08.08.08

New OOXML Fiasco: Germany and Canada Propose Microsoft as Editor for ODF-OOXML Convergence

Posted in America, Europe, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument at 12:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Result of the vote just in…

It should be clear to see that ‘puppet nation’, which only joined very briefly in order to serve Microsoft, did not vote this time around. They have already done their job. A few of those that voted seem keen enough to go on the record and propose that Microsoft takes over.

Here is the recommendation from Canada: John Weigelt, National Technology Officer for Microsoft Canada.

Germany put down Mario Wendt of Microsoft Deutschland. Mario also stuffed attended the horrific BRM in Geneva [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

For OOXML abuse stories from Germany and Canada, start at the index. It’s clear that Microsoft still strives to control ODF.

Here is the document containing this new information [PDF]. The accompanying page is laid out below as HTML, but much the formatting is lost. █

Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34
– IPSJ/ITSCJ (Information Processing Society of Japan/Information Technology Standards Commission of Japan)*
Room 308-3, Kikai-Shinko-Kaikan Bldg., 3-5-8, Shiba-Koen, Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0011 Japan
*Standard Organization Accredited by JISC

Telephone: +81-3-3431-2808;
Facsimile: +81-3-3431-6493;
E-mail: kimura@itscj.ipsj.or.jp

Raw text version of the PDF is below.

Result of voting
Ballot Information:
Ballot reference:
Ballot type:
Ballot title:
Opening date:
Closing date:
Note:
JTC1/SC34N1035
NWIP
Proposal for New Work Item on
OpenDocument Format (ISO/IEC 26300) /
Office Open XML (ISO/IEC 29500)
Translation
2008-04-29
2008-07-29

Member responses:
Votes cast (28)
Comments submitted (3)
Votes not cast (11)
Brazil (ABNT)
Bulgaria (BDS)
Canada (SCC)
Chile (INN)
China (SAC)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Germany (DIN)
India (BIS)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Malaysia (DSM)
Malta (MSA)
Netherlands (NEN)
New Zealand (SNZ)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
United Kingdom (BSI)
USA (ANSI)
Greece (ELOT)
Mexico (DGN)
Spain (AENOR)
Côte-d’Ivoire (CODINORM)

Cyprus (CYS)
Egypt (EOS)
Lebanon (LIBNOR)
Luxembourg (ILNAS)
Pakistan (PSQCA)
South Africa (SABS)
Sri Lanka (SLSI)
Thailand (TISI)
Trinidad and Tobago (TTBS)
Venezuela (FONDONORMA)

Questions:
Q.1 “Do you accept the proposal in the attached NWI Proposal document as a
sufficient definition of the new work item?”
Q.2 “Do you support the addition of the new work item to the programme of work
of the joint technical committee?”
Q.3 “Do you commit yourself to participate in the development of this new work
item?”
Q.4 “Are you able to offer a project editor who will dedicate his/her efforts to the
advancement and maintenance of this project?”
Q.5 “Do you have a major contribution or a reference document ready for
submittal?”
Q.6 “Will you have such a contribution in ninety days?”

Answers to Q.1: “Do you accept the proposal in the attached NWI Proposal
document as a sufficient definition of the new work item?”
18 x Yes Bulgaria (BDS)
Canada (SCC)
China (SAC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Germany (DIN)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Netherlands (NEN)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
USA (ANSI)
7 x Abstain Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)

Malaysia (DSM)
Malta (MSA)
Switzerland (SNV)
3 x No Brazil (ABNT)
New Zealand (SNZ)
United Kingdom (BSI)

Answers to Q.2: “Do you support the addition of the new work item to the
programme of work of the joint technical committee?”
19 x Yes Bulgaria (BDS)
Canada (SCC)
China (SAC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Germany (DIN)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Netherlands (NEN)
New Zealand (SNZ)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
USA (ANSI)
8 x Abstain Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Malaysia (DSM)
Malta (MSA)
Switzerland (SNV)
United Kingdom (BSI)
1 x No Brazil (ABNT)

Answers to Q.3: “Do you commit yourself to participate in the development of this
new work item?”
13 x No Brazil (ABNT)
Bulgaria (BDS)
China (SAC)
Denmark (DS)
Italy (UNI)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Malta (MSA)
Netherlands (NEN)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)

Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
8 x Yes Canada (SCC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Germany (DIN)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
USA (ANSI)
7 x Abstain Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Malaysia (DSM)
New Zealand (SNZ)
United Kingdom (BSI)

Answers to Q.4: “Are you able to offer a project editor who will dedicate his/her
efforts to the advancement and maintenance of this project?”
19 x No Brazil (ABNT)
Bulgaria (BDS)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Malta (MSA)
Netherlands (NEN)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
United Kingdom (BSI)
USA (ANSI)
6 x Abstain Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Malaysia (DSM)
New Zealand (SNZ)
3 x Yes Canada (SCC)
China (SAC)
Germany (DIN)

Answers to Q.5: “Do you have a major contribution or a reference document ready
for submittal?”
22 x No Brazil (ABNT)
Bulgaria (BDS)
Canada (SCC)
China (SAC)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
France (AFNOR)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Malta (MSA)
Netherlands (NEN)
New Zealand (SNZ)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
United Kingdom (BSI)
USA (ANSI)
5 x Abstain Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Malaysia (DSM)
1 x Yes Germany (DIN)

Answers to Q.6: “Will you have such a contribution in ninety days?”
19 x No Brazil (ABNT)
Bulgaria (BDS)
Czech Republic (CNI)
Denmark (DS)
Finland (SFS)
Italy (UNI)
Japan (JISC)
Kenya (KEBS)
Korea, Republic of (KATS)
Malta (MSA)
Netherlands (NEN)
New Zealand (SNZ)
Norway (SN)
Poland (PKN)
Romania (ASRO)
Sweden (SIS)
Switzerland (SNV)
United Kingdom (BSI)

USA (ANSI)
7 x Abstain Canada (SCC)
Chile (INN)
Colombia (ICONTEC)
France (AFNOR)
India (BIS)
Kazakhstan (KAZMEMST)
Malaysia (DSM)
2 x Yes China (SAC)
Germany (DIN)

Comments from Voters
Member: Comment: Date:
Brazil (ABNT) Comment 2008-07-29
14:52:46
The local committee considers that, since ISO/IEC 29500 has not been published yet and it is still
on the appeals phase, this is not the adequate time to approve the creation of this working group. If
the official version of ISO/IEC 29500 becomes widely avaiable by ISO, this committee will again
deliberate if it considers this working group worth of creation.
Canada (SCC) Comment 2008-07-14
16:18:57
John Weigelt -johnwei@microsoft.com
China (SAC) Comment 2008-07-16
05:18:20
Fang Chunyan
Germany (DIN) Comment 2008-07-28
07:31:28
Mario Wendt
New Zealand (SNZ) Comment 2008-07-25
06:04:09
ODF will be progressing to v1.2 soon and OOXML will presumably be updated to another version by
the time work on this project starts. There is little point in translating between ODF 1.0 and OOXML
1.0. New Zealand expects that the project team would work on the latest versions available.
Provided as mentioned above, that the work is based on the latest versions of the docs available nd
not restrict the develpment work to Version 1.0 only. New Zealand would like to see plans for
ongoing work and continuing alignment with the developing ODF standard
Switzerland (SNV) Comment File 2008-07-28
14:02:48
CommentFiles/Switzerland(SNV).doc

United Kingdom
(BSI)
Comment 2008-07-16
17:26:13
While in principle we support the general goals of such a project, in the absence of a final text for DIS 29500
it is impossible to determine what the precise scope or programme of work, and especially the timescale,
should be. The draft supplied with the Proposal has many gaps and only serves to highlight the problem of not
having a final text to work with. An accelerated timescale for producing such a Technical Report would seem
unrealistic given the uncertainty as to if and when a final text will be made available.
USA (ANSI) Comment 2008-07-28
21:02:11
TR should be based on both ISO/IEC standards when they become available.

Comments from Commenters
Member: Comment: Date:
Greece (ELOT) Comment 2008-07-29
15:41:05
ELOT answers to Q 1-6
Answer to Q1: Yes
Answer to Q2: Yes
Answer to Q3: No
Answer to Q4: No
Answer to Q5: No
Answer to Q6: No
Mexico (DGN) Comment File 2008-07-24
16:48:29
CommentFiles/Mexico(DGN).doc
Spain (AENOR) Comment 2008-07-29
10:42:35
Spain abstain on the mentioned document.

Template for comments and secretariat observations

Date: 2008-07-28 Document: 34N1035 NWI
1 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7)
MB Clause No./
Subclause
No./
Annex
(e.g. 3.1)
Paragraph/
Figure/Table/
Note
(e.g. Table 1)
Type
of
comment
2
Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations
on each comment submitted

CH 1 3rd
paragraph
“graphical
fidelity”
te It is easily overlooked that the preservation of page
breaks, page numbers and line breaks is often of much
greater importance than other aspects of graphical
fidelity, because page numbers and line numbers are
often used in referencing a particular point in a
document, and the ease and reliability of communication
about such references is greatly reduced if page
breaks, page numbers or line breaks can change during
document translation.
Explain at the end of the paragraph that the
preservation of page breaks, page numbers and
line breaks is often of particular importance, in
order to preserve the accuracy and validity of
refernces to points in the document from outside
the document.
CH 2.3.4 te It should be explained that the lastRenderedPageBreak
element of OOXML is not only useful for assistive
technologies (as often falsely claimed), but that it can
also be used to provide a useful tool for the preservation
of page-break information across document format
conversions. (Does ODF have an equivalent feature?)
Provide the info.

1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **
)
2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial
NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory.

page of 1

ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10

VOTE ON NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL
Date of circulation
2008-04-06
Reference number of associated New Work Item
Proposal
ISO/TC JTC1 /SC 34 N 1035Closing date for voting
2008-07-29

Circulated to P-members of the committee for vote and to

ISO/TC JTC1 /SC 34

O-members for information, in accordance with 2.3.4 of

Title Document Description and Processing

part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives.

Languages

P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee
concerned have an obligation to vote.

Secretariat National Body (Mx)
Please send this form, duly completed at all points, to the Secretariat indicated above.

Title of proposal Proposal for New Work Item on OpenDocument Format (ISO/IEC 26300) /
Office Open XML Translation (ISO/IEC 29500).

Evaluation of market relevance of the proposal: (Not applicable to those member bodies who are abstaining.
It is recommended that this evaluation be carried out by a reasonably large number of stakeholders and the average of the
various points given be subsequently reflected on the voting forms.)

low
high

1 2 3 4 5

1.
What is the potential of this project to contribute to international trade and production?
2.
What is the potential of this project to contribute to economic efficiency, health, safety, or the
environment?
3.
How great is the need to harmonize national approaches in this subject area that may serve
as barriers to international trade?
4.
What is the feasibility of achieving consensus on International Standard(s) in this subject
area by the proposed target dates?
5.
What priority should be assigned to the development of International Standard(s) in this
subject area?
(Comments, including proposals for modification of the scope, may be annexed.)
Total points

Do you agree, as the responsible member body, that the requirements in Annex Q of Part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives on the Justification of
proposals for the establishment of standards have been met by this proposal?

YES

NO

FORM 5 (ISO)

Version 2000.1

1 We agree to the addition of the proposed new work item to the programme of work of the committee:
YES

NO

We abstain/have no interest

2
We are prepared to participate in the development of the project (even if voting against), i.e. to make an effective contribution
at the preparatory stage, at least by commenting on working drafts:

YES*

NO

* Name(s) and address(es) of nominated experts (mandatory)
3 We would agree with direct submission of the draft attached to the new work item proposal as a DIS
YES

NO (Submission as a DIS requires approval by a two-thirds majority of those voting)

4
Standard(s), regulation(s), and other relevant documentation existing in our country, with any remarks concerning their
application if necessary, are attached:

YES

NO
If “yes”, please give references here, or as a separate annex:

An annex is attached to this form

P-member voting Mx
Date July 11th, 2008. Name Mexican committee

FORM 5 (ISO)

Version 2000.1

Permalink  Send this to a friend