World premier video: Format wars yields standards hypocrisy

World premier video: Format wars yields standards hypocrisy

Summary: After pointing out in this blog the mockery that the the International Organisation of Standardisation (the ISO) is making of standards setting by allowing multiple standards for the same thing, the folks who run the TV studios here at CNET Networks said let's make a video about it.  So, we did.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Open Source
6

After pointing out in this blog the mockery that the the International Organisation of Standardisation (the ISO) is making of standards setting by allowing multiple standards for the same thing, the folks who run the TV studios here at CNET Networks said let's make a video about it.  So, we did. In this video, I step up to the whiteboard to show how both the OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Microsoft's Open XML document format are following nearly identical paths to becoming ratified as international standards for doing the same thing, by the same international standards setting organization.  ODF is ahead of Open XML in terms of timing, but, contrary to what Gartner says, Open XML looks like it will follow in ODF's footsteps at the ISO within the year.  I have no clue what sort of insight Gartner was basing that determination on.  But, unless some sort of divine intervention takes place at the ISO (change in rules, fear of ridicule and embarassment by me, a "bribe," hell freezing over, or real divine intervention), as far as I can tell from my interview with someone who knows the ISO ropes as well as anyone, there isn't much that can stop Open XML from getting ISO ratification.  Oh well.  You know what they say... the best thing about standards is that there's so many of them.

Also, if this subject interests you, be sure to read my treatise on knowledge centricity vs. document centricity.  It doesn't make the format issue moot, but it does give you an alternative way to think about document-centric business cultures and how inefficient they are at generating business value.  There are alternatives to doing business the way you do it today.

Topic: Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • So which video STANDARD did you use?

    Was it AVI? Mpeg? Mpeg-2? Mpeg-4? QuickTime?

    And why did you use one STANDARD and not the others? Perhaps because one of the STANDARDS worked better for your needs than the others?

    Gee, if that is the case, isn't it wonderful there was more than one STANDARD to choose from to meet your needs?

    David, your rant is useless. Having more than one STANDARD is never a bad thing, just as giving people CHOICES is not bad. I would have thought you would understand this. (But then you are on a war path against MS Office so we do see why you act in this manner.)
    No_Ax_to_Grind
  • Why didn't you use a STANDARD video format?

    What on earth is someone crying over STANDARDS doing using a propriatary format like Macromedia? Why didn't you use say Mpeg, Mepg-2, Mpeg-4? You know, real STANDARDS...
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • Is there a streaming standard? [nt]

      nt
      dberlind
      • You betcha...

        But that isn't the point at all. Your supposed point is that there should only ever be one STANDARD when in fact you LIKE having multiple STANDARDS to choose from.

        What was the word you used? Oh yeah, Hypocrisy...
        No_Ax_to_Grind
        • So, what is the streaming standard?

          Share with us. How does it work? What's the architecture? Where are the tools and the server software that does the streaming? I don't make the IT decisions around here. But that doesn't mean I keep my mouth shut.

          As you can tell with our podcasting operation, our audio is available only as MP3. No DRM allowed.

          db
          dberlind
  • Yeah, we know the story, but

    just what do you propose? The video gives some of the chronology leading up to the current ODF v. MS "Open"XML, but little else. More than one standard strikes me as counterproductive too, but you offer no remedy, not even a hypothetical one.

    Should the ISO be petitioned to deny MS's application? Should ECMA be taken out of the proccess? Who is ECMA, anyway?

    And who is responsible for this "mockery"? Who are the bigger hypocrites? The ISO? Microsoft? Both? Are ODF and its advocates the problem?

    In the video, you give a brief description of the events, call them a mockery, but don't provide enough detail why and how you reach this conclusion, or even who you fault for standards confusion. Perhaps time constraints didn't allow you to elaborate.
    LoganTheJuiceWeasel