March 3 news, Microsoft's next-generation file format standard for OOXML (Open Office XML File Formats) to apply the latest international standards, Chinese Academy of Engineering Ni Guangnan again last night, the author emphasized that OOXML should not be approved to become the national standard, saying itwill test the credibility of ISO procedures.
Chinese Academy of Engineering, the domestic agents of Ni Guangnan UOF document format standards
In this "OOXML is to become the international standard?"The article, Ni Guangnan cited OOXML still with a lot of imperfections, and and PDF, MPEG2, etc. go to vote," Fast Track "case compared to the final conclusion is: OOXML vote to go"fast-track "is not appropriate, States should vote against it.
Ni Guangnan that, OOXML's the next step way, either, and ODF, UOF fusion, a new international standard, either through the normal ISO procedures for reporting, give sufficient time for development, this has always been the development of standards meet the ISOpractice.
Ni Guangnan also proposed, OOXML can pass this to become an international standard, which is the credibility of the ISO standard procedure for a test.
ISO on OOXML as an international standard meeting ended on Friday, is expected to announce the final result by the end of March.
The following is the full text of articles written by Academician Ni Guangnan:
Whether OOXML as an international standard?
Text / Ni Guangnan
OOXML for ISO to the latest round of discussion has came to a close, the final results be known until the end of March.
ISO OOXML in September last year, the vote did not pass, the reasons put forward in the world a surprising number of questions (3522 questions, and later merged into 1100) has been fully reflected.OOXML was concerned, although given a 2293 report of the reply, trying to be amended, but because of too many problems, time to hurry, it appears that a number of amendments (some estimate up to 1 / 4) is very rough or inappropriate, evenSome amendments also created new problems.Recent round of discussions for only 5 days, of course, impossible to solve all these issues (including the old problems and new issues).
We have pointed out: Considering there are over 6,000 pages of OOXML indicator shows up now with a 2293 paper on the 1100 amendments to the defects, OOXML has had very different when made, while the majorfundamental changes had a chance to deliberate, in this case, if it hastily passed into international standards, is clearly not serious.
Can compare some of the indicators have reached the one thousand of the development of international standards: STEP (Standard Exchange of Product model data) standard in all versions of the file is from 1837-4515, MPEG2 is 1558, MPEG4 is the 4415, ODA is1244, POSIX is 3549.Although these standards are not met targets 6,000 pages, but they did not take the "fast track."In fact, they have spent a number of years, through the ISO typical five-stage process of development did not become international standards.Such as MPEG4 (ISO / IEC 14496) standards because of its indicators over four thousand pages, so it is in the six years 1998 to 2004, sub-section 17 gradually released.
In contrast, OOXML submitted from December 2006 "Fast Track", if the end of March this year was passed, then only a little more than a year.Obviously, this six thousand for a multi-page index plus more than two thousand pages revised standards document, the time is not enough.
In order for OOXML to the "fast track", rushed to defend the efforts of a standard, Microsoft cited the example PDF.PDF of the indicators 1300, it submitted in June 2007, "fast track", and in December 2007 was approved as the ISO32000 standard.It should be noted that the difference between the two.On the one hand, PDF is far less than the 1300 target of 6,000 page OOXML, on the other hand, PDF prior to submission of ISO, has become the de facto standard and has been widely used around the world for 15 years, PDF only in the review process205 comments received, and all opinions are to be addressed properly, so PDF is in the final vote unanimously adopted.In contrast, OOXML is a completely new format, which de facto standard with the old binary (. Doc, etc.) are completely different technology systems, OOXML hardly be applied.Therefore, PDF example of OOXML did not explain to the "fast track" is appropriate.
Comparison of ISO standards development process over the other, can explain our recommendations are objective, that OOXML should not approve it, or with ODF, UOF fusion, a new international standard, or through the ISO'sreported normal procedures, give sufficient time for development, this has always been consistent with ISO standard-setting practices.
Therefore, the people are very concerned about this situation is through OOXML as an international standard, which is an ISO standard procedure would be a test of credibility.