Microsoft OOXML: Lies, Whitewashing, Abuse and Vulnerabilities
- Dr. Roy Schestowitz
- 2008-06-25 20:29:52 UTC
- Modified: 2008-06-25 20:29:52 UTC
If it barks like a dog, it's probably a dog
T
he
sheer abuse surrounding OOXML cannot ever be denied (not without a
guilty conscience). We wrote about this latest debacle
yesterday and
the day before that. According to the article from ZDNet UK,
"Microsoft admits to standards ignorance pre-OOXML." It's summarised as follows.
Microsoft has admitted that, despite being one of the dominant names in IT for over 30 years, it had little or no experience or expertise around software standards until the company was mid-way through the process of getting Office Open XML approved by the International Organization for Standardization.
Needless to say, this is a lie. It's an embellishment at best -- some lipstick and a dress on a pig. Microsoft not only knew the rules, but it also knew very well how to abuse them. Remember these words from Jason Matusow, as highlighted by Andy Updegrove last year:
"There is no question that all over the world the competing interests in the Open XML standardization process are going to use all tactics available to them within the rules."
This sounds like a crazy gambler who is willing to pull any dirty trick out of the book, does it not? It sure
ended up this way.
What would the world have with Microsoft's XML? Based on the latest news: nothing less than
"critical" vulnerabilities (highest level of severity).
Critical vulnerability in Microsoft XML Core Services patched
Microsoft Security issued a patch today for a critical vulnerability affecting all supported editions of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Microsoft Office 2003, and the 2007 Microsoft Office System.
Does the world really look forward to Microsoft's XML 'solutions'? More so with
binary 'extensions'?
⬆
Comments
Stephane Rodriguez
2008-06-26 06:42:11
This is a lie if you take Microsoft as a whole or if you take indeed some of the guys that were specifically hired to make this possible.
But it is partly true at least for some of the guys who were part and very active : - Brian Jones, joined Microsoft in 2000, a program manager who concentrated on adding XML to Microsoft Office. Many failed attempts. You can say many things about him, but not that he's the guy that led to the national bodies stuffing. - Doug Mahugh : hired a year before the decision to send "OOXML" to ECMA. Again, this guy was hired to do tech conferences all over the world, not to stuff national bodies.
It is a shame that in fact nobody knows who at Microsoft actually planned the national bodies stuffing and made it possible. Those are the guys to blame. That being said, those in national bodies that accepted the $deal$ are just as much guilty than Microsoft.
Stephane Rodriguez
2008-06-26 06:43:00