Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]

[Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote:
> > > > 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact
> > > >    with it.  The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer
> > > >    questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted.
> > > 
> > > Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve
> > > the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything.
> > 
> > That statement is false.
> 
> Are you using ddate? :)
parse error:1:huh ?
 
> I am a member of the Portuguese TC, and I witnessed first hand what has
> been reported by many others, so don't you dare telling me it's false.
We're clearly talking past each other.  They and their puppets have
behaved terribly in other areas, but MS has significantly improved
the spec and responded to questions in a timely fashion in the ECMA
TC.  Therefore they have not done their 'very best' to avoid
improvements.

> > The SpreadsheetML rep may not have been thrilled with my questions,
> > but the majority were answered.  More people could have joined ECMA,
> > or participated in the ISO review process constructively had they
> > wanted to. 
> 
> ECMA is out of the board right now, since it's JTC1 who makes changes
> and not ECMA.
That is inaccurate.  Whom do you think will be responding to
national body issues ?  ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to
propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their
own issues preemptively for resolution.
 
> Who are you insinuating about a not making a constructive process at ISO?
Some of the corporate manipulation of national bodies has been quite
disturbing.  If ODF had been subjected to a fraction of this
response it would never have passed.

> Are you conscious that SC-34 is virtually stopped because the Microsoft
> stoogies who have the obligation to vote do not vote on issues that are
> not Microsoft related?
Yes.  As per usual parts of MS have managed to descend into the
gutter.  However, that does not mean that the FLOSS community should
follow suit.

> It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can
> bet Microsoft is spinning around that "open source likes OOXML" thanks
> to that.
People can spin things however they'd like.  I'll implement any file
format users request.  If people are comfortable citing Gnumeric for
ODF, they can cite it for OOX too.   At the end of the day, if
people use Gnumeric, or free software, we've won.

> It's statements like some of yours that are detrimental, but nothing
> that you can't fix by making a better job for the community, if you can,
> of course, since nobody demands of you to loose family time, etc...

Shall I find a convenient bus to walk in front of :-)

Having worked on filters for both formats, I'll trust my judgement
over the various position papers with obvious biases littering the
net.  Both formats need work, the black and white characterization of
    ODF == good
    OOX == bad
does not fit what I've seen while implementing things.

My calculus is simple.
    - At least one person will use OOX
    - That person may want to use free software at some point
    - If we can support their files they will use free software again.
    - Therefore we should implement filters
    - Documentation makes filters easier

What kind of 'making a better job for the community' do you envision ?
My opinion the best thing the community can do is to get interested
domain experts onto the TCs and get better docs.