Talk:Standardization of Office Open XML/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Standardization of Office Open XML. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Jason Matuso (Director of the Microsoft Corporate Standards Strategy Team) has weighed with Some Balanced Statements Regarding The Open XML BRM as follows:--76.126.126.60 (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"I want to highlight a few comments following the close of the BRM in Geneva. The folks highlighted here are balanced, experienced standards professionals. This is not to say that there are not other standards professionals who hold opposite opinions, but I think these two are important voices.

Patrick Durusau – Editor of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) speaking about the BRM.

That point of agreement is that everyone at the table was heard.

Because approval of DIS 29500 insures an effective international and public forum whose members will be heard by Microsoft I recommend approval of DIS 29500 as an ISO standard.

Rick Jelliffe – member of the delegation from Standards Australia. This is from a cached blog entry - he is now blogging much more on process issues.

...the BRM clearly has succeeded in its formal aim, which is to produce a better text. Every response by the editor was formally voted on. The big picture issues were given extra time for detailed discussion, and the NBs had opportunity to raise their highest priority issue, in turn. It would have been great to have had more time to deal with more of the middling issues: where we would have preferred some variant or augmentation of the Editor’s response to our issue or where we didn’t like his answer.

National Standards Bodies:

Norway – national standards body

Every country had the opportunity to put forward their most important comments at the meeting, and most of the Norwegian comments got a good run-through. This goes for instance to the Norwegian proposal on multi-part and “scope” of the separate parts. The meeting was also conducted in an efficient and proper manner according to the instructions and rules for ISO/IEC BRM-meetings. The standards proposal for ISO/IEC 29500 will now be changed by the Editor according to the instructions given during the BRM-meeting.

Denmark - national standards body

The Danish delegations mission to ensure a Danish fingerprint on ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML, and thus improve the standard, was fully accomplished, since all Danish comments have been approved to be worked into ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML.

New Zealand – national standards body (as posted in Computerworld)

"New Zealand proposed significant changes to improve accessibility for the disabled, and also changes to the specification relating to web browser compatibility to ensure compatibility with browsers such as Firefox and Safari, both these proposals were accepted and this was a big win for New Zealand,” said Grant Thomas, Standards New Zealand's chief operating officer

Standards organizations:

Ecma International

Prior to the BRM, several National Body members had offered significant feedback to the DIS 29500 Editor helping to clarify the proposed dispositions of National Bodies comments.

The Ballot Resolution Meeting was a very productive and positive meeting, where National Bodies' representatives worked together very hard, resolving many issues, to come to an improved final DIS 29500 text, which will now be offered to the consideration of all National Bodies participating. National Bodies may consider their final position on ratification until March 29, 2008.

International Standards Organization

The BRM was organized by subcommittee SC 34, Document description and processing languages, of ISO/IEC JTC 1. ISO/IEC JTC 1 is one of the most experienced and productive of ISO and IEC technical committees, having developed some 2 150 widely and globally used international standards and related documents. The BRM was a technical meeting open to delegates that were duly nominated by the ISO and IEC national member bodies and registered for the meeting. The BRM was not intended to be a public event but followed the orderly and inclusive process of ISO and IEC. With the BRM review completed, it is now up to national bodies to determine whether approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 is warranted.

My Thoughts:

Okay, I can't help it. First, I'll restate the simple statement that the point of a BRM is to improve the specification. This meeting did that. The BRM was 5 days following 5 months of work in which the project editor and Ecma TC 45 worked with the national bodies on their comments and their dispositions. 98.8% (let's just call it 99%) of the dispositions were adopted by the BRM. The meeting was conducted carefully within the context of JTC 1 rules, and had close oversight by ISO/IEC leadership.

The quotes above show the positive side of the spectrum. There is no doubt that there is another side to the discussion - goodness knows all you have to do is look at the comments to my preceding few blogs. But - the companies most interested in blocking Open XML are now actively lobbying governments around the world to vote no. Strangely enough, those interested in seeing Open XML succeed are doing the same - making their case that voting yes is the right thing to do.

Ah, the drama continues.

This is from a Blog, blogs are not usable as sources WP:SPS the only exception would be a interactive stories on a news site as the footnote says. In fact an admin, Scarian has removed all blogs from the article. We should not reintroduce them. Kilz (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even WP:SPS has exceptions, for instance for expert in their field (and a director of standards and interoperability might qualify as an expert on a standardization article) and above post also qualifies with wp:VER as the post is a collection of quotes that are all publicly available sources of either experts on XML office formats like Patrick and Rick or from official standards bodies. The post isn't NPOV but not nescesarily disqualified because it is a blog. I have no troubles with it being used in the article allthough it might need balancing if used to reference opinion rather than fact. hAl (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Other entries from this same blog have been removed. Only one exception exists for blogs and that is for news sites. Kilz (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blogs should not be used as sources or references. They all to often have bias that is impossible to remove. 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StVectra (talk • contribs)

The only way to achieve NPOV is to have multiple points of view. As Director of the Microsoft Corporate Standards Strategy Team, Jason Matuso is a more responsible and accountable source than the average newspaper article. Why the bias for old media against new accountable and responsible media?--76.126.126.60 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple points of view are fine. But dont rationalize a way to break Wikipedia policy. WP:SPS says clearly no blogs but those attached to news sits, like interactive articles. Blogs, no matter who wrote them, except in that one instance, cant be used. Kilz (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Jason Matuso qualifies under WP:SPS which says:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

--67.180.94.17 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then under that rule so does Andy Upgrove and lots and lots of other blogs. Only problem is that Jason Matuso's blog has already been removed once by an admin, along with others. Do you see the slippery slope you want to tread down? Do we have to ask for permanent protection from Anon editors and have them blocked from the talk page for proposing things that go against wikipedia policy? Kilz (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to their decreasing financial circumstances, the old media newspapers are falling further and further behind the burgeoning blogs. So in order to remain relevant, the Wikipedia is going to have to allow blogs as sources. However, some judgment is required: The official positions held by a blogger must be taken into account. For example, Andy Upgrove is a lawyer hired to oppose OOXML by commercial companies backing ODF.--67.180.94.17 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You didnt get it imho. I used Andy Upgrove as an example of why someone who has a pro ooxml bais, someone who suggests a pro oxxml blog be used, would see the peril that they put the article in by using a blog. Every blog has bias. Jason Matuso is an employee of Microsoft, he has a pro ooxml bias. The thing is rules dont cover some and not others. Personal blogs cant be used. Because when you open the doors for some, you have to open them for everyone. As said in my last post, its a slippery slope. Kilz (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Personal blogs cant be used." That's not what the policy says.

"Because when you open the doors for some, you have to open them for everyone." No, that's not what the policy says.

Blogs can be used sparingly. So-called "secondary sources" (e.g. news articles) are better than "primary sources" (e.g. blogs,) but that doesn't mean primary sources cannot be used.

We need to work towards consensus while maintaining a neutral-point-of-view article. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should not use blogs, since they all have bias of one kind or another. Also blogs are not a primary source. In fact this blog is copying the comments of others. The issue with blogs is they have no editorial oversight. No fact checking by editors. It is all the work of one person and self published. Kilz (talk)

Lets take a look at the WP:SPS section.

blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]

The footnote [5] is about blogs. It lists the one exception to the rule

^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

• So yes the rule above is about Personal blogs.
• There is no sparingly, it lists the one exempted use, a news site that has a interactive news story. As long as "the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

You cant compare the posting on a company website to a blog, they are different.Kilz (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, the policy does not say blogs are never to be used, it says:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I don't know what the argument is. The policy is quite clear. ("Largely" means: for the most part; mainly or chiefly. From Wiktionary.) If you disagree, we'll wait for someone to answer your question on the reliable sources noticeboard. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would but imho the posts from third parties on that question have disrupted the work on that page. If you look it is all singe questions followed by an answer from someone working on that page. I wanted the opinions of someone not editing here, thats why I went there. I did not post the link to the question to avoid the edit war following me. Kilz (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I won't read through the above diatribe and I'm just going to go with my gut feeling. You can't quote blogs directly. If the blog is quoting someone else then fine, find that original source and quote that. If the guy (I have no idea who he is) is directly related to article in a very notable way then there is a slight possibility that you can use the blog as a reference. But despite that, blogs are inherently biased, opinionated and classically unsourced themselves which renders them obselete in terms of WP:RS. I hope this can stop the arguing. Regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat} 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tonight, without any discussion or posting on the talk page, WalterGR removed references and other information. Ars Technica is a news site. That they use Groklaw as a source in no way makes them unusable. FanaticAttack is not a blog in my opinion but an news site that covers a wide range of topics. The article is neutral. That it has a place for comments is besides the point. GrokDoc is a wiki, but it is not an "open wiki". WP:SPS only rules out "open" wiki's. I am restoring these references that were removed without discussion, and I have filed a edit waring complaint for the edits. Kilz (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, I'm not sure where the "war" is. You said "without any discussion or posting." However, there's been plenty of discussion here already about what references are acceptable and not acceptable. No blogs, no open wikis.

• The Ars Technica reference just referenced Groklaw. Groklaw is a blog.
• FanaticAttack's about page page invites users to submit "blog entries".
• GrokDoc is an open wiki. You can sign up for an account here.

If I have misunderstood, and we are in fact allowing blogs and open wikis, please let me know. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I created an account on grokdoc but it was removed/closed when I critisised some of the issues they brought up there. hAl (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC).

Groklaw is not a blog, that Ars Technica links to it does not make Ars Technica unusable but strengthens Groklaws use. But the Issue isnt that Groklaw was used but Ars Technica, which isnt Groklaw.

• Ars Technica without argument is a news site. zdnet also quotes Groklaw isnt some articles. That doesnt make it unusable.
• FanaticAttack's page asks for Blogs so that they can be looked at for story ideas. "You can send your ideas (or blog entries) to tips “AT” fanaticattack “DOT” com." It is not asking for you to make blog entries on its site.
• An example of an open wiki is Wikipedia that allows Anonymous editors to use it. That you must create an account and people are removed proves it isnt open.

Feel free to check the sources on the Reliable sources notice board. Kilz (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that Groklaw is usable. But mainstream media has quoted them in the past. Use of information on Groklaw is not a reason to remove another site. Fanaticattack is not a blog IMHO, and the neutral style they use is that of most news sites. I am not so sure about Grokdoc more because of a neutral point of view problem. Open wiki's are those that allow anon posting, it is not open. StVectra (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made another change that will hopefully be more agreeable. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FanaticAttack - whether it meets some criteria of a "blog" or not - is still a self-published website that admits it is "obsessed with open source advocacy." So far, you have been consistent in your upholding of Wikipedia's policy against self-published sources. Why is this particular self-published source an exception to Wikipedia policy? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FanaticAttack is just the blog for Russell Ossendryver, a very vocal open source advocate and he himself states on the site that what he writes are his personal views and not that of the organisation he works for and in addition to that he described himself My main dedication is to express my thoughts and help advance the adoption of Open Standards, Open Access to content, and free Open Source software community development.. The site it is not neutral on this subject at all. Only you user:Kilz can see that as an independant and neutral news site. That is just laughable. That you are replacing blogs post by this is just a shambles and a disgrace. hAl (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While I dont think its a blog, in the intrest of peace I removed FanaticAttack HAl. I also removed the Malaysia listing from the complaints about the national bodies process because I could not find another reference. Kilz (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just stumbed across this thread, and haven't read everything, but I'd like to note that any use restrictions that apply to run of the mill blogs should not be applied to a Groklaw given the awards it has won. --Gronky (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What about to add FEW external links (could be split up into pros/cons links) like noooxml.org etc.? On such a controversial topic the reader could have more points of view.--Kozuch (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if it were balanced. But I fear is will end up as one giant edit war. It probably would be a good idea to list the possible sites and let a few editors chime in on them before adding the section. Kilz (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The named no ooxml site has been removed several times and after dispute also by administrator user:Hu12. I would suggest you do not add it again because it will definitly be removed. hAl (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The no ooxml may not have been correct on the ooxml article. But its a significant point of view on the Standardization of Office Open XML. The suggestion was only for an external link, not quotes from the site. Kilz (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel that a lead for the article should be created as soon as possible. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick stab at it. As always, improvements encouraged. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NOR orignal research is:

unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences.

This edit by hal is 100% original research. It is unpublished facts, speculation, and unpublished analysis of the references source, and the original source of that source. I am removing the original research as it violates one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Kilz (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed a reference on this edit Hal immediately replaced the fact tag. Stating that it was only for Excel. The article section is about Office XML dated 6th March 2008. The article starts off like this:

"how Microsoft felt justified in seeking ISO standard status for OOXML when it wasn't even capable of storing numbers correctly"

Then goes on to describe the exact problems listed in # 6.2.2 Technical criticisms. Isn't Excel using the ooxml format? Kilz (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 6.2.2:

"Inconsistent notations for percentage units. Book 4 §2.18.85 uses predefined symbols (like "pct15" for 15%) in 5 or 2.5 percent increments, §2.15.1.95 uses a decimal number giving the percentage, §2.18.97 uses a number in fiftieths of a percent, and §5.1.12.41 uses a number in thousandths of a percent."

The PCPro article doesn't mention percentage units. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 03:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I placed the info as a new addition to the list. Without discussing the edit Alexbrn deleted it. The information was about how Excel saves documents in ooxml format. The reference says it does not happen in older formats. As such it belongs here as it is a criticism of the way a application uses the specification. I even liked how WalterGR rewrote the section I'm replacing the section as he had it.. Kilz (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, edits do not have to be discussed before they are made. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 21:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In a contested article as this, reverts and removals can be seen as participating in an edit war, that gets you banned. Getting back to the topic of this section, I replaced to the rewrite you did, you removed it. So I will be adding the original version. The removal was original research. You cant delete a referenced section and its reference because you researched it was wrong, especially one you rewrote to say what you later found wrong. Kilz (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everything after the heading "Arguments in support and criticism of OOXML standard" has nothing to do with the stated subject of this article, which is the "standardisation" of this specification. The discussion here concerns (broadly) the technical merits of the specification -- most of this stuff (maybe excepting the policy arguments) belongs back in the main OOXML article, IMHO. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be moved back to the ooxml page itself. The criticism section is for reasons why people do not believe it should or should not pass as a standard. It is a significant point of view, and it belongs on one of the ooxml pages. When the page was split up , which I was against at the time, it was on the ooxml page and fit. There was no discussion on what should stay there or be placed here. It was done by one editor, alone. Your suggestion of removing the section has made me remember why I was against the split. That someone would try and remove sections because they dont fit to them. Kilz (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kilz, you refer to "[my] suggestion of removing the section". I made no such suggestion. I said it "belongs back in the main OOXML article", as any reader can plainly see. Alexbrn (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, must have missed it, its been a hectic day around my house. But I'm not so sure about the move back, and this may be a reason why the article should never have been split. The information is useful in that it shouws whats wrong with the format, and why people think the specification if flawed and should not be approved as a standard.Kilz (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The support and criticism was relevant to the standardization process, but is is also relevant to users of any format. When they have to decide which format to use, they can learn about OpenDocument on the corresponding page, including criticism. When they learn about Office Open XML, criticism would be relevant and helping them have a full picture.
The article is split and I don't tink it will be merged again, so what is best for the reader when there are two articles ? Merging the support/criticism section into OOXML, and making sure it is a neutral advantages/shortcomings section ? Adding a link to this section from OOXML ? Don't telling anything to the reader (many of them will read only one page) ?
The reader wanting to learn about current usage of OOXML is not interested in its history and standardization process, she will not come to Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML.

I agree that some of this should be merged back to the original article. As it stands, this is a POV fork. --Karnesky (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The split was necessary to contain some trolls. Maybe this article should be merged into an article on History of Office Open XML (OOXML).--98.210.237.109 (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A POV fork is not how you deal with trolls. There is information in this article that should be merged back to the main one & other methods to deal with trolls should be used. --Karnesky (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

IDABC is not "open source news" it is the news. IDABC stands for Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services. It is the EU, in its news reporting. Trying to place a open source bias on it is wrong. The news quotes may come from an open source page on IDABC. But calling it Open Source News is using Weasel Words WP:AWW. Kilz (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite of weasel words. I'm explaining exactly what the source of the information is. Read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. If you don't want the particular source to be known, use a different source. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the IDABC, a part of the European Government is biased? I am not suggesting the sources identity be removed. Leave IDABC in place, but it is not necessary to describe what section of the IDABC website is used. Kilz (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No no, I'm not suggesting anything is biased. I'm just suggesting that - given controversy over sources in the past - that we be very explicit about where sources come from.

Perhaps (I'm just hypothesizing here) it's not necessary to point out the section of the website the source is from. But I think it helps avoid controversy. It makes me happy to do that. So, what harm does it do? If I believe it helps the article, and it makes me happy, and it in fact doesn't harm the article, then that seems like an okay reason to leave it in.

Your thoughts? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To require a explanation of a reference that is required of a biased reference implies that the reference is biased. The site is an official government ran news site. As such it should be above this. I also think starting out each entry from IDABC the same gives the appearance that it is one instance, when it is in fact multiple things happening in different places. I don't like the way it looks or flows. Kilz (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it implies the reference is biased. I think it makes explicit what the reference is, which is suggested in the link I gave you above: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements.

Re. "gives the appearance that it is one instance..." I don't quite understand... Each line lists the country where it happens, so they look (to me) like different instances. Maybe you could put the dates of the reports, e.g. "...reported on 15 March 3008..."? But I think it's pretty notable that all of the claims are coming from a single news source, even if on different days. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 06:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read the name of that link, and the information. It says Attributing and substantiating biased statements. The section is about how to treat statements with bias that may be necessary. If a statement isn't biased that section of the policy does not apply. Requiring it is not following the policy. Kilz (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)