Talk:Office Open XML
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Office Open XML article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.|
|The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Threads older than 100 days may be archived by .
The article lists 3rd ECMA specification and ISO/IEC 29500:2008 when there is 4th edition of ECMA (from December 2012) and ISO/IEC 29500-1:2012 was published on 2012-08-22 I think that until this gets fixed this article needs to be rated as C-Class and not B-Class as it is now. Qrilka (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This page states that OOXML is an Open format. As you can see on Wikipedia's page on Open Formats, there is no consensual definition on what one is, but it presents five different definitions from five different entities. OOXML doesn't comply with the definition of two of those give definitions. Thus, I'd argue that it is controversial to call OOXML an Open Format, and those references should be removed. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- As no comments were made on this for a few months, I went ahead and removed the references. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted your changes. To interpret whether the format is open based on sources that do not specifically mention OOXML is a violation of Wikipedia:Synthesis. The source currently there (Fraunhofer Institute) backs up this claim (and specifically mentions OOXML). If other reliable sources unrelated to OOXML also claim that it is not a free format, then there is a controversy, but personal interpretations on-wiki are not enough. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Microsoft Visio, e.g. VSDX
Stallman Quote Inaccuracy
Just adding a note here in Talk that the Richard Stallman quote should not be included due to it's false/misleading nature. For reference: Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation has stated that "Microsoft offers a gratis patent license for OOXML on terms which do not allow free implementations."
Easily disproven by ECMA themselves: http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/OpenXML%20White%20Paper.pdf
"Office Open XML (OpenXML) is a proposed open standard for word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple platforms. Its publication benefits organizations that intend to implement applications capable of using the format, commercial and governmental entities that procure such software, and educators or authors who teach the format. "
Resources for freely implementing the standard: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm
This level of FUD reiterated by Miguel de Icaza himself, stating: "OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it. This is at a time when OOXML as a spec is in much better shape than any other spec on that space."
Further expanding: "That is odd. Michael and I have discussed this topic extensively. He certainly would like clarification in various areas and more details in some. But Michael's criticism (or for that matter, the Novell OpenOffice team working with that spec) seems to be incredibly different than the laundry list of issues that pass as technical reviews in sites like Groklaw.
The difference is that the Novell-based criticism is based on actually trying to implement the spec. Not reading the spec for the sake of finding holes that can be used in a political battle.
Finally, Michael sounded incredibly positive after the ECMA meeting last month when all of their technical questions were either answered or added to the batch of things to review. I know you are going to say "The spec is not owned by ECMA", well, currently the working group that will review the ISO comments is at ECMA.
For another view at OOXML look at what Jody Goldberg (no longer a Novell employee) has to say about OOXML and ODF from the perspective of implementing both:
I find it hilarious that the majority (not all) of the criticism for OOXML comes from people that do not have to write any code that interacts with OOXML. Those that know do not seem to mind (except those whose personal business is at risk because Microsoft moved away from a binary format to an XML format, which I also find hilarious)."
This edit has been reverted multiple times at this point by multiple users with citations, continually reverting it at this point without clarifying it's misleading/false nature strikes me as vandalism. As Joshua Isaac states above, "personal interpretations on-wiki are not enough."
- "reverted multiple times", "continually reverting" – that's untrue and a mere exaggeration – in fact one out of two reverts was applied against an IP. In fact I pressed the "vandalism" button myself in order to revert the edit, and I was surprised and sad I wasn't able to add an explanation.
- I accept your profound explanation here pro removing the Stallman quote. Such an explanation was in fact missing from the first attempt to remove the quotation, which had been in the article for a long time (I think). --johayek (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Seriously: if you consider a revert of a piece of text, that has been in an article for a long time, vandalism, you should check your understanding of the term. And an edit-war is only started by the revert of a revert.--johayek (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
An IP edit has nothing to do with said edits veracity, as long as it is sourced (which it was) or backed up accordingly. Nor does the fact that that quote had been in the article for a while mean it's accurate, I think the original editor assumed the multiple sources to be proof enough that it wasn't vandalism. Especially after 2-3 different users reverted the reversion. TechAtlas (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)TechAtlas