Ed Brill

Post a Comment

1. 1  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2007 3:22:14 PM

   So, Microsoft wanted OOXML instead of ODF so they could address "backwards compatibility for millions of existing documents." So they created a spec, fast-tracked it, and now publicly admit there are mistakes in it, yet it's still the format for millions of NEW documents created since the release of Office 2007. So, by definition, they are furthering the problem they're saying their trying to solve.

   It's not as if those millions of 2007 docs are magically going to transform themselves into an ISO spec where the mathematically corrections are implemented, or where the undocumented switches are taken out, or that the date formats are corrected. Microsoft users will have created a new problem for standards bodies, by generating millions more documents that now have new "backwards compatibility" concerns. New problems that are unique from the old ones.

   Is this transparent enough yet?

1. 2  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 7/26/2007 3:27:37 PM

   @1 Nathan, your comment "yet it's still the format for millions of NEW documents created since the release of Office 2007" has a problem with it. How many .docx or .xlsx files have you gotten in the past year? I can tell you that I have not received a single one from anyone that did not have a microsoft.com email address. The few Office upgrades I have been part of ... all of the customers have asked that the .doc/xls/ppt formats be set to as the default. Do a search for files of the new format on Google .. they aren't out there. I do not think the new format is anywhere close to being the standard for Office 2007 installs .. let alone anything else.

   That being said, the OOXML spec has some great stuff in it. Too bad that the actions of lots of people (not just Microsoft) is putting a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

1. 3  Charles Robinson http://cubert-codepoet.blogspot.com | 7/26/2007 3:41:56 PM

   "they haven't even gotten to the fact that nobody other than MS has implemented the complete spec"

   Actually nobody has. There is no reference implementation. The closest is Office 2007, which is only a partial implementation.

1. 4  Henning Heinz  | 7/26/2007 3:59:16 PM

   It would be great if Spreatsheets could support .wk4 or Notes could import something else than wk4 (without loosing functionality) if that is easier. Yes, I know it is not christmas time yet.

1. 5  Mark Hughes  | 7/26/2007 4:05:32 PM

   I agree with #4, its hard to get away from excel when the only time i use it is to save as a wk4

1. 6  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/26/2007 4:10:16 PM

   Import of .WK4 is supported, but not saving/exporting. Can obviously save as .XLS which can be read by later versions of 1-2-3.

1. 7  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 7/26/2007 4:27:53 PM

   @6 - Ed, I think what @4 and @5 are talking about is that in Notes, you can not export or import from spreasheet format but wk4. It would be nice if those options were modified to include Lotus Spreadsheet files directly.

1. 8  Stephen McGibbon http://notes2self.net | 7/26/2007 5:14:33 PM

   Hi Ed, I've updated my post to point to the corrected chart and make the point that the new chart shows IEC/ISO 26300:2006 support.

   Regarding Portugal, I think you're being uncharacteristically hasty ;-) I understand that the reason that IBM, Sun and others weren't allowed to join was because they didn't apply before the deadline, which sucks I agree, but you can hardly blame Microsoft.

   As for the chair being a Micosoftee, well he does work for Microsoft Research, but I believe he's been the chair, or part of the committee at least, from before he joined Microsoft.

   I wish we'd see a return to the old Lotus ways, when we used to tell customers that we didn't force them to make bets on one or another technology (Java or .Net as an example if I recall correctly). Time moves on I know and things change, but I genuinely believe that Lotus' customers have alot to gain from OpenXML, and in all honesty, Lotus does too.

   OpenXML is the default format for Office 2007, and there are free updates for the other versions >2000. I'd have thought the value proposition was pretty compelling to have Notes able to read and write these (open) formats.

   Who knows, maybe it's closer than we think - IBM's clearly taking a close interest in the specification - one might almost think there's a project already underway!

1. 9  Ben Langhinrichs http://www.GeniiSoft.com/showcase.nsf/GeniiBlog | 7/26/2007 5:30:01 PM

   Just to set the record straight, I did point out this error in the chart right after it was published, back on July 16th (see the second comment in your post).

1. 10  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/26/2007 5:43:09 PM

   Sorry, Ben!!!! I completely missed that in amongst the postings. Credit where credit is due -- sorry that I didn't get it fixed sooner!

1. 11  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 7/26/2007 5:57:11 PM

   @8 - Stephen - are you disputing what was reported on Groklaw? Are the notes taken by one of the attendees false? are you claiming all of the reports of the actions of the committee are incorrect? If so, great. Please publically debunk this and participate in the threads over there. There seems to be quite a bit of information that backs the statements Ed made here on his blog.

1. 12  Stephen McGibbon http://notes2self.net | 7/26/2007 6:15:58 PM

   @11 - John

   Yes I don't agree with what was posted on Groklaw. See the post Ed kindly pointed to for what I said.

   Are the notes taken by one of the attendees false? - False is a strong word - one sided and factually incorrect in several areas as I understand it - for example my understanding is that Sun and IBM applied after the deadline.

   publicly debunk this - this is public right?

   participate in the threads over there - on Groklaw? Isn't that a bit like trying to correct /.?

   There seems to be quite a bit of information - where exactly? Feel free to email me - I will respond I promise

   Cheers

1. 13  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/26/2007 7:23:07 PM

   @12 - RS claims that the issue wasn't that Sun and IBM were denied space on the committee. It's that they WEREN'T ALLOWED ENTRANCE INTO THE ROOM. "Applied after the deadline" is not the same as "showed up at a particular time at the meeting place."

   It's a pretty drastic accusation, Stephen, and it's the kind that, if unanswered, will assumed to be true.

   So I'm asking for a point-blank answer -- and no retractile vomiting on this one...

   Were representatives from Sun and IBM denied access to the meeting, and therefore representation, because even though they were active members, the chairman decided there wasn't enough space in the room?

   In the event that you say "I don't know" then I'll encourage readers to check out the public testimony of a committee member who WAS able to get a seat in the room, and did take careful notes on what was said by the chairman. And they can find that on Groklaw.

1. 14  Mike Brown  | 7/26/2007 9:15:48 PM

   @8

   Your Portugal boy's chairmanship may well date from before his employment with Microsoft, but the fact remains that he is a Microsoft employee now. And as such, he has no place chairing a committee that's about to vote on a Microsoft "standard".

   He should have removed himself from the chair when his employment with Microsoft commenced.

   Cheers,

   - Mike

1. 15  Stephen McGibbon http://notes2self.net | 7/27/2007 6:40:35 AM

   @12 -

   > Were representatives from Sun and IBM denied access to the meeting, and therefore representation, because even though they were active members, the chairman decided there wasn't enough space in the room?

   No. Nobody who turned up at the meeting was excluded. There was a big discussion in Portuguese and I understand that the result was that everyone who turned up was allowed to participate and contribute, but I believe only those who had been invited by IPQ the Portuguese standards body were allowed to vote.

   @14 - why? The chair generally has a vote just like everyone elses to cast as they feel appropriate. The chair is guided by rules and due process. I don't think there was any suggestion made that the chair failed to discharge this duty in this case.

1. 16  Stephen McGibbon http://notes2self.net | 7/27/2007 6:41:34 AM

   Sorry, my @12 above should have been @13 ... to answer Nathan's question.

1. 17  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/27/2007 9:56:21 AM

   @15 - Wow, Stephen, so you're saying that Rui Seabra is just wrong?

   That leaves three scenarios...

   1) Sun & IBM simply didn't have representative show up to the meeting at all; or

   2) They did show up and they were allowed to participate, and Rui just never noticed them in the room; or

   3) Rui's entire transcript is fake.

   The first two seem pretty verifiable, especially for Ed. Who were the IBM representatives who were supposed to be there and what do they have to say about it?

   Do we have official minutes from TC 173 and have they been translated into English? If RS just flat out faked his entire transcript, I sure do want to know!

1. 18  Stephen McGibbon http://notes2self.net | 7/27/2007 10:08:50 AM

   @17 ... again, everyone who wished to gain entry to the meeting was admitted, which suggests your 1).

   Rui's list of attendees is accurate I believe and so your 2) is false.

   I am not suggesting Rui's transcript is fake. It does contain inaccuracies and omissions, and to be fair to him he asked others to chip in I think.

   His notes are in English but most of he meeting was in Portuguese.

1. 19  Doug Mahugh http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh | 7/27/2007 10:49:28 AM

   @14 - Mike, as you probably know, Patrick Durusau, the chair of INCITS V1 in the US, is the editor of ODF. And as far as I know nobody has ever suggested that this limits his objectivity in leading a committee evaluating a format that many ODF supporters see as competition. I think we should expect objectivity from the chairs of these committees and measure them on their actions in the TCs, not their past or current affiliations.

   @11 - Hi John ... FYI, I've posted comments on Groklaw in the past that were deleted, and I know others who have experienced the same. So for Microsoft employees or business partners, it's hard to effectively participate in anything on Groklaw. That site is moderated with a heavy hand, often by pseudonymous/anonymous persons.

1. 20  John Head http://www.johndavidhead.com | 7/27/2007 12:00:58 PM

   @19 Doug - fair enough about Groklaw ... it is pretty close to /. ... you guys might just want to document that you tried posting there at times in your blog. My first reaction is that you guys had not made the attempt.

1. 21  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/27/2007 12:19:18 PM

   It would also help if any of the esteemed guests from Microsoft who have stopped by this thread answered the question about "what happens next" as far as compatibility of documents in the current Office 2007 document format versus whatever updates are made based on all of the technical objections that have been raised are addressed.

1. 22  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 12:23:55 PM

   Hello,

   I see some false statements here, so since someone pointed this blog out for me, I'm going to answer them very quickly, but I can't promise any attention for subsequent answers.

   I don't know what Stephen could gather from his "translaor" Marcos Santos, from Microsoft, but more than once I could understand he wasn't being a good translator.

   0. There was not a due and fair process of invitation. When the real rules were known, people had less than 48h to propose members to the TC.

   1. The National Body sectorial organization (NBso) refused the entry to IBM and SUN *before* the meeting had occurred.

   2. The NBso claimed that a) there was a maximum of 20, and b) representativity was achieved.

   3. There was an average of 24 people seated in the room. There were at maximum 25 people in the room. The room could handle almost 30 people seated. The NBso had an auditorium and chose not to use it. Microsoft occupied 3 seats. NBso occupied 2 seats. ASSOFT (BSA alike) occupied 2 seats. Microsoft business partners occupied a few seats more (at least 5, maybe more).

   4. Some people more appeared to the TC meeting who thought they had been accepted (invitation process was broken). They got inside because some TC members (noticeably not Microsoft nor its business partners) invited them to stay as experts.

   Notice carefully what Stephen said:

   «but I believe only those who had been invited by IPQ the Portuguese standards body were allowed to vote.»

   I point out the word *invited*.

   There wasn't representativity.

   There wasn't a due process.

   Finally, I resent any accusation of faking the report. Nobody here has any reason to doubt my word.

1. 23  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 2:44:05 PM

   I just noticed another incorrect statement from Stephen:

   «As for the chair being a Micosoftee, well he does work for Microsoft Research, but I believe he's been the chair, or part of the committee at least, from before he joined Microsoft.»

   This is incorrect. The TC was created in June 26th, 2007, the date of TC 173's first meeting. The President of the TC, Miguel Sales Dias, Microsoft employee, was then elected 7-1 (abstention).

   They intended to have a quiet vote for OOXML in that meeting, but OOXML was not discussed, and both discussion and vote were postponed for the second meeting, on July 16th.

   On July 16th, 2007, there was much generic discussion, with little tech talk, lot's of vague promises, and some quite revealing statements from Stephen. The vote was postponed in the beginning, since it is, as you all know, quite surreal to say it's legitimate to discuss over 6000 problematic pages and vote on them in about two hours.

   Now the Microsoft President of TC wants to have the vote on July 31st. He's either an extreme optimist or knows the result already.

1. 24  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 2:51:05 PM

   Stephen: «for example my understanding is that Sun and IBM applied after the deadline.»

   Very bad understanding. They had less than 48 hours to get the proper permissions. Local branches of Big Companies don't have a lot of freedom to decide.

   The due process was severely hurt from the beginning.

   Nathan: «@12 - RS claims that the issue wasn't that Sun and IBM were denied space on the committee. It's that they WEREN'T ALLOWED ENTRANCE INTO THE ROOM. "Applied after the deadline" is not the same as "showed up at a particular time at the meeting place."?»

   Your understanding is wrong, there, Nathan. They were denied space on the committee.

1. 25  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 2:53:55 PM

   «Do we have official minutes from TC 173 and have they been translated into English? If RS just flat out faked his entire transcript, I sure do want to know!»

   I'm proposing changes to the minutes that are being proposed. They seem to be severely laking of content. It's almost like there was no discussion on OOXML at all.

   Now, I'm willing to give it a chance that information was lost on the translation of Microsoft's proprietary .doc, so my vote decision on the minutes will depend upon my reading of their printed version.

   If there was no lack of content from OpenOffice.org's import... then I *WILL*VOTE* against the minutes, and add a vote comment.

1. 26  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 7/27/2007 2:54:05 PM

   Rui, I appreciate your clarifications across the board. Many eyes are watching now.

1. 27  Nathan T. Freeman http://nathan.lotus911.com | 7/27/2007 2:55:08 PM

   @24 - Okay, so they weren't, say, standing outside the door, and someone wouldn't let them in. They applied for membership on the committee, and that application was declined on the basis that there weren't enough chairs in the room.

   Surely someone from Sun or IBM has a copy of the application and the rejection notice, right?

1. 28  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 2:57:16 PM

   To end, since right now I've read all your comments, in my notes I say outright:

   Notes: (RuiSeabra) I'm not a particularly strong note writer, so some information may still be missing, please help make it complete.

   This statement is also in the Groklaw comments.

   Stephen could have emailed me with proposed changes if he thinks I said something wrong, but I'm sure that he didn't feel I had something wrong there, because he surely knows how to use email :)

   { Link }

1. 29  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 2:59:50 PM

   «Surely someone from Sun or IBM has a copy of the application and the rejection notice, right?»

   I've been shown the rejection notices and, like I said, the NBso openly admitted that *he* had decided it was enough.

   Then they tried (successfully) to decide in the TC to limit the number to 20. I voted against that, but I think we're not following due process on the voting either, so I fear the decision is rigged.

1. 30  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 7/27/2007 3:41:57 PM

   Ed: «According to Groklaw, he was Microsoft's representative at a standards committee meeting in Portugal...where the committee chair, a Microsoft employee, »

   This is false, of course. It was the National Body sectorial organization who refused their presence.

   The person who was refused posted the email (in portuguese) hiding the identities involved, and some anonymous comment translated the email into English adding false information that it was the Microsoft guy who did it.

   Of course the English version was internationalized faster, and I did my best to correct that info alerting people that it wasn't 100% like that.

   The NBso has lots of ties with Microsoft, though.

   Ed: «decided arbitrarily that Sun and IBM could not attend due to a "first come, first served, space available basis" for physcial chairs in the meeting room.»

   Who decided arbitrarily was the NBso, but the reason of space is fake. The room could handle almost 30 people, and they DO HAVE an auditorium.

1. 31  Doug Mahugh http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh | 7/27/2007 6:22:43 PM

   Hey Ed, regarding your question, I'm not avoiding it -- I really have no idea how those details will be handled. As of today, we're compatible with Ecma 376, and to talk about anything else I'd have to speculate about how Ecma will respond to the comments, speculate about what that would do to the spec, and speculate about how we would handle that in Office.

   When there's a specific rev of the spec to talk about, I'm sure we'll have something to say, and I'm as curious as you are regarding the details of how we'll handle that.

1. 32  Mike Brown  | 7/27/2007 7:16:13 PM

   @19 Doug,

   "Patrick Durusau, the chair of INCITS V1 in the US, is the editor of ODF. And as far as I know nobody has ever suggested that this limits his objectivity"

   Is "ODF" a commercial entity? Does Mr Durusau stand to benefit financially by influencing decisions in a certain direction?

   Microsoft is a commercial entity, not to mention a monopolist that has been convicted in the US courts of abusing its monopoly position. There is a clear financial conflict of interest in a Microsoft employee chairing this committee.

   Cheer,

   - Mike

1. 33  Vitor Pereira http://www.vitor-pereira.com | 7/30/2007 5:06:39 AM

   I'm a little late to this party but is it really a surprise for anyone that M$ is using this tactits, especially in a two-and-half world country like mine?

   Unfortunately M$ is still able to buy these committees in small countries, and the people in charge here are so far up M$ a**e that they cannot see clearly.

   One advice for Stephen: Get a professional translator!

1. 34  Pedro Quaresma  | 7/30/2007 6:23:14 AM

   More than the surreal events in my home country's "technical" committee, I resent the attempt at creating FUD around Rui, a long time close friend of mine.

   This whole situation in Portugal is preposterous.

1. 35  Jeffrey  | 8/1/2007 4:05:27 AM

   What I can gather from the info on this blog and others is that

   A) A fixed maximum size for the TC was set beforehand on 20 members.

   B) An openinvitation was done to join the TC probably not properly enough explaining the agreed upon maximum size or the first come basis that was be used on applications for the TC.

   C) At the meeting of the TC companies showed up interested in joining the TC unaware that there was a limitation on the TC size and were confronted with the 20 membership places on the TC being taken already.

   D) The complaints arise from companies not in those twenty who are not able to vote on TC recommendations allthough they are able to submit their comments/information to the TC.

   To me a size of twenty already seem quite a large size for a technical committee for all kind of practical reasons (not just available chairs) so the choice to limit the size to twenty beforehand seems certainly warrented. However the proces and information on the selection of the TC members wasn't all that good.

   Also this case shows that several blogs when it comes to Microsoft related information go for sensationalism and innuendo more than providing full info and especialy Groklaw has become a seriously sad source for information with a high emphasis creating news based on rumour, halffacts and even untruths.

1. 36  Jeffrey  | 8/1/2007 4:27:51 AM

   @Ed

   [quote]If ecma agrees that these errors need to be fixed...is Microsoft going to issue a new version of Office 2007 that updates to the fixed document format?[/quote]

   That can be arranged using versioning. The comments for ISO can be made into a 1.1 version allowing MS Office 2007 to keep using the Ecma standard 1.0 version and upgrade to the 1.1 Ecma+ISO version in a servicepack for instance.

   As the proces of ISO fastraking will take months still after all current ballots are taken in there first is quite a bit of time to address the submitted comments in Ecma and when a revision is made to work on that in MS Office. Also if the ballotresolution is an approval there is a period in between the ballot result meeting and the publication of the official ISO standard of about 6 months which should be enough for Micrsoft and other parties to implement the newer version.

1. 37  Pedro Quaresma  | 8/1/2007 5:31:56 AM

   @35 A limitation of 20 seats was set because:

   a) of room capacity (which as we've seen is false)

   b) the existing 20 members were aledgedly a balanced representation (take your conclusions about the balance from the member listing...)

   Also, the voting for the 20 seats limit took place in the technical committee itself (which was by then composed by, IIRC, 1 MS representative as president and 6 MS business partners/customers)

1. 38  Stephane Rodriguez  | 8/1/2007 6:39:22 AM

   Doug Mahugh said "As of today, we're compatible with Ecma 376"

   Blatantly untrue.

   Let me give you one example why Office 2007 isn't compatible Ecma 376 : VML parts.

   The paper says VML is deprecate. Well, let's see :

   Start Excel 2007, create a NEW spreadsheet, right-click and select Insert comment, type something, save, close.

   There you have it, the comment is serialized as a VML part.

   Better luck next time, liar.

1. 39  RuiSeabra http://ansol.org/ | 8/1/2007 12:28:20 PM

   «A) A fixed maximum size for the TC was set beforehand on 20 members.»

   Important correction: without warning, unilaterally, the NB's sectorial organization named Instituto de Informática decided that 20 was enough.

   «B) An openinvitation was done to join the TC probably not properly enough explaining the agreed upon maximum size or the first come basis that was be used on applications for the TC.»

   False. There was no open invitation until after the fact of creation (there should be *before* according to the rules).

   Instituto de Informática only invited Microsoft, Microsoft Business Partners and friends (7 in total), and 1 member of the ODF Alliance.

   The member from ODF Alliance asked if more people could participate.

   Invitations for more people were accepted by the TC and both this member and Microsoft proceeded to get more people to participate, without a proper procedure.

   The proper procedure was only known on the 11th of July in the afternoon (late afternoon, IIRC), so at least the people who are friendly to open standards are known to have followed the procedure.

   Without warning, Instituto de Informática decided to not accept anyone else proposed after 15:15 Friday.

   Motive: room capacity and representativity.

   Room capacity is a false motive for five reasons:

   1. it had room for 24 people seated with enough space on the table

   2. if some people abdicated from having table space, almost 30 could be seated

   3. there were 24 people in average with a maximum of 25 on the second meeting

   4. in this meeting some people were improperly seated since the president and the secretary (two people) occupied 4 seats

   5. and most importantly, Instituto de Informática has an auditorium

   «C) At the meeting of the TC companies showed up interested in joining the TC unaware that there was a limitation on the TC size and were confronted with the 20 membership places on the TC being taken already.»

   False.

   Those who showed up unaware of any problems were not aware of the proper procedure, and though that what was done on the first step was enough.

   «D) The complaints arise from companies not in those twenty who are not able to vote on TC recommendations allthough they are able to submit their comments/information to the TC.»

   False.

   IBM sent it's technical comments, but they didn't even need to do it since they were going to be presented by some members. These members adopted those comments so that they could have a chance to be discussed (and weren't in any of the two meetings).

   «To me a size of twenty already seem quite a large size for a technical committee for all kind of practical reasons (not just available chairs) so the choice to limit the size to twenty beforehand seems certainly warrented. However the proces and information on the selection of the TC members wasn't all that good.»

   The size limit isn't that large, other TCs had much larger numbers (Italy comes to mind with around 90, more or less).

   «Also this case shows that several blogs when it comes to Microsoft related information go for sensationalism and innuendo more than providing full info and especialy Groklaw has become a seriously sad source for information with a high emphasis creating news based on rumour, halffacts and even untruths.»

   I've seen more untruth, specially from Microsoft employees, in this two weeks directed against my person than I have ever had in my entire life. Matusow hasn't even been allowing my comments where I confront his talking points with reality. He's parroting talking points, I was there. I know better what I speak of about those meetings than he could ever hope to do.

1. 40  Stephane Rodriguez  | 8/1/2007 4:15:22 PM

   Rui,

   I don't want to rain on your parade, but if you are spending so much time thinking you are going to convince people again and again, I want to let you know before hand that you will never convince guys like Doug Mahugh and Jason Matusow (and others in this thread who are also obvious Microsoft bitches) because they are spin doctors. They are paid to make you look bad against the public. It does not matter you say the truth. They are paid to dismiss your facts.

   I have over one year of practice with those guys, so believe an old guy. Otherwise you'll be wasting your time.

   There is no winning other than making sure every ISO national body around the world gets a verbatim of what happened in Portugal.

   My 2 cents.

1. 41  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/1/2007 5:16:14 PM

   @40 Stephane, everybody has a job to do -- I'm sure each side looks at the other as "spin doctors". It's a lot easier to spin with specific facts, especially when they are true, but it's all spin.

   I'd like to keep the name-calling to a minimum, thanks :-)

1. 42  Stephane Rodriguez  | 8/1/2007 10:42:35 PM

   Ed,

   I certainly disagree that each of us are spinning things. Some are, some are not.

   You have to admit, even if you did not know those two guys above, that just a cursory reading of the public US ISO comments here ({ Link } that Doug Mahugh systematic dismissing of Patrick Durusau's work is not the same than what it would be if Doug Mahugh came up with factual arguments.

   They are those who have a job to do (they call that Microsoft evangelist, but that's just spin doctoring), and they are those powered by higher motives.

   Being an early implementer of portions of OOXML (one of my products related to OOXML shipped even before Office 2007 went RTM, Nov 3 2006), I can only disagree with those guys when, in addition to never being factual, their behavior changed overnight. Before I started criticizing, they were praising my products, my insight, ....And as I started criticizing their going to ISO, it did not take long before I became according to them someone who did not know what he was talking about. How do you call that?

   As for the VML part example above, I want to add that, while it's just one example, it's a strategic one. Here is why :

   - VML is pervasive. As you work with Office 2007 documents, it's very hard not to do things that create VML parts. Virtually anything beyond a "hello world" document will do.

   - VML is all over the place in ECMA 376, the reason why is because back in the WYSIWYG HTML days, Mr Gates had a specific agenda for this library. More info here : { Link } (and indeed VML is part of Internet Explorer since 1998).

   - VML is described in ECMA 376, but not specified.

1. 43  Ed Brill http://www.edbrill.com | 8/2/2007 5:07:00 AM

   I just meant that point of view is sometimes viewed as spin, especially from vendors.

   I appreciate your comments, here and elsewhere, throughout this saga.