[odf-discuss] OOXML: The next step

[Daniel Carrera]

Some times I feel like I'm trapped inside a Monty Python sketch.


marbux wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com 
> <mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     Sorry Paul, but now you are conflating the Law with your
>     interpretation of the Law. 
> 
> 
> No, that is not what I said. I said that if you disagree with my 
> interpretation of the law, you must answer with an argument based on 
> law. An argument that everyone behaves in a particular way is irrelevant 
> to what the law requires. Facts and law are not the same thing. One 
> determines what the facts are, then determines what law governs, then 
> one determines whether the behavior is lawful or unlawful. One does not 
> determine that everyone does it this way therefore it must be legal. 
> It's a logical fallacy.
>  
> 
>      What I am saying is that if your interpretation of the law, which I
>     hear being expressed by no other competent authority, is at odds
>     with all evident practice in standardization, then I must pause and
>     wonder whether your interpretation is correct.  My doubt need not be
>     grounded on any legal analysis.   
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the World Trade Organization Appellate Body did not 
> say what it did or that the Appellate Body is incompetent? Are you 
> saying that interoperability is not one of three mandatory Core Common 
> Characteristics under JTC 1 Directives that standards must reflect 
> absent the consent of the Secretaries-General? Are you saying that 
> interoperability is not essential to competition in the software market 
> or that file format incompatibilities do not create an unnecessary 
> obstacle to international trade?
> 
> Are you saying that SC 34 did not seek a specific change in JTC 1 
> Directives  from SWG Directives so that OpenDocument could allow apps 
> that do not conform to the entire standard could still claim 
> conformance, or that SWG Directives declined to create that exception?
> 
> There is no absence of authority on my side of the fence. I have cited 
> and quoted it at length. You are the one who is trying to argue that 
> "everyone does it therefore it must be legal."
>  
> 
>     It is sufficient, to me at least, to observe that your
>     interpretation does not appear to be widely held.  
> 
> 
> Oh? How about the following view from one of Microsoft's standards 
> attorneys? Do you disagree?
> 
> "The ultimate purpose of a software standard is to enable 
> interoperability between different products and services.  If there is 
> no need for interoperability, there is little if any need for a common 
> standard.  The point of a standard is to make it possible for devices 
> and services from different providers to work together."
> 
> <http://standardslaw.com/wordpress/?p=17>.
> 
> Do you disagree that the chartered purpose of the OpenDocument Technical 
> Committee is to create "A standard for office document processing and 
> *interchange* ... ?"
> 
> 
>     Of course, that doesn't prove anything.  Absence of evidence is not
>     evidence of absence.  I could be wrong.  But you must admit that
>     your interpretation is just a wee bit less persuasive in light of
>     the fact that no court or competent regulatory body has ever ruled
>     on your line of reasoning, and thousands of existing standards
>     seemingly violate it?
> 
> 
> Thousands? You began your argument with examples of, as I recall, only 
> four specific standards you say violate the legal point I espouse. At 
> least one of them, XHTML 1.0 Strict does not seem to bear out your 
> claim. Have you actually studied "thousands" of existing standards  in 
> this regard? Were any of them standards for weights and measures? Were 
> any of them telecommunications protocol standards? Or do you argue that 
> there is some unique exception in well-established law governing 
> standards for document format standards? If so, I would very much 
> appreciate a citation to the exception. I am far more concerned with 
> being correct than in persisting in a flawed analysis.
> 
> 
>     As for your question, you asked whether I will  "clearly and
>     unambiguously specify that conformance requirements essential to
>     achieve the interoperability" and will the standards-based
>     interoperability between *different* IT systems be "demonstrable,"
>     as required by JTC 1 Directives?
> 
>     To that I can say that we are rewriting the conformance clauses in
>     ODF 1.2, per OASIS requirements.  I believe this also accords well
>     with the JTC1 requirements.   
> 
> 
> You blink too easily past the fact that SC 34 sought a specific 
> exception in the latest version of the JTC 1 Directives for OpenDocument 
> in regard to conformance to less than the full standard and the request 
> was denied.
> 
> But in any event, my questions are susceptible only to "yes" or "no" 
> answers. Please answer them accordingly.
>  
> 
>     But honestly, I also believe that what we have in ODF 1.0 also
>     complies with JTC1 requirements.  In other words, I don't believe
>     that the JTC1 requirements prevent a standard from defining
>     conformance in a way that allows conformant applications from also
>     allowing vendor extensions.
> 
> 
> Then we can cut this conversation short if you would do me the courtesy 
> of pointing to: [i] the specific section(s) of the ISO/IEC:26300 
> standard or the ODF v. 1.2 draft standard that "clearly and 
> unambiguously specify the conformity requirements essential to achieve 
> the interoperability; and [ii] the specific test results where the 
> interoperability between *different* IT systems was demonstrated using 
> ISO/IEC:26300  or ODF v. 1.2 as the "standardised interface"  for the 
> "mutual use of information;" or [iii] a document evidencing the consent 
> of the Secretaries-General of ISO/IEC:26300 to be excused from those 
> requirements. See definition of interoperability in JTC 1 Directives 
> Annex I. As you said earlier in this same thread, "If you use extensions 
> you know you will not be interoperable."
> 
> If you can show me those items of evidence, then we are arguing over a 
> wholly academic issue. If you cannot show that evidence, then ODF and 
> the efforts of the ODF TC violate JTC 1 Directives. Short and sweet.
> 
> 
>     In any case, I am very serious about interoperability.  But I
>     believe that vendor extensions are an insignificant source of
>     real-world interoperability problems when it comes to ODF.   
> 
> 
> That ignores the law saying that all characteristics of a standardized 
> product must be specified.  Disclosure of information necessary to 
> achieve interoperability may be disclosed by a particular vendor (e.g., 
> Microsoft) outside the context of a standard. But that does not mean 
> that disclosure of such information outside the context of a standard 
> honors the requirement that all product characteristics be specified by 
> a standard.
> 
> I drafted my two questions deliberately in a leading fashion. They are 
> susceptible only to "yes" or "no" answers. I will even delete the "as 
> required by JTC 1 Directives" part of the questions. Will ODF v. 1.2 
> exhibit those qualities?
> 
> In other words, let's take the issue of the law and the Directives off 
> the table. For me personally, what is at stake with your answers to 
> those two questions are whether I will personally contribute to ODF v. 
> 1.2 and whether I will support or oppose your efforts to get ODF v. 1.2 
> through OASIS and JTC 1. While my questions are based on my 
> interpretation of the law, you need not agree with my interpretation to 
> answer the questions.
> 
> I will restate those questions here without reference to what I believe 
> the Directives require.
> 
> 1. Will ODF v. 1.2 clearly and unambiguously specify the conformity 
> requirements essential to achieve the interoperability?
> 
> [ ] Yes     [ ] No
> 
> 2. Will interoperability between *different* IT systems using ODF v. 1.2 
> as the "standardised interface" for mutual use of exchanged information  
> be demonstrated?
> 
> [ ] Yes     [ ] No
> 
> Only my support or opposition is determined by your answers. You need 
> express no opinion as to requirements of law or the Directives.
> 
>  
> 
>     The real-world issues are more around partial implementations, or
>     defective interpretations of the standard.  So that's where I put my
>     efforts.  If any one else is interested in helping to solve the
>     real-world problems, then I'd recommend the same.
> 
> 
> We are in strong disagreement here. The real-world issue is whether ODF 
> will become more than a standard in name only. It is riddled with 
> ambiguous options that are interoperability breakpoints and it is a 
> signed blank check for developers to extend. It does not specify all 
> characteristics of a standard product in such a way that the products 
> produced by different vendors are interchangeable.
> 
> I will support IBM's efforts and contribute if IBM is determined to 
> change that situation to bring ODF into compliance with the law. If you 
> have something else in mind, I will oppose adoption of ODF v. 1.2 
> without very substantial changes.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
> http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
>