It is still Boxing Day, but the amount of relevant material is mounting. Here are some pointers to new or existing OOXML issues that are being explored at the moment.
Standards Are Standards, Not a Gown
Pay careful attention to this insightful comment about
Office binaries getting encapsulated in an XML-shaped wrapper. That pretty much sums up the purpose and essence of OOXML. It's a gown for legacy formats that are operating-system dependent, bug-ridden, inelegant, and protected by patents.
How Many Patents Would You Like With That Standard?
Patents must not be ignored. Iran, for instance, is just one among
several nations that
have already expressed software
patent concerns. Iran cites
existing embargoes and sanctions. It uses these discriminatory actions to explain the worrisome future impact of OOXML on them. We have already seen
Microsoft snubbing the Muslim world, so it's hardly surprising.
Ubiquity Does Not Turn Proprietary into 'Open'
Bruce Byfield has published
another article that includes some bits about OOXML. It also contains technical mistakes (misunderstanding of the process) and once again talks about conspiracy theories. This confirms
the biases that he tried to deny.
Expiring Standards
How would you like to be told that your 'standard' has evolved every month, or every year? How would you feel if your 'standard' was poorly documented, not documented, or only documented in program source code that you are not permitted to use, let alone view?
”OOXML is not a standard. It's merely another monopoly enabler.“Andy Updegrove wrote an article about an overlooked aspect of standards. He speaks about the cost of preservation. Dynamic standards are a moving target and if they evolve poorly in line with a single product, then preservation is a non-starter.
Also consider the importance of open standards in cases of disaster recovery or the life risks OOXML embodies. Always bear in mind the important issue of persistence and endurance of data.
OOXML is not a standard. It's merely another monopoly enabler. ⬆
