Venezuela - and possibly Denmark - file appeals of OOXML

Venezuela - and possibly Denmark - file appeals of OOXML

Summary: This really can't come as much of a surprise, but the list of countries protesting the ISO approval of OOXML is getting longer. Venezuela's appeal has been accepted by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) but the jury is still out on Denmark.


This really can't come as much of a surprise, but the list of countries protesting the ISO approval of OOXML is getting longer. Venezuela's appeal has been accepted by the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) but the jury is still out on Denmark.

Friday, the IEC said that May 29 was the deadline for filing appeals, since that is two months from the approval vote on March 29, PC World reports. On Friday, the IEC had recorded appeals from South Africa, Brazil and India. Today they're saying that Venezuela's appeal – file after May 29 -- will be allowed in.

[The appeal] was filed within the two months of the BRM [ballot resolution meeting] closing so that it is being accepted. (The BRM closed on 29 March 2008 so the interpretation is that the last calendar day of May is being applied)

Meanwhile, Computer Denmark reported (Danish) that Denmark had also filed an appeal but IEC spokesman Jon Buck said: "I have no confirmation of the Danish report and cannot comment further on that."

Next important date: June 6, when the Technical Management Board, which rules on appeals, will meet. A sign of the scope of the controversy: No BRM-approved standard has ever before been appealed.

Topic: India

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • So let me get this straight....

    ... during an investigation of irregularities in the vote they are allowing an appeal after the dealine. Priceless!
    • Just goes to show you how unprecedented this is. They have NEVER had an

      appeal of a BRM-approved standard. That tells it all.
      • All it tells ....

        ... is the amount of hatred for Microsoft there is. It only proves something if the appeal is successfull.
        • The general hatred for MS is a public relations problem for them, and shows

          that the questionable business practices and outright crimes over the years have taken their toll. But, almost all would be willing to accept an MS standard if it was a good standard, really open, and really implementable by all. The problem is that this is a duplicate standard, that is way too complicated in order to cause confusion and compatibility problems.
    • The alternative would have been "hypocrisy".

      It's way, [b]way[/b] too late to suddenly demand a literal adherence to the rules, don't you think? Particularly when we're only talking about 3 days here, and certain other deadlines are already being flaunted by over a month.

      e.g., from the Danish complaint:

      [i]"It is highly unusual that there are still no combined specifications, and I would like to bring to your attention the fact that Deputy Director of Danish Standards, Jesper Jerlang, in Danish Computerworld on May 22 admits that ISO's rules have been broken because Danish Standards has not received the final specifications. This is stated in section 13.12 in ISO's JTC 1 directive, which states:

      "In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance."

      The process has thus been formally annulled now for 2 months -- since March 29, at which time the specifications should have been sent to the national standardization organizations."[/i]
      • So you subscribe to the ....

        ... theory that two wrongs make a right? In order for a standard to mean anything the standards body must be credible. I think that is out the Windows, don't you?
        • Two wrongs do not make a right, but...

          what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!

          [i]In order for a standard to mean anything the standards body must be credible.[/i]

          Yes indeed, and when measured by this metric OOXML has [b]already[/b] fallen. Just ask India:

    • To be fair...

      there was confusion as to when the deadline was.
      [B]The deadline date is a matter of some confusion, as some National Bodies were under the impression that the deadline was June 2, so it remains possible that a fourth appeal will (or already has been) received.[/B]

      • Can't help that some ....

        National Bodies cannot use a calendar. Two months from March 31st isn't all that confusing. That would be May 31st.
    • When have you ever gotten anything straight?

      The investigation is because of irregularities..... the appeals are because of irregularities, and yes, priceless would describe Microsoft's attitude to a "T". They would blow any amount of money to prevent the success of a free open unencumbered standard and a free open unencumbered document format.
      Ole Man
      • More often then you!

        The irregularities are on the part of ISO not Microsoft. Once again your hatred has blinded you to what is going on.
  • No surprise on Venezuela's "appeal"

    After taking all the private companies under direct control of the government, of course they want to "appeal" any thing US.

    The Venezuelan government wants to be the largest software company in Venezuela...
    • You can not read very well. From the article: "No BRM-approved standard has

      ever before been appealed". This is unprecedented. This was dirty, and everybody knows it.
      • The results and not the appeal itself ...

        ... will determine the outcome. Does innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?
        • MS would like to think that if OOXML is finally accepted as a standard that

          all of the controversy will immediately go away. The point with the appeals is not whether or not they will be successful, but, that they indicate how controversial the OOXML standard was. We have never had an appeal before at this level of OSI, and now we have FIVE countries appealing. The controversy will NOT go away if the appeals fail.
          • Right. But then we never had

            MS strpping into open source territory. I think ALOT of people in the OSS community thought, and prayed, that MS would never step into "their playground".

            They did, and now everone is angry becuase there goes another means of stopping MS from making money.
    • If by that you mean that OOXML is something "US"...

      Aren't you tacitly acknowledging that OOXML isn't [i]really[/i] an Open Standard after all? After all, Open Standards can't really belong to anyone if they are [i]truly[/i] open.
      • He is reffering to the authoring ...

        ... of the standard not ownership. Your arguement is a red herring.
        • Reductio ad absurdum...

          If the authorship were indeed what he was referring to then, based on his original assertion, should we not expect to see Venezuela turn its back on TCP/IP too? After all, TCP/IP was created by DARPA, and you can't get more US than its Department of Defense!

          My personal view is that the original author's entire assertion is bogus, and is purely intended to use Nationalism to promote ill-feeling towards Venezuela.

          Go figure.
  • Glad to see it.

    When a company can't even implement their own creation that speaks for itself.