07.10.07

OpenXML is Really Funny (But It’s a Joke That Can Cost Lives)

Posted in ECMA, Formats, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Monopoly, Interoperability, ISO, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard, Turbolinux, Videos at 11:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As an addendum, yesterday we mentioned the latest OOXML slam from Rob Weir. To repeat what was said:

OOXML: The Formula for Failure

[...]

As I’ve shown, in the rush to write a 6,000 page standard in less than a year, Ecma dropped the ball. OOXML’s spreadsheet formula is worse than missing. It has incorrect formulas that, if implemented according to the standard may cause loss of life, property and capital. This standard is seriously messed up. And shame on all those who praised and continue to praise the OOXML formula specification without actually reading it.

Rob talked about some of the mind-blowing problems with the specifications. It is clear that working on a program without specifications for many years leads to non-elegant inelegant [Thanks, John] code, workarounds, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and some ‘features’ that are intended to make different versions of the same software incompatible (to force upgrades and thereby elevate revenues). Writing (or rather “deriving”) specifications from 20 years of coding is no way to write a specification. It’s just a description of a program, with its bugs and deficiencies included.

An ongoing analysis of OOXML, to be carried out by a technical committee, will lead the way to a working group meeting. They can already see deficiencies. Read their observations carefully:

“OpenXML is designed to represent the existing corpus of documents faithfully, even if that means preserving idiosyncrasies that one might not choose given the luxury of starting from a clean slate. In the ODF design, compatibility with and preservation of existing Office documents were not goals. Each set of goals is valuable; sacrificing either at the expense of the other may not be in the best interest of users.” (p.6 Ecma Response)

As usual, the smart folks from OpenMalaysiaBlog have produced a fairly comprehensive and well-studied article. It demonstrates the serious problems which Rob refers to.

[OOXML:] Mathematically Incorrect

[...]

So when it comes to comparing MSOOXML and ODF v1.0 on the basis of the inclusion of “Formula Definitions”, it becomes clear that the anti-ODF folk have not much to shout about. In fact MSOOXML’s “Formula Definition” is deficient and inaccurate.

Can Novell (and particularly de Icaza) still praise OOXML? Can they truly recommend it, invest resources in it, and imply it is the way to go (or at least suggest it’s an acceptable specification)? This whole scenario is worrisome. Is this what Novell got paid over $300,000,000 to do (at least in part)? Whose side are they committed to? The Free software community, which supplied all the software? Or is it Microsoft, which has just betrayed Novell? Perhaps the Jim Allchin comment on “slaughtering Novell” should have served as a clue. Microsoft only embraces in order to weaken and destroy (not only ODF, but also Novell).

This debate about document formats continues. Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems has published his own bits of advocacy in his professional Web log. He distinguishes between standards that serve companies and standards that serve the customer (that’s where preservation and portability, for example, play a significant role).

There are plenty of examples of a choice of “standards” in our lives (usually validated in some way by a vendor body), but I have yet to find one that actually leads to a benefit to the customer.

Yesterday we talked about some unfortunate news. TurboLinux’s involvement in this ‘scandal’ must now be taken into consideration. I have not read the press release at the time. The press release came from Redmond (not TurboLinux). There were hints there which expose Microsoft’s trick of shoving in proprietary formats through the desktop monopoly. TurboLinux has apparently been paying Microsoft for the right to play media files encoded using proprietary code. Novell was indirectly involved in something similar. This leads to Linux ‘taxation’. OOXML achieves exactly the same thing. That’s why it must be rejected. The world has already got a single, unified document standard.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

17 Comments

  1. Stephen said,

    July 11, 2007 at 3:41 am

    Gravatar

    Roy, you mentioned that Miguel and Novell “recommend” ODF. Where does this source come from? I’d be rather surprised if that were true. If this is in relation to Novell having an ODF filter, then that’s an entirely different matter and not an expression of support, rather interoperability. IMHO, one can be interoperable with crap specifications as well as good ones – this just happens to be a crap one.

  2. Francis said,

    July 11, 2007 at 4:38 am

    Gravatar

    Stephen,

    I think you mean s/ODF/OOXML/.

    Roy has got it mixed up though. Novell are huge supporters of ODF; they are part of the ODF alliance. See Novell statement on file formats for office applications.

    Unfortunately sites like this tend to pose interoperability with OOXML as something inherently evil, which is actually a little crazy (this is one of the most-needed things to ensure a proper migration to Linux). A couple of very vocal people (i.e. this website) go on about this, while other distributions very happily include all interoperability features that Novell introduce into OOo. A good example is
    OpenOffice.org support for Excel VBA
    .

    Kind of similar to the really quite comical statements made on this site about Mono. Despite what you think, Roy, your statements on Mono and interoperability are unsubstantiated and are anything but representative of the community (or do you want me to start naming all the distributions that are grateful to have such code? Hint: this includes the distribution you use).

  3. John Drinkwater said,

    July 11, 2007 at 5:45 am

    Gravatar

    Roy, s/non-elegant/inelegant/g

    Stephen, you meant Miguel “recommends” OOXML? Of course he does, he thinks open-source (but not free) implementations of Microsoft standards are the way to go. Read his blog.

  4. John Drinkwater said,

    July 11, 2007 at 5:58 am

    Gravatar

    Interoperability with OOXML is inherently evil: As soon as OpenOffice has full support for OOXML, where is the incentive (for typical users without this brought to their attention) to use the ODF standard? We just give ourselves another few decades under the thumb of a dictator.
    All the work on ODF has been for a fully documented, freely implementable, internationised document format. You cannot tell me the same for OOXML.

  5. Francis Giannaros said,

    July 11, 2007 at 6:13 am

    Gravatar

    John,

    * the statement was that Novell and Miguel recommend OOXML, which is patently false.
    * Interesting. I read his blog too, I’ve never seen that. Please point to a specific blog post where OOXML is recommended over ODF or retract your statement. I promise you that you won’t find any such statement.
    * you do know that Mono is free software, right? See http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing

  6. Francis Giannaros said,

    July 11, 2007 at 6:26 am

    Gravatar

    No, there is a huge incentive for Interoperability with it, and all distributions want this as well. I’m sorry but there’s absolutely no way one of my friends are going to switch to Linux when they’re not completely sure that they can send their documents to others and ensure that it appears appropriately. In the real world we have to make the migration for users from Windows as easy as possible, and we should do this within the bounds of keeping our freedom. OOo and all the code it will contain is completely free software.

    ODF will still always be the default on OOo and all Novell/SUSE products. As ODF increases in popularity use OOXML can be completely phased out. Let me repeat: _no-one_ in Novell is pushing for OOXML; they’re part of the ODF alliance. Novell have just (again) taken it on themselves to implement a very much needed selection of features that we all want.

    You don’t want particular things in OOo? I’m sorry, but millions of others do. And as always, those who code decide.

  7. Shane Coyle said,

    July 11, 2007 at 6:27 am

    Gravatar

    Francis, you do know that Novell made a patent deal with Microsoft that covers all previous infractions before the deal by both parties, then Novell agreed to pay MS royalties going forward for a promise not to pursue their supposed patent rights – including Mono patents, right?

    But, I can’t say I recall Miguel or Novell mentioning a preference for OOXML, just the desire to read and write it. I mean, ODF is still default in Novell OOO, right? (Francis just answered that while I was typing, see above)

    The problem with OOXML compatibility is it’s impossible, the standard is absurd and relies on proprietary information and features for full implementation.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 11, 2007 at 7:20 am

    Gravatar

    @ John: I fixed it as you suggested. I typically write my posts quite fast, so grammatical issues and typos will remain.

    @ Stephen:after writing that sentence (I typically write in a single quick pass) I had second thoughts, so I added in brackets “or [Novell] at least suggest it’s an acceptable specification”. I realised at the time that what I had typed went a bit over the line.

    @ Francis: I know people who like Mono and do not fear it. Often I just feel like it’s a case of blissful ignorance. They don’t realise that they rely on patented technology that could one day have a real cost (not necessarily just monetary). Just look how Red Hat escapes MP3 and recall the lawsuit filed against Microsoft.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 11, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Gravatar

    I have just come across this new article and I could help posting a link to it here:

    http://www.wictorwilen.se/Post/Does-the-size-matter.aspx

    Look! Pro-Microsoft Web site uses de Icaza’s arguments to defend the ‘monopoly enabler’ and fight ODF.

    Not surprising at all…

  10. Stephen said,

    July 11, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Gravatar

    Thanks for the corrections! The web site you’ve referenced quotes Miguel, but on reading his blog entry I can’t derive any specific comments he makes as a recommendation (or endorsement) of OOXML, and it looks more like a technical comparison with merits and detractions for both ODF and OOXML.

    A previous poster hits the nail on the head in saying that users of Microsoft products will not move until there is full interoperability. And this goes beyond mere office formats, which are a start, but we need…

    - MS Project
    - MS Visio
    - Adobe

    Oh, hang on – Novell did this survey years ago ;-)

    The reality, right now is that F/OSS equivalents don’t exist (and don’t sell Planner and Dia here, please, you know what I mean!)

  11. Francis said,

    July 11, 2007 at 10:02 am

    Gravatar

    Shane,

    > Francis, you do know that Novell made a patent deal with Microsoft that covers all previous infractions before the deal by both parties, then Novell agreed to pay MS royalties going forward for a promise not to pursue their supposed patent rights – including Mono patents, right?

    Great! Now let me see any evidence. You know just as well as I do that there is no general agreement to not sue each company. Microsoft can still sue Novell for patent infringement, and Novell can still sue Microsoft.

    Curious that you bring Mono in, since I hope you know that mono is specifically a community project. I mean, there are even Mono patents on the OIN list; yes, the OIN which Novell is a founding member of. Nice of them, isn’t it?

    > The problem with OOXML compatibility is it’s impossible, the standard is absurd and relies on proprietary information and features for full implementation.

    Why exactly do you have a problem with Novell implementing interoperability features, then? You know that OOo will always be under a free software license.

    Roy,

    Even if you had any weight in which to back up your argument, it’s a little arrogant from you again to suppose that all popular community distributions have got things with mono patents and that all distributions (Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, Debian, etc) are in a state of “ignorant bliss” by including mono. Anyway, the reason isn’t because people like being in ignorant bliss, but because they can all read FAQs.

    The link you provided shows Miguel criticizing a technical shortcoming (as he sees it) of ODF. What exactly is your problem with that? Miguel is one of the most respected developers in open source, and if you think developers shouldn’t voice any technical problems (valid or not) with free software then you’re probably hanging around in the wrong community.

  12. shane coyle said,

    July 11, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Gravatar

    Francis, you need to read more of my posts, buddy. They are here.

    Anyhow, here is the evidence of Novell’s patent deal with Microsoft.

    Enjoy.

  13. Sebastiaan Veld said,

    July 12, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    Gravatar

    Yes there is a deal, but in the deal between Novell and MS they agree not to sue eachother’s customers over possible patent problems, but Novell and MS still can sue eachother.

    Novell denies there are any patents violated. Tough MS migh have wanted this patent ‘protection’ part in the whole package deal with Novell, that makes patent violation itself in Linux and other software not true.

  14. Miguel de Icaza said,

    July 12, 2007 at 7:16 pm

    Gravatar

    Folks,

    To the commenter above: I have never recommended OOXML, not once. You guys can not make an argument without making some shit up to prove your point.

    My actual discussion on OOXML and ODF is here:
    http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html

    Not once have I advocated the use of OOXML over ODF. All I have tried to do is to stand against the FUD that people have engaged against OOXML.

    I believe that we -the open source community- can take the high road and not use FUD to promote our agenda. I do not believe in using fear tactics against others to prove my point.

    I advocate the support for OOXML in our products, but that does not mean that I favor it over ODF. On my hard disk I have a few hundred ODF documents, and I count 2 OOXML files (one is a test file, another a powerpoint presentation).

    Miguel

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 12, 2007 at 7:48 pm

    Gravatar

    Miguel,

    According to what you say, we were right all along. A day ago I wrote this to clarify:

    http://boycottnovell.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=981

    That is exactly what I believed. Nothing has changed. If anything, you have just confirmed my suspicions.

    1. You support the decision to support OOXML format in OpenOffice.org. I wonder how Simon Phipps feels about it.
    2. You argue that OOXML is an acceptable spec.
  16. Sebastiaan Veld said,

    July 13, 2007 at 11:12 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy

    So, actually why do -you- have a problem supporting OOXML in OpenOffice? OpenOffice does already support all kinds of document formats, reading and writing (including all MS formats) for interoperatbility reasons. Adding just another one to that does not seem to be such a big deal to me. Also this comes a plug-in, if -you- do not want it, don’t install it.

  17. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 13, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Gravatar

    @ Sebastiaan: it is the same old debate about chicken and egg in the context of formats or drivers (binary/open source). Besides, OpenDocument was (and still is) doing brilliantly when Novell made made a deal with Microsoft. Support for OOXML was not needed and it is still not needed. Countries other than the United States happily embrace truly open formats.

What Else is New


  1. Nine Documents About the Financial Siege Against EPO Staff (Past, Present, and Future)

    Today we release dozens of pages of letters and documents (internal to Europe's second-largest institution); they all focus on the betrayal and skulduggery, crushing staff in spite of what was originally promised (and what workers actually signed up for)



  2. EPO Senior Management (Cabal) “Essentially Deaf to the Proposals From Staff Representatives.”

    Representatives of EPO staff feel like the management of the EPO is "deaf" and uncaring; there's hardly any meaningful progress (or none whatsoever) when it comes to truly honest dialogue with real participation



  3. EPO Management, Led by António Campinos, Attempted to Stifle or Prevent Staff From Being Surveyed

    Battistelli's cabal, which covers up a lot of fraud and corruption, is attempting to prevent the staff from expressing an opinion (for insiders and perhaps outsiders to assess) because things are really bad and autocratic measures are seen as necessary to keep the lid on issues/abuses



  4. The European Patent Office's Central Staff Committee: Office Cannot Recruit Fit-for-Purpose Patent Examiners Anymore

    One third of EPO recruits are 'locals' (Germans), 0.2% are Swiss, 1% Scandinavian; the EPO as an employer became unattractive and it's unable to attract the staff it needs (as was projected and planned when the EPC was agreed upon)



  5. IRC Proceedings: Friday, November 27, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, November 27, 2020



  6. Links 27/11/2020: Jolla is 7, Diffoscope 162, MNT Reform Production

    Links for the day



  7. The Time Coronavirus Helped EPO Management Prevent Staff From Protesting and Going on Strike (March 26th)

    "In view of the spreading of the New Corona Virus, the planned General Assemblies have to be cancelled," the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) wrote in the wake of the crisis across Europe back in March (weeks ahead of a planned strike)



  8. Guarding Your Privacy With E2EE: Primer

    "As with all security, there is assumed risk no matter how careful you are. There are no security guarantees but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try."



  9. Links 27/11/2020: Systemd 247 and Cockpit 233

    Links for the day



  10. A Free Speech Deficit Harms Software Freedom

    Free software and Software Freedom cannot possibly succeed if we keep accepting or even just tolerating systematic censorship of opinionated people in our community; failing to speak out on this matter (for fear of supposedly offending someone, risking expulsion) is part of the problem — complicity by passivity



  11. Perception of Difficulty

    New poem by figosdev



  12. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, November 26, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, November 26, 2020



  13. Cartoon: After Gambling With Workers' Savings the EPO Can Do Real Estate

    New EPO cartoon from EPO insiders (the one on the right certainly looks a lot like António Campinos and the one on the left can be his EUIPO ‘import’ or Benoît Battistelli‘s INPI ‘import’)



  14. Free as in Freedom Should Not be Associated With Cost

    It's important to remind people that so-called 'free' services (Clown Computing, centralised spaces that 'farm' their so-called 'users') aren't really free; we need to advocate freedom or free-as-in-freedom alternatives



  15. [Meme] UPC's Pyrrhic Victory

    Contrary to what Team UPC says, what happened earlier today is hardly a breakthrough



  16. Many Thanks to Free Software, the Demise of Software Patents (in Europe and the US), and So Much More

    On a positive note we're heading into the end of November, one month before Boxing Day; we take stock of patent affairs that impact software developers



  17. Links 26/11/2020: PHP 8.0, Proxmox VE 6.3, UNIGINE 2.13

    Links for the day



  18. 29,000 Blog Posts and Recent Site Improvements

    Over 29,000 blog posts have been posted here, but more importantly we've made the site a lot more robust and resilient, accessible in more formats and protocols (while improving transparency, too)



  19. [Meme] Trump is Out. Now It's Time to Pressure the Biden Administration/Transition Team on Software Freedom Issues.

    The Biden transition is in motion and tentative appointments are underway, based on news reports (see our Daily Links); now is the time to put pressure, e.g. in the form of public backlash, to ensure it's not just another corporate presidency



  20. Boycott ZDNet Unless You Fancy Being Lied to

    ZDNet's Catalin Cimpanu continues to lead the way with misinformation and lies, basically doing whatever he was doing to land that job at ZDNet (after he had done the same elsewhere)



  21. The UPC and Unitary Patent Song

    On goes the UPC symphony, as the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is almost here, always coming "real soon!"



  22. Open Letter to the German Greens on UPC and Software Patents: Don’t Betray Your Voters and Your Promises, or You Will Regret it

    Dear Members of the German Greens in the Bundestag. By Benjamin HENRION.



  23. [Meme] One Step Away From Replacing Patent Examiners With 'Hey Hi' (AI)

    If it's not legal for 'Hey Hi' (AI) to get a patent, why should it be legal for patents to be granted by those who are invisible (and sometimes in de facto house arrest)?



  24. European Patent Office (EPO) Reduced to 'Justice Over the Telephone' and Decree by E-mail

    The EPO is trashing the EPC and everything that the Office was supposed to stand for, as it wrongly assumes demand for monopolies (typically from foreign corporations) comes before the rule of law and Europe's public interest



  25. Making Free Software Work for Users

    The latest reply to a non-developer concerned about software freedom; guest post by figosdev



  26. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, November 25, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, November 25, 2020



  27. Links 26/11/2020: AV Linux 2020.11.23 and Blender 2.91 Release

    Links for the day



  28. Links 25/11/2020: GamerOS and Biden Transition in Motion

    Links for the day



  29. An Orwellian December

    With December around the corner and states tightening the screws on the population (or employers on employees) at least we can look forward to spring



  30. The Non-Technical (or Lesser Technical) Software User That Wants Software Freedom

    Assuming that Free software should care about what users — not only developers — really want (and need) it’s important to understand how they view the current situation (with growing waves of corporate takeover and compromises, even expulsions)


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts