Frustrating Freedom
Microsoft seems to have won the OOXML ISO vote. I'm very annoyed.
I can't throw away any Microsoft products, since I don't have any at hand. I use Linux and mostly free and open source software. The level of corruption displayed and allowed by ISO has further convinced me of the need for freedom in the world of computers.
There are plenty of articles and blogs out there documenting the masquerade that was allowed to take place world wide, so I will not reiterate.
However, I need to vent on two things.
1. Microsoft is the only company as of yet that has a near implementation of OOXML. Everyone else has to play catch up. By the time that other companies will have implemented the 6000+ pages of incomplete and broken implementation, Microsoft will already be at OOXML version 2. Good luck catching up.
2. There is NO, I repeat NO need for two standards. Backwards compatibility is about the silliest, most bass ackward reason for the existence of OOXML. Sure, there are plenty of documents created in Microsoft's proprietary formats. However, most (all?) of the so-called backward compatibility elements of OOXML are marked as deprecated. Wow! That means that:
a) You do not have to implement those features (So why do they exist?)
b) It is not documented how you should implement those features (Only Microsoft knows)
c) It's a glossy, 'brand new' format, and already we are deprecating some of it's features (Talks about quality, doesn't it)
If Microsoft REALLY cared for interoperability, they would have kindly documented how those features work, and removed ALL proprietary, undocumented, deprecated tags from their half-assed format.
There are many reasons why OOXML should never has been approved by any standard organization. I mean, if the format is so technically superior, why would Bill Gates call presidents of countries around the world to get then to rubber-stamp his format?
I certainly hope that this blows up in Microsoft's face. Their illegal monopoly is hurting computing freedom too much.
I can't throw away any Microsoft products, since I don't have any at hand. I use Linux and mostly free and open source software. The level of corruption displayed and allowed by ISO has further convinced me of the need for freedom in the world of computers.
There are plenty of articles and blogs out there documenting the masquerade that was allowed to take place world wide, so I will not reiterate.
However, I need to vent on two things.
1. Microsoft is the only company as of yet that has a near implementation of OOXML. Everyone else has to play catch up. By the time that other companies will have implemented the 6000+ pages of incomplete and broken implementation, Microsoft will already be at OOXML version 2. Good luck catching up.
2. There is NO, I repeat NO need for two standards. Backwards compatibility is about the silliest, most bass ackward reason for the existence of OOXML. Sure, there are plenty of documents created in Microsoft's proprietary formats. However, most (all?) of the so-called backward compatibility elements of OOXML are marked as deprecated. Wow! That means that:
a) You do not have to implement those features (So why do they exist?)
b) It is not documented how you should implement those features (Only Microsoft knows)
c) It's a glossy, 'brand new' format, and already we are deprecating some of it's features (Talks about quality, doesn't it)
If Microsoft REALLY cared for interoperability, they would have kindly documented how those features work, and removed ALL proprietary, undocumented, deprecated tags from their half-assed format.
There are many reasons why OOXML should never has been approved by any standard organization. I mean, if the format is so technically superior, why would Bill Gates call presidents of countries around the world to get then to rubber-stamp his format?
I certainly hope that this blows up in Microsoft's face. Their illegal monopoly is hurting computing freedom too much.
posted by J-F Bilodeau at
8:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home