[ILUG] on the MS ISO standard thing

[Declan Jones]

Hello all,

Ultimately I believe that what people are interested in is the content in 
their documents.
The document format itself is simply a means to an end i.e. the storage and 
exchange of the content.

Since we want our content to be accessible freely and easily by many people 
over a long time period it is sensible that the document formats are open 
and transparent.
OO.O already exists and must be objectively seen as a move forward for all 
organisations and individuals interested in interoperability and openness of 
documents. The Microsoft proprietary office formats also exist and because 
of the dominance of the MS OS and Office suite it has also achieved the end 
i.e. storage and exchange of content - albeit in a MS owned way.

However the Microsoft sponsored ECMA-376 specification based on my initial 
view, is an overlapping alternative to the already existing and ratified 
open document standard, ISO/IEC 26300:2006.  Since ISO/IEC 26300:2006 is now 
an existing  standard it means that access to content is already achievable 
in a transparent and open fashion.  Most importantly there are no barrier to 
entry for anyone who wants to write some software to view or manipulate that 
content.

Can anyone explain why we need ECMA-376 (what is so different from ISO/IEC 
26300:2006) and why it needs to be fast tracked ?  I guess that is the 
essence of the objection.

Declan Jones

>From: Gareth Eason <bigbro at skynet.ie>
>To: AJ McKee <aj.mckee at gmail.com>
>CC: Kae Verens <kae at webworks.ie>, ilug at linux.ie
>Subject: Re: [ILUG] on the MS ISO standard thing
>Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 10:16:38 +0000
>
>
>	Hi,
>
>	Thanks to all who replied - the general consensus appears to be that
>the responsible thing is to draft and send a letter. To this end, I have
>come up with the following draft.
>
>	1. I'm relatively new to this so please provide me with comments and
>feedback on the draft. I'm happy to change it to ensure it conveys the
>appropriate feelings of the group as a whole.
>
>	2. Can someone please let me know who the best person / people /
>address(es) are to send this to?
>
>	Best regards,
>	-->Gar
>
>Irish Linux User Group,
><Some Contact Address for ILUG>
>24th Jan, 2007
>
>Re: Objections to JTC-1 Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA-376 Specification
>
>	To whom it may concern,
>
>	I, Gareth Eason, write on behalf of the committee and members of the
>Irish Linux User Group to voice our collective concern regarding the
>Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA 376 Specification by the ISO JTC-1
>committee.
>
>	As more and more of our critical paperwork gets stored in electronic
>form, the ISO body recognise the requirement for an open standard for
>storing this data – one with which multiple software vendors may comply.
>This avoids a monopoly situation emerging whereby a single supplier may
>control access to information simply because only they can understand
>the format it is stored in. This is particularly true for legacy
>documents – old documents produced and 'saved' by an older version of
>software.
>
>	As a predominantly technical body of people within Ireland, we feel it
>important to highlight our concerns to the fast-track processing of this
>proposed standard for the following reasons:
>The ECMA specification runs to some 6,000 pages, impossible to review in
>any meaningful fashion within the 30 days permitted.
>The concept of the standard potentially conflicts with the ISO body's
>own stated goal of “one standard, one test, and one conformity
>assessment procedure accepted everywhere.” ECMA has been publicly slated
>as an alternative to an already existing and ratified open document
>standard, ISO/IEC 26300:2006.
>There appears to be internal inconsistencies within the proposed
>standard and significant conflicts with existing ratified ISO standards,
>including ISO8601 (Representation of Dates and Times), ISO639 (Codes for
>the representation of Names and Languages), ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer
>Graphics Metafiles) and more.
>There are numerous references to proprietary applications and behaviours
>which may be impossible to reproduce without potentially infringing
>patents granted to, in particular, Microsoft. No documentation as to
>proprietary behaviours is offered in many cases and no legal
>indemnification appears to be granted for either reverse engineering or
>re-implementation of these behaviours. This renders it legally and
>technically impossible for any organisation other that Microsoft to
>implement this standard, essentially prohibiting competition – the
>antithesis of ISO standards.
>
>	We would suggest that it is inappropriate to fast-track the processing
>of this proposed ECMA 376 standard and that it should be diverted from
>its present fast-track processing and should be remanded to Ecma
>International for: (i) harmonization with ISO/IEC 26300:2006, the
>OpenDocument standard; and numerous other standards that it contradicts;
>(ii) development of more suitable intellectual property documents that
>actually grant rights to implement the specification.
>
>	More information on this proposal, and an analysis to date of the
>document can be found at
>http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
>
>	Yours faithfully,
>
>
>	Gareth Eason B.Eng, MIET, (Chairperson) , for an on behalf of the Irish
>Linux User Group.
>
>--
>Irish Linux Users' Group mailing list
>About this list : http://mail.linux.ie/mailman/listinfo/ilug
>Who we are : http://www.linux.ie/
>Where we are : http://www.linux.ie/map/

_________________________________________________________________
Find a baby-sitter FAST with MSN Search! http://search.msn.ie/