It's not an ISO standard

Yesterday we mentioned a mysterious press release from Alex Brown. We failed to recognise its motive/s because a closer look was necessary.

Alex Brown is already being criticised for suggesting in his press release that OOXML is an ISO standard (it's NOT). This shows yet again that the convenor of the horrific OOXML BRM [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] intrudes areas beyond his remit and dismisses perfectly-valid appeals. These appeals slam the BRM, among other things, so Brown uses deception for defense.

Given that OOXML is under appeal in ISO/IEC, I don’t think it’s right to refer to OOXML as being recently standardized unless you count what happened in ECMA. Given how it happened in ECMA at a lightning fast pace that produced a gargantuan document filled with problems, I certainly don’t.

Further to this, Bob Sutor suggests that people should advise Europe to avoid the lock-in associated with Microsoft's 'lego bricks' engineering.

In my opinion, it is very important that Europeans who are interested in open standards and interoperability look at, comment, and, if appropriate, express their support for this draft or portions thereof.

Through the grapevine I have heard that the usual suspects who oppose open standards and support the “buy all your products from a single vendor and use the specifications they dictate” philosophy of interoperability plan to come out against portions of this draft.

Do not let their voices drown out yours if this is important to you. You have a little bit more than two months in which to comment. Encourage others to do so as well.

While on this subject, Europe should also avoid IBM products where they are proprietary software (e.g. Lotus Symphony). IBM loves harping about standards and "open" stuff, but it still seems allergic to the notion of Free software. When it comes down to implementation, it typically keeps things proprietary. Even the abandoned OS/2 it refuses to let go of. ⬆