[odf-discuss] Responding to and countering durusau

[Lars D. Noodén]

Before the thread go hijacked, we were starting to discuss Sander 
Marechal's proposal for an organized response to Durusau.

Sander's message was:
> I have written a (rather lengthy) response to Patrick Durusau's most
> recent publication: "Who Loses If OpenXML Loses?"
>
> I have published this response at LXer Linux News and on my own website:
>
> http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/101017/index.html
> http://www.jejik.com/articles/2008/03/a_response_to_patrick_durusau_who_loses_if_openxml_loses/
> 
> If you feel like digging this story, here you go:
> http://digg.com/microsoft/A_response_to_Patrick_Durusau_Who_Loses_If_OpenXML_Loses
> 
> Kind regards,
> -- 
> Sander Marechal

There are a lot of fallacies presented by the MSFT side and mistakes in 
procedure, even by people who should know better like Dursau [1], that it 
is clear that ISO must send back the proposal.   Time would be better 
spent getting MS to join the rest of industry in backing the OpenDocument 
Format which not only already went through ISO certification a few years 
ago, but also was a finished draft.

First off, the International Organization for Standards (ISO) is not in 
the business of creating or developing standards.  Only when the 
specification is finished and ready for evaluation is it appropriate to 
submit to ISO.  The bar is set even higher for specifications to be 
considered on the Fast Track.

If MOOX gets another no vote, it goes off the Fast Track like it should 
have according to ISO procedure the last time it got a no vote.   Then it 
can still be considered on the regular track, which gives national bodies 
the time they need to actually discuss and resolve the issues.  Perhaps 
Durusau, with his years of experience working with international 
standards,  doesn't know that already and should be reminded.

The changes to-date on the fast track have been minimal.  So far nearly 
all of the discussion in favor of DIS-29500 boil down to one argument: MS 
wants the ISO stamp of approval.   However, procedural, licensing and 
implementation questions do not matter if DIS-29500 never becomes widely 
used, and wide-spred use is most unlikely - seeing as the specification s 
not even fully defined yet, and not even MS uses it or even plans to use 
it [3].  The chance is close to nill.  Meanwhile the standard it is 
intended to compete against, namely the OpenDocument Format,  is 
implemented in several dozen products and tools and is growing in use. 
[xxxx]


The procedural irregularities, stacking of committees and other apparent 
violations of procedure and ethics, for just this specification alone, 
could fill a small book now, even if each incident is given only a brief 
summary.  There appears to have been no country where such problem have 
not manifested, not even the Nordic countries, which ones had a reputation 
for proper procedure.  Further there has been identified a statistical 
correlation between general levels of corruption and favoring DIS-29500 
[xxxx]  Further, these practices are deeply entrenched in the backing 
organization's culture[4] and have been used against other standards like 
again and again.

Size is a lesser problem, perhaps the least, but easiest to see and no 
less insurmountable for all that.  The specification started out at 6000 
pages and is now about 7500 pages.  Assuming a 48=week year, that requires 
a conscientious 31 pages per day.  For a 5-month review period, that would 
require a pace of 375 pages per day.  There are few people who can manage 
even recreational reading at a rate 375 pages per day for 5 months. 
Managing a technical specification at that rate, with its 
interdependencies and cross-references, is highly unlikely.

On the technical side, a 7500-page specification is not ever going to be 
something within reach of a 5 or 10 person shop.  Some of the larger teams 
will have trouble with it as well.  For example, look at the extreme 
difficulty one large vendor has had in implementing short and relatively 
straight forward standards like Hype Text Markup Language, Cascading Style 
Sheets, Portable Network Graphics, Java or Kerberos.  There would be no 
possibility of implementing a long, complex specification.

Furthermore, unlike OpenDocument, DIS-29500 does not re-use existing 
standards, so that means nearly the entire 7500-pages are new ground.  In 
contrast, for OpenDocument, tools have existed for years to work with its 
components, such as Scalable Vector Graphics.

On the licensing issues which disqualify it from being an open standard, 
they seem to explicitly block MS key competitors, especially FOSS 
projects, from using it.   That defeats any claim to the goal of following 
OpenDocument as a universal format for document interchange.

OpenDocument is already the better format, both technically and in terms 
of licensing.  Further, it has the backing of a 600+ member organization 
of which even Microsoft is a member of.  The only thing further debate 
does is to burn up valuable time, especially those few experts in document 
standards, interoperability and digital archiving.

Even on a procedural level, sending the specification back to Ecma for 
further work is the only option for ISO.

Regards,
-Lars

O
[1]	http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.html

[2] 	http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/fear-that-shoul.html

[3] 
http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=3685&pagtype=all

[4]	http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958



Lars Noodén
 	Ensure access to your data in the future
 	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/about_us/contribute