ODF versus OpenXML: a luta continua...
ctaurion 120000QEUW Comment (1) Visits (1608)
Nesta primeira rodada avalia-se a existência de contradições e/ou conflitos com relação a padrões ou normas e procedimentos já existentes no ISO. Vários conflitos já foram identificados.
Apesar do tempo curtissimo, apenas um mês para avaliar e comentar mais de 6.000 páginas (200 páginas por dia!!!) a comunidade vem se esforçando ao máximo.Os documentos http
Algumas comunidades de Open Source e profissionais de peso no mercado já enviaram emails para a ISO na pessoa do seu secretário geral (Secretary General of ISO) Alan Bryde, email@example.com solicitando que a proposta não seja avaliada pela forma FastTrack. Entre estes emails temos a FSF-Europe (Free Software Foundation) e Jon MadDog Hall, cujos emails replico abaixo.
Primeiro da FSF Europe:
"Dear Mr Bryde,
as explained at greater length here various web pages such as
the International Standards Organisation (ISO) should not approve ECMA376 Office Open XML as an ISO standard, especially when this is doneon the fast track. Here are three reasons why:
* The specification is roughly 6000 pages long.
Even if an expert were to spend every day without weekends and other obligations on the review of that documentation, such an expert would have to read 200 pages of technical documentation per day, cross references and all. This is a practically impossible feat when exercising the diligence due for an organisation such as ISO.
* OpenXML violates existing ISO standards
Instead of building upon them, OpenXML violates existing ISO standards, undermining the work of ISO and weakening the standardisation in other areas.
* Approving OpenXML would violate the principles of ISO
The idea of standardisation and the stated principle of ISO is to have one standard for each application. There is already an existing ISO standard for office documents that should be maintained and protected.
There are many more problems with OpenXML, but these three alone aresufficient to stop the fast-track procedure and send ECMA 376 back toECMA for harmonisation with and integration into ISO/IEC 26300:2006.
With best regards,Georg Greve
Free Software Foundation Europe, President
United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS), member of the interim board"
E o email do Jon MadDog Hall:
Below is a letter that I sent to the Secretary of ISO who is holding anew standard that is trying to be ramm
Now normally I take these things with a grain of salt, but when I lookedat the objections on the site, the FIRST one I hit was this one:
and I could start to feel my blood boil a bit. Then I started to godown the list in a more selective fashion, and I found this:
Now ten years ago I might have understood a standard based on a widelyused commercial product, but with the Internet and "Openness" I wouldhope that the standards bodies would get a little better.
So while normally I would not suggest that someone "fill up a person'semail inbox" with form letter, I suggest that you go to the list andfind your favorite outrage, formulate a letter specifically about that,and send it to Mr. Bryden
My thanks to Jomar Silva
-------- Forwarded Message --------From: Jon 'maddog' Hall
Dear Mr. Bryden,
It has come to my attention that ECMA 376 is under Fast-Track processingas an ISO specification. This is in regards to the Open
The review period was only a month, and given the fact that people inthat short time have found several objections:
to a specification that will have such world-wide impact, I think thatsome more time and effort should be put into the review process and thatECMA should come to resolution of these issues and consensus in theworld-wide community before re-submitting this proposal.
In addition, as an elder 38-year member of the commercial computerindustry, historian and computer scientist, I really have to say that Iam *shocked* at the concept of invalidating existing standards ofcalendar creation (ISO 8601) and the *definition* of the Georgiancalendar just because of a bug in one commercial vendor's particularproduct. If you do not know what I am talking about, and especially ifyou *do* know what I am talking about, then you *have* to send theFast-Track proposal back to ECMA.
Jon "maddog" Hall"