[News] [Rival] OOXML Already Deprecated, Contains Binaries

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 7:26:16 PM2/18/08
to
DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?

,----[ Quote ]
| Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
| Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies from the
| specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for deprecated
| information. With the removal of this information from the DIS-29500, the
| design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The entire specification has
| therefore effectively become obsolete.
`----

http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies

This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.

,----[ Quote ]
| <Relationships xmlns="…">
| <Relationship Id="rId7"
| Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
| </Relationships>
|
| [...]
|
| Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
| vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
|
| Good Bye Interoperability!
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries-inside

Microsoft carries on lying about software patents also, despite the fact that
people constantly correct them.


Yesterday:

OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')

,----[ Quote ]
| ECMA removes some Microsoft's formats from the list of examples. Does that
| mean that ASF and WMV are excluded from the list of supported codecs? Of
| course not, it is a list of suggestions, and Any supported video type is
| supported, and the ECMA intentions are pretty clear:  
|
|     we do not believe that preventing the use of other codecs is appropriate,
|     as it will prevent innovation
|
| And when it comes to address the reference to Quicktime, it is a patented
| format which requires royalty payments to MPEG-LA suckers.
|
| Again, ECMA seems devoted to say: Good Bye Interoperability!
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41316/good-bye-interoperability-2-with-proprietary-audio-and-video-formats


Related:

Developers warned over OOXML patent risk

,----[ Quote ]
| "Smaller players and non-IT firms--those who are not and perhaps cannot be in
| close business deals with Microsoft--are potentially at a disadvantage in not
| having either a relevant competing patent portfolio to bring to negotiations,
| or the legal resources to assess the level of risk," Vaile said. "This is why
| a truly global open standard ideally needs to be dealt with in a way that
| removes obvious sources of uncertainty for smaller participants as well."
`----

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62037862,00.htm


Microsoft patents by Brian Jones

,----[ Quote ]
| For fun we just did a quick search of published US patent applications
| with "Brian Jones" as an author, and "Microsoft" as the assignee.
|
| [...]
|
| Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What
| isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents
| rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones


Wishful Spinning

,----[ Quote ]
| OOXML gets adopted. More and more projects are started. Let's see which of
| these would survive without funding. Meanwhile a spin factory sends out
| success stories that most bloggers find worthless to discuss. It is possible
| to get the Krauts on board that are supposed to review OOXML but would OOXML
| survive a review by the crowds?
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35292/wishful-spinning


Digging in the Comments: Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----

http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents


Patent threat looms large over OOXML

,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.
|
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and
| use of open and alternative toolsets."
`----

http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179


Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December

,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.
`----

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/


ISO warned about possible patent violations of DIS29500 (aka OOXML)

,----[ Quote ]
| I have just send the following email to ISO members (you can find some of
| their email addresses on the INCTIS website) to warn them about the possible
| patent ambush...
`----

http://jeremywang67.blogspot.com/2008/01/iso-warned-about-possible-patent.html

Erik Funkenbusch

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 8:26:39 PM2/18/08
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:26:16 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| <Relationships xmlns="…">
>| <Relationship Id="rId7"
>| Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
>| </Relationships>
>|
>| [...]
>|
>| Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
>| vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
>|
>| Good Bye Interoperability!
> `----
>
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries-inside

Here's more on the issue:

http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/02/OOXML-is-defective-2-(depends-on-proprietary-technologies).aspx

You probably want to post this to digg and what not.

[H]omer

unread,
Feb 18, 2008, 10:41:10 PM2/18/08
to
Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:

> DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
> | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to
> | idiosyncrasies from the specification and placing them in a newly
> | formed Annex for deprecated information. With the removal of this
> | information from the DIS-29500, the design goal of MS-OOXML can no
> | longer be met. The entire specification has therefore effectively
> | become obsolete.
> `----
>
> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies

Ooh that's not good for the Vole. Not at all good.

So basically, once you remove the binary-blob junk from OOXML, what you
have left is something that exactly duplicates the design goal of ODF,
thus making OOXML redundant (and fully justifying the "overlap" concerns
voiced by various representatives). IOW Microsoft's "goal" all along had
nothing whatsoever to do with open standards, and everything to do with
locking people into their proprietary formats ... formats that they have
since abandoned anyway due to "security concerns". LOL!

What a monumental cock-up, Redmond style.

Well this just confirms what we knew all along. OOXML is entirely
unnecessary, and always has been, and was only introduced by Microsoft
as a way of protecting one of their ailing cash-cows, Office. It was
nothing more than a sour-grapes reaction to ODF, just as .NET was to
them getting slapped over their Java "extensions", and Silverlight was
a Linux-lockout answer to Flash (although their pal Miguel spoiled that
somewhat).

It hasn't been a good week for the Vole, has it? Toshiba unceremoniously
dumping HD-DVD, Vista SP1 (pre-alpha, or whatever) manically rebooting
victims' PCs, and now OOXML clubbed to death with its own severed limb.
Meanwhile they're running around panhandling for cash to buy Yahoo, so
they can diversify away from their prehistoric business paradigm, that
is doomed to oblivion in the forthcoming Web 2.0 revolution, and the era
of efficient computing (something beyond the comprehension of dinosaurs
like MS).

I almost feel sorry for them.


Almost.

--
K.
http://slated.org

.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
03:40:47 up 60 days, 1:16, 6 users, load average: 0.12, 0.09, 0.02

Roy Schestowitz

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 12:46:55 AM2/19/08
to
____/ [H]omer on Tuesday 19 February 2008 03:41 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>
>> DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
>> | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to
>> | idiosyncrasies from the specification and placing them in a newly
>> | formed Annex for deprecated information. With the removal of this
>> | information from the DIS-29500, the design goal of MS-OOXML can no
>> | longer be met. The entire specification has therefore effectively
>> | become obsolete.
>> `----
>>
>> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
>
> Ooh that's not good for the Vole. Not at all good.
>
> So basically, once you remove the binary-blob junk from OOXML, what you
> have left is something that exactly duplicates the design goal of ODF,
> thus making OOXML redundant (and fully justifying the "overlap" concerns
> voiced by various representatives).


Yes, this issue was raised many times before. Microsoft could (and still might)
strap on its unwanted shovelwave on top of ODF and then demonstrate how broken
its 'feature unbilical cord' truly is (hint: it's 010binar0101y). What's more,
OOXML uses very crypic symbol to represent element. ODF, on the other hand, is
elegant in the sense that it's quite readable like HTML markup.


> IOW Microsoft's "goal" all along had
> nothing whatsoever to do with open standards, and everything to do with
> locking people into their proprietary formats ... formats that they have
> since abandoned anyway due to "security concerns". LOL!

Don't fix them, block them. :-)

> What a monumental cock-up, Redmond style.

Mr. Soprano would be proud.

> Well this just confirms what we knew all along. OOXML is entirely
> unnecessary, and always has been, and was only introduced by Microsoft
> as a way of protecting one of their ailing cash-cows, Office. It was
> nothing more than a sour-grapes reaction to ODF, just as .NET was to
> them getting slapped over their Java "extensions", and Silverlight was
> a Linux-lockout answer to Flash (although their pal Miguel spoiled that
> somewhat).

Yes, that's why Microsoft walked away when it was invited to work on ODF along
with everybody else. As Microsoft recently said, its business is based
on "controlling" (as in owning, properly with patents and all) the 'standard'.

> It hasn't been a good week for the Vole, has it? Toshiba unceremoniously
> dumping HD-DVD, Vista SP1 (pre-alpha, or whatever) manically rebooting
> victims' PCs, and now OOXML clubbed to death with its own severed limb.
> Meanwhile they're running around panhandling for cash to buy Yahoo, so
> they can diversify away from their prehistoric business paradigm, that
> is doomed to oblivion in the forthcoming Web 2.0 revolution, and the era
> of efficient computing (something beyond the comprehension of dinosaurs
> like MS).

It's shameful that the Average Joe (or my close colleague at work) knows about
none of that. People are unaware of how scared Microsoft's top management
(what's left of it anyway) has become when Longhorn was seen as botched. It
all went downhill from there and Live was Dead from the start (still declining
despite $billions down the toilet).

> I almost feel sorry for them.
>
>
> Almost.

Yes, I wrote this too yesterday, but some people still think they are at the
top of the hill. Ask Paul Graham what he thinks about Microsoft. He said they
were "dead" about 9 months ago. And it's no arbitrary guy. Like Michael
Arrington, he's from the Valley, so he speaks to /insiders/.

--
~~ Best of wishes

Roy S. Schestowitz | Data lacking semantics is currency in an island
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

Fredrik E. Nilsen

unread,
Feb 19, 2008, 7:40:31 AM2/19/08
to
On Feb 19, 2:26 am, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
wrote:

> Here's more on the issue:
>
> http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/02/OOXML-is-defective-2-(depends-on-pro...

>
> You probably want to post this to digg and what not.

You should probably check your sources a bit more before posting. ;)

--
Fredrik E. Nilsen
http://fenilsen.wordpress.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages