen. And most of it's genuine critisism are already referenced in the article from it's original sources. hAl 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are the only person with that point of view HAl. noooxml is a key site and useful for people who wish to find out about critism of ooxml. Kaern 11:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No not really the only one. It is probably a key site in the campaing against ooxml with lots of anti-ooxml newsitems but it is hardly a place of origninal critisism information and wikipedia is also no place to promote such anti campaign sites. The current selection of critisism sites provide vitually the same critisism information and are often also the original source that published the information. 69.73.191.92 21:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that this comment is the only mention of the NoOOXML campaign I could find both in the article and on the talk page! Considering that as of this moment it is linked from the front page of gnu.org, comes up as one of the first ten hits on Google when searching for "OOXML", is one of the central resources of information on the ongoing ISO voting process, and considering the highly controversial nature of the format and its standardization, I can see no explanation to this other than questionable, potentially biased editing process of the article. 80.233.255.7 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Word the header less technical, e.g. "Office Open XML uses a number of dedicated XML markup languages in fileparts that are placed in an Open Packaging Convention file container."

4. "Microsoft has long been using..." blabla. This article is about OpenXML and not Microsoft's quest.

Historic background is common in wiki articles and it is fairly relevant that the predecessor formats started a long time ago and that the standardization effort is based on government recommendations hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

speculation about motives should be avoided. Once you start to tell a tale it gets unencyclopedic.Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

5. "Because of this the formats were fairly difficult to interpret by other commercial or free software developers and never fully interoperable although current level of support for these formats by third-party software is very good." -- the problem is that it was not fully open and specified, which made it difficult to implement.

6. EU asked Oasis and Microsoft claim: "telematics between Administrations Committee based on IDA expert group on open document formats (2004-05-25)" is no valid source. It is no formal EU request. I suggest to remove that story unless appropriate evidence is provided, no storytelling please.

IDA expert group is a program by the european commision which falls directly under the commissions Directorate-General for Informatics. An officially approved recommendation made by such a program would certainly qualify as a request which is reflected in the article but might even be seen as a strong suggestion by the European Commision to follow those recommendation. If anything the article understates the power of these recommendations as is evident by the fact that the releavant organisation picked up those suggestions immediatly. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not offical at all. I worded my concerns quite diplomatic. "In 2004 governments and mainly the European Union asked both OASIS and Microsoft to standardize their XML office file formats through an official Standardisations organization", this claim is factual wrong and it is garbage to use an irrelevant expert subcommittee of the Commission comprising external advisors as evidence for multiple reasons. "officially approved recommendation made by such a program would certainly qualify"-- would qualify. I can't see any "officially approved recommendation". "telematics between Administration Committee based on IDA expert group" is no body that can speak for the EU or the European Commission DG. The term "expert group" indicates Commission-external members and informality. The claim is "governments and mainly the European Union asked". No sufficient evidence was provided. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly this claim is not factually wrong. That is you making up things.

See for example [3] on how the IDA recommendations influenced OASIS standardization plans and how it before that ware never suggested or though of in the OASIS TC documents. It does not get more evident than this !!!!

Also read how that message still states "Open Office TC" and how that later changed to opendocument which is exactly the terminology used in those IDA recommendations.

Secondly, it is an official recommendation from a Community Programme managed by the European Commission's Enterprise Directorate General. The TAC committee which is a committee advising the EC on implemention of the programme consist of members of each state has approved that recommanddation. That makes it a memberstates approved recommendation of an EU programme. That and the fact that it evidently influenced standardization and naming of the office format as can be seen in the OASIS archive makes it a very relavent part of the article. hAl 16:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the information that was needed. Arebenti 15:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

7. "The development and standardization of Office Open XML took place against a groundswell of interest in open, standards-based technologies by commercial and government organizations." -- too general

8. "According to Microsoft, Office Open XML is backward compatible with Microsoft Office versions 2000, XP and 2003 using Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack.[5]" -- Wrong place. I propose to remove the section, see my comment Nr.3, should be merged to the header.

9 "During XSL transformation from OMML to MathML any WordprocessingML related markup should be lost because MathML does not allow for other markup in math zones." - less technical, please. OMML should get an article.

Past efforts to create separate articles for the separate markup languages within OOXML has only led to them being suggested to merge with this article and then be deleted. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Has OOMML a life of its own? Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

10. Creation of Ecma 376 - aren't the dates irrelevant?

11. "As an ISO external Category A liaison, Ecma have submitted Ecma 376 to the ISO Fast Track process," -- What is a "Category A liaison"? Relevant. I understand that ECMA offers privileged access to ISO.

It says something about ISO agreeing with the procedures and quality of the standardisation procedures of that organisation. For instance OASIS is also a category A liaison and used an even shorter standardisation procedure for ODF than faststracking. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that no casual wikipedia reader can be expected to know what a "Category A liaison" is. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

12. "the same process available to National Standard Organizations" -- ?? relevance?

13. fast track -- should be an article about the ISO fast track process.

14. Policy arguments: I can't see why the IBM libel is a support argument for ooxml. If it is a quote then it should be a quote or comprehended. currently "is a blatant attempt to use the standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives..." is not characterised as a quote.

15. "The Office Open XML format specifies the ZIP format in an open format" -- what does it mean?

That no other open standard actually describes the ZIP file format. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, should get reworded. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

16. "and PANOSE information to assist in finding a substitution font if the original is not available" -- what is Panose?

A method to determine typefaces that look similar to a descriped typeface. This is used when an implementation does not support the exact typeface but substitutes antoher in stead. I'll wikify it. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

17. "Internationalization supporting all kind of features needed for support by multiple nations." - kiss: Better Internationalization:

18. Link spam: "Microsoft one vote short of fast-track OOXML ISO standardizatio"

19. Link Spam: "Achieving Openness: A Closer Look at ODF and OOXML"

20. "OpenOffice.org in Denmark have submitted objections to ECMA 376 to the Danish National Body (Dansk Standard) [53]. The 22 page submission goes into some detail.", the most comprehensive collection is currently found on: http://www.noooxml.org/arguments It should be linked instead.

It would be bettter to select some of the original sources on that page and put them in the article which is actually already done. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, original Sources do belong into the annex. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

21. Accessibility concerns, Toronto paper.

22. "created by Info Support's Wouter van Vugt." relevant?

23. "who is a Microsoft Office program manager" -- internal ranks are irrelevant. Nobody gets what a "program manager" is. He is the responsible manager for MS Office development.

The article describes his function more accurate then you are doing I think as I do not think he is the responsible manager for MS Office development. Microsoft could have 50 program managers on MS Office. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

really? Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In summa: the text needs to be shortened and get more "relevant". Arebenti 20:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not fully support your suggested 23 points and in fact oppose some of them a LOT. I do think the article would be better cleaned up. My proposal would be that we drop all pro and against arguments and the entire standardisation section and just leave in the technical description of Office Open XML and the licensing section as those contain the most verifiable information. hAl 22:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the recent verifiable and notable publications about OOXML have concerned its standardization and the big stakeholders involved including DoD, ECMA, EU, Google, IBM, ISO, Linux, Microsoft, NIST, Oracle, Sun, etc. Would you like to start an new article on the Standardization of OOXML?--67.188.207.19 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Arebenti 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"distinguish" template

I haven't kept up with this discussion and the numerous article changes, but I remember being genuinely confused by the name "Office Open XML", especially because OpenOffice.org used to be called just "Open Office" or "OpenOffice." "OpenOffice.org" starts with a "distinguish" template pointing here, and I think this article should reciprocate. I think confusion with "OpenDocument" is less likely. —Fleminra 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you see ambiguity you can re-add the tag but I do not see any problem with any ambiguity here which the tag is ment to be for. "Open Office" and "OpenOffice" lead directly to the correct article and so does "Open document" and "Opendocument". It seems more likely that you'll by accident end up in the openoffice.org when looking ofr this article than the other way around. hAl 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These topics might be unambiguous to you because you happen to spend quite a bit of time working on this article. But do you think the average grandmother would assume that "Office Open XML" and "Open Office" were two completely unrelated things? —Fleminra 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Before someone objects to the re-addition of this template, here's the test I propose: write down "Open Office," "OpenOffice," "OpenOffice.org," "OpenDocument," "ODF," "Open XML," "Office Open XML," and "Microsoft Office" on separate little slips of paper and ask your grandmother to arrange them into two piles of "things that go together." —Fleminra 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You provide no valid example on ambiguity that warrant you distinguish tag. Your test is ridiculous. For ambiguity tagging it requires reasonable search criteria that would lead a visitor to the wrong article which you just do not provide. It looks like a pure openoffice and/or opendocument promotion link. I'll therefore remove it. 69.73.191.92 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Type "open office" in the box to your left and click "search." The first article in the results is "Office Open XML." Anyway, when you remove this distinguish tag, don't forget to do the same for the OpenOffice.org article. —Fleminra 04:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 69.73.191.92

69.73.191.92 removed without discussion large chunks of the document and used arguments which are irrelevant for the Wikipedia process. Legal Criticisms" was entirely removed. - "This section was only about the specification not specifying everything which is also in the technical arguments. It states no legal objection to the ooxml spec as i" -- the headline is Policy arguments and this is not ISO but Wikipedia. Partisan editing as done by 69.73.191.92 should get reversed although I agree with HAl that we need to simplify the text. Arebenti 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An argument being improperly categorized as legal whilst being technical or an argument being repeated in multiple sections used can be valid reasons for dropping the argument in one of the places where the argument is used. (not judging whether this was the case or not here). This does not nescesarily constitute any problem with the wikipedia process.

And adding to that in fact I would hardly call any of the arguments presented before in the article as legal arguments as they are mostly very strange interpretations by non-legal sources of the value of a legal promise/covenant and of patent law. I would suggest that if you want to re-add the legal sections, just to use materials cited from serious legal sources. Otherwise these arguments should only be listed in the article as concerns and/or opinions by certain parties and not really as legal arguments. hAl 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I try to be not political here when editing the article. I have personally serious legal concerns. These objections are made, also in the Committees. However, you cannot just delete a section without discussions. Arebenti 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You can just as well delete a section as you can add it. You are suggestion you can add sections full of bullshit and than it requires debate or dfiscussions to remove it. If you have objections to removing materials you should have similar requirements on adding materials. I disqualified the argument as a legal argument as it was pure conjecture or even pure lies that were referenced to in the citation on the part of Sam Hiser who would say anything to stop ooxml from getting standardized. Nothing in the section qualified as a legal argument by either a legal expert, an argument in a legal document, an argument in a court case or a verdit by a judge so as a section about legal arguments it was pure trash and I binned it. If there is a legal concern than provide people with evidence of such legal issue and back it up with the opininion of an independant legal expert. Even IBM a very vocal opponent that probalby could afford to have a whole battery of laywers do not state that they cannot implement OOXML because of legal issues. I would be happy to discuss your legal concerns but I would prefer that as hAl said only legal experts are cited for what you call legal arguments. Don't you even find it strange that the mass opponents of OOXML have not found any reputable legal firm/expert willing to state that OOXML licensing is not open ? 69.73.191.92 00:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You reverse the burden of proof. It is important to highlight the legal uncertainty because it exists, was raised during fast-track and was not sufficiently answered. Please also bear in mind that we are in the "criticism" section where we need to provide a true and fair view of what the critics say as we do the same in the "support" section. So it is not really about discussing/debating the issue but telling that these concerns are made without any personal bias. I read the documents and personally believe that the patent arrangements are fishy and bear great legal uncertainties when applied on a worldwide scale. I would not start to implement OOXML and feel safe. The OSP is at least an "unusual" model and the CNS a derivate of Sun's license. IBM as the holder of a giant patent portfolio does not need to investigate this.Arebenti 13:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)