Linux Today: Linux News On Internet Time.
Search Linux Today
Linux News Sections:  Blog -  Developer -  High Performance -  Infrastructure -  IT Management -  Security -  Storage -
Linux Today Navigation
LT Home
Preferences
Contribute
Link to Us
Search
Linux Jobs

Linux Today
Enterprise Linux Today
Apache Today
JustLinux.com
Linux Planet
PHPBuilder
All Linux Devices
Technology Jobs

JustTechJobs.com

LinuxToday Newsletters
Server Daily
IT Management Daily
Subscribe News
Subscribe PR
Subscribe Security

internet.com
Internet News
Small Business

Advertise
Newsletters
Tech Jobs
E-mail Offers

 






Current Newswire:

Tech Comics: "Groundhog Day"

Want a Job? Learn Linux

PC-BSD 9 review – to FreeBSD what Ubuntu is to Debian

Time to dispel open source myths, says Liam Maxwell

SECURITY: Nmap Inside and Out

Eight features Windows 8 'borrowed' from Linux

Malware devs embrace open-source

A tale of two distros: Ubuntu and Linux Mint

Raspberry Pi benchmarked against Beagleboard, low price is long term

20 popular Ubuntu Linux apps you may want to try



Applications Management Engineer Sr (NYC)
Next Step Systems
US-NY-New York

Justtechjobs.com Post A Job | Post A Resume
:Alex Brown: OOXML Revealed "JTC1 Procedures Were Rubbish" -- Sure Enough, Problems Surface
Alex Brown: OOXML Revealed "JTC1 Procedures Were Rubbish" -- Sure Enough, Problems Surface
Apr 13, 2009, 17 :33 UTC (0 Talkback[s]) (5760 reads)

(Other stories by Pamela Jones)

"The OOXML approval was marred by procedures that were rubbish, eh? How about the result, then? Wasn't that exactly what the four appeals against adoption of OOXML stated as one basis, that the process was essentially rubbish? Were they right? One year later, it seems there are indeed some problems. Brown tells us on his blog that at the BRM "a number of existing Ecma-376 documents were unintentionally made invalid against the IS29500 transitional schema".

"Oops.

"The UK, he writes, now is suggesting a retroactive fix to undo the changes made at the BRM. Say, what? Rubbish though they be, is there any JTC1 procedure that makes *that* an appropriate way forward? If so, why bother to even meet? Just let Microsoft or its little elves slip in anything they want and call it good.

"That's not all. According to Jomar Silva of Brazil, who attended the BRM and just received the secret report on progress on OOXML, several items that were supposed to be fixed are still not incorporated into the published text of the standard one year later, despite the fact that he says some voted a conditional Yes, contingent on those changes being made."

Complete Story

Related Stories:
Taking Control of Your Documents(Mar 25, 2009)
Tux Fleets of USB Keys to Boldly Go Where No Windows Has Gone Before(Mar 24, 2009)
Micosoft man encounters Linux storm(Jan 21, 2009)
The OpenSuse FAQ Touched me in a Bad Place(Dec 17, 2008)
When Being Proprietary Makes You Do Stupid Things(Dec 12, 2008)
10 Standards Recommendations for the Obama Administration(Dec 08, 2008)
OOXML Documentation: ISO Concerned(Oct 09, 2008)
OOXML Leaked: The Stuff ISO Doesn’t Want You to Have (Updated)(Oct 04, 2008)
The OOXML Appeals: What Next?(Aug 06, 2008)
MS-OOXML: A Format Without a Future?(Aug 05, 2008)



No talkbacks posted.
  Home | Search Talkbacks | Customize View    Top of Page  



Enter your comments below:

* Your Name:

* Your Email Address:

* Subject:

CC: [will also send this talkback to an E-Mail address]

* Comments:

Tags allowed:<I>,<B> and <U>. See our talkback-policy for more about talkback content.

Fields marked with * are required!

..............................




All times are recorded in UTC.
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
Powered by Linux, Apache and PHP