[Linux-aus] Re: [Osia-discuss] Time to act on MS's OOXML ISO application

["Janet Hawtin" <lucychili@gmail.com>]

On 1/25/07, Andrew Pam <xanni@glasswings.com.au> wrote:

> Yes, it may help to write to Standards Australia - website at
> www.standards.org.au.
>
> Detailed EOOXML objections, sample letters and more:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671

Thanks Andrew

The groklaw material is super and very comprehensive.
> From a link on groklaw this is the person involved representing Australia:

Ms. Anne Cregan
E-mail userid: anne.cregan
E-mail subdomain: nicta.com
E-mail top domain: au
NICTA
National body: Australia (SA)
Meetings: 2005-05-22
Doc requestor ID: cregan

Is it appropriate to write to Anne directly?

Thanks G for this link too:
http://ConsortiumInfo.org

Which led to this
http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/01/conformance_and.html

"Likewise, Microsoft or their partners could lobby to get the MOOX
"standard" and its needed certification process onto the RFP, BUT the
procurement agents now have a second tool.  They have the ability to
require that any document format standard on the RFP must support a
certification process with at least N certified implementations
available at the time of the RFP.

That will become the industry norm to meet in this space.

"Standards" with only one implementation aren't.  The buying side of
the marketplace has always recognized this and chosen the standard
with multiple implementations over the specification with only a
single implementation.  The ODF world has the ability to demonstrate
this message in a way that meets the needs of customers, and the
demonstration through a branded certification is much more powerful
than unaligned vendor rhetoric. "

Links:

   * Andy Updegrove's excellent analysis of the contradictions and
their effect on the ISO standards process.
   * Sam Hiser analysis and discussion on the contradictions in the
Microsoft patent license.
   * Bob Sutor covers the technical specification contradictions with
links to the relevant places.
   * Groklaw has indepth coverage to set the context of Microsoft's
promises.  It is tempting to take this as simple Microsoft bashing,
but the deeper problem this post emphasizes is the problems a vendor
faces in the marketplace once trust has been broken.  There are good
links throughout.
   * Rob Weir really kicked it all off when he start going deep on
the technical contradictions in the Microsoft specification.

Also MS are paying to have their post on ooxml on wikipedia 'corrected'.
http://www.informationweek.com/industries/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196903015