Comments on: OpenXML - How should the BSI vote? - Part 2

By: Do you love Microsoft? : Back to Basics - why OpenXML should not be an ISO/IEC standard

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:21:38 +0000

[…] covers a different type of document from ODF. This argument is also totally bogus, see for example this article and many others on this […]

By: Alan Lord

Alan Lord — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 17:33:56 +0000

Hi John,

I am unsure to as to how old this document is, but the examination of the generated XML from both standards and the analysis thereof makes for interesting reading. http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/organizations/ODFA%20UKAG%20Technical%20White%20Paper.pdf

Also, there is an excellent paper analysing OOXML’s accessibility performance. I’ll give the conclusion to save your legs: It’s bad… Read the paper here: http://atrc.utoronto.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=94

Thanks for a very entertaining blog.

Alan

By: John Scholes

John Scholes — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 08:57:08 +0000

Yes, that is true! BSI did vote “Yes with comments” on ODF at JTC1. It now realizes that was a mistake! If you look at some of my (many) posts on the JTC1 Directives, you will see that they are appallingly badly drafted. I am not surprised that BSI got it wrong. However, there is no reason to continue to get it wrong.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:31:02 +0000

I am looking forward to you unpicking it too John. You’ll recall that at the NCC meeting several people agreed that ODF’s approval by ISO represented a problem.
Do you think that ISO26300 is a good standard? You told me yesterday that you didn’t think it was.
Funnily enough I understood that the BSI voted, wait for it, Yes with Comments on ODF.

When we discussed MathML yesterday you made some fairly clear comments that again seem at odds with what you’re writing here.

Hope the movie was good