From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Sun Jun 24 14:46:44 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ylOmroXI3FsaMSY0eAag2Q)" Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 17:46:00 -0400 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: RE: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 In-reply-to: <007601c7b6a3$b9c728b0$2d557a10$@com> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 6.5.6FP1|April 24, 2007) at 06/24/2007 05:46:01 PM, Serialize complete at 06/24/2007 05:46:01 PM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ylOmroXI3FsaMSY0eAag2Q) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Office Open XML is commonly misstated as Open Office XML, where Open Office is the name of a product that competes directly against MS Office. I've given numerous examples of actual confusion caused by this choice of name. I've also cited the precedent of C++/CLI where just last year another Ecma Fast Track with a similarly confusing name, a confusion which Ecma also refused to address when it was raised in the contradiction period, leading to the ultimate defeat of that Fast Track. So commenting on the name of a standard, by this precedent, is clearly in scope for JTC1 NB reviews of Fast Track submissions. I would not presume that we as V1 name the standard ourselves. LOX was suggested in jest. But I do propose (or actually second the proposal) that we submit a comment requesting that Ecma change the name of the standard to one which is not confused with existing technologies. -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/ owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 06/24/2007 05:07:50 PM: > 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_ylOmroXI3FsaMSY0eAag2Q) Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Office Open XML is commonly misstated as Open Office XML, where Open Office is the name of a product that competes directly against MS Office.  I've given numerous examples of actual confusion caused by this choice of name.  I've also cited the precedent of C++/CLI where just last year another Ecma Fast Track with a similarly confusing name, a confusion which Ecma also refused to address when it was raised in the contradiction period, leading to the ultimate defeat of that Fast Track.   So commenting on the name of a standard, by this precedent, is clearly in scope for JTC1 NB reviews of Fast Track submissions.  

I would not presume that we as V1 name the standard ourselves.  LOX was suggested in jest.   But I do propose (or actually second the proposal) that we submit a comment requesting that Ecma change the name of the standard to one which is not confused with existing technologies.

-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/


owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 06/24/2007 05:07:50 PM:

> 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_ylOmroXI3FsaMSY0eAag2Q)--