OOXML doesn't get support at ISO - Andy Updegrove explains

David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Sat Mar 1 01:01:55 UTC 2008

On 01/03/2008, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at fsfe.org> wrote:

>  The result, by Andy Updegrove:
>  http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319727
>  Sean Daly interviews Andy Updegrove
>  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080229171250199
>  I'm no ISO procedure expert, but my understanding is: after 5 days of
>  discussion, the voting members at ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting decided
>  not to approve the OOXML specification.  There simply wasn't enough time to
>  discuss the numerous problems and the numerous proposed solutions.  The
>  final decision will be in 30 days time, but since the issues raised last
>  September are officially unresolved, rejection by ISO is almost certain.

Not quite - their job was to put lipstick on this plucked chicken.
This didn't make it any more of a human than before, featherless biped
or no. So it's not dead until it's actually got a stake through its

I have long theorised that this meeting was a red herring, and
Microsoft will instead have been working on corrupting the national
bodies that voted "no" or "abstain" - since the "yes" voters are fine.

- d.

More information about the Discussion mailing list