OOXML's 662 Resolutions

Rob Isn't Weird writes "Microsoft has finally responded to the resolutions concerning OOXML (or 662 of them at any rate). The only problem? The JTC1 NBs who are deciding OOXML's fate have to download 662 individual PDFs from a slow, password-protected server; and many have had trouble getting the password. Don't misunderstand the ECMA's intent, though: there would have been 662 OOXML files if they had wanted to make it hard for people to read and criticize the responses. Thanks to the Internet, other interested parties have put all 662 resolutions online in a searchable, taggable format and are requesting that everyone interested help examine them. That means you, Slashdot."

Open

[clarkn0va]

From Rob Weir's blog:

Yes, the comments and the resolutions to the comments are on two different web sites with two different passwords

Bravo. How proud then is Ecma of these 662 resolutions? Remember, kids, the "O" in OOXML stands for "Open".

db

Re:I believe I speak for most of us..

[Anonymous Coward]

"What's the problem? What benefit do I get from reading through 662 file format comments?"

A) I think you answered what the problem is. That "Open" file format only works on your closed system.

B) Don't ask what the 662 comments can do for you but what you can do for the 662 comments.

Re:This means a lot...

[jkrise]

This means a lot...especially coming from a full-time salaried employee of International Business Machines,

So what? Don't you think an open dialogue between competitors is much better than shady backroom dealings that screw the customer?

who by cosmic coincidence recently released a product that uses ODF and competes (or tries to compete) Microsoft Office.

ODF was the first to be recognised as an ISO standard, it's MS that's trying to compete and catch up... and making a very bad attempt of it, besides.

I must've missed the memo that declared "evangelism" as the new corporate-sponsored FUD. But boy, it does feel wholesome.

If it's FUD, why not expose it by refuting any opinions in the article. Not every corporate-sponsored research is FUD... not every company is Microsoft! Maybe you are a full-time paid shill for them?

Re:This means a lot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are a full-time paid shill for them?

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the Slashdot groupthink and annoying little trolls like you must be employed by Microsoft? Is that some sort of security blanket you carry around to survive on the internets or something?

Seriously, go back to IRC.

Re:Hrmph.

[mattbee]

Customer's ISP here - just loaning this chap's virtual machine some more memory to deal with the hoardes. Ah there, it's back up again and using no swap, hooray. Apache might be hitting its MaxClients limit as well, I'll keep an eye on it :)

...It kind of does.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Sometimes, you don't have to consider the source.

2+2 is always 4. You may disagree with everything I stand for; you may think I represent evil incarnate, or that I'm just lazy hippie scum; but if I say "2+2=4", you kind of have to agree with me.

So, unless you're actually going to dispute the fact that:

• There are 662 separate PDFs
• The comments and the resolutions to the comments are on completely separate pages
• The whole thing is password-protected

Unless there's something factually wrong with that, pretty much anyone can independently figure out that the process sucks giant donkey balls.

Re:This means a lot...

[Dragonslicer]

Maybe you are a full-time paid shill for them?

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with the Slashdot groupthink and annoying little trolls like you must be employed by Microsoft? Is that some sort of security blanket you carry around to survive on the internets or something?

Seriously, go back to IRC.

I think you missed the point of that statement. The original comment said that the criticisms aren't valid because they come from an IBM employee. The response made it rather clear how ridiculous it is to base the validity of a comment solely on the commenter's employer.

Paid anonymous posters

[rpp3po]

There are very many anonymous posts today, which all share a common style. Absolutely lacking any arguments, maybe to not attract further discussion, but clearly intended to make the whole issue around OOXML appear as a solely political one. Posts discrediting the slashdot crowd, post discrediting critics as IBM puppets. OOXML IS a seriously flawed standard. There were endless very level headed comments on slashdot listing serious issues (e.g. the recently talked about "ANSI" and "Mac codepage" references), where you really ask yourself, how could a person knowing to be writing a "standard" put such rubbish in there?