From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 14:03:57 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_+Sud1uKAZeVsSG/SwMu6Yg)" Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:02:49 -0400 From: Steve Carton Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Thread-topic: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Thread-index: Ace2kq9LBSw+Be1ZSsGHe3jJffSUqwADbLmQ X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_+Sud1uKAZeVsSG/SwMu6Yg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I personally get annoyed with arguments that attack the intentions of others. Saying that the name "Office Open XML" is "designed to cause confusion" is argumentative here. But, that begs the question. Irrespective of the authors' intentions, confusion is the result. As I read through the DIS 29550 documents (a slow process at best), the thing that strikes me first is that this clearly seems to be a format for representing Microsoft Word documents. How is this "open"? Do we need a standard at all for the XML model of legacy content of a proprietary product line? The proprietary application vendor could simply open their XML format up to the world. What additional purpose is served by labeling it as a standard? Or am I missing something? Steve Carton Retrieval Systems Corporation 2071 Chain Bridge Road Suite 510 Vienna, VA 22182 703-749-0012 ________________________________ From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:06 PM To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 > > What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML" > should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with > OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application. It is not the > purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and > certainly not to deliberately cause confusion. The name should be > changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than > actively promoting it. > > Jon > I'd second that. I've done some research in this area to see how often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML". This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office trademark. For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or "Microsoft Open Office XML". You should get zero hits for these phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from analysts, even from Microsoft. I've updated my analysis of this problem here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/amusing-but-still-confusing.html I'd like to see us submit a comment requesting a name change. Maybe "Legacy Office XML" or LOX. -Rob ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ --Boundary_(ID_+Sud1uKAZeVsSG/SwMu6Yg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I personally get annoyed with arguments that attack the intentions of others. Saying that the name "Office Open XML" is "designed to cause confusion" is argumentative here. But, that begs the question. Irrespective of the authors' intentions, confusion is the result.
 
As I read through the DIS 29550 documents (a slow process at best), the thing that strikes me first is that this clearly seems to be a format for representing Microsoft Word documents. How is this "open"?
 
Do we need a standard at all for the XML model of legacy content of a proprietary product line? The proprietary application vendor could simply open their XML format up to the world. What additional purpose is served by labeling it as a standard? Or am I missing something?
 
Steve Carton
Retrieval Systems Corporation
2071 Chain Bridge Road
Suite 510
Vienna, VA 22182
703-749-0012
 


From: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org [mailto:owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org] On Behalf Of robert_weir@us.ibm.com
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 3:06 PM
To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org
Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12



>
> What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML"
> should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with
> OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application.  It is not the
> purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and
> certainly not to deliberately cause confusion.  The name should be
> changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than
> actively promoting it.
>
> Jon
>

I'd second that.  I've done some research in this area to see how often the name of the standard is misstated as "Open Office XML".  This is happening everywhere, and by doing so is causing user confusion as well as diluting the value of the Open Office trademark.  For examples, query Google for "Ecma Open Office XML" or "Microsoft Open Office XML".  You should get zero hits for these phrases, but instead you get hundreds of hits, from the press, from analysts, even from Microsoft.

I've updated my analysis of this problem here:  http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/amusing-but-still-confusing.html

I'd like to see us submit a comment requesting a name change.  Maybe "Legacy Office XML" or LOX.

-Rob

___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/


--Boundary_(ID_+Sud1uKAZeVsSG/SwMu6Yg)--