From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 14:09:17 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_b5ooKTjVlhD0HlsmPRHu6Q)" Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:07:50 -0400 From: Stephen Peront 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 Content-language: en-us Thread-index: Ace2kr+j55jkBWf0R/2w1Ga/kJ2T4AADLUVg X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_b5ooKTjVlhD0HlsmPRHu6Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Hi Rob. On May 24th, Patrick said: > But, we are all adults, or at least of legal age, so even given the > history that some of the members of V1 "enjoy", I think we can be civil. > > That is not meant to suggest that anyone should not feel free to say > whatever they like, but be aware that some comments are less likely to > produce useful responses than others. Will the change of a name really make this a better (or worse) standard for the US? I would argue that suggesting we rename from OOXML to LOX is not only demeaning to members of this committee that are actively creating *new* document formats (i.e. Xinnovation) built on OOXML but also to the publisher of OOXML (i.e. ECMA). OOXML is distinctly different enough from ODF (having only one word the same) for us "civilized" beings to distinguish. I believe in our last meeting, the argument was made, by you, that we should not be considering "current market factors" as a way to determine a standard. And yet your research, below, is clearly based on "current market factors". Also on May 24th, Rob (yes, you) said (referring to "home field advantage"): > In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic. Are you comments below just a different kind of tactic or are they meant to add some kind of value to the integrity if this committee's comments? If they are meant to add value, can you please help me and this committee understand how submitting a comment that suggests we rename the standard to the initials of a common flavor of cream cheese will in any way contribute to making this a better standard. Have an awesome day! Cheers, -Stephen 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_b5ooKTjVlhD0HlsmPRHu6Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Hi Rob…

 

On May 24th, Patrick said:

> But, we are all adults, or at least of legal age, so even given the
> history that some of the members of V1 "enjoy", I think we can be civil.
>
> That is not meant to suggest that anyone should not feel free to say
> whatever they like, but be aware that some comments are less likely to
> produce useful responses than others.

 

Will the change of a name really make this a better (or worse) standard for the US?

 

I would argue that suggesting we rename from OOXML to LOX is not only demeaning to members of this committee that are actively creating *new* document formats (i.e. Xinnovation) built on OOXML but also to the publisher of OOXML (i.e. ECMA).

 

OOXML is distinctly different enough from ODF (having only one word the same) for us “civilized” beings to distinguish.

 

I believe in our last meeting, the argument was made, by you, that we should not be considering “current market factors” as a way to determine a standard. And yet your research, below, is clearly based on “current market factors”.

 

Also on May 24th, Rob (yes, you) said (referring to “home field advantage”):

> In any case, I have no interest in that kind of tactic.

 

Are you comments below just a different kind of tactic or are they meant to add some kind of value to the integrity if this committee’s comments? If they are meant to add value, can you please help me and this committee understand how submitting a comment that suggests we rename the standard to the initials of a common flavor of cream cheese will in any way contribute to making this a better standard.

 

Have an awesome day!

 

Cheers,

-Stephen

 

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_b5ooKTjVlhD0HlsmPRHu6Q)--