Talk:Office Open XML

'Support' by Microsoft-run websites

I have again reverted User:hAl's addition of the small series of Microsoft-run websites that get listed here from time to time as part of the 'Support for Office Open XML' section. I think it is well established now that, while these sites may be relevant to this article in some way, they should not be listed as 'support'.

Again (like 'free'), there are at least two meanings of the word support. There's support like supporting a football team where someone says, "This is great and I want to express my full support for it". And then there's the business sense, like where a supplier supports their product with documentation or an online forum.

We do not want unexplained double-meanings to lead to any uncertainty or doubt in this or any other article. If the section is about people who support OOXML in the football sense, then these refs have no place here and, if anywhere, should be elsewhere in the article. If the section is about support in the sense of providing extra documentation, then we should make that clear, and ask what kind of support is offered by the other things listed.

I think, looking at the others, there is a third meaning of support in use here: if XYZ "have products with some support for OOXML", then that does not necessarily mean that they, as a business, support it in either of the two senses above, just that they have felt it necessary to enable their software to interact with it in some unspecified way.

The problem is that this section is unhelpful as it is due to all the uncertainty and doubt as to what it actually means. It needs to be tidied up and possibly split into three sections, with the meaning of each one explained in the text. --Nigelj (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The sites may be hosted by Microsoft but are actually sites representing numerous organizations that have organizaed themselves in supporting organizations for Office Open XML. You claim they should not be listed as support. That is just riduculous. For example the Opendocument article has simelar listings in a section about support for opendocument with organizations like the opendocument format alliance and the opendocument fellowship with I might add not a single third party reference on those. hAl (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But are you going to address my point about three conflated meanings to the word support? Please restrict the discussion to this article and debate the ODF article on it's own talk page. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If the meaning of the word support can be interpreted diffrently then the nature of the support should be clear. I do not see a problem in that in this article. The article text seem clear enough in each case of what the support consists of. It is not the meaning of the word support that I object to, but the fact that you evidently tried to remove fully sourced information about organizations that support Office Open XML because those organization might have their sites hosted by Microsoft. hAl (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to hide the fact that these sites are run by Microsoft. [[1]] Scientus (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you have shown is that Microsoft host the sites. Something that is even noted in the information you keep removing. That is something entirely different and also something very logical as Microsoft is the main user and contributor for the Office Open XML format. Noone is trying to hide that Microsoft supports the Office Open XML format. Essential however is that these supporting groups show that the support is much wider than just Microsoft with hundreds of other organisations joining Microsoft in supporting the Office Open XML file format. You seem keen on repeatedly removing those simple and fully sourced facts. hAl (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to hear from User:Scientus why he is so keen on removing any mention of organizations supporting the Office Open XML standard. There are several independent and valid references such as www.infoworld.com [2] and www.macworld.co.uk [3] which for instance state that "About 40 technology companies have joined in the effort to learn how to use and support OpenXML on any platform" and that now "Over 750 developers have joined the Open XML Formats Developer Group." IMHO the given references prove that first of all the organizations/websites mentioned in the article do exist. And when looking on the websites it is clear from the content and the mission statement that they also do support this standard. Furthermore, several members of these organizations have issued press releases (published for instance in XML Journal [4]) confirming that they joined these organizations and support this standard. But still, User:Scientus is repeatingly completely removing any mention of these supporting organizations without discussing these references on the talk page at all, claiming that these "sites are Microsoft run" without provinding any references to back up his claims. IMHO as one of the founding members of an organization, a company is free to provide it with webspace and hosting or any other legal form of support. Other founding/joining members are supporting it by contributing content or other activities. So where is the problem here? Are you expecting that Microsoft is the only member that does not contribute anything to this organization? Then why should they join that organization in the first place? Are only organizations valid format supportes when Microsoft is not one of the members? Are IBM and Sun members of the OpenDocument Format Alliance? Does the OpenDocument Format Alliance support OpenDocument? To me it is very clear that User:Scientus is not fair-minded and not interested in creating a neutral and unbiased article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is entirely based in the context. The present section was presented as 'Response' -> 'Support' and provides a longish list. It looks like 'support' in the football-team sense. If it was clear that, 'The following websites offer technical support for software developers who want to learn about OOXML' and separately, 'The following products can read and/or save documents in OOXML format' then we would not have this problem: none of it would look like 'support' in some sense like, 'These people all think OOXML is terrific', which is one possible reading at the moment. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I'm having a tough time trying to understand your point here. All the organizations, individuals, governments and applications listed in this paragraph support this standard one way or the other, which means they generally support the usage/adoption/acceptance/etc of the standard. The criticism section does the opposite, which is absolutely fine. Aside from this, the analogous section on the OpenDocument article (Opendocument#Support_for_OpenDocument) contains a similar mixture of supporting companies, applications and organizations. Nobody has had any issues with that and I fail to understand why on earth do we need to apply double standards here again. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys, all you seem to be interested in is competing with the ODF article! You don't think User:Scientus and others have had any issues here? I have an issue with this section, that's why I started this thread. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. I'm not competing at all. You might be suprised to learn that there are actually editors on Wikipedia who are indeed interested in getting the same level of quality and neutrality on both articles. I'm interested in improving this project because I honestly support free knowledge, free software, and free standards. If someone removed the support section from the ODF article, I'd be happy to be the first to restore it. If one article highlights notable sources of support, why should the other article not include this as well? Trying to remove it at all cost from one of them does not seem fair to me. Even if you don't like the existence of support for one of the standards, you have to admit that there is support for both of them out there. If one article lists notable applications that can work with that format, why shouldn't the other article include this as well? Editors like User:Scientus seem to have a special onesided demand for references for every obvious piece of information and gloat over fact tagging this article, but they never do this on the other article which they are also editing. A strange notion of improving Wikipedia. Why do people fight an endless edit war on getting the words free and open out of this article but never ask for references for this on any other free and open standard? These people should just admit that they are consciously applying double standards everytime they edit these articles in order to use Wikipedia as a tool that spreads their beloved point of view. They are not interested in improving this free and open encyclopedia at all. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. If you really have an issue with this section, tell me honestly whether you also have an issue with the corresponding section on ODF (Opendocument#Support_for_OpenDocument). If there are so many different definitions for open format that we can't be sure that all of them apply to OOXML, then how can we be sure that all of them apply to ODF? The sentence on the ODF article does not contain a single third party source to support this claim. Do you have an issue with that as well or are you applying double standards? Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be clear from what I wrote that I think the section conflates three meanings of the word "Support" (like a football team supporter, like a support agreement or supporting documentation, and like something that can open these filetypes). I suggest separating the three meanings into subsections. No-one has suggested removing the section. Please don't argue against a straw man, and keep to the facts: then we can all continue to improve this article - make it even better than ODF, maybe, so that they can come and learn from our clarity and good practice here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to have a section that lists people, organizations or entities that have stated publicly that they think adoption of OOXML is a Good Thing. But listing Sun, IBM or Google (who all have products that have some ability to read or write OOXML) in a way that can be read as stating that they have made such statements is Just Plain Ridiculous. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording in that section is clear enough. I do not see the problem. The kinds of support are all properly worded. hAl (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the wording, then please go ahead and change and improve it, but don't remove the information altogether for no valid reason. This is unconstructive and one of the reasons for these edit wars. In my opinion the section was very clear, but I can try to come up with better wording and add the support information again. However, English is not my native language, so don't expect proper grammar from me. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried to improve the wording by separating the "implementations that can read and write the format" from "people and organizations that encourage the use of the format". Is this an acceptable way to indicate the separation? --Alvestrand (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It has not helped. user:Scientus keeps removing the information. The claim that his actions were related to the context was nonsense. The context has been changed to satisfaction of others but [[user::Scientus]] keeps destroying the article with his edits again removing the information discussed in this talk page section. hAl (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

As HAl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) promised, he has continued to revert to his preferred point of view in the article lede; his most recent revert undid significant copyediting in the process. This is pretty clear-cut tendicious editing in the face of consensus here. I think we need to look at a longer-term solution, as discussion has reached a dead end. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange you suggest I undid significant copyediting. It was not a revert but an edit the readd the information about OOXML being a free and open international ISO/IEC standard. That information is supported by the relevant articles on that. I made the edit and got an edit conflict. I did not notice any significant changes (and looking at it now I hardly see them as it seems nearly all layout / whitespace changes which you were doing at the time. I'll restore if needed. hAl (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The whitespace changes are easy enough to reinsert; the major issue was your tendicious readdition of the link to free file format for the third time in 24 hours, even going so far as to remove an explanation of the availability of the standard document itself drawn directly from the ISO website. Whether or not your edits reflect the truth, you are obliged not to edit war to re-add them tendiciously in the face of consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You should not misrepresent the facts. The article did not contain a senctence claiming that OOXML is an fre and open international ISO/IEC standard before. That was thus an original edit which conforms to the information in the related wikified articles and was sourced. You should not remove it without arguments why this information is incorrect. Also now you claim the whitespace changes are easy enough to reinsert whilst a momemt before you named it a significant copy edit. hAl (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• agreed user:HAl consistantly and repeatedly edits contrary to WP:consensus, plays WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to anything that exposes his tenacious editing, and impedes any attempt towards rational debate on issues he takes strong views in. This sort of behavior has been long documented, has been noticed many times bu many editors who have found it unsconstructive, and HAl has been repeatedly blocked from editing due to his practices.Scientus (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What consensus are you referring to. I have repeatedly asked for argument on why a free an publicly available ISO/IEC 29500 standard would not be considered free and open. Nooone has put forward ANY argument that applied to the ISO/IEC standard in relating to it not being an open standard of a free file format. Apperantly consensus is that there is not a single argument against this ISO/IEC standard being a free and open standard. hAl (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've given a number of arguments above, have repeated them since this article first became a hot topic, and have seen you ignore them for just as long. The references have been all over Standardization of Office Open XML and in other people's edits. But since you say that "noone has put forward any argument", I guess that either you don't read what I write, or you don't consider what I write arguements. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just reread all of the above staments you made. You agreed that the standard is publicly availalbe for free. Other than that I can only see you claim that this would not mean that a publicly avaialble free ISO/IEC standard would not be the same as "free". You just stated that but did not provide an argument for why this would not be a Free file format. However I have read the Free file format article and the Open format article and those both support that the ISO/IEC Office Open XML standard is indeed free and open. And even allthough both those wikipedia articles already support this claim you object to the claim being in this article??? hAl (talk) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that there's no consensus that this is enough to call it "free". For instance, people a year ago were still claiming that there were patent issues - long before the present (possibly unrelated) lawsuit. It's no surprise that Richard Stallman thinks the format is not free. In other examples of disagreements over the word "free", I'm still a bit upset that Ubuntu removed RFCs from its distribution (see, for instance, this bug; I didn't find the policy document) because they were not free enough for distribution with free software (users don't have the right to modify them). And, as I've pointed out several times, the ISO license does NOT allow unlimited copying. (I do believe that ECMA avoided that particular stupidity.) --Alvestrand (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Non of the definitions in wikipedia on open standards or free file format require unlimited copying of the specification (allthough indeed Ecma does allow unlimited copies for OOXML) and on patents all the definitions mentioned in the wikipedia articles require rand or even royalty free licensing where Microsoft does indeed provide that royalty free licensing. You seem to base you view on higher standards or stricter definitions than the wikipedia articles on Open standard and Free file format do. I think the definitions provided by wikipedia should apply when using the wikified links to those articles and not arbitrary extra stricter definitions (even though it seems OOXML might comply to those as well). Based on the definitions in the relevant wikipedia articles a publicly available free ISO/IEC standard should be enough for stating the standard is free and open. hAl (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add two thoughts: The current version of the ECMA standard specification is aligned to the ISO/IEC version. You are correct, Ecma International does not limit copying of the standard. ("Ecma Standards and Technical Reports are made available to all interested persons or organizations, free of charge and licensing restrictions[...]"[5]) Also, I don't think that boycottnovell counts as an unbiased source when claiming that the ISO/IEC standard is not free. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time: We are not here to decide whether anything is true or false, (i.e. whether OOXML is or isn't 'free and open'). There is a controversy, with various parties on both sides. We are here to report the fact that there is a controversy and report the arguments from both sides with citations. Please let us move on; the rest of this article is in serious need of improvement too. --Nigelj (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see any valid independed sources that say that the ISO standard is not free and that there is an actual controversy about this. IMHO we really need this if we are to include this as a "fact". Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously question that a controversy exists as to whether or not OOXML is a 'free and open' standard? --Nigelj (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and in particular since the ISO/IEC standard was published (by both ISO and Ecma) and the control and maintenace moved to ISO/IEC and since subsequently several main oss office product have implemented OOXML including OpenOffice and Symphony and also Google apps all main line applications all from former opponents of the standardization. The format has moved on from past disputes and so will the wikipedia entry. hAl (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a controversy about that on this Wikipedia talk page, but I doubt that this talk page is a valid source for its own article as long as editors like User:Alvestrand with a potential conflict of interest are involved in creating a controversy like this. I'm indeed not aware of a 'free and open' controversy outside of Wikipedia regarding the recently published ISO/IEC standard. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in addition to the references I gave earlier in the discussion above

* "Where ODF meets the four objective criteria of open standards handsomely, OOXML does not satisfy any of the four as extensively."[6]

* "Free software is software that all users have a right to copy, modify and redistribute, and as Microsoft points out in the OSP, there is no sublicensing of rights under it."[7]

Here are two more that relate specifically to the terms of the OSP.

* Bilodeau, J-F (March 19, 2008). "Three Things Microsoft Should Do". Use the GNU GPL 3: Most free software is released under the GNU GPL 2 or 3, which is incompatible with Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) and the Ms-PL (Microsoft Public License). This is not an accident. Microsoft does not want software written using their technology to spread to other platform. Again, it's vendor lock-in. If Microsoft truly wanted to work with the Open Source community, they should abandon the OSP and the Ms-PL for the GPL, or another OSI certified license.

* "Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: No Assurance for GPL". Software Freedom Law Center. 2008-03-12. ...it permits implementation under free software licenses so long as the resulting code isn't used freely.

I'm sure you may forget that you've seen them again, but at least there's a few in one place to copy and add to now. As I've said before, we MUST NOT accidentally get sidetracked into re-reading the OSP and the OOXML spec and trying to prove if these people are right or wrong all over again. We must try to remember that there is a controversy, and so we should report its existence, with citations, in the article --Nigelj (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you just edited the OSP articled to represent the SLFC opinion on it. YOu should mayby not e that the SLFC document is actually an opinion document published close to the standardization vote to inlfuence that. It is easy to see a giant hole in the SLFC document and that is that the licensing by Micrsoft is identical in wording to the IBM patent licensing for ODF and also is accepted by OASIS as licensing on for Micrsofct on ODF. so actually the standaridzation organization of Opendocument (OASIS and ISO/IEC) endorse the OSP and the identical ISP licensing by IBM making the comments by the SLFC a complete joke. Also something mesmorising is that the SLFC stated soemthing on sublicensing where actualy I have never heard of any standards patent license that is sublicensable. Not a single standard organization nor any definition requires somehting like that. It would be like demandign that people can predict the future. The only thing controversial is that document by the SFLC but the actual licensing is not controversial at all and is accepted by standard organization like OASIS, Ecma and ISO/IEC and is used by open source implementations like OpenOffice and Symphony. hAl (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(I edited the OSP article yesterday lunchtime, I didn't 'just' do so - all kinds of stuff needs maintaining here, you know :-). So... I can take your assurance, based on what you 'have never heard of', that there is no controversy over the total freedom of all OOXML patents then? That is legal advice that you want to publish here, ignoring and contradicting the published analyses of The Software Freedom Law Center and Groklaw's legal team? That's no basis to argue that there is no controversy. This controversy exists must be reported fairly, with both sides' views represented in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a document published in the heat of the standardization proces. Howsever you have not applied to the freeandc open claim in the article. That article states that the license does not apply to future versions but none of the definition on free and open formats says something about future versions. Actually all open standards organizations (like w3c, ecma and oasis) even confirm that the commitment only applies as long as you are participating to that version and not for the future version after that. The SFLC document does not coverf code beyond the scope of the spec. Wow, so with the OSP you can actually implement OOXML for free but it odes not apply to all the rest of the implementations in the world. You can't use one line of code from OpenOffice put in in a non OOXML application and think you have a patent license because the code is derived from an OOXML implmentation. The license applies to implementation that implment the specification and not arbitrary implementation. But this point is also not relevant to the free and open claim of Office Open XML as actually OOXML is a psecification fully covered by the OSP (as is Opendocument) and as longh as you arfe implementing OOXML the OSP applies. The SFLC coducment in fact confirm that. In addition to the document states it is not consistant with GPL because the licensie is excluded guture version. That does not mean that OOXML is not free and open but means tha GPL cannot be used to implement open standard like XML or HTML because there is not a single standards organization that requires unlimited patent licensing into an unknown future. You should possibly add that to the GPL article as it show that GPL and openstandards are incompatible. However there is no requirement for open standards to be conmpatible with GPL. Non of the SFLC document states that it OOXML not an open standard. Apperantly the SFLC qualifies that GPL and open standards are incompatible based on a never heard of and non gpl defined requirement for future versions licensing of open standards. Interesting but their document was ment to influcence the ISO/IEC BRM metting (as is evident from the introduction). The CEO's from both ISO and IEC have made a clear stament (http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0932.htm#q4-1) that there are no problem the OSP is a accepted patent license and interestly the ISO/IEC standard is what the current free and open claim was referring to. Other organization requireing open format like OASIS and also oss implemnters like OOo and the gnome foundation have embraced OOXML in their products. hAl (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR. There is a controversy. --Nigelj (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you claim controversy, you name a docoment from the SFLC that does not mention free file format or open standard but only suggests some possible incompatibility between OSP liceisng and GPL code. Standards organization like OASIS and Ecma (that only produce free licensed publicly avaible open standards) which have patent licensing requirements however allow the OSP which is also the licensing that MS applies to opendocument and which is identical to the licensing applied by IBM for Opendocument. Some (opinionated) critique on the OSP license does not mean that OOXML it is not an open standard. That would be a WP:OR conclusion by you. Effectifly as the OSP license is used for OpenDocument and is also identical to the IBM's ISP licence for ODF we can easily see that such a license does not influence the format from being an open standard. Talking like the SFLC does about possible licesing on possible future versions has nothing to do with the current version which is the actual ISO/IEC standard. The free and open statement applies to a standard and not some unknown future version of a format which might or might not be. If in the unlikely event that for a future version of OOXML a current patentholder would withdraw their licensing then that new version would probably not even be standardised untill the patent issue were resolved or circumvented. The current version would of course still be an open standard and the article would then be altered to reflect that. Unless you can unequivically show that an open standard would reuire licensing beyond the standard itself (on future versions or on software outside the scope of the standard) there is no controversy whatsoever. That would in fact kill all open standards as the OSP licensing is probably on of the freeest licensing examples that exist for open standard contributions by standarss participants. hAl (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem here is that hAl seems to believe that unless people are yelling "I disagree" in a WP:RS every month, he thinks they agree with him that OOXML is "free". My reading of the non-Microsoft community is that they gave up on OOXML as a bad deal after the ISO vote, and are just implementing support when they have to - thinking that the point that it's not an free standard has been so blatantly demonstrated that they don't need to say it again. But when hAl discounts every WP:RS that was published reasonably close to the standards process, and refuses to accept generic statements as being relevant to OOXML.... we have a problem reaching agreement. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually to demonstrate Office Open XML is not a free an open standard you would need to come up with an issue that restricts implementation of the ISO/IEC standard or demonstrate why you would have to pay for the ISO/IEC standard. However since several oss applications are actually implementing the format and not paying anybody that would be very hard to demonstrate. So of course that has never been demonstrated even though the Alvestrand claims that. And as for generic staments. The OSP license applies to ODF as wel as for Opendocument. A generic statement that OSP licensing applied to a format would exclude a standard from being Open would actually mean that Opendocument was no longer open either. hAl (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually to demonstrate whether or not there is a controversy about Office Open XML is not a free an open standard you would need to come up with reliable sources that contend the point. We've done that - over and over. I think we have a disagreement as to what Wikipedia is and how it works. --Nigelj (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy on Office Open XML in general is not relevant for specific question like the ISO/IEC standard being and free and open standard. Also I think it is evident that any controversy has been only linked to the standardization proces and has completly died sinde the publication of the ISO/IEC standard in november 2008. If controversy tstill existed then why don't you show us that controversy still existing. What you in fact can see is that the former opponents in the format competition are now putting away any differences and you see OOo and Symphony implementing OOXML and on hte ohter hand MS Office implementing ODF. You have been claiming controversy still exist for days but I have not seen you produce anything relevant about controversy from since the ISO/IEC standardization a year ago. If you want controversy go to the Standardization of Office Open XML article that describes the past. hAl (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

* Jason Matusow (02 August 2009). "Balance of Contributors & Implementers". Microsoft Corporation. But the "no IP restrictions" concept of "open standards" does away with too much. Out of balance. [...] There is no evidence to date that a GPL product can't implement a standard with IP restrictions. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

* Glyn Moody (03 August 2009). "A Jesuit's Guide to Open Standards". ComputerworldUK. ...you can't include RAND standards *in* GPL'd code. As the guide to the GNU GPLv3 explains: "Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them." That means *without* payment, not just for a reasonable payment, which may be small, but is still impossible for software that can be freely distributed. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

So, last month these guys were still debating the openness, or lack of, of OOXML, in terms of the OSP's compatibility with GPL. I was particularly impressed by the following as well, but I'm not sure how we can best use it here once edit restrictions are lifted. Any suggestions?

* Rob Weir (09 June 2009). "ODF Lies and Whispers". I think this demonstrates the triangle-trade relationship among Microsoft, Alex Brown (and other bloggers) and Wikipedia, by which Microsoft FUD is laundered via intermediaries to Wikipedia for later reference as newly minted "facts". No wonder one of Microsoft's first actions during their OOXML push was to seize control of the Wikipedia articles on ODF and OOXML via paid consultants. [...] You obviously can't trust Wikipedia whatsoever in this area. This is unfortunate, since I am a big fan of Wikipedia. I want it to succeed. But since the day when Microsoft decided they needed to pay people to "improve" the ODF and OOXML articles, these articles have been a cesspool of FUD, spin and outright lies, seemingly manufactured for Microsoft's re-use in their whisper campaign. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

--Nigelj (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If usable at all, it probably belongs under Standardization of OOXML - it's about the process, not the spec. I have sometimes wondered if hAl was paid by Microsoft, but have concluded (tentatively) that he's probably not. You can rarely pay people to exhibit that particular combination of tenaciousness, stubbornness and sheer ability to use infinte time - it seems more likely that he's just one of those people with a definite opinion and the will to express it. But then, I have not heard him deny it either. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you link to discusions on RAND licensing when talking about OOXML. OOXML is an example of royalty free licensing. Fromats like MP3 are RAND licensing (RAND license from the Fraunhofer institute). Allthough many open standard definitions allow RAND licensing it is not a relevant question for OOXML as that is not just RAND but even a royalty free license which is not controversial for open standards at all. So I think you should not try to claim discussion on RAND licensing as controversy on OOXML. And as for Rob Weir, he as ODF TC chairman should have spent more time in improving ODF as the improved version of that is already two years behind schedule. Unlike certain people here I am at least independant from any office software related companies. hAl (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that explicit statement! --Alvestrand (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

HAl, you should try to be more neutral. That part about Rob Weir for example is WP:POV. It is OK to express this kind of opinions here in the talk page, but it is in danger of tinting your edits in the article itself. And I don't really understand your last sentence? Hervegirod (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure that is POV but if Rob Weir places on his blog an opinion on people editing wikipedia which shows up here then I can have an opinion on him. It seems he as IBM emplyee and OpenDocument chairman tried to influences people to edit wikipedia articles related to document formats in a certain way which I think he should not do. Evidently he is influencing people as user:Nigelj is citing him here. Neutrality seem far away from this article if I compare how people here object to the most basic of edits on this article which are often worded near identical to similar articles on other document formats. If there is a lack of neutrality it evident where that comes from. hAl (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have had just about enough of the personal sniping, strawmen and ad hominem nonsense that the two main pro-Microsoft editors on this page hand out to rest of us. I'm tempted to remove it from my watchlist and let those who've got nothing better to do look after it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

We might just leave them alone for a month or two, then come back and chip off some of the whitewash. Or perhaps not. In the end, I believe the truth will survive (despite the fact that Microsoft was better at getting their viewpoint published than anyone else, thus producing lots of WP:RS material to quote from). Personal attacks on Rob Weir when they don't like what he's saying, indeed.... --Alvestrand (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfied

For the time being I've userfied the last good revision of the page at user:thumperward/Office Open XML for work to continue. Once protection expires I'll merge it back here if there's consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris. While I'm not entirely convinced yet, that we'll get broad consensus this way, I like to say that I appreciate your initiative. Aside from the fact that I don't fully agree that you userfied "the last good revision", I'd like to point out that (from what I can tell) there seems to be just a very limited number of aspects in dispute in this article. These should be discussed on this talk page. As I have mentioned above, I (and other editors) fail to see why several organizations supporting Office Open XML have been removed although there are valid sources confirming that these supporting organizations do exist. What is your standpoint on this issue? Also, your current version includes User:Scientus twelve (12!) "references" in the criticism section that support the single undisputed fact that "the need and appropriateness of such length has been questioned" in the past. IMHO one or two notable references should be enough to support this claim. However, User:Scientus keeps on adding gazillions of mostly unrelated "references" from blogs and other questionable sources in order to push his point of view via an excessive number of links to opposers of the standardization process. What is your standpoint on this issue? The third issue seem to be the words "free and open". I have not seen any argument so far as to why ISO standards like ISO 15948, ISO/IEC 10646:2003, ISO/IEC 26300:2006, and ISO 32000-1:2008 which are all on the List of free file formats are somehow "more free" than ISO/IEC 29500:2008. To me, this does not seem evenhanded. Also, from what I can tell the definitions in the articles Open standard/Open format seem to apply to ISO/IEC standards as well. What is your standpoint on this issue? Again, thanks for joining the discussion. I hope that we are able to create an unbiased version of this article that does not apply double standards and that will finally get broad consensus. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the various dubious critiques (especially the lawsuit, which is only tangentially related to the standard) are unconstructive as well; I'd be happy to see them go. I agree that this is the right page to discuss those edits, even if they're being made in my userspace. As for the free formats thing, as I've said several times the issue is that we have reliable sources which have questioned the freeness of the first standard of the draft and none AFAIK which have then interpreted the second draft as having resolved this. To my knowledge, this is not the case for the various other standards you've pointed out. It's a matter of us not including personal interpretation of primary sources, and nothing to do with the content of the draft as such. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree with user:Ghettoblaster that we had consensus a few months using reliable sources that the Ecma standard was actually free and open. I do not see any reliable source now claiming this free and open status has degraded for the combined new ISO/IEC and Ecma 2nd edition standard. In fact I do not see any sourcing on claims that the publicly avaialable free ISO/IEC standard might not be open. hAl (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with you that the patent lawsuit is only tangentially related to the standard since it not only affects Microsoft Word editing OOXML files, but also opening .XML files containing custom XML. This is why I changed the section headline in this edit [8]. This was of course again reverted by User:Scientus without stating a clear reason in the edit summary ([9]). Why he also changed the reference used in this section is beyond my comprehension. I think the current headline of this section on your userfied version of the article is misleading since the standard itself does not seem to infringe any patent. Also, I don't consider the Word lawsuit as either support or criticism of the standard itself which is why I think it does not belong into this paragraph. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The subsection should probably just be deleted, then. My edits were purely from a copyediting perspective, as the old title was needlessly long and Improperly Capitalised. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A standard can't infringe a patent; a standard is just a document. Practice of a standard can infringe a patent; if it's not possible to practice a standard without infringing the patent, the patent and its licensing conditions matter to the standard. That said, I've seen articles claiming that the specific patent case is not relevant to OOXML, because it refers specifically to "non-standard XML" or something like that (don't have the cite). (note - I think I've said enough on the "free" issue. We definitely disagree.) --Alvestrand (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually think we do disagree with "the free issue", at least to the extent that I would agree with the general sentiment - however, without a reliable secondary source we are doing our readers an injustice by making a personal interpretation of primary material. That's been my position from the beginning here, and part of the problem has been that the editor pushing for this change has completely ignored this argument in favour of rhetoric. I've removed the patent vio subection from the draft again, per this discussion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I should be more precise - hAl and I disagree on the "free" issue; I think using the word "free" instead of "freely available" is OR, unsupported and controversial. Thanks for reminding me to be precise! --Alvestrand (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

COI

(splitting from the above, as it is off topic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Since I just noticed from both your user pages that you are actually employed by Sun Microsystems / Google, two of the main opponents of the Office Open XML standardization, I wonder whether you two might have a conflict of interest when working on this article. Even in case that your intentions are noble (which is what generally I assume), the fact that your employer might watch your edits might have an unintentional negative effect on the neutrality of this article. I'm disappointed that neither of you has made this fact clear in the discussion before. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the large disclaimer I have on my user page, you'd know that I am expressly not editing on behalf of my employers. Frankly, it's more than a little insulting to take the time to disclose things like this on my user page and then have them cast back up at me in lieu of actually addressing my arguments. I've discussed this at length with my employer and frankly the flak I get for my honesty makes me wish I'd never bothered with it in the first place. Already one editor on here is apparently happy to cast aspertions as to the motives of those who disagree with him; I'd hoped that would be confined to that editor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if I were to first read the user page of everyone on Wikipedia who happens to discuss the content of an article that I'm also editing, I'd never had a chance to contribute anything of value to this project. Also, I don't understand what you mean with "disclosing things like this on your user page". I did not disclose anything. I just thought the people here should know. Wikipedia has guidelines for things like this and your should know this. If you two where working for Microsoft, then we could be reading this on /. any minute. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying on your user talk, as this is off-topic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so user:Alvestrand joined in the Norwegian ISO committtee on behalf of Google and represented his companies views on this particular topic there. hAl (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fairly obvious. In fact the cart is a bit before the horse; the reason I joined the Norwegian ISO committee was because I disagreed with OOXML based on technical merit; the reason Google was willing to fund my participation was that Google agreed with me, but yes, that's one of the reasons I've not done anything but weigh in on points I saw as glaringly obvious in this article. Preventing speculation about that sort of thing is one reason why I wear my name and affiliation in the open, which is unusual on Wikipedia.

(Note: My first contribution in the archive seems to have been this: "At the risk of drawing other articles into the edit war - check out Open standard and Open format. It should be readily apparent from these articles that 1) there is no common consensus on what a standard has to be in order to be an "open standard", and 2) that ISO designation is regarded by many as neither necessary nor sufficient. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)" - I haven't said much new recently.) --Alvestrand (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

One should note however that you seem to apply your critical view in only one direction which. Google uses Opendocumnt as their default format but you seem to express critical views here on the page of the default format of google's biggest competitor and not a single critisism on the pages of Opendocument. Your employer has an interest in OOXML not being called free and open. That is worrying seeing the current discussion. hAl (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually expressed my views about OOXML on this page. They are relatively acerbic, both with regard to the content of the specification and with regard to the process by which it got standardized; in both regards, I base them on personal experience. I wasn't involved in ODF's standardization, nor have I studied its internals, so can't speak to that (even though I've heard other people speak positively about them). But my views are not published by a WP:RS, so I keep them off the record here. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Representing a big competitor who has uses a competing format in its office product and sitting on the losing side in the standardization vote in Norway can't make you neutral on the ISO standardization or the ISO standard. hAl (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Licensing of patents and copyright, and the word "additional"

since hAl and I have been discussing this via edit summaries¸ we might as well get it on the talk page:

I (and the lawyers who have come to the IETF to give advice) regard the IPR with regard to patents as being two independent issues:

• Copyright is the basis for the control over the text of the standard. The license given by the copyright holder (or the one who asserts copyright - there's a subtle difference) controls whether you can get a copy of the standard, and what you can do with the copy you have (read it, lend it to a friend, hand out copies on street corners, post it on the Internet, perform a public recitation of its text.....). This license gives you no right to do what the standard describes (but doesn't prevent you in any way either).
• Patents are the basis for control over whether you can practice the technology described in the standard. If a patent describes a technique that any conforming implementation of the standard has to do, you need a license from the patent holder in order to make products that implement the standard. The patent holder may have nothing to do with the copyright holder, and may even have had nothing to do with the work of producing the standard. (note - patent law permits you to make *one* copy for your own use without a license - the reason given in the US constitution for patents was that people should be able to learn from them.)

The two referents for the word "license" are entirely orthogonal - thus, I believe the word "additional" is not useful. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why I prefer additional. A patent license is not a patent on the format of the standard. The frasing might suggest that the standard or part of it are patented. I have seen several people claim such thing during the standardization proces. Comments like: "Micrsoft has patented parts of OOXML". However the patent license does not relate to the format or standard directly. The patent license is not a license for allowing use of the format or standard which is what many people percieve it to be. The patent licensing is not on the format but for any technology required to use or implement the format. It is a technology license and not a format license.

Sigh. "You need money to buy a car. You need a driver's license to drive it." You would insist on saying "additionally, you need a driver's license to drive it"? I wish that just one time, in one little issue, you would accept someone else's formulation. This is WP:OWN. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If I can just chime in for a second here, chaps. I haven't been around here long and I don't want to get into the habit of editing contentious articles, but it looks to me like the only problem here is the use of the word "additional" and the issue of confusion. You both agree that there aren't patented technologies in the standard itself, just some of the technologies that are required to implement it. So how about rewording the section to do just that? Royalty free licensing for any additional technologies required to implement the specification How about that? It's a little bit more verbose, and it does say pretty much the same thing as the sentence below it, so maybe that bit could change to explicitly address hAl's worries that people reading this will get the idea that the specification itself is patented. Sound good to you folks? Grumbox (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually there can't be patented technologies in the standard itself; the standard is words-on-paper, a technology on which the statute of limitations has long ago expired. Neither you, I nor hAl know (AFAIK) if there are patents required to practice the standard - Microsoft hasn't said that it holds any such patents, only that *if* they exist, they won't sue over them, and nobody else has said anything at all (as far as I know). My main problem is linguistic; "additional" implies two things that can be added together, and copyrights and patent rights just shouldn't be added together. They're orthogonal.

I think hAl and I are arguing the same side here - that we need to consider those two things separately. I'm in favour of words that emphasize the separation. But to me, the word "additional" does exactly the opposite. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I do know of Microsoft patents that could apply to OOXML. (for instance http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-329645.html) However those patents might not be valid (the example has likely prior art) and/or night not be required. However it does not matter as those are royalty free licensed for OOXML (and for Opendocument as well). hAl (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is some liguistic issue and we seem to have a similar view. However my english is probably not good enough to find alternative phrasing that would make the point more clear for readers that have little understanding of IPR licensing. hAl (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The usual "free and open" stuff.

I see that User:hAl is back to claiming that "free and open" belongs in the lede. It's still controversial, for all the reasons that were stated from 2006 to 2008. I still claim it doesn't belong there, while "freely available" does. I guess we'll just have to continue to take the logical action that comes from disagreeing, since none of us will budge. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After all the long discussions that have taken place in the past, I am completely aghast that user:HAl is still re-adding the words "free" and "open" all over the introduction to this article. It is ignoring the discussions that have previously taken place.--Lester 10:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for relevant information in that discussion but noone has brought forward any info relating to the ISO/IEC 29500 standard that would suggest that this freely available ISO/IEC standard was not free and open. It just showed that several opposing editors work for Office software companies that use OpenDocument as their main document format. hAl (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly even in 2006 and 2008 Office Open XML was an open standard as there were no restrictions on implementing the standard. The standard is free and there are no restrictions on implementations of the standards (having identical or even more free licensing than other open standards). However the current article information applies to the ISO/IEC standardized Office Open XML standard which has been published in november 2008. This amongs other things means that ISO/IEC have agreed the free availability and with the licensing, it means the standard specifcation has been improved to be more vendor neutral and the maintenance is in the hands of a vendor neutral organization (ISO/IEC) where many open standard are even still maintained by vendor controlled organizations. You suggest in contrary to already established wikipedia articles on the subject that this ISO/IEC 29500 standard is not free and open, whilst your employer uses the main competing open format and you seem to apply different points of view on identical properties of those formats/standards. The simple fact is that since the ISO/IEC standardization last year just about anybody has changed attitudes and started to implement the Office Open XML format, even in quite a few open source products. You seem to have some grudges left from your personal involvement in the standardization proces which you seem to have joined purely to oppose Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Long ago, the community asked user:HAl to back up his original research with some references that come from the mainstream media, outside the participants of the ISO, the IEC, and Microsoft. This has not been done. The wishes of the many editors who disagree with user:HAl's edits have been completely ignored. The continuous inserting of the words "free" and "open" into the article must stop.--Lester 11:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You suggest it is original research but I just refer to the relevant articles. hAl (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I too am appalled by this behaviour. hAl, please read WP:NPA, WP:CONS and WP:OWN. The object of contributing to a WP article is not to try to drive away all the other contributors until you are the only one left. No one contributes much to an article that they have no interest in or connection with, but that does not mean that we cannot reach a consensus, represent all significant points of view fairly, and so create a balanced and useful article - many of us do it all the time and have been doing so on many other articles for some years. --Nigelj (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to miss that consensus was already established untill User:Lester removed that information a few weeks ago inclusing a bunch of references. He did not offer any reason for his removal of the information so it seems fully correct to restore the information. I even updated the information to show it to represent the current ISO/IEC standard. I have no problem discussing the content but you and other have failed to show in discussion why the ISO/IEC 29500 standard would not be open like similar standards as opendocment and/or the recently standardized PDF open format. hAl (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I repeat what many of us have been saying: It is not for us to ascertain here, once and for all, whether this spec is or is not anything. We have shown, repeatedly, that there is a controversy over this issue, and it is our duty to report that fact. We cannot state, baldly in the lede, one way or the other; just that there is a controversy and then we discuss this and other controversial matters in the main body of the article. Forget the ad hominem aspects - it doesn't matter who started it, or when. --Nigelj (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The "consensus" that existed for a while asserting (not proving by reference to sources saying that it is so) that the OOXML standard is free and open was, in my opinion, caused by the people who know how controversial this issue is having grown tired of pushing back against hAl's relentless "it's my way no matter what you say" editing. Tiredness is a bad basis for asserting facts.

What we have here is hAl citing a bunch of stuff that does NOT say "OOXML is free and open", and hAl saying "with these citations, I have proved that OOXML is free and open". It's freely available, yes. It's being modified by a process with known rules, yes. But both of these things can be true for a standard that is still in practice controlled by one party, many people (me included) feel that calling such a standard "free and open" is making a travesty out of those terms, and many people said so quite loudly during the standardization process. This has never been uncontroversial, either on or off Wikipedia. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You now show your personal point of view. The objective facts show that Office Open XML is a free file format and an open standard in the ways that wikipedia defines those. You apperantly have different standard of your own. It is evident that certain people will oppose anything related in some way to Microsoft. That however is not a valid reason to approach the wikipedia articles in that way. I suggest we keep the discussion on accepted pratises for what make a standard free and open and not some arbitrary feeling by some people and especially not those involved in the standardization proces. I think it is very good if you bring expertise on document format as a former participant in a document format standardization committee but you seem to have kept a deep resentment against the format relating to that proces that has little to do with a neutral point of view needed on wikipedia. hAl (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The objective facts show that it is freely available. The objective facts show that there are many definitions of "free and open". The objective facts say that it fits some of these definitions, but not all. The objective facts show that several people have protested against calling the standard "free". The fact that I happen to agree with those people is irrelevant to what Wikipiedia should say. It's still obvious. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed is what you say irrelevant to what wikipedia says and thus I will restore the wiki links that only confirm what I have stated. You will need to change the rest of wikipedia first and adapt it to concurr with your opinion. hAl (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

hAl, it is not right for you restore your opinion into the lede (again) in the face of such a clear consensus to discuss the matter more fully in the body of article. --Nigelj (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I put in the information already contained in wikipedia. That you want to remove it is therefore personal view/opinion. hAl (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You put your interpretation of material already in Wikipedia in the article. That's 1) WP:OR and 2) using Wikipedia as a source, which is against WP:RS. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No I did not put my interpretation of the material in Wikipedia. That is incorrect. hAl (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that nowhere else in Wikipedia (that I know of) has the phrase "OOXML is free and open", which part of your statement "I put in the information already contained in wikipedia" does not indicate that the phrase is your WP:OR based on using Wikipedia as a source? Listen to Nigelj. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Allthough not literally identical the same text this is exactly the nature of the referenced wiki articles. hAl (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggested incompatiblity MS Office 2007and ISO/IEC 29500

The article suggested that MS Office 2007 documetn and the ISO/IEC standard are incompatible because of changes in later version. This however is based on a mistake that is being corrected. The Britisch Standards Institute already submitted a defect for that 5 or 6 months ago. The defect lists as follows:

Nature of the Defect: As a result of changes made at the BRM, a number of existing Ecma-376 documents were unintentionally made invalid against the IS29500 transitional schema. It was strongly expressed as an opinion at the BRM by many countries that the transitional schema should accurately reflect the existing Ecma-376 documents.

However, at the BRM, the ST_OnOff type was changed from supporting 0, 1, On, Off, True, False to supporting only 0, 1, True, False (i.e. the xs:boolean type). Although this fits with the detail of the amendments made at the BRM, it is against the spirit of the desired changes for many countries, and we believe that due to time limitations at the BRM, this change was made without sufficient examination of the consequences, was made in error by the BRM (in which error the UK played a part), and should be fixed. '

Solution Proposed by the Submitter: Change the ST_OnOff type to support 0, 1, On, Off, True and False in the Transitional schemas only

This minor glitch has already been discussed within ISO/IEC JCT1 and will just be part of errata (or is already so) and has no place in the article lead suggesting version incompatiblity was intentional while it is actully just an error that was overlooked and has been taken care of. Compatiblity with the Office 2007 document was what the transitional schema in the ISO/IEC standard was ment for. hAl (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As it was widely trumpeted at the time, I suggest that, like for the information on Microsoft-supported OOXML-promoting organizations, the information be kept in the article. If you can offer WP:RS links to the discussion of the fix, that would make such a section more informative. I think it would belong under "Structure of the standard", since that talks about the versions. At least in April 2008, the ISO TC chairman didn't dismiss the incompatibility as cavalierly. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven no objection to it being readded to the article but than in a more netral tone and also showing that this is considered by ISO members to be a mistake/error/flaw/oversight in the specification. However such an oversight should not be in the lead suggesting that is is an intentionally created version issue. The info should be listed in the public JCT1 archive. I'll look it up later and provide you a link. hAl (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The links I promised: [10] (look for defect report DR-09-0159) and [11] for some related disscusion on the topic. hAl (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a completely new formulation of the section. Let's see if that passes muster. I agree that this does not belong in the lede. (BTW, we need a better description of what the "transitional" features are intended for - this is wholly unclear from the current article.) --Alvestrand (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your going well I notice, so see if you can find a better description of transitional or any description even as it seems to be completly lacking. hAl (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite our consensus user:Scientus again placed the incorrect information back in the lead of the article. hAl (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

what HAl removed is supported by the Microsoft source, as well as other sources given, (as well as above discussion) contrary to HAl's claims. I reverted HAls edit because it was a lie. Scientus (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nop, what I removed was not supported by any of your sources. It was your interpretation of the situation incorrectly suggesting some intentional veriosn changes created incompatiblity. There was an actual issue regarding the incompatibility but this was due to an error in the Office Open XML specification which has already been dealt with and will appear in the amendments published by ISO/IEC next year. Information that was supported by very reliable sources. That information has been places in the article by user:Alvestrand (with sources). So actually your information was not correct and was outdated as well. This issue was discussed here, but again you ignored the discussion on the talk page and revert anyways to replace your interpretation back in. hAl (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Backwards compatible with earlier XML-based Office formats

The article currently states that "The ECMA-376 version of OOXML is not backwards compatible with earlier XML-based Office formats.". I think that this statement is completely meaningless. OOXML and the earlier Office 2003 XML formats are different file formats. What does "backwards compatible" mean in this context? Is JPEG 2000 not backwards compatible with JPEG? I can convert documents between both formats without major loss of content. In my opinion this unsourced and confusing sentence should be removed. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If an ECMA-376 parser had been able to parse Microsoft Office XML format documents, they would have been backwards compatible. That's the common meaning of backwards compatitibility in document formats. The reason I put the text in was just to stop people putting in text saying that the lack of backwards compatibility was a bad thing; it's a design choice, and I think it was a good choice. That said, I don't care much about the sentence one way or the other. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this sentence has any encyclopedic value. An ODF parser also isn't able to parse OpenOffice.org XML. This is the nature of different file formats. Otherwise they would not be different file formats. I'll remove this sentence then. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of the page

Certain editor(s) have made changes to the article, claiming in the edit summaries that there was vandalism, and they are removing vandalism. I read through the article 3 times looking for this supposed vandalism of the page. I could find none. I'm suspecting the "vandalism removal" claim is used to make other changes to the article. Claims of vandalism are time-wasting for other editors. If there really is vandalism, it should be taken up and the Administrators Noticeboard. However, I'm getting wary of edit summaries proclaiming vandalism, and then making other changes. Valid reasons must be given for large-scale changes to the article.--Lester 14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens, the edit warring has to stop immediately; that applies to both sides of the debate. Those arguing with HAl's tendicious edits are not covering themselves in glory by edit warring with him over them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Chris: Apologies if I should not have reverted it. In hindsight, it may not have been the best response. However, when no valid edit summary is given (ie, edit summary claims vandalism), then no other editors can track or follow what changes are being made to the article. I will refrain from reverting such edits while the community decides what to do. The article has descended into chaos, as it's not easy to see the changes being made.--Lester 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"In hindsight"? This has been going on for months. If either side were capable of behaving themselves then administrative action to block the transgressors would have been straightforward. If this is ever going to move beyond a permanent edit war then people need to start paying attention to our edit warring policy. Having the article reflect the POV of one side or the other on a temporary basis is not the end of the world. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestion for alternate moves? I've got only one edit I'm seriously contesting at the moment - I will not let hAl's claim (based on OR and using Wikipedia as a source) that OOXML is a "free and open" format stand; we've debated this ad nauseam, without any position change. I could block hAl for edit warring, but since I am a party to the dispute, I am not using anything but editor powers on this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

An RfC might work (at least for the sake of getting more eyes on the issue); that said, it might be worth just pinging an uninvolved admin to take a quick look, as the root cause of the current disruption seems obvious. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually tried a request for comment. I also tried a request for mediation and I also tried to get help from the wikiproject computing. hAl (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#RFC: Supporting sites and overcitation? That it failed to attract attention is probably because you discarded the clear instructions on how to raise and word an RfC and instead simply stuck an RfC tag on yet another rant at another user. What is needed is probably another round like Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 6#RfC: Is OOXML a free and open format?, which may attract new voices this time. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried setting up another RfC (below). Let's see if I managed to make it specific enough that we can get some useful information from it. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we have a disagreement on that free and open claim but as this is supported by by other wikipedia sources and you do not show any sourcing related to the ISO/IEC 29500 not beeing a free and open standard I wonder why you keep removing it. If wikipedia list OOXML amonst open standards than why should the article on OOXML not state the same. And evn tholugh you have a possible conflict of interest I feel you are open to discussion. The repetetive edits by user:Scientus are of a totally different caliber and only ment as WP:Disruptive_editing and he refuses to discuss them on the talk page. I have asked around at half a dozen places for mediation but this has led to nothing. hAl (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive edits by user:Scientus have been discussed many times. The edits made have been discusses to death. For instance:

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Stop vandalising the Office Open XML and Microsoft articles

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Repeated disruptive editting by user:Scientus

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Vandalism and edit warring by User:Scientus

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#Opening section mutilated

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#Continuous removal of support organization

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#http://openxmldeveloper.org/

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#"Open XML community" is really a reliable source ????

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#What is the standpoint of "Open XML Developer" as a "Microsoft-run" site ??

On the issue of the fully cited information on organizations supporting Office Open XML and the related sites user:Scientus has now removed that infor about 50 times agianst multiple other editors. It is a total disgrace.

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7#The lead of this article

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#'Support' by Microsoft-run websites

Here: Talk:Office Open XML#Suggested incompatiblity MS Office 2007and ISO/IEC 29500

Actually user:Alvestrand put this information that was in the lead into another section after discussion between him and me on the talk page but apperantly both you and user:Scientus ignore the discussions on this talk page.

Here: Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 8#Patent infringement issue

And in addition to that there was a recnet request not to do wholesale revisions here (something you have now done three times): Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 8#Please try to avoid wholesale revisions

So that does not help either. hAl (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuing to make this personal does absolutely no good. As it is so unconductive to proper discussion of the issue, I'm considering removing such rants on sight in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys want to 'ping' Carl (CBM · talk) again. We had a very kind offer of help from him back in August when one of hAl's comments led me to question the wording of the WP:NOR policy on its talk page, here. --Nigelj (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked him on that offer to mediate on his talk page twice, but no reactions. hAl (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Can this article say that Office Open XML is a free and open format?

There is a controversy among editors about whether or not this article (and in particular its lede) can say that OOXML is a free and open file format.

It is clear that:

• The OOXML standard is freely available
• The OOXML standard has passed through the ECMA and ISO standardization processes
• Microsoft has promised not to enforce patents held by Microsoft against implementors of the standard

It is also clear that a number of organizations (with the Free Software Foundation probably being the most strident) claim that OOXML does not satisfy what they mean by saying "free and open standard".

The alternatives I see are:

• The lede says that the standard is freely available. The article discusses what people say about its freedom and openness.
• The lede says that the standard is free and open. The article gives sources that justify this statement.

I would like to see if we can get a sounding of opinion on this particular issue, separate from all the other discussions. If people can state their opinion below, and discuss the arguments in the next section, that would be good, I think. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion poll

• Freely available. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Must not say either Free OR Open--Lester 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Lede should say there is a controversy, then a small section in the article should give the views of the major parties to the controversy with citations. --Nigelj (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Neither Free nor Open--Scientus (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Free and Open --Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is not a matter of opinion. With several people here with grudges about the Standardization of Office Open XML you try will win a discusion with an opinion pole rather than using real arguments. Is it that you lost the standardization vote that you now try to win a poll on wikipedia ? You haved not bought up a single argument on why Office open XML would not be free an open. No arguments , start a poll ? hAl (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: No, the article cannot say that 'Office Open XML' is free and open. It's a controversial subject, and although the players involved in the controversy, the ISO, the IEC and Microsoft may think they are free and completely open, the rest of the world does not think so. This is why it is important that we take the view of the mainstream media on this. We must use referernces and citations that are not from the participants of the controversy. We must stick to mainstream media references to describe the controversy. You'll find that the mainstream media references do not describe 'Open Office XML' as "free and open". Tho editor who has been opposing this view has used references from players in the controversy, which is wrong, unless it is attributed as an opinion of one of the players.--Lester 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Extra: Using "freely available" as a compromise also doesn't work. What's the difference with "freely available" and "available"? Available to read? That's just trivia for a standard. Do we do this for most other ISO standards? Again, if we keep to mainstream media references, and reflect the angle and meaning of those references, then we'll be right. Stay away from "free" and "freely", unless it can be demonstrated that the mainstream references generally describe it this way (which they don't).--Lester 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

you claiming that is it controversial does not make it so. Since the ISO/IEC 25000 standard was freely published in Q4 of 2008 and since ISO/IEC has been in controll of maintenance on the standard all real controversy has died out. Former opponents like IBM and Sun and open source implementations have implemented Office open XML. I asked you and others many times over to show me any controversy on this ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML standard but you have failed to come up with any reliable info on that. So agian I say that you claiming controversy on the ISO/IEC standard requires more than just words. I do not see that controversy on the ISO/IEC standard since it was published. hAl (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WRT "freely available" and "available": "Freely available" is an OK synonym for "available without needing to pay money for it". An ISO standard that is not on the "list of freely available standards" is also "available" - anyone can buy it. But it's not freely available. Just to reply to that limited point. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I will add this to your limited representation of the free and openness of this ISO/IEC standard.

• The Office Open XML standard has been developed and was approved by the ECMA International which produces only free standards that can be used without restrictions.
• The Office Open XML standard has been improved and has approved by the joint ISO/IEC standardization processes
• The specification of Office Open XML is freely available to everyone from both standardization organizatios and can be downloaded for free by anyone and used for implementing any kind of Office Open XML software without restrictions.
• The Office Open XML standard maintenance if fully controlled by standardization organization ISO/IEC JCT1 (with Ecma assisting/advising only)
• The Microsoft patent licensing applies to everybody, it covers all possible technologies required for implementation or use of Office Open XML, is completly free and is irrevocable. It is also the same licensing used by both Microsoft and IBM for Opendocument.

I think you should not place put you poll here but should discuss relevant facts at the relavant article dealing with Free file formats and Open standards which already support the information that Office Open XML is a free and open file format. A poll is more about a populairty contest then about factual information relevant for an encyclopedic article. The information about Office Open XML being free and open is already in wikipedia so why would you want to prevent it only in this article? hAl (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Reply to user:HAl: Some references to show it was a controversy. Ars Technica, or ZDnet. I can supply many more known and trusted references if it is required.--Lester 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference shows only controversy on the Standardization of Office Open XML process. That information is already well documented in the relavant article. The second is about ODF support in MS Office 2007 which has nothing to do with the ISO/IEC standard. Both references actually predate the free publication of ISO/IEC 29500 and the taking over maintenance and control of the standard by ISO/IEC. If you want to cry controversy on the Standardization of Office Open XML then there is a whole article for you to feast on. However don't claim controversy on the openess of the ISO/IEC standard with references predating the free publication of that standard. hAl (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Claim is dubious when the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the European Union is examining for potential anti-trust violations by Microsoft in its zeal to push through an unreviewed standard, along without many other events, it is incredible to claim that OOXML is "free" or "open".Scientus (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  So an examination means that someone is guilty? This no evidence or argument that Office Open XML is not free or open. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to user:hAl: What I believe is that you and user:Ghettoblaster stand relatively alone in your interpretation of the facts. I believe that reasonable editors will conclude from the arguments and WP:CONSENSUS that it's unreasonable to put your interpretation into the lede of the article. When you have failed to show any willingness to consider others' arguments, and still claim the mantle of "fact" for your particular opinion, all that is left is an appeal to consensus. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you tried to produce facts. You have not brought forward any fact why the ISO/IEC 29500 standard is not free and open even after tons of requests by me. Other wikipedia articles support the ISOIEC 29500 standard being free and free and open as well. You obviously have a personal grudge agianst Office Open XML from your opositing against the Standardization of Office Open XML in Norway and to add to that you work for an employer that is using a competing format. I would not think your interpretation of the facts is anywhere realistic because of this position. I find it objectionable that you, having such a personal interest in this, try to use some opinion poll scheme to get try and reverse your loss in ISO/IEC standardization process. hAl (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I produced 36.000 occurences of the term "OOXML is not free". In specific, *recent* statements, Richard Stallman's definition of free software means, according to him, that free software can't implement OOXML. I've produced a dozen citations before, and you have dismissed them all as "the product of extremists" or "published before the OOXL standard was published by ISO". Guess what - people's opinion haven't changed. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Comment: Alvestrand's last suggestion (above) is not bad... Rather than saying that Open Office XML is "free" from the ISO (which carries a slant), saying it is published by the ISO is much better. If we really must say it at all (I think saying it's an ISO standard says it all).--Lester 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)