The Instigator
maxh
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
cody30228
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

OOXML should not be approved as an ISO standard.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 1327
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

maxh

Pro

Microsoft's Office Open XML format should not be approved as an ISO standard. Microsoft bribed several voting countries to vote "yes", and as such the format should not be voted upon again, and simply denied being a standard. There is also already a superior standard previously approved, Open Document Format. It is superior because the format is more self-explainatory. For example, it does not have such formatting as "autoSpaceLikeWord95" without explaination of what doing so consists of.
cody30228

Con

To start, I just took this debate because I knew nobody ever would.
Let me define some things for people

XML:
a general-purpose markup language. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet

Microsoft's XML is for electronic documents such as spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents

(yes all i did was copy and paste wikipedia :)

ISO:
international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.

so what we are debating is if a certain computer-sharing language should or should not be approved by a world standards organization.

This makes it easier for everyone to understand. So this is what my opponent said about OOXML should not be in ISO standards.
1. Standardization process
2. Not the best

So to everyone who is not maxh, this is what happened in simple english.
OOXML was submitted. It needed 2/3 acceptance with only 1/4 negative votes. It had over 1/2 acceptance and 26% negative votes. So it juuuuuust missed. it did make majority though. So the next step was Microsoft could go to the countries and legally talk to them about how they could get their votes by making amendments in OOXML. Nothing wrong so far. Where is your proof they bribed countries? If the countries re-vote then that's fine.

You state that their should be no re-vote. Why? What if amendments are made? Think of it this way.
Hillary Clinton is elected democratic nominee by a margin of 51 to 49 percent.
then Barrack Obama calls for a re-vote. Should he be rejected? What if Clinton, I know she would, had slipped in votes and actually lost 25 to 75!

I know this is a made up situation but Maxh gives support to Obama.

You claim their is a superior thingy already.
You are the only one who knows that! sooooo, obviously there must be some things good about OOXML if over half of the ISO members voted for it and only 26% voted against it. So I don't know why it is good, but apparently some bigwig nerds know. And you don't seem like a bigwig nerd. So I assume the ISO members know more than you. They see good in it. Why can't you.
Debate Round No. 1
maxh

Pro

(XML:
a general-purpose markup language. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of structured data across different information systems, particularly via the Internet)
Yes, yes. With no defined tags, each user must use a a custom or pre-existing DTD or XML Schema to be able to validate their document. The DTD or Schema can have any tags and attributes the author chooses. An XML document can be styled in a web browser with a CSS or XSL stylesheet. It can also be displayed by any program that is designed to support the XML markup. (As it happens, I'm currently working on my own XML format for book collections.) We know what it is.

(ISO:
international standard-setting body composed of representatives from various national standards organizations.)
Correct. The International Organization for Standardization approves submitted proposals as standard and gives them a number. We agree on that as well.

~~~

While looking for sources for the claim of bribery, I found that I was indeed confusing several issues. Microsoft only bribed Sweden, but they placed representatives in the standards body of Denmark to influence their international vote, and blocked Norway's ability to vote "No" using a loophole in their rules. [http://www.betanews.com...]. They also (in violation of ISO rules) had several representatives (of Microsoft) at the ISO vote, one of whom voted multiple times [http://www.os2world.com...]. There are also a higher number than usual of countries attempting to get "P" (privileged (voting)) status in the ISO, and this is believed to be due to Microsoft's influence. Even just with the vote tampering attempts, OOXML should not be given a second vote, and should not be approved as a standard.

However, there are also several problems with the standard itself. There are the already-mentioned problems with "autoSpaceLikeWord95", as well as ""useWord97LineBreakRules", "useWord2002TableStyleRules", "lineWrapLikeWord6", and "suppressTopSpacingWP". It also uses a paper size format of numbering sizes 1-68, rather than using size names. It also uses non-standard formats for time, language codes, and colour codes. Although these would become "standard" if it were approved, it runs afoul of already-existing standards. It also has several partially-defined styles, such as "apples", "scaredCat", and "heebieJeebies".

There are also problems, though easier to fix, with the writing of the standard. Over 10% of the WordProcessingML examples do not validate against the Schema, which means that they do not serve as valid examples of the language. It also shows that the standard was not thoroughly edited. There are also errors in the spreadsheet formula specification, which Microsoft has admitted to. There are also several instances of use of the Windows path format, rather than the platform-independent URI format. Furthermore, some attributes are undefined, or defined only with an example.

For these reasons, it seems that an already-existing format, OpenDocument, is best to use, and that OOXML should not be a standard.
cody30228

Con

"Yes, yes. With no defined tags, each user must use a a custom or pre-existing DTD or XML Schema to be able to validate their document. The DTD or Schema can have any tags and attributes the author chooses. An XML document can be styled in a web browser with a CSS or XSL stylesheet. It can also be displayed by any program that is designed to support the XML markup. (As it happens, I'm currently working on my own XML format for book collections.) We know what it is."
Huh? Ok i guess that all means i am right.

~~~

"Microsoft only bribed Sweden, but they placed representatives in the standards body of Denmark to influence their international vote, and blocked Norway's ability to vote "No" using a loophole in their rules. [http://www.betanews.com......]. They also (in violation of ISO rules) had several representatives (of Microsoft) at the ISO vote, one of whom voted multiple times [http://www.os2world.com......]. "

Well, as I read, when the vote fails the first time, the ISO allows private open talks between countries and corporations.
http://www.ecma-international.org...

So what ever happens in those talks is legit. Furthermore, your sources only say that any of those manipulation schemes are possible. There is no proof. So you are drawing blank conclusions. PEOPLE DO NOT BE FOOLED BY THIS. He is simply playing off of conspiracy theories.

"There are also a higher number than usual of countries attempting to get "P" (privileged (voting)) status in the ISO, and this is believed to be due to Microsoft's influence. Even just with the vote tampering attempts, OOXML should not be given a second vote, and should not be approved as a standard."
Once again, all completely legit. You have not PROVED anything wrong with re-voting.

And since you ignored my point that a true winner should be able to hold a re-vote proves that there is nothing wrong with a second vote.
So your only argument now is that it is bad.
You state that it does not make any sense.
Lets look at two other standard systems.
Inch
Foot
Yard
Mile

or

Millimeter
Centimeter
Meter
Kilometer

One makes a lot of sense, one is nonsensical. But we still use it. So I don't believe some confusing language to a NOT bigwig nerd should fail something.

You state that there are problems that Microsoft had announced. This is good. Why? So they can fix it. You can't fix something if you don't know what's broke.

Any finally, like I said and was ignored, something has to be good about OOXML. I don't know what. I never heard of it before now. But there must be some reasons why about half of the people voted for it and only a quarter voted against it.
Debate Round No. 2
maxh

Pro

maxh forfeited this round.
cody30228

Con

As you can see, my opponent has no reply. So I would like to reiterate there is nothing illegal about the voting process OOXML has taken in the ISO and must have some good qualities.
Debate Round No. 3
maxh

Pro

Sorry for missing last round (grumbling about end of term skipped)
~~~
Although it is possible that not all of the happenings are not permitted, bribes are certainly not allowed, and that Sweden was bribed is a certainty (although they did, rightly, abstain from voting, the fact that there was an attempt at bribery should preclude OOXML from becoming standard). Furthermore, the link you provided is from Ecma International. Do you have a link from ISO?
~~~
Your comparison of the numbered paper size system and the standard paper size system with metric and imperial units is faulty. We use imperial units because we do not want the trouble of converting to metric. We already have standard paper sizes, and new standards should build on any applicable pre-existing standards, unless they intend to entirely replace the old standard for something better. This is not that. Based on Microsoft's past actions, it is at best a mistake, and at worst (and most likely) a deliberate attempt to make OOXML difficult to implement.
~~~
Your claim that ISO members are "bigwig nerds" is erroneous. The ISO works in many fields, so they do not all know enough about computers to know about file formats and Microsoft's past actions. Although I have no doubt that ISO members are quite good at what they do, they may not understand fully what OOXML is. Again, ODF was already approved by the ISO, so OOXML should have more justification for being approved than simply "it works okay".
~~~
Also, you admit to never having heard of OOXML before. Why are you debating on something you've never heard of before? Although OOXML seems perfectly good at an immediate look, having been watching the event almost since the beginning, I can say that OOXML should not be approved.
cody30228

Con

You argument here is that Microsoft bribed Sweden, and the attempt to bribe should stop a second voting process. Why this does not matter:
The bribery was never actually money, but "market benefits and increased access to Microsoft resources". The discovered email never had money sent to Sweden or a money guarantee. It basically promised more Microsoft product usage (which makes sense sense OOXML is from Microsoft and would allow more usage of Microsoft products) and market benefits (which could simply mean cheaper costs of implementing OOXML, which in bulk, is what most companies do with products).
So there is no CLEAR evidence of bribery in the manner of which you make it out to be.
No I do not source from ISO because their website is mostly for products and do not post rules. But Ecma is currently working with ISO, if you read by source, in the OOXML voting process, so it is a legitimate source.
~~~
Like I said, i'm not sure what OOXML's new standards are, but on reading about it, It looked to me as if they were simply trying to improve upon the current standard by being more efficient and compatible with current Microsoft products. Please explain your last comment
"Based on Microsoft's past actions, it is at best a mistake, and at worst (and most likely) a deliberate attempt to make OOXML difficult to implement."
I don't see what this has to so with the debate.
~~~
If ODF was approved by ISO, and ISO does not specialize in this field, how do we know ODF is a good standard. Over half of the countries think OOXML is better than okay but so good it should replace ODF. If ISO members do not understand what they are doing, than the ISO is at fault, not OOXML.
~~~
I am debating on this because I knew no one else would.
Debate Round No. 4
maxh

Pro

maxh forfeited this round.
cody30228

Con

OOXML

Must be good somehow
Is legal
should have second vote
over 50% support it
only 25% don't want it

GO OOXML!!!
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cody30228 6 years ago
cody30228
your welcome. Always trying to be nice.
Posted by PoeJoe 6 years ago
PoeJoe
Thanks for the compliments!
Posted by cody30228 6 years ago
cody30228
its cool. just trying to have some fun.
Besides, PoeJoe just doesn't have the ballz to do it.
Posted by maxh 6 years ago
maxh
@cody30228
Thanks for taking this debate and ignoring PoeJoe.
Posted by maxh 6 years ago
maxh
Mostly, to see if anyone would bother debating this.
Posted by RMK 6 years ago
RMK
Can't this debate be deleted? Horrible topic. What was this person thinking ????????????????????
Posted by PoeJoe 6 years ago
PoeJoe
At this point, I don't think anyone will take this. I'm going to bookmark this to see what sorry loser does.
Posted by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
There are probably less than five people on here that even know what an ISO standard is. Not many more probably even know what XML is.
Posted by Cooperman88 6 years ago
Cooperman88
if anyone wants to debate this period, i would be surprised.
Posted by maxh 6 years ago
maxh
If someone would like to take this debate with fewer rounds, post a comment and I'll change it.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 3 years ago
ethopia619
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by solo 6 years ago
solo
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 6 years ago
SportsGuru
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 6 years ago
hark
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by uiop 6 years ago
uiop
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cody30228 6 years ago
cody30228
maxhcody30228Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03