Alex Brown recently
tweeted to Microsoft's Doug Mahugh the following about OOXML:
OOXML=tought [sic] fights; revealed JTC 1 procedures were rubbish.
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.
If you are considering whether or not to adopt IS29500, what should that tell you? That maybe you should wait until they get the kinks out?
More...
