Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 5

Does Office 2007 use OOXML?
Hello

For me it is not clear weather Office 2007 will really  use OOXML for its documents. In http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ I found the following interesting comments:


 * Office 2007 documents are derived from theoretical ECMA 376 documents, to which is added binary parts, macros, OLE objects, ActiveX serialization, DRM, sharepoint metadata, ...


 * Office 2007 documents are incompatible with theoretical ECMA 376 documents, since the ECMA 376 documentation says among other things that VML is deprecated, and Office 2007 documents are still using plenty of it when creating new documents.

Can anybody please comment on this. May be those remarks should be included. Oub (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC):


 * It's only of incidental importance to an article about OOXML (though it might be more central to an article on MS software development practices, or Office 2007 itself). OOXML is expressed as specifications; Office is an application. The application may or may not conform to a particular text of the specification, but it does not 'affect the spec. Alexbrn (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Alexbrn Hm, I disagree, it is also about OOXML becoming a ISO standard. What is the point of that if there is no  application which implements it? Oub (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC):


 * There are stacks of ISO/IEC standards in this area with no (complete) implementation: SGML, HyTime, ODA, ODF (dare I say? - remember only ODF 1.0 is standardised). Now, there is an argument that standards should have implementations, but so far as ISO/IEC standardisation is concerned formally, this is absolutely irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 7
 * Re: Alexbrn February 2008 (UTC) Would you mind, to indent your answer, it is easier to read it this way. Well I think PDF might be an example of a standard with implementations. As far as ODF is concerned you might be right (but again that either should go into the ODF article or one could even mention it here). You might also find http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/2008/02/the-disappointi.html interesting. Back to the point, the article contains the following statement:
 * Office Open XML is the default Microsoft Office 2007 format. 
 * So there is a reference to Office 2007 and I think it would be enlightening that this format is not 100 % ECMA compatible. You might insists that the Office 2007 implementation is irrelevant, but then that statement should be deleted. Oub (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC):
 * My understanding is that Office 2007 attempts to conform to the published Ecma 376 version of OOXML. Of course, nothing conforms to the current work-in-progress version of OOXML as it doesn't actually exist as a fixed spec! I said application behaviour was "irrelevant" to the standardisation process, earlier I said it was "incidental" to this article. Alexbrn (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Alexbrn To boil that down to the point. Either that sentence will be deleted or be clarified. I prefer the latter. Leaving this sentence as it is, is confusing to say the least. Here is my proposal:
 * Office Open XML is the default Microsoft Office 2007 format, although the format Office 2007 uses is not 100% compatible with the ECMA standard, as defined by now.Oub (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Why not just say Office 2007 uses Ecma 376 (not its later variants)? Office is compatible with the Ecma standard, but not compatible with the draft ISO/IEC standard (remember, formally this draft is the property of ISO/IEC). I imagine whatever is stated here will need to be qualified with a clause saying "Up to Service Pack 1", or some such.Alexbrn (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Alexbrn well your ally HAl agreed that Office 2007 is not 100 % ECMA compatible based on the comments http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ and we should not try to make it  sound better  than it is.Oub (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC):
 * You are misinterpreting my words. That Office still uses deprecated features is incorrect behaviour but it stays fully compatible with the format standard. Also I am mystified why you would call me and Alex allies? I also suggested that you alter the MS Office article in stead but I guess you ignored that part. There is no requirement for any implementation to be 100% and a truly 100 implementation would be the exception. Even common formats like html4 or CSS2 do no have 100% full implementations. hAl (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl I had the feeling your were allies, sorry for this misinterpretation. In any case the current article does  contain phrases about Office 2007 as I said, you ignored my comments. Yourself agreed that Office 2007 is NOT  100 % ECMA compatible. So I don't understand why you hide this fact by your wording. The html etc reference are  irrelevant here, the Office 2007 are not. You cannot agree and then change the text.Oub (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC):

You should not change what I said. I really dislike that you try to twist my word to support your own strange objectives. I did not say the files were not 100% Ecma compatible. I said MS Office was not a 100% conforming application because it still added stuff that should be deprecated. However that does not make the resulting files incompatible because the deprecated items are in the spec. So you can't distuinguish between a converted .doc file of an MS Office 2007 file. They can be identical and fully 100% compatible to the format specification even if the application creating them is not conforming. So the behaviour of MS Office 2007 does not say that the files are not fully 100% OOXML compatible as you claim they are. As it is the behaviour of MS Office that is not conforming and not the actual files being incompatible you should be at the MS Office 2007 article and not at this article because the info you cite does not lead to incompatibilities in the files. Btw, I would also would never say that the files are 100% standard compatible as the files are created by software that could possibly always have an unknown bug. Your view of compatibility seems so narrow that you would probably constitute a bug a reason for lisitng MS Office non compatible. Mayby you are disappointed about what I say but I have nice info for you anyways. In this article it shows that OOo uses a modified version of Math 1.1 whilst the ODF specification requires Math 2.0. So there you have citable prove that OOo is not 100% compatible with Opendocument. I suggest you change the relevant articles accordingly because it seems that you think that is relevant. hAl (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl Sorry I have to change you indentation otherwise it is not longer readable. Right you said:  I said MS Office was not a 100% conforming application because it still added stuff that should be deprecated.  Sorry. However I don't understand your statement: So you can't distuinguish between a converted .doc file of an MS Office 2007 file.  distinguish between what ?
 * As it is the behaviour of MS Office that is not conforming and not the actual files being incompatible you should be at the MS Office 2007 article and not at this article because the info you cite does not lead to incompatibilities in the files.  I disagree strongly. This article contains  information about Office 2007, quite a lot I must say. So not mentioning this seems to me to hide information, which I find odd. Again if there is information about Office 2007 in the article, there is no  reason not to include that. You prefer a another wording, well what about:
 * however Office 2007 is not a 100% conforming application because it still adds structure elements that should be deprecated .Oub (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC):


 * You can add arbitrary content to an OOXML file. So that first part is correct in stating that MS Office in some cases adds information to an OOXML file that is not described in the spec. However the OOXML spec allows such behaviour so that is actually conforming. This applies to ODF as well where you can also add undefined macro's, undefined formula's or any arbitrary undefined binary data and still be conforming. On the second, VML, part it is correct that MS Office 2007 still in some cases produces new VML when it should not according to the spec. So there it at least MS Office 2007 violates the intention of the spec (using VML only for backwards compatibility) allthoug hte spec does provide the information on how to handle the VML correctly so the files are actually still compatible with the spec. So you could claim that MS Office 2007 is not a 100% perfect conforming implementation of OOXML but then again you could argue similar things for any ODF implementation as well. hAl (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl Hi, so I would conclude by your comments especially the second that MS Office 2007 is not 100 % compatible with the EMCA standard, and that should be expressed in the article. If it is true that this holds also for ODF it should of course be added in the corresponding article, but I would not take it as an excuse of not adding it here. Is there any phrase we could agree on? Oub (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC):
 * A phrase that we can agree on is that it is not relevant for the format article whether or not MS Office 2007 supports it 100% perfectly. This article is not about MS office which is just software but an article about a document format. You might look at the MS Office article for adding information on the level of support it has for all kind of formats. But I suggest if you do then do the same for all implementation in wikipedia that support Office document formats and also keep track of any changes/ improvements in the support levels of formats when new version of those implementations are released and change the relevant articles of those new versions implementation accordingly. Just out of curiosity, do the articles of Lotus Notus, OpenOffice and KOffice for instance state which parts of ODF functionality they do not support ? hAl
 * Re: HAl (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Well MS comes up with two things Office 2007 (and its new file format) and the EMCA standard. I think it is common sense to say a word or two about this connection. Now you say this is irrelevant, well I am not going into an edit war about that, but in order to be consistent  all the references to Office 2007 should be deleted, especially the phrase I mentioned above
 * Office Open XML is the default Microsoft Office 2007 format.
 * what would you prefer?
 * BTW: As far as ODF is concerned I checked it is not there, too bad, it should, and I also find it annoying that interoperablity for ODF seems not to work that well, see the link aboveOub (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC):


 * Re: HAl If this article isnt about the software that uses the standard. Then we have no need of this section Hal Office_Open_XML Will you delete it or shall I? Kilz (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the supporting claims that are vendor specific need to be removed. They are not supporting claims of the standard itself, but more of software/the software company implementing the standard. I'm referring to both key benefits and the competetiveness section. Cloud02 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both key benefits and competitiveness sections report on important information from the published literature that provide key insights. Censuring these views is against NPOV.--71.198.219.216 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't about censoring anything. This is about keeping non-OOXML stuff out of the article and basically, vendor specific benefits and competitiveness issues for specific vendors has nothing to do with OOXML itself. Issues regarding Office 2007 implementation of OOXML should be taken to the Office article and not kept here. Cloud02 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OOXML specifically has elements that allow for compression, enhanced performance of spreadsheets and has several security features. They can therefore be seen as benefits of the format and as such are perfectly fine in the article. Ms Office is just an implementation that uses those features. hAl (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have two links to http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ in the article and one old thread on the discussion page. How many more do you want? Can we just stop rehashing the same old arguments from the author of xlsgen? There is a clear conflict of interests, and his arguments were previously debunked as either irrelevant or plain incorrect by Miguel de Icaza, you know, that GNOME-mc-Gnumeric-Mono guy. 71.112.92.82 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Miguel,

There are two points that you are making that are quite accusing. Let's review them,

1) Conflicted interest, I ship a spreadsheet related product 2) Incorrect points in the article "OOXML is defective by design"

The first point is quite interesting. If the only fact that I as a vendor selling a product that is related to spreadsheets makes me someone whose interest is in conflict, then since you have thrown your weight in support of Gnumeric, a product related to spreadsheets, that makes you equally conflicted.

Unless you are a hypocrit, your statement makes no sense.

To add to this, I have made very clear at the bottom of the article that I am NOT enrolled in any company or organization of the "Microsoft camp", neither in any company or organization of the "anti-Microsoft camp" (anti-Microsoft, or anti-OOXML alternatively, is an expression invented by the master of rhetoric at Microsoft and Novell to justify their existence in the first place).

So that's pretty clear. In fact, what is the basis of the article is that I implement Office 2007 formats (not OOXML, which only exists on a piece of paper) among other file formats. Sure enough, this has brought me experience over the years on the internal issues of what it means to implement Office formats, BIFF and now Office 2007. That gives me a hell of legitimacy to criticize the format, especially when people well versed on the topics have recognized that, by linking to my article, I know what I am talking about.

When it comes to conflicted interest, let's talk about you a moment, shall we? Miguel, you are a Novell employee which is in bed with Microsoft. Both as a company, and as an employee. I could stop here, you are obviously a total fraud, but there's more. Your team, namely Michael Meeks and Jody Goldberg, participated in ECMA 376 meetings in 2006 and 2007 to help Microsoft justify this so-called specification backed "by a number of partners". Well, does not that make you a little conflicted when you talk about this topic? On whose voice are you talking on behalf of, I mean other than Microsoft ? I'm sure you realize that, when you are in bed with a company, you can't voice any concern publicly, or face the legal risks of doing so.

All what you have been posting on MS blogs is just of the same kind than what Microsoft evangelists are saying everyday, most notably Doug Mahugh (who contacted me back in 2006, but his plan did not work). With Groklaw's reposting of Microsoft internal "Evangelism is war" paper, I think that it makes pretty clear who is your boss.

The other point is about "incorrect points in the article". Well, I'm sure you have noticed that with every point, I took the time to describe the steps to reproduce the issue. So for someone believing that I'm incorrect, all that needs to be done is show that the said steps don't reproduce what I see. Oddly enough, nobody who has commented on my article since it was posted in Aug 2006 has done such thing. I can only conclude that my points are probably correct. If I were wrong, it would be very easy for someone to prove me wrong. Why hasn't it happened?

Anyway. Miguel, I hope your "breaking the open source community apart" activity pays you well, since you are very active on that subject. As the old saying, money has no odor. Truly yours. by Stephane Rodriguez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.35.80.215 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: talk do you mind, signing your contributions. The statement is quite relevant, independent of the how many times the references is mentioned in the text Here a single vendor wants his file format to be approved as a standard. His main Software seems not to follow 100 % that standard.(I wonder how then other vendor could gain interoperability...) That fact was first agreed on, but considered irrelevant. Now you claim it is not true. Could you provide a better reference, please. Recall I asked first about the relevance and since it was not rejected I added it. Oub (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC):
 * You are incorrect that only that single vendor wants this format approved as a standard. Something clearly proven by the participation in Ecma of companies like Apple, Intel, Novell and the continuingly growing support for OOXML in numerous products. If interoperability is your point then you should be able to see that the issue you state does not interfere with interoperability as files with VML should still be interoperable as it is fully defined. Also I wonder why you are trying to add this so fanatically in this article allthough not a single article in wikipedia about formats list a percentage of support for its implementation or claims 100% support. hAl (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl Well a single vendor came up with that proposal. It is not like in HTML (W3C) or in ODF were a committee set up things. With equal right I can classify your behaviour as fanatically, you first agree on a formulation but then refuse it, as being not relevant for this article because it should be in the Office 2007 article, although the OOXML contains, quite logically, a lot of reference to Office 2007. Now you tell me similar statements are  not in other wikipedia articles: please feel free to go ahead and add it there. But I have not seen any coherent argument from your side why that statement should be left out and I am starting to wonder about your motives.Oub (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC):
 * It was actually the EU that came up with the proposal for standadization of xml office formats. Also I never agreed to your formulations. That is in your mind only. I think your edits are not relevant to this article whatsoever. There is no such thing as 100% conformance with any complex data format. To suggest the lack of such conformance is superfluous at best but in your case it seems that you want to apply this measument of conformance only to this article and MS office in particular (strange as there are least 10 applications in this article supporting OOXML with much less support than MS Office). Also you used an argument of interoperability which was not correct because the point you made about VML did not change interoperability so it is unclear what point you exactly are trying to make to support your edit. This is not the article to point out flaws in MS Office behaviour because for that you should go to the MS Office article. hAl (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: HAl there seems to be a serious failure of elementary logic. Lets try that again
 * this is an article about OOXML
 * this is an article which contains information about Office and it contains quite a lot of it, and quite positive I must add.
 * just by that you can't refuse comments about Office 2007, because otherwise you must delete them all.
 * the statement I inserted is correct. Here what you said
 * HAL: I said MS Office was not a 100% conforming application because it still added stuff that should be deprecated.
 * I never said you agreed that it should be added, I said you agree it is correct. Now the conclusion is this comment should stay in. You failed to present me a reason why it should stay out. And I ask myself why you insist so much to leave positive remarks in but negative out. Looking up the whole discussion page I see that I am not the only one who complains that you seem biased. Be it as it be since you the facts are clear that comment must stay in.
 * now to the comment about the EU. That is not how I remember things. First the public administration of Massachusetts demanded a editable office format, which should be a standard. MS refused to deliver on what reason whatsoever. Then OASIS started with ODF, MS was invited but refused to contributed. When finally ODF was approved and it seemed that there was a market for a standard, MS wrote a latter to Massachusetts demanding to continue with the old binary format. After that did not work, they still did not contribute to ODF adding new structures which might be needed but insisted in their own standard and they presented it their own way: 6000 pages to be approved in 6 month while ODF 800 pages needed two years. And still the specification has it critical points one being to have such nice things like useWord97LineBreakRules;  (does anybody recall such problems when Adobe got ISO approval for PDF). Anyhow this all is not relevant, the point is, deliver a reason for not including the comment. Oub (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Oub, please, read at the very least these two posts: Explanation of the ISO “Fast-Track” process and Open XML timeline before continuing with your edits. You clearly do not possess sufficient data to contribute in a meaningful way.71.112.92.82 (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: User:71.112.92.82 This information is provided by MS, so hardly a neutral point of view. Please do not provide general links, but present the arguments. Oub (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC):
 * I don't know where this non-conformance stuff is coming from, but it is wrong. Office 2007 is, I believe, a conformant OOXML (Ecma 376) application, not least because Ecma 376 sets the bar incredibly low for defining conformance (an app just needs to handle schema-valid XML to be conformant). The fact that later drafts of the specification may or may not deprecate things is completely irrelevant to whether Office 2007 (a released application) conforms to OOXML (which currently only exists in ONE published form, Ecma 376). I believe, Oub, what you are wanting to say is that Office 2007 does not conform to what it appears OOXML may later become. That's a different point entirely, and is speculative -- probably not for WP. Alexbrn (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Alexbrn well I cited my source right at the beginning and asked whether it is true or not, and did not hear any counterargument against that argumentation. Your answer that you believe: Office 2007 is, a conformant OOXML (Ecma 376) application  is not very helpful. It is my understanding that it is not and if this information is correct it should be in the article, since it is highly relevant. Oub (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC):

Oub, I also stated why I believed this was so: Ecma 376 states at one point that conformance to it is "purely syntactic"; and in any case support for deprecated formats does not generally make an application "non-conformant". There may be evidence for calling Office non-conformant, but the reason given isn't it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 18
 * Re: Alexbrn February 2008 (UTC) (I again change the indentation, because it is not readable otherwise). You seem the only person now to present some reasoning. However I have the feeling it is purely interpretation. Do we both agree, that Office 2007 adds things which are deprecated? Of course we could look for a different formulation of that fact. Any by the way the fact that OO is not better in this way, is as bad as the behavior of Office. The other persons involved in that discussion either said  it is true but not relevant (HAl) or provided some general link which no information whatsoever 71.112.92.82. I will present a different formulation then. Oub (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Oub, Office doesn't "add" things; but it does handle VML which Ecma 376 states is a deprecated format. So what? From the conformance POV this means nothing. It's a bit like saying Adobe Reader is "non-conformant" because it can read documents which use outdated features of PDF, or that the latest version of Java is "non-conformant" because it ships with library features that Sun have deprecated (which it does). It is just a fact that conformant software may implement deprecated features, and it is an obvious failure of logic to suggest that Office's use of VML makes it somehow non-conformant. Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * looking at the contributions of 71.112.92.82, the pov, when and how they are done. I question if this account may be a sockpuppet. Kilz (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Kilz might be. He for sure gave no argument just that link. HAl changed my edit, saying the 3 different people gave valid counterarguments, while he himself agreed that the statement is basically correct, but irrelevant...I am beginning to suspect that the rumor that MS hired people might be correctOub (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Ah, the anti-OOXML's favourite claim. If you are not against Office Open XML you must be on the Microsoft payroll. Seriously. Have you contributed anything to this article but annoyance ? What is your reason for this ridiculously obsessive behaviour around one particular edit? Even to go as far as making insulting suggestions towards other Wikipedia contributors. hAl (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl I said might be. And I am asking myself why do you react this way and consider that as an insult? And by the way concerning the discussion: you are trapped by your own words since you agreed that the formulation I used is correct. But to calm you down look at this Response 885 (to the ECMA proposal)- "Agreed;" deprecated features should not be used in newly created Office Open XML documents."....Oub (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC):

Removal of Vendor specific sections
Then it's benefits of the format and the "key benefits" part should be re-titled so it doesnt reflect as if it's only one vendor that can make use of these listed benefits. Furthermore I believe that the competitiveness issues still should be removed as they are vendor specific and not about the format. If anything, then that section belongs in OpenDocument. Cloud02 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The benefits in the format can be used in other implementations as well. They are not implementation or vendor specific. Only a few of those benefits also apply to OpenDocuments as well. Like compression. However a benifit like 'Integration of business information with documents' is much better developed in OOXML than in ODF.hAl (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * hAl ..You apparently seem to be misunderstanding me, so let me try to clarify.
 * The comptetitiveness section is undoubtedly one vendor of OOXML, that is stating their opinion why IBM & others are pushing for the use of OpenDocument only. That act is only done by IBM becuase they are unable to technically compete with OOXML according to MS, and by doing what IBM is doing, they're hurting MS existing market. Please tell me how this is objectively related to OOXML? It's clearly something that only one vendor is ranting about, and if anything, that section belongs in the criticism of OpenDocument, that IBM & other supporters of ODF are pushing for the sole use of that, to hurt MS.
 * As for the key benefits, I suggest that either removing that part or rewriting it. As it stands now it's listed as a vendor specific benefits ie. MS is the only one that can give these benefits, while we both know that MS is talking about the key benefits of the format itself. Cloud02 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You said: 'MS is the only one that can give these benefits'. Why would that be the case. The format specification actually allows for things like better integration of business information and others companies have even already used that functionality in their applications. So these benefits are not specific to micrsoft. hAl (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * hAL; i'm not saying that it's the case. I'm saying that as it is listed now, it appears to the readers, that MS is the only one that can give these benefits, and that the benefits are not in the format itself, which is the reason i'd like that whole section rewritten. Cloud02 (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The key benefit arguments have been published as justifications for OOXML. The benefits can be provided by any and all implementations (not just those of Microsoft).--171.66.32.68 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Havent I already made that clear!?!? I'm saying that as it stands right now, it's listed as if those benefits only apply to Microsoft. Cloud02 (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutralizing easy!
Just transfer/rewrite the args for OOXML provided from the OpenXML site. Without changing intended meaning!! In a compsci context, they just fail horribly - while the text review the arguments neutrally and properly according to WP policies.  Said: Rursus   ☻   15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Under Investigation by EU
This is posted to try to avoid an edit war.Hal has reverted a referenced addition to the article. Here are the dif's As I understand it, just because it isnt listed in a press release by the EU hal believes that it cant be included. This is backwards. The claim that the EU is investigating the events of the national bodies process is documented on 4 independent news sites. Here's more A edit should not be removed because of the lack of information on another site. There is no link that proves the 4 references wrong.Kilz (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=192804773&oldid=192804195
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=192858171&oldid=192839536
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=192903007&oldid=192871983
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/ooxml_eu_probe_iso/
 * http://www.internetnews.com/software/article.php/3727071/More+EC+Troubles+for+Microsoft.htm
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120242867034452081.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 * http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/103201


 * You claim four references but they are actually all referencing the same wsj article which claims to be citing people familiar with the matter. In normal English that is called just rumour. Somehow you forgot the mention the original officeal EU source as a reference. http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/19 . That is the official source which does not state the information you calim in the article and there is no independant confirmation that what is suggested by an anonymous source in the wsj is actually true. My bet is that source is on the ECIS payed anti-microsoft lobby group that asked for the investigation. Feel free to add the official EU reference and the info in it to the article but the unconfirmed anonymous rumour suggestions I think are uncalled for on wikipedia. (oh and more sources citing the same article does not make confirmation) hAl (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement that a reference name names of its sources. The references are there. Do not remove the section again without a link that disproves the references. Kilz (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However a reference needs to have credibility especially if it is opiniated and an anonymous source that is not supported by any independant source and not by the official EU statement is not credible. hAl (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The credibility requirement is for the reference WP:SOURCES. There is no requirement that the reference list all its sources. But that it is creditable. The Wall Street Journal is a very creditable source. As is Heise and internetnews. Are you suggesting that the Wall Street Journal is not creditable? Please provide any links to wikipedia guidelines if you think more is required. Kilz (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As the wsj article even makes note that it is an anonymous source it does not mean much. In fact the wsj places it in a category of anonymous claims and specifically does not claim it is reliable info. The Heisse article and the internetnews are just regurgitating the wsj article. hAl (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is besides the point. The wall street journal is creditable. The other stories give more or less backup to it. Provide any guideline to backup any part of what you are doing, or stop. Kilz (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal states the sources as "according to people familiar with the matter" They are not required to give names. News papers do not have to name names, that is how they obtain information, by keeping some sources confidential. But The wsj is a respected creditable source. They dont need to name names, and wikipedia does not require them to do so. Kilz (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * People that are very familiar with the matter are for instance ECIS which is the payed lobby group for IBM, SUN and other Micrsoft competitors, which is the group that actually asked for the investigation. This also seem the most likely source for this. It is not like the WSJ is stating a 'trustworthy source within the EU' or even a source within the EU. That the WSJ uses the terminology 'people that are familiar with the matter' is just what puts it in the rumour category. It about the least trustfull description of a source that you can use. hAl (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we do not know who in Ecis initiated the complaint it is not our place to say who did. That is original research. Wikipedia guidelines forbid us to do original research. WP:NOR Please produce a reference source that says exactly who did, or leave it as ECIS which is listed in your reference. We will also not read between the lines. We cant know who the source is, so we cant discredit them. The wsj thought them creditable enough to use. The wsj is a creditable source. Please do not resort to weasel words WP:AWW. Kilz (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point the only credible reference is
 * http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/19
 * The WSJ information is clearly in the unattributed rumor category.--171.66.32.68 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. New sites do not always name their sources. The wsj is a creditable publication. There is nothing in the press release that says the investigation isnt looking into the areas the wsj says they are. Its amazing that a new editor, without an account, zero's in on this discussion and is knowledgeable in the wikipedia guidelines. You might want to check your interpretation against WP:SOURCES in this case it is the reference source, the wsj. Kilz (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, lobbing accusations at anonymous editors detracts from whatever point you're trying to make. Please review Assume good faith for an understanding of why this is an unproductive way to contribute to the encyclopedia.  -/- Warren 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But I didnt accuse anyone of anything. I was just commenting on how miraculous it was for them to be able to do this in one edit. After all we know how easy it is to learn all the guidelines and interpretations are, right? I even gave them a link to WP:SOURCES to make sure they get every thing 100%. Kilz (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The wsj might be reputable but they do not show much faith by their own feeble description of the cited source and also no independant or non-anynmous source verifies this info. The official source actually has a press release aboutthe anti-trust investigation that states different reasons. It is just not reliable information for wikipedia. hAl (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Kilz, I will say this again -- assume good faith. The anonymous editor in question is accessing Wikipedia from a California university network, which could very well be a public terminal or lab, or a dynamic IP assignment. Looking at contribution histories of anonymous users is a very poor way to measure a user's understanding of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It could simply be a user who can't be bothered to log in. (I've certainly done this a few times over the last few years, where I'm away from home or on someone else's computer, and I see a mistake... so I fix it.) They could be someone who has read the policies and guidelines and "gets it". It doesn't matter -- the important part is the conversation and the ideas, not whether the participants are trying to hide their identity or whatever.

In any event, the editor is posing an interesting point about the reliability of WSJ when it comes to computing subjects. I say it's interesting because just today, John Gruber who writes the Daring Fireball Mac-focused blog, posted a lengthy dissection of a recent WSJ article, demonstrating that they made significant edits after publication, made significant factual errors (like claiming that Adobe dropped support for Macs, something which is clearly untrue), and that they were using anonymous users posting on web forums as primary source material for their article! If this is the WSJ's level of commitment to quality and accuracy, then it is a good idea for us to more carefully scrutinize their suitability as a reliable source for articles covering deep technical subjects. Their unnamed source might be some random person on a forum -- if they're willing to stoop to that level when writing about Adobe and Apple, then they are willing to do so when writing about Ecma and Microsoft. Yes, their reputation in the financial industry is good, but that doesn't automatically translate into inherent reliability when writing about the computing industry. -/- Warren 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The authors of the 2 wsj articles are different. I dont think the errors you suggest happened in one article are widespread, but the work of one author. It also appears that the errors were corrected in short time, probably by editorial staff. I have no doubt that the wsj article about Microsoft and the EU is true, we know they are under investigation. We have no reports from anyone saying the information in the wsj article is wrong. Even the press release from hal does not prove the wsj article wrong. We cant use the lack of information in one reference to prove another one wrong. IMHO if the information is to be removed we need proof that it is incorect, not that it just isnt listed in a press release. Kilz (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, why do you have "no doubt" over the truth of the wsj report? I don't know myself whether it's true, but I suspect it may be a groundless rumour, since I am aware of people trying to verify it, who could not. I suggest, at the very least, this information should be subject to review in a week or so and removed if it hasn't been confirmed. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason I do not doubt the wsj is that it is a respected newspaper. It is very creditable. I also see a fallacie, namely that the lack of information in one reference means that another is wrong. Not the proving that the one is in error. Why is it so hard to believe that an investigation of Microsoft and ooxml may cover more than the blurb in a press release? How about this, if there is proof that it is wrong we remove it? Kilz (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After all the Verifiability guidelines WP:VER state
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
 * I will agree that truth is important, so if the information is proved to be untrue it should be removed. Not just that it isnt listed on another reference, but one is given that says this one is in error. But to me this quote, the very first line of the verifiability page, says that truth need not be proved for a reference, or its materials to be used. Kilz (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is now confirmation of the investigation that is not a reference to the wsj article. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/88e570a2-ea56-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1  Kilz (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Beginning of Adoption section
I've removed this statement from the beginning of the "Adoption" section, as it is a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, and the provided source is written by an individual with some opinions (he'sself-publishing at Blogspot instead of in a peer-reviewed publication, which means the reference fails WP:V):
 * however Office 2007 adds structure elements that should be deprecated and it is therefore questionable whether it is not a 100% conforming application with ECMA.

It's expected that editors work within Wikipedia's content policies when writing. The statement can be re-added, but it needs to be clear that the notion of "should be deprecated" is being assigned to a person who is stating their opinion, rather than as a simple statement of fact that won't be considered controversial. Also, statements of conclusion like "it is therefore questionable", NEVER belong in an encyclopedia unless we are directly quoting someone. Don't edit-war over this removal; discuss it here on the talk page, come up with better wording, then put it into the article. -/- Warren 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Warren There has been a detailed discussion on that subject and the actual formulation is a compromise. Please make a proposal yourself, before deleting edits.Oub (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC):
 * It is not a compromise but you trying to push trough an edit of yours that several other people do not agree with. Virtually all your wikipedia edits so far have been directed toward pushing trough that single edit. hAl (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl Yourself said the statement is true, but on reasons you failed to specify does not belong to this article, while other positive statements about Office 2007 could stay in. And please don't talk about all of my wikipedia edits, since you don't know them. Oub (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Oub, do not edit-war over this. I'm telling you, as someone who has 13,000 edits over 4,000+ pages, the text as it stands is unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it clearly fails WP:NPOV, and the source clearly fails WP:V. These policies are aboslute and non-negotiable, and if you insist on ignoring those policies while editing, you will be blocked. Is that what you want? Is that an accomplishment you'd be proud of as a person? Probably not. Work within Wikipedia's established policies and guidelines, or leave. -/- Warren 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Warren Are your threatening me? What are you? An administrator? Well I looked into your record, you have a large list of contributions for MS products, which let me seriously doubt you objectivity in this issue. I already asked you for a better formulation. Now as far as I know if no agreement is reached an article get blocked. Is this what you want? So please start arguing and not threatening. The problem is clear Office 2007 adds elements which are not specified by ECMA. Nobody in that discussion denied this. Do you? The source I cite is by an independent developer, whose critics has never  been refuted. Oub (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: Warren BTW in the article there are several references to a blog by MS people, which must have escaped your impartial eye. Please be consistent and remove them. As you said this is aboslute and non-negotiable. Oub (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: Warren as last point so far: WP:V, if you take what is written there almost every reference will fail. The author of WP:V talks about peer-reviewed sources, like Science and Nature, clearly something which is not applicable here. Oub (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC):


 * I'm not arguing the point, I'm arguing the wording. You're attempting to state as truth something that a self-published individual has posted on blogspot while riffing on an FSF-coined catch-phrase. Don't do that. If Mr. Rodriguez has an opinion, according to Wikipedia policies, you must attribute that opinion to its author, and make it clear through precise wording that it is an opinion. WP:NPOV is clear about this.


 * (By the way, he writes a piece of software called "xlsgen" which is a (~$600 USD) commercial application that creates Excel binary documents. It wouldn't be that much of a stretch to assume that part of the reason he is interested in discrediting the OOXML formats is because it hurts him professionally......)


 * MSDN Blogs is generally accepted as a source for Microsoft's views on topics. These are the people that work on the products, after all, and in many cases, these blogs are not expressions of opinion, and they peer-reviewed and edited for accuracy. In the case of Brian Jones especially, he is recognised as Microsoft's "voice" in the Office Open XML space, because that's what he's paid to do. If a claim made on MSDN Blogs is exceptional or controversial, then yes, it's necessary to present the information as an opinion. Again, WP:NPOV is clear on this.


 * And no, this is not a threat, but it is the truth -- if you refuse to follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, and now apparently WP:AGF as well when working on the encyclopedia, then your time here will be short and unsatisfying. My recommendation is that you read WP:NPOV, slowly, carefully, and repeatedly, and to think rationally and thoughtfully about what is being said... your contributions to this article thus far reflect a complete lack of understanding of this policy. Help us build a better encyclopedia, not a more opinionated one. Thanks. -/- Warren 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Warren May be it would be best to answer your point inline, however I know that many people don't like that. Right the opinion expressed is that of Mr. Rodriguez, I thought this link makes that clear. I am tempted to check whether indeed in the case MSN blogs it is always stated that this is a particular opinion.
 * As you said he might have his reasons to do that, however I find striking, is that nobody  even not MS people refuted his statements on technical reasons! And I would go even a step further: his opinion seems to be more trustworthy, because he is an independent developer, than one expressed by someone of MS or the ODF community.
 * To make that clear, I am not going to find about that particular wording but I find it very important to make clear whether or not Office 2007 differs from ECMA! And because of consistency if this were true for ODF and Openoffice it should be stated also!
 * So I will think about another wording and come back. Oub (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: Warren could you please specify why MSN blogs are considered as trustworthy and that of Mr Rodriguez is not? By whom are they accepted and when? You claim they are peer-reviewed again by whom please specify. I am getting the impression that if indeed want to interpret WP:V this strict that blogs should be rechecked and if necessary deleted. That is independent  of the wording we discuss. Oub (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC):

VML and ECMA 376
I downloaded ECMA 376, I used grep and here it comes, p 27, section 3.8.6
 * The VML format is a legacy format originally introduced with Office 2000 and is included and fully defined in this Standard for backwards compatibility reasons. The DrawingML format is a newer and richer format created with the goal of eventually replacing any uses of VML in the Office Open XML formats. VML should be considered a deprecated format included in Office Open XML for legacy reasons only and new applications that need a file format for drawings are strongly encouraged to use preferentially DrawingML.

So the issue is now clear this is not Mr Rodriguez opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oub (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So MS Office 2007 does not in all cases follow the strong encouragement to preferentially use DrawingML as I understand it. However it seems to fully follow the spec then allthough it can still improve in places by replacing their VML use for drawingML use as they are encouraged to. hAl (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that Oub found only half of the problem. A search of the ECMA 376 Part 4, Section 2.3.1.8 shows this.
 * This element uses a bitmask to specify various paragraph conditional formatting properties.. The use of bitmasks rather than a set of boolean types makes this data almost impossible to work with standard XML tools like XSLT which lack bit-level operations.
 * Rewrite this subclause to express the feature using XML constructs rather than bitmasks.
 * This says that ―The layout properties of this embedded object are specified using the VML syntax.
 * However, in Part 1, Section 8.2.6 says, ―VML should be considered a deprecated format included in Office Open XML for legacy reasons only and new applications that need a file format for drawings are strongly encouraged to use preferentially DrawingML. Certainly a new document creating an OLE embedding should not be using VML. Otherwise, all OOXML consumers will need to support VML, even where legacy documents are not present.
 * This says that though its supposed to be a deprecated format in one section, it isnt in reality in another. Kilz (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Kilz So what shall we do? What about the following phrase
 * however Office 2007 differs from ECMA-376 standard since  it adds structure elements that should be deprecated (see p 27, section 3.8.6 of the ECMA-376 document).
 * instead of differs  one could use can differ  and instead of adds  one could use can add , since it is not clear to me what is the default behavior. Oub (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC):


 * I think the issue isnt that office differs from the standard. But that the standard contradicts itself. In other words it says that VML is only in place for one reason in one section and then requires it in another. But this is going to take more looking into. Kilz (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Kilz that might very well be the case. But since your proposal takes some time and mine, seems not to be wrong, I will add that text. Oub (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC):


 * And I've removed it. Again, you need to be more cautious with your use of words.  The way you write, you are making it sound like Wikipedia, the encyclopedia itself, is expressing an opinion on the subject.  DO NOT DO THAT.  This is absolutely unacceptable at all times.  Again, I point you to WP:NPOV for guidance here.  Information is better left out of the article if we cannot present it in a neutral fashion.  Please support this.  -/- Warren 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Warren I am sorry  but this is what the ECMA-376 says.
 * The VML format is a legacy format originally introduced with Office 2000 and is included and fully defined in this Standard for backwards compatibility reasons. The DrawingML format is a newer and richer format created with the goal of eventually replacing any uses of VML in the Office Open XML formats. VML should be considered a deprecated format included in Office Open XML for legacy reasons only and new applications that need a file format for drawings are strongly encouraged to use preferentially DrawingML.
 * that clearly states two things:
 * VML is used by the Office 2007
 * is it deprecated.
 * you removal seems POV to me. You have not explained to my what is wrong with a wording based on a reference. DO NOT DO THAT. Oub (talk) 08:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC):

Guys - since the whole concept of deprecation has now been removed from the spec can we stop this futile argument and think about correcting the text? (VML is now define as a feature of a transitional "conformance class" and implementations may only use it - indeed must use it - if they use this class). Alexbrn (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Licencing
Since Microsoft promises not to sue | only for non-commercial applications, and licencing should be unconditional, shouldn't be stated here that Micorosft does NOT conform to open standards instead of what is stated now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.184.150 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Open Specification Promise which MS has made for OOXML applies to commercial applications as well. It has no limitations on commercial software development. The OSP even clearly states Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification. Notice the explicit mentioning of selling, 'offering for sale and distributing. The OSP licensing also is no limitations on using OOXML in for instance OSS GPL2 software. hAl (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What about this section of that promise?
 * "This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise."
 * It only benefits the developer? What use is a promise on software in open source if it cant be redistributed but must be distributed by the creator? Redistribution is one of the 4 freedoms of FOSS. Otherwise in this section can also be seen to exclude users as they are not mentioned. Kilz (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unsure what you are on about. I do not see any party excluded in what you cite.
 * But as you seen unconvinced I might add for you from the same OSP page:
 * Q: How does the Open Specification Promise work? Do I have to do anything in order to get the benefit of this OSP?
 * A: No one needs to sign anything or even reference anything. Anyone is free to implement the specification(s), as they wish and do not need to make any mention of or reference to Microsoft. Anyone can use or implement these specification(s) with their technology, code, solution, etc. You must agree to the terms in order to benefit from the promise; however, you do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate your agreement to Microsoft. hAl (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is what Kilz is referring to, my bold
 * "This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise."
 * I think that the wording of Microsoft reads to say that no right pass to others from the person implementing the specification. Tackit (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That only states that the rights granted in the OSP are rights given by Microsoft on their patents and not by anybody else. Which is logical because Microsoft cannot grant rights for other parties. But this does not limit the granted right directly by Micrsoft itself to anybody. hAl (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hal, think about what you just said. It is clearly saying that you cant receive the Microsoft rights from anyone other that Microsoft. Therefore if I create code that uses the patents, I cant pass along those rights. The grant of rights therefore only applies to those implementing the specification. Kilz (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct. You can't pass along those rights because Micrsoft has already done that for you. The OSP will automatically apply to all people using your implementation as well. So you yourself can grants copyrights trough for instance GPL2 and Microsoft in addition to that grants them these patent rights. This is btw the same kind of licensing as given for the ODF format where Sun is promising not to sue users/implementers of ODF for related patents issues. hAl (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which Blogs are trustworthy?
In a recent discussion Warren stated.
 * MSDN Blogs is generally accepted as a source for Microsoft's views on topics. These are the people that work on the products, after all, and in many cases, these blogs are not expressions of opinion, and they peer-reviewed and edited for accuracy.

I asked then and I ask now, please provide information that indeed MSDN Blogs are trustworthy and especially that they are preer-reviewed . By whom? I am starting to think that we should clean up a little the reference. I am saying this especially since a reference of mine concerning a blog by Mr Rodriguez was rejected as not being accurate, however as it turns out it. Oub (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC):


 * The reason the blog by Mr Rodriguez was rejected is the total lack of review it has. I direct you to this page WP:VER it is one of the main Wikipedia policies in my mind, along with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. You should understand each page completely. It will make editing pages much easier and help avoid problems with other editors.
 * What WP:VER says is that sources need to be reliable and creditable. They need to show that they have knowledge of the subject and that they have been checked for accuracy. A sub section of the page WP:SPS gives the reason why the other sources you mention are used. It has been established that they are knowledgeable in their field by being published in other creditable sources. Another type of blog that is allowed is one from a news site that has editorial checking done. In other words its been checked for accuracy. Believe me, if there were an issue with any blog on this page it would have been brought up as fast as your link was. This article is very active and has a lot of people watching it.
 * That is why you need to know the guidelines and be able to quote and follow them. Because no matter what someones point of view on any subject here, we all know that the guidelines are important. Kilz (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Adoption: Implementation and Filters
I recommend to divide the Adoption section into implementation and filters. It would be also good if someone had information about the quality of these filters. Oub (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC):

Adoption and Refusal
Information about OOXML must be balanced. If some magazine adopt it and some (more precious) refuse it this information is correct and interesting. User HAI, is very biased towards a positive picture of OOXML. The deleting of a obviously correct statement is too much. Oub (talk) 12:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC):


 * I see no problem in having a section of those that state they will not adopt ooxml. This would be a balance in the article to those adopting it. But we need to make sure that is is in fact a refusal by choice as adoption is by choice. Not because they haven't received/used it in the past. It looks like in this case they have chosen not to because they do not have the software to access it. Kilz (talk) 13:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Kilz I think the issue is quite clear:
 * Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations. Regrettably, we will be forced to return any revised manuscript created with the Word 2007 default equation editor to authors for re-editing. To get around this, please use the MathType equation editor or the legacy equation editor included in previous versions of Microsoft Word, which can be accessed from "Insert Object" from the "Insert" ribbon in Word 2007.
 * so the culprit is the equation editor! Oub (talk) 13:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC):


 * By nature the introduction of something new leads to a spreading of adoption. this section is to show that similar to the application adoption section of the Opendocument article. It is not ment as a list of which places are not yet supporting OOXML.
 * I wonder what user:Oub motivation is for his onslaught on this article. I do not see him add info to the Opendocument article about lack of support for ODF of the same scientifical magzines (allthough he has been removein some critisisms from that article whilst trying to add more to this article). I do not see any articles in wikipedia about formats that contain adoption lists of software of sites that are NOT using that format. So I do not see reason why this format article in particular should have one outsides Oub obvious needs to add pov to the article. hAl (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl you are missing completely your point by your personal attacks. I don't have to contribute to other articles in the way you want  in order to add correct information to this  article. I am much less a fan of ODF  as you may think. Please go ahead and add the critics to ODF you  find appropriate, but to do prevent others from add correct information. If you start an edit war on this issue, you can have it. Warren you have so much experience, what do you think about not putting correct information? Oub (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC):
 * I already stated that the evidience on the rest of wikipeduia that adoption info is info about a format being adoption and not about something not being adopted yet. You are not adding info about adoption. It is as simpel as that. hAl (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl that is why this is a NEW  section. It is as simple as that. Please to not censure relevant information. Oub (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC):


 * It seems an edit war has been started. Perhaps an external viewpoint would be useful?
 * Oub, there doesn't seem to be a question about the factuality of Science not accepting submissions in OOXML format. And, it's certainly on-topic information.  As hAL mentions, when a new format is introduced, not all organizations adopt it immediately.  Some may never adopt it.  I'm curious why you find it notable that Science doesn't accept OOXML submissions.  Thanks. WalterGR (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: WalterGR Look as you said when a new format is introduced, all sort of things can happen, it can be adopted because of good reasons or refused because of good reason. HAI mentioned the eprint server, (and I must add I asked the manager why they does not support ODF and he told me it is not for technical reasons of the format but because somebody wrote a specific batch program.) I mentioned the reaction of Science and I even delivered a reason: the (native) equation editor of Office (never it's strong point (to be fair the OO editor is not much better)) is the culprit. So all that seems to me as important an information as HAI contribution. I also must say I find his reason not   consistent. In any case his attitute is clearly POV, reminds me on astrology: only mention positive facts not negative. Please tell me why this information should not stay in but all the positive should??? Oub (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC):


 * Thanks for your response, Oub. Re: POV pushing, someone may claim that listing organizations who do not adopt OOXML is POV pushing.  Likewise, someone may claim that listing organizations who do adopt the format is POV pushing.  I think we should just stick to notable information.
 * Regarding the reason for Science not accepting OOXML, the web page doesn't claim that the equation editor is the culprit. The web page says that if you create equations in Office 2007, then convert to Office 2003 format, then the equations will not convert properly.  It doesn't say that there is something wrong with equations in Office 2007/OOXML, only that if the document is converted then the equations are messed up.
 * I understand your desire for balance between reporting organizations who support OOXML and those who don't. However, try the following Google searches: "submissions must be in * format" and "submissions must be made in * format".  Those searches are a great way to find organizations who specify different file formats.
 * Clearly we can't list every organization who does not accept OOXML. What criteria do you think we should use for determining who to list?
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: WalterGR thanks for your answer. Well honestly Science is the only journal I know about which refused  a specific format, I found that very surprising especially as you have pointed out given they have accepted the doc format in the past. But now that gave me the hint about google I will start a search, maybe there is a common pattern, which would show that there is something odd about that format, it would surprise me, but it is possible. Meanwhile I think this remark should stay (science is a high rated scientific journal) in and it might be even enhanced, after we have settled down, how many more journals have problems. Thanks for your remarks Oub (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC):OOXML must be balanced. If some magazine adopt it and some (more precious) refuse it this information is correct and interesting. User HAI, is very biased towards a positive picture of OOXML. The deleting of a obviously correct stateme
 * In Re: WalterGR I must add the following, from Science:
 * Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word so for me that sounds that the equation editor causes a problem, and that problem persists even  if the file is converted. Oub (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: WalterGR hopefully the last remark, I found two other journals, not as important as science, but
 * optics letters 
 * The journal of nutration 
 * http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/ec/equations/equation2007.html again states the problem caused by the equation editor, however you are right this is not the only reason. Oub (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC):


 * Re: Oub, I see that I was mistaken re. the equation editor. My apologies.
 * I am still curious why you would like to list organizations that do not accept OOXML, and what criteria will be used to determine what organizations to list. As a counter-argument for listing, consider: should ASCII list all organizations that do not accept plain ASCII text submissions?  Should HTML list those that don't accept that format?  And so forth.
 * In brief, I would have a problem with a simple list of organizations that do not accept OOXML, unless those organizations supply a justification, and that justification is included in the article.
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should remove the Adoption section, because such a list isnt included in either the ASCII or HTML pages. Kilz (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The adoption section should certainly go when adoption is widespread. It is only relevant when a format is still new and the information on adoption have certain value. hAl (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: hAl Please provide links to any article on any specification that lists the specific applications that use that specification. If you cant, please provide links to any diff's that show such a list existed. Perhaps it would be better to place the information on format use on the pages for the specific applications and not on the specification article. A common statement is that this article is about a specification and not software, as such perhaps we should remove the software information.Kilz (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mathml, OpenDocument, OpenDocument software, Svg. I suggest you edit the software references out of a few those article first as those are actually much older formats. hAl (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One of those links is a software list, not a specification, as such it proves that the adoption section may not be suited for this article. The OpenDocument page links to it. Also the OpenDocument gives information on who is not adopting. Why should we wait until adoption is widespread to remove the adoption section? If it remains why cant information on non adoption be included? Continuing to remove non adoption is not presenting a neutral point of view. Kilz (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kilz I start with a new indent. I think to have a list about adoption is a useful information, but  at the same time we should also have a section which shows that the format is refused. Just because of neutrality. Pls HAI don't continue with your POV. As to Walter: I think we cannot be complete with this list, I found 3 journals may be there are more, I have not still added them, because I first want to see whether the sections stays at it is. I have not seen the ascii and the html articles, all I am saying, if an article contains an adoption section, it should contain a refusal section. Oub (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: WalterGR another question, you asked me what should be the criteria for including information in the refusal section. What would be the corresponding criteria in the adoption section. I think in both cases the answer is the same, all information, we can find. Oub (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC):


 * Hello User:Oub! Don't criticise persons, criticise articles. I think the current text is more balanced, with arguments for and against OOXML. However, that the arguments for don't hold for a closer scrutiny - is not our business - anyone knowledgeable reader may be able to decide this for him/herself. In wikipedia, we should reflect the arguments for and against, as presented outside wikipedia, and clearly declare the sources by providing relevant references. The only censorship in Wikipedia is the unintentional one caused by readability measures. Ideally the text should flow. Besides: all arguments in favor of OOXML are derivable from XML and some packing algorithm - but that is my personal opinion and shouldn't be here.  Said: Rursus   ☻   16:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows 98 and Me
I think the article should at least mention the facts which is that the compatibility pack/OpenXML support is not available for Windows 98 and Me. Now 98 is obsolete and everyone knows what Me was but that doesn't change the fact. Windows Me was released just a year before XP, and after Windows 2000, yet MS supports Windows 2000 in the compatibility pack. Also, Office XP which installs under 9x family is yet under support (not end-of-lifed). Does anyone agree? Please state your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.205 (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Windows Me currently has an estimated martketshare of 0.02% and Windows 98 of 0.66% (and rapily getting less) (source is netapplications). The compatiblity pack install package is not ment for those old OS version as the windows native XML support on those windows versions is not updated anymore. Those Windows versions are no longer supported. There is a big difference with Windows 2000 which is still supported. In it's extended support untill 2010

unlike Windows 98 which is not supported anymore since 2006. This is not an OOXML format related issue but applies to old software in general. Support is not eternal. hAl (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Use of a Blog as a reference in BRM Final Outcome section
While Blogs have been used before in this article, those that have have some editorial oversight. The link used as reference by Hal in the Final outcome section is to a personal blog. Here is the diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=195397050&oldid=195392457 Blogs should not be used as a primary source when the same information is available from a new site that has editorial oversight. Per WP:VER. Kilz (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The blog post of an eywitness in this case at this ealry time is more reliable than the news site as the only info released so far has been eyewitnessinfo by individuals that were participating. Any newssite is only be producing second hand info (in this case motly the opinion from Frank farance who before voted against ooxml in the US). It makes the info on the newssite less accurate as evidenced by their claim of 1100 comments whilst several participants blogs already show lower number that were less than 1100 comments. Also the news site had info from Andy UpdeGrove wh was not an attendee of the BRM and who is the only blogger that has reaction from the ISO's BRM convernor Alex Brown stating that Andies info was surprisingly inaccurate. I can only wonder why the newssite you selected used that as a source. I could als have used a blogpost by a MS employee but at this time a more neutral source seemed more appropriate untill we get offcial info from the ISO themselves (which should be in a few days. Also the blog post confirms that the results of the BRM are used by the BRM to edit the draft spec. This is in line with the ISO directives on fasttrack which are also included in the references. The BRM only decided on changes to improve the draft spec which can be made by an appointed ITTF editor and does not produce a fully new spec but an improved spec. hAl (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont care if the person was there, a blog does not pas WP:VER unless it has editorial oversight. This is Wikipedia policy. If you dont like that news account, feel free to find another, but a blog does not pass WP:VER. Let me also remind you to follow WP:AGF, I used a neutral news site. Kilz (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the blog I cited has been read and complimented on by the official ISO BRM convernor. However you used a newssource that refers to another blog which is accused of inaccuracies by the same official convenor of the ISO meeting. It is pathetic that you edit in an official news source that provides inaccurate info and edit out a blog which is a lot more accurate. For instance it is well documented that all suggested changes could be voted on individually but you use a source that suggest all changes only passed by a default vote. Using bad sources over good sources because they have newssite written over them is not a good sign for wikipedia. hAl (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As said above, feel free to find an alternate article on a news site. Not a blog without any editorial oversight. WP:VER says blogs without oversight are not reliable sources. Thats Wikipedia policy. Perhaps we should use this reference instead. The articles does not refer to another blog, but use as a primary source Frank Farance, head of the US delegation to the BRM. It does mention a blogger Andy Updegrove, but he has been in Geneva this week talking to people. It does not list his blog. The default vote doesn't say that all changes passed by a default vote, but that 80% of them were lumped into one vote and passed. It also doesnt say that there wasnt dissuasion of splitting them, but that 80% were passed in 1 vote. This newest reference has the fact that of the 32 delegates, only 6 voted to pass the 80%.
 * If you are unhappy with wikipedia policy, then try and get it changed, but I have a feeling that one of the 5 pillars is not going to change that much Kilz (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like the US wasnt the only government that had issues with the BRM. Malaysia has issued a press release. Kilz (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of italics for quotes
There is some rather confusing formatting going on where (I think) italics are being used for quoted words. The following is a case of clearly quoted words from the Licensing section:

Microsoft also added the format to their Open Specification Promise in which Microsoft irrevocably promises “not to assert any Microsoft Necessary [Patent] Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification ("Covered Implementation")”.

A case where it's less than clear under "Complaints about National Process":


 * Malaysia's vote is registered as abstain, although its Industry Standards Committee on Information Technology, Telecommunication and Multimedia (ISC-G) voted overwhelmingly No, with comments. The Chief Executive of Sirim had to interfere in the standardization process after, There has been unprofessional conduct and a lack of ethical standards among some members of the technical committee, and more specifically, some TC/G/4 members had taken to belittling other members who did not share their pro-ODF views, both during committee meetings and in personal blogs. These pro-ODF members were also attempting to short-circuit the normal consensus process for adopting a document standard.

I'm not certain it that's the Chief Executive's response or the editor's opinion. I'm suspecting someone's trying to put double quotes in by using two apostrophes. Some degree of standardization would be nice.

-Fuzzy (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

IBM's opposition to OOXML (original research by synthesis WP:SYN)
It seems there is a section now about ibm and odf. This is the ooxml article as has been repeated. This section uses a page from Microsoft that is a self published source and fails creditability. WP:SPS and one interview in zdnet to say that ibm and FSF have lobbied governments to use odf. The section was a WP:SYN. But this is an article on ooxml, not odf, not ibm. Kilz (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I have removed the section again. This section has no place in an article on ooxml. It gives no details on any wrongdoing, it has no independent backup of any wrong doing. It gives no information on ooxml. Its smoke and mirrors. Kilz (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The information that you are attempting to remove is about IBM's opposition to the standardization of OOXML. The information is from sources that are authoritative and reliable on Microsoft's published views of IBM's opposition.  This information is highly relevant to OOXML and should remain in the article.--66.116.112.4 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with 66.116.112.4. WalterGR (talk | contribs) 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The references are from Microsoft and an interview with a Microsoft employee. The page at the Microsoft site is a self published source. It does not pass WP:VER. The interview is just that an interview. It is not a article about IBM, but a Microsoft employee giving his opinions on IBM. There is no independent third party that backs up any of the claims.
 * Even if it is true. this article is not about IBM, or odf, or IBM's actions in promoting competing specifications. What that section was, was original research by a synthesis WP:SYN The first fact was that IBM voted no. The second fact is that IBM is lobbying for odf. What is the synthesis? The fact that one is related to the other. There is no independent creditable source putting it together. As such it fails WP:NOR. Now show how you can pass any of these guidelines. Kilz (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, You have shown extreme bias against Microsoft in your editing of this article.  Is this the way that you are trying to "eliminate Microsoft from your life" as per your user page?--65.160.18.38 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All views need to be presented. Even if I were successful, this page isnt about Microsoft, but a specification that has implementations outside of Windows. Kilz (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz said: "this article is not about IBM, or odf, or IBM's actions in promoting competing specifications." That's right: this article is about OOXML. The information that you don't want included in this article is about OOXML. I don't understand why you don't think it's relevant.
 * Regarding WP:SYN, the text reads: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position." The references are both about a single incident, not sources "put together" to advance some position.
 * In fact, nowhere in the text you removed does it state that "IBM voted no", as your previous comment claims. So the crux of your argument re. WP:SYN and therefore WP:NOR fails. As such, the only remaining argument is regarding WP:SPS.
 * WP:SPS reads in part: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."
 * Reference #1 is not a random person who created a random blog that states a random opinion, it's an official statement from Microsoft. OOXML came from Microsoft, so statements about OOXML by Microsoft are relevant. Likewise, reference #2 gives statements from a Microsoft employee. Furthermore, the text you remove makes it clear that the statements regarding IBM are Microsoft's position, not some kind of objective truth.
 * Please restore the material, or give further justification for why the material fails WP:SPS. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Microsoft created the site, it is a Self Published source of Microsoft's. It is in place to say whatever Microsoft ways. It is not a news article, journal or other creditable source WP:VER and WP:SPS. It has no 3rd party backup. It has no editorial oversight. As such it is not a creditable source for information. It is a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a Soapbox WP:SOAP. It is 100% the opinion of Microsoft, as such it has no place as a source. It does try to make the vote theory.
 * From the top deleted section.
 * "Ecma almost unanimously agreed to submit Open XML as a standard for ratification by ISO/IEC JTC1 with only IBM dissenting."
 * So, yes it does prove WP:SYN and WP:NOR by trying to tie 2 things together that have no reference that does so. What would be needed is a third independent source that says that there is a correlation to the lobbying, IBM's business plan, and its vote against ooxml. What we have here is someone trying to use separate facts to come to a conclusion. From the WP:SYN section
 * "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Neither of the sections comes to the same conclusion. The sections are not directly related to the subject of the article. It is orignal research, that is against WP:NOR Not only that the only source is Microsoft. So we have one competitor complaining against another. It has no place on wikipedia. Kilz (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Using the list of bad things you mention: "a Self Published source... not a news article, journal or other creditable source... no 3rd party backup... no editorial oversight," more than 1/3 of the citations used in the article are invalid. In particular, I have identified the following (as of this edit):
 * 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 33 35 37 38 40 41 43 45 46 49 53 61 62 75 76 77 78 79 81 82 86 87 88 89 94 95 96
 * Those citations, as well as the information in Office Open XML for each citation, should be removed. Would you like to do it or shall I?
 * Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 06:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to go through and remove those that are self published sources that have no editorial oversight thats up to you and not a point of this discussion. But be careful because a lot on your list are news sites, have editorial oversight, are not lone references, they have been published by third party sources as experts. A look at the first 10 found 5 that at a quick glance should remain.
 * The problems with http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/choice.mspx is that it is opinion published by Microsoft about a competitor. With no external backup. Its pure opinion and advertising. WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. Its a biased, not neutral in any way shape or form. It is not a reliable source WP:SOURCES. Granted if Microsoft is giving info on itself there might be some use, but this isnt that. If you use it, you leave open the door for sites like noooxlm.org, every opinion piece of IBM's, and every piece that says ooxml is not a good standard.
 * Then the second section tries to link up IBM buisness practices with the first in one section. This is WP:SYN There is no reference that ties them together. The lower part of the section has nothing to do with ooxml. Its about IBM and its business practices and ODF. None of which are a topic of the ooxml article. Kilz (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, information on ODF and IBM do not belong in the OOXML article. The bias of the deleted section is in conflict with WP:NPOV. It also gives undue weight to a minor view held only by Microsoft. It uses only Microsoft sources to prove opinions held by Microsoft. As such the creditability of the references is in doubt and gives the appearance of impropriety. Swiftdove (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Let's be very clear: the information removed by Kilz is about Microsoft, IBM, and OOXML. Saying it's just about "ODF and IBM" is disingenuous.
 * Kilz, you said:
 * Granted if Microsoft is giving info on itself there might be some use, but this isnt that. If you use it, you leave open the door for sites like noooxlm.org, every opinion piece of IBM's, and every piece that says ooxml is not a good standard.
 * Let me remind you of this edit you made, where you restored a link to noooxml.org, saying
 * Noooxml link in section labled [sic] criticism sites. Remoal [sic] is not WP:NPOV as not showing points of view that may be negitive [sic]. removal should be by concensious [sic] if at all.
 * Furthermore, the article contains references to IBM's thoughts, Google's thoughts, OOXML Is Defective By Design, ODFAlliance.org, ODFAlliance.org again, and again, GrokDoc, Mark Shuttleworth (founder of Ubuntu Linux,) OpenOffice Ninja, Open Office Ninja again, Groklaw, and Groklaw again.
 * As clearly neither of us are going to budge on this issue, I'm going to give it a few days to let other people weigh in, then investigate arbitration options if necessary. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:WalterGR Lets be clear. Problems with that section are numerous.
 * 1. The section removed by me is Original Research by Synthesis. That is putting together information from separate sources to come to a conclusion that is not in both. The Synthesis is that IBM is engaged in the activities in the top part of the deleted section, because of the interests in the bottom part. The references come from one source Microsoft. Policy WP:REDFLAG suggests that isnt a good idea.
 * 2. The Top section of what was removed contains a link to a self published source. WP:SPS. It is not a WP:SOURCES reliable source. From the first line of Reliable sources. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".  In this case Microsoft has put out information about a competitor. It is accusing IBM of wrong doing and should be coincided a red flag WP:REDFLAG. As such a 3rd party, uninvolved source is needed. The reference in the lower section is yet more Microsoft sources.
 * 3. The article is about the ooxml Specification. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox WP:SOAP. This article is not the place to air allegations of one company against another. Especially when that complaint is in the form of a Self Published Source. This is an article about ooxml. Its benefits, its positives, its adoption. Not about what one company thinks another is doing and the reasons why they think it. Its a minority View, giving it its own section is undue weight WP:UNDUE.

The link you use to show my editing in a link was in the External Links OOXML criticism. It did not provide any claims or information. But that link was removed. There is no relation to that edit and the current discussion. I dont know all of those links, and dont have the time to check them all. But they are not part of this section or the current topic. Bringing them in doesn't change the points laid out above. But I will say that Groklaw to my knowledge is a news site that has peer review and corrections. It is also a 3rd party online publication that does not write about itself, as such it is a reliable source WP:SOURCES. Kilz (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's clear that we disagree. As stated above, I'm going to give this a few days to let other people weigh in, then investigate arbitration options if necessary.
 * Meanwhile, you are in violation of the Three-Revert Rule on this page, having made 5 reverts within the past 24 hours. I have added details to your talk page. WalterGR (talk | contribs) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I am not. As I have only reverted the article 2 times. The others are edits. Also the 3rr requires warning me that further edits will break the rule. Kilz (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz, I added this material to your talk page, but since you have brought the argument here, I will put this information here as well.
 * Your revert #1 reverted my removal of the Heise reference.
 * Your revert #2 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
 * Your revert #3 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
 * Your revert #4 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
 * Your revert #5 reverted the addition of the "Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior" section.
 * 3RR says nothing about warning you. It says, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."  It says nothing about what I must or must not do, but what you must not do.  I'm trying to assume good faith, but I believe you are Wikilawyering.
 * I am tired of arguing with you. As I have said twice, I am going to wait a few days then seek arbitration if necessary.  You are in violation of 3RR as I have shown above.  Stop reverting.
 * Thank, WalterGR (talk | contribs) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first edit is adding a reference, not even close to a revert. It doesnt remove anything. The 5th is the orignal removal of a section. The edits before it are not the same. As such they are edits not reverts. You on the other hand have made 3 reverts, you are now warned not to revert or you will break the WP:3RR rule. Kilz (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz,
 * I've tried to be rational, both on your talk page where I have described in detail your violation, and on my talk page where you subsequently accused me of violating the rule.
 * I'm tired of arguing with you. Furthermore, this page is not the appropriate venue to discuss 3RR violations.
 * I will not communicate with you further, and will be seeking appropriate arbitration.
 * WalterGR (talk | contribs) 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You thought it was fine and dandy to discuss it when you posted what you thought was my violation. You have now reposted a section under discussion with flagrant violations of Wikipedia policy. I hope someone removes the section seeing how you did not reach consensus on it being replaced. Kilz (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems Kilz is continuing his reverts after the disputed article content has split in this article Standardization of Office Open XML hAl (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, different day, different article. The reverts on that article did not remove the complete section, but only the first section that contained the self published source reference. This removes the original research by synthesis. The lower section still has issues and should have another source or reference. I will remove anything that is not in compliance with Wikipedia policy. If it takes getting an admin or filing arbitration, so be it. Kilz (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Standardization of Office Open XML
The OOXML standardization is an important issue itself and therefore deserves stand-alone article - the "Standardization" and "Arguments in support and criticism of OOXML standard" sections moved over to Standardization of Office Open XML.--Kozuch (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You made a major split of this article without discussion or consensus. I think the articles should be merged back as they were. Kilz (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Splitting the article is a great idea! Given, the circumstances it seems like the right thing to do. I don't think that it requires any long drawn out debate on this talk page.--66.116.112.4 (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think OOXML itself and its standardization are two separate things and what more, the standardization sections have grown into such a size that it is better to maintain a separate article.--Kozuch (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it may not be a bad idea. I am beginning to see some advantages that splitting it up may have. But it wouldnt have hurt to discuss the split before it was done. Kilz (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Great job splitting up the article. This article should be about the format and not the standardization process and I agree with not having a long discussion which would end up with no action. Better to act, and then have the discussion after imo. Cloud02 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warning - All involved please read.
This article has been a subject of much controversial editing. I recommend that all editors partaking in this edit war calm down and think of the article. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia not cause a war. No one is entitled to 3 reverts under WP:3RR, please be aware of that. Anyone seen reverting in a content dispute on this article or the other "Standardisation" article will be blocked for disruption/edit warring. The article seriously needs a break, guys. Use discussion over the undo button. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian Call me Pat 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Scarian Thanks, it is high time that you intervene, since I was getting tired with all these changes. Please let us stick to the facts and not just count edits. There is a section discussing the adaption and refusual section. It was agreed it would be POV just to have a section about adaption but none on refusual. (Three scientific journal, one of them very important  refuse articles in that format). Now after that was discussed, several individuals tried to change that section without  discussing these changes.
 * Either the section was deleted, and it was argued that ODF was refused either, which is irrelevant
 * or the name of the section was changed to gentler not yet implemented  however this is simply not true. These journal don't say anything about there politics towards that format.
 * so given these clear facts, I find the behavior of these individuals not in agreement with the politics of wikipedia. Please do something about that. Oub (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC):
 * A big problem is that you have been continuously reverting against the advices on this talk page of several other editors like me, WalterGR, AlexBrn, 71.112.92.82. You still have not made clear why you want to add a section on not yet support for a new format(whic~h is considered a natural state of any new format) on the Office Open XML article whilst on wikipedia no other format article has a section for sites that do not support the format. It seems you are desperate in all your edits on this article to add negative aspects on Office Open XML even if those aspect are normal (like limited support for a newly created format). In addition to that you have also been reverting a name change of that section even though the cited sources you have added explicitly state that support is "not at present" and therefore strongly suggest that future. So a name change to "Not yet supporteed " was fully warrented from the info in those cited sources but was reverted by you time and time again. I suggest somebody agreeing with that removes that ridiculous section or at least makes that name change again. hAl (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl It seems that your memory fails. AlexBrn did not participate in the discussion concerning this section. WalterGR did, in a quite friendly matter, (something I miss in your responses), however even he asked for clarification he did not refuse the title as you did. All I am asking is for a balanced article, positive and negative parts of it, something you seem not to be interested in. The phrase not at present does not imply it will in the future, this is POV. It could be that there are parts of the format which are just incompatible with the software these journals are using and it is highly speculative what will happen in the future. Now if you find this section ridiculous please remove then the part about adaption as well. Oub (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC):
 * I disagree that the phrase about support "not at present" does not imply future support. It does imply that. Why else would one add that particular phrase. This is a situation which I would consider typical for a newly created format where suppport required changes to implementations and cannot be added in a big bang. Your section suggests intentional refusal of the format alltogether where the atricle by stating the "not at present" phrase suggest that they will be supporting the format but are not able to at present.
 * The adoption section has only use in the period where support for OOXML is still limited. In future I expect this section to disappear and be replaced by a general clause like "OOXML is supported by most office software, businees information software, most publishing websites and accepted by most official government offices" an may even disappear altogether if the format becomes as common as the current binary office files.
 * You are still not clarifying why this particular format article about a relativly new format needs a non-adoption section like you created whilst no other format article in all of wikipedia has such a section. and for instance the websites you added in that section also do not support a lot of other formats but those format articles do not list that. hAl (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl To start with the last remark, my time is limited I will not scan all articles about all formats. But if it is true what you say about say ODF it should be in that  article.
 * I am also not sure whether all government will support it in the future, that will depend on the ISO ballot, or at least if that ballot fails there might be countries which will not adopt it.
 * I still don't see the logical implication of not at present  (which is a description) implies  that it will in the future. Maybe a modified version of the format will be in the future, we do not know! So a compromise could be, refused at present . Because it is refused .Oub (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC):
 * I honestly fail to see why it's relevant to have that section on the article all together. Sure, those sites don't support it, but why should it be listed here? Should we also put in that the governments of various countries allow that ooxml documents can be sent to them? Cloud02 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Cloud02 what I am saying and what I said before, if there is a section about adoption there should be one about refusal. I don't mind having the one about adoption removed. Oub (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC):


 * I think having a section titled "Refused at present", as suggested by Oub, is a good compromise. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Oub — The reason for having a section about adoption is quite clearly because this is a controversial topic, and it is very relevant to know how widely this format is adopted for that to back up the openness of the format. The same imo doesn't apply to instances who for the time being do not accept ooxml files. There would be simply be too many instances who have not yet adapted to the new format. Should we start listing companies too that state they discourage people from sending ooxml files? The usage of a format or a product cannot be reviewied or calculated by whom or how many you can count that oppose it. While I see your argument for having one for "refusal" simply because there is one for "adoption", i still fail to see the relevance of the section for refusal, as it is driven by ideologi. Cloud02 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Cloud02 I still do not understand your reasoning. At present the adaption section contains, besides software and filters a reference to a preprint server which adopts this format. On the other hand I find it quite surprising that several scientific journals do refuse this format at present . We have not to analye why this is so, but we should add it, may be this is a hint that there is some defect in the format or whatsoever. It is as natural for a new format to be adopted as to be refused. Mentioning one and refusing the other is biasing, as I said like in astrology that you only count the positive predictions but not the failed ones. I am with walter.Oub (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: Oub Have you even bothered to read your own links?! They state, that they "do not accept at present". Mentioning those that do not yet support it does not make any sense as it's a natural process not to support new formats instantly. From the point of view of a format, it stats with 100% refusing it, then it lessens and that's the reason it makes sense to list those that accept or have adopted the format. If/when this becomes a standard or defacto standard, then it would start to make sense to list those who still would not accept the documents in ooxml-format. Cloud02 (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Cloud02 I read them, one of the journals says are not accepted  they others say not accepted at present  fine, for you are not accepted  is not equal to refused  well ok if you say so, I have no problems with that. Now since you are so much relying on what is said, the rest of your argumentation is pure POV : it is natural  that they will be accepted in the future is purely speculative as I said countless times before. We don't  know why it is not accepted, so we just state the fact and to not filter them . That is perfectly according to the wikipedia rules. Oub (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC):
 * Actually I do know why they are not accepted yet. It has to do with the math generated by the Equation editor in MS Office. The new math in Office open XML is more advanced than the math in the old binary files that the magazines have automatic toolling for. Therefore the math is not easily converted down to the binary math format which they can proces already in their submission tools. It is easy enough to build some extra tooling on their current toolset that uses the Office API to save a OOXML file back to a binary format file and processes it the same way as is done now. However if you downgrade an OOXML file via the Office API to a binary file the math is converted to a picture and not to the binary math representation which the current toolset would use. So these magazines actually do not accept OOXML because it does not downgrade 1:1 back to binary formats which they can already proces and not because of the OOXML format themselves. OOXML is backwards compatible so you can upgrade old files to OOXML but it is not 100% downgradable. hAl (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: HAl that sounds plausible on one hand, however I find it odd that they seem to recommend the mathtype  editor which is an add on in word, and BTW produced much better math formula that the original editor. Do you have any link for what you said? If so it should be added. It seems quite clear that all this is relevant information. Oub (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't very relevant for this article as the ability to go backwards to binary formats is not a feature of Office Open XML. Using such a method for transitional periods might be of interest for those magazines but has little relevance outside that. It is only background info. hAl (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cloud02 that this section does not belong in the article. It adds no value to the article and is suggestive as it is natural for a new format not to have 100% adoption. hAl (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MSWord2003 and MSWord2007 versions - are they the same?
The article mentions WordProcessingML which was introduced in MSWord2003 as beeing part of OOXML. Is it still the same as the 2003 version or is the 2007 changed? The article should clarify that. Thanks for the change in advance. HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.67.164 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Office Open XML is the successor of the 2003 formats. Therefore similarities in the XML code. See Microsoft Office XML formats. Big differences are for instance the Open Packaging Convention and the addition of DrawingML in Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the answer. Do you have an estimate how much they differ (2003 and 2007) in terms of XML tags and concepts (leaving the packaging issue - zip file etc aside)?
 * What does a programmer need to know who has created a report in MSOffice 2003 WordprocessingML and now wants to do the same thing for OOXML. HJH
 * It depends a lot if you want to build a OOXML file from scratch writing your own XML or want to use API's created to make OOXML files. But I think your needs are best served at http://openxmldeveloper.com/ and mayby the blogs of Maarten Balliauw who has created Office open XML API's and Wouter van Vugt who created a Word source viewer plugin for MS Office 2007. hAl (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No link to WordprocessingML explanation / examples
There is no example or link which explains what WordprocessingML is. In fact the Wikipedia WordprocessingML  entry just refers to here and here no info is available. The only reference to Microsoft Office XML formats in the introduction and there it says that they are a deprecated format used by earlier versions of Microsoft Office (it seems the 2003 versions).

So the question what WordprocessingML actually is today (in OOXML and MSOffice2007) terms is not answered. Could somebody please clarify this?

HJH


 * WordprocessingML is the main markup language used in making Office Open XML wordprocessing files. It still has a lot of similarities with the 2003 version however the 2003 version for instance had all binary data added as base64encoded binary blobs within the XML data whilst in Office Open XML the binary data is in stored in separate files within the zip package. hAl (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to add the updated version of the Microsoft Office XML formats WordProcessingML exampe (2003 version) in an 2007 version here? HJH

I mean the example copied in below... --HJH

What is the history of DrawingML?
On which previous file formats / standards does DrawingML rely? Is it used outside Microsoft Office software? What are it's advantages? -- HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OMML (Office Math Markup Language) contains duplication
The paragraph about OMML says that the Math Markup Language includes intrinsic support for footnotes, comments and images.

OOML includes "Office" features as though is argument is compelling?

But OOXML already has these "Office" features elsewhere. Why is this duplication of effort necessary? What is the benefit?

And why is MathML not good enough?

An answer why OOXML wants to go for lenghty duplicated efforts is not given.

--HJH

Ecma-376
In the references section the first reference is a press release. (Ecma International (December 7, 2006). "Ecma International approves Office Open XML standard". Press release).

In an article about a standard I would expect a refererence to the standard itself. Where is it to be found? HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.24.10 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct. This information was recently lost from this article when it was split into two articles. I have readded the location of the Ecma standard specification back in the article. hAl (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link to ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm --HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.14.42 (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The link given shows download links to 5 parts, which can be downloaded as MSOffice2007 files and PDF files. What are these parts? The article gives no comments on this.--HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Is ISO/IEC DIS 29500 available somewhere?
Is there a draft available for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 which is intended to supercede Ecma-376? (the ISO page asks for 64 Swiss francs)

How is it structured? Still 4000...6000 pages? --HJH

"Refusal" section?
I've removed this section. There is no reasonable way that we can make a complete list of organisations that do not currently accept the OOXML format. There are millions of organisations in the world, and billions of people -- how do we decide what's worth mentioning, and what's not? Why is the acceptance of OOXML at a couple of publications important? Does this even affect more than literally a few people? I work for a company, and we don't accept OOXML documents from our clients... should this be mentioned?

Now, stop thinking about OOXML for a minute, and translate this ridiculous notion that a Wikipedia article should indicate "who doesn't use this" to another article. Perhaps the Microsoft Windows articles should list everybody who doesn't use Windows? OH, I know, we could go to the article on Adobe InDesign and list which printing companies don't accept this format! Then once we've completed those two lists (which should be easy, right?), we can move on to other stunningly important issues like making a list of every company that has yet to upgrade to Mac OS X v10.5, and then maybe we could find Best Buy's product list somewhere and make a list of all the products they don't sell!

Building a list of products that support OOXML is much simpler to do than any of the above, because the number of software products out there is very small, when compared to a list of publications, web sites, and businesses that do or do not support the format. The Adoption section is fine; maybe it'll go away in another year or two when the format is more firmly established in the software industry. The Refusal section, however, has absolutely no place in this article. -/- Warren


 * Re: Warren are you KIDDING  we just have a discussing about that issue, and you just interfere in a quite dictatoric way. THIS is ENOUGH , stop that. Oub (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC):
 * Re: Warren Look there is not really anything new in your argument. Our time is limited so we just present what we have found, sites which support a certain format and sites which does not, we list them both, because just listing one but not the other is severe POV and biased. Please act more in the spirit of wikipedia.Oub (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice the part that noted a specific site that supports OOXML. I have removed the Refusal section a second time, as well as the link to that other site.  You'll probably disagree with this, and you'll probably continue your edit-warring ways to promote keeping an unmaintainable list in the article.  You will not succeed with this; most any experienced editor who doesn't have an emotional stake in the subject will agree with the thrust of my argument here.  You also chose to engage in name-calling instead of actually addressing my points; this will only serve to weaken whatever point you're hoping to make.  -/- Warren 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Warren I definitely do not agree with your edits and you failed to provide a sound argument you just praise  yourself for being such an experienced user. A last try there is a section about adaption of OOXML for a preprint server you refuse to have the information that several other journals do not accept this format. That is a clear violation of POV, you should know better. Thanks Walter for pointing out that majority does not mean consensus. Oub (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC):
 * They also do not accept a million other document formats. Why is not yet supporting OOXML (which is a new format that started with absolutely zero adoption) any different? Conversely why only a handful of sites not yet supporting OOXML so big an issue that we have to specifically draw attention to that? They have never said that they will never accept OOXML! Specifically drawing attention to one way of interpretation is POV, not getting things implied the natural way.


 * Regarding your comment, "you refuse to have the information that several other journals do not accept this format", all I can say is that the world can only be divided into those who support and those who don't. So listing one automatically implies the other. There is no violation of NPOV going on here. Because the list of adopters is much less than those who haven't yet adopted, it is much easier a list to manage.


 * And to all editors, please do not revert war over inclusion or exclusion. Talk it here, achieve consensus and then edit the article to reflect it.


 * @Oub, neither are you providing any reasons for your insistence on inclusion of the section. Having prior discussion isn't enough. In a new discussion, you should summarize your reasoning. --soum talk 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You against the world user:Oub, the majority is clearly for removal of the section. If you can't drum up some more support for your view I'll remove the section again as the consensus seems to remove it. hAl (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, to clarify, "consensus" is not the same thing as "majority." WalterGR (talk | contributions) 20:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually to stay close to the subject, ISO defines consensus as a lack of significant opposition to a point. And since many have complained about the section being there and user:Oub is the only one that has been responsible for adding and reverting back in the info and nobody else has, I think consensus is very appropriate in this case. hAl (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell is the "Refusal" section here? I went through the three sites and the references given. I did not find anywhere that says they are refusing OOXML, all they are saying is that they are not yet adopting it. If any sites say that they will never accept OOXML (not just not accept at the moment), that would be refusal, not this.

Considering the age and maturity of the format it is of course expected most sites and applications do not yet support the format. Since that is obvious, I do not see how not stating it violates NPOV. And taking into account that not supporting is refusal and that only those sites which can be verified to be refusing OOXML in the shortest time be listed, why isn't Wikipedia listed? Its also "refusing" OOXML. In fact, I can name a zillion other sites that "refuse" OOXML faster than the three listed sites are found. Nowhere is any constraint on the critieria for "refusal" present in the section.

For all its worth, the adoption section is probably getting a bit too large for confort. It should probably be trimmed. And rather than using it to track adoption, I think it would be better if the "Adoption" header is removed and the sub headers be promoted a level. --soum talk 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the section name of "adoption" to a more general one, and added the links that Oub posted, as there is a point with showing that major journals do not yet support it. I did that only because it could be done as a generalizing text and not as a list, and I would very much like that someone else please trim down the implementation section in the same manner, so it reads something in the lines of Eg. "Most major office suites have adopted the format and support it [lots of links]"Cloud02 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And what exactly is that point, Cloud02? You have completely ignored and not responded to my rationale for removing it, and it has now been questioned by three different editors.  You must provide a reason for it being included.  I have removed your additions because, in addition to your failure to address this before including the text again, you've also enagaged in using weasel words to promote a view that "many" organisations don't support OOXML, while providing links to three.  Three is NOT many, when there are millions upon millions of organisations to consider.  -/- Warren 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * @Cloud02. Not even that edit addresses my concerns. Given that OOXML is a pretty new format, it is expected that "many" organizations will not support it right now. Why then is it necessary to draw undue attention to the fact that the three organizations do not yet accept OOXML submissions? And why single out the three when there are a billion others who also do not accept OOXML marked-up content. --soum talk 08:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also like to know why the scientific archive site that does offer OOXML support was actually removed from the adoption list ? hAl (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a question about if a site has adopted ooxml. Its a question of specifically not using ooxml because of specific reasons. I have a reference that states why Science and Nature are refusing ooxml. I am thinking on how to add it into the article, if someone else needs it while I'm thinking, feel free. Kilz (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's more like it. That ZDNet article is precisely the kind of thing we want to be linking in this article, as a way of providing some useful context and reasoning for why some organisations are not accepting OOXML documents, and is thus a valid criticism. -/- Warren 15:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (addendum) I see that the article is already linked in the standardisation article. -/- Warren 16:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To bad the article is a bit wrong. Science and Nature also do not accept MathML or any format that contains MathML (like HTML or ODF) so that has noting to do with it. They just can't handle the new OMML and can't convert it back easily to something their document submission systems can use. hAl (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

SFLC FUD

 * I think the link to SFLC "analysis" must be balance by something like or  or  or  etc. It is a really childish piece to come from a webpage with "Law" in the title.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.92.82 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very strange this 'law' site states that there is a major problem that the Microsoft Open Specification Promise is limited to existing versions. Have they not read the IBM Interoperability Specifications Pledge which does exactly the same thing for ODF ? Strangely the SFLC forgets to mention IBM's patent pledge in their ODF licensing analysis even allthough IBM has had most participating members and most voting members in the OASIS TC and has committed to donating Lotus technologies for ODF. Apperantly Mr Moglen applies different standards to his legal analysis document. We can only guess why but it makes his analysis a lot less reliable and objective if a legal phrase becomes a legal issue when applied to Microsoft when that exact same phrase is not an issue when applied to for instance IBM. hAl (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RfM
I'd like to see some outside mediation on this please. So if any of you wish to actually stop the lengthy discussions and actually move forward I recommend that you file for mediation. Scarian Call me Pat 13:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of ALL blogs
I was about to remove the comments and reference made by Hal in this edit The reason is that the reference and quote come from a blog. But I am going to just remove the reference and add a Fact tag. Blogs are not reliable references according the WP:SPS, a fact I know is is well aware of. Then I noticed that this article is full of blogs, something I have recently come to understand is wrong. I think we need to go over this entire article and remove each and every blog. Kilz (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because they are blogs do not make them non-reliable sources. Blogs today are not just limited to nobodies like me or you, even companies and reputed indivudals have taken to blogging as a communication medium. So a blanket categorization of blogs as WP:RS or WP:SPS (or failing to qualify as either) does not work. Blogs have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Blogs such as the MSDN blogs deal with first-hand technical information that complements official MSDN documentation. Such blog posts are considered canon and reliable. Again, people whose prior work has appeared in mainstream media are also considered reliable. Lastly, blogs such as ZDNet blogs are subjected to editorial scrutiny by the parent company. Such blogs are also considered reliable. Since the ref you removed was indeed valid, I am going to undo that. --soum talk 14:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kilz, please, educate yourself: Lawrence Rosen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.92.82 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The example you removed is actually a newsblog that is part of a news site. That is not a personal blog and does not fall under self published sourcesas in wp:SPS. If a news site publishes blog posts than there is editorial review by the news site. Also blog posts are allowed by wp:VER if they written by an estblished experts on the subject of the article. This for instance would qualify the blogs of Brian Jones who writes the most often cited blog on Office Open XML and who is member of the Ecma TC and would likely qualify Murray Sargent being the only OMML math markup expert source of information. Also the Office for Mac Team Blog would qualify as an official channel for a software product developement team and not as a personal blog and not as wp:SPS. hAl (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont agree, blogs are biased. They are overused in this article. Secondly this reference and opinion is duplicated in the section. We should not duplicate information in the same section. I am going to leave it for a day to let another editor take a look at it and possibly improve the section.
 * Tomorrow I will remove one or both of them if they are still there. I dont believe that the opinion is a significant point of view. WP:UNDUE the words of a lone lawyer, even Larry Rosen, is a very small number:
 * "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
 * Using it to refute 2 large groups is wrong imho. Kilz (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's stop this argument. If you don't think that's a good idea, I encourage you to read this entire discussion page (not just this section) - and then read the archives.  And then read the discussion page of the Standardization of Office Open XML article.
 * Kilz will only permit those blogs and self-published sources that are anti-OOXML, and will fight tooth and nail against adding any such sources that are not anti-OOXML.
 * Let's not go over this again. As Scarian says in the "WP:RfM" section above, we need mediation.  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect, I am against any use a blog, of any kind. They are all full of bias. Scarian removed them from the Standardization of Office Open XML article. I think the same thing needs to be done here. Kilz (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify that you're against any blog of any kind, are you planning to remove this reference:
 * Groklaw: 2 Escape Hatches in MS's Covenant Not to Sue This is a blog according to it's wikipedia page.
 * WalterGR (talk | contributions) 02:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You know my thoughts on Groklaw. It may have started as a blog, but its a news site and a community now. But I know that some people see it as a blog because of how it started. I haven't added it to the Standardization of Office Open XML because a lot of editors see it as a blog. As for what it is according to wikipedia, dont you know wikipedia isnt correct on everything and cant be used as a reference :)
 * But if we remove all the blogs on this page, sure we will remove it. But lets not remove some and not others, lets remove them all. Kilz (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Groklaw is a website servicing FOSS community, it is not a peer-reviewed publication and it is known to censor user comments that do not agree with "the party line." Please, do not give more credibility to this source than it deserves. 71.112.92.82 (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make sense if it was just any old blog except Groklaw has a Wikipedia article. I would say that qualifies it for inclusion. Its editorial policy isn't any more relevant than that of the NYTimes or BBC when it comes to reporting. In fact the reverse: that it does edit (censor ?) comments means it has an editorial direction and that gives it more weight than any other free-for-all forum. Ttiotsw (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Grokalw writes about FOSS issues, it does not service FOSS. It is a community, it is community reviewed, and corrected. The censor comment is not the truth, even anonymous posts are allowed. But being a community, it has rules, one of them is that foul language is not allowed, posts that use it can be removed. There are lots and lots of posts on Groklaw that don't agree with one thing or another. But just as you suspect Groklaw, other people suspect anything connected to Microsoft.
 * How about we remove all blogs and original sources and rely on neutral news sites? This section isnt about picking ands choosing. See the problem is, people want to pick and choose. Get rid of blogs they dont like and keep all that they do, I say remove them all Kilz (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, please, read Groklaw mission statement: it is funded by FOSS community and serves FOSS community. It is hardly a peer-reviewed ("peer" for legal matters being other well-known lawyers and not FOSS community!) and unbiased information source. They did censor comments and not just for foul language (unless "foul" in your interpretation means "disagreeable"). 71.112.92.82 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Groklaw censorship: and . 71.112.92.82 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Groklaw is funded by donations and hosted on ibiblio. Ibiblio hosting is provided by the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Since you say it serves the FOSS community, then its peers would be the FOSS community. All blogs have some form of bias. Even this one. Groklaw has won awards for news sites. As for your proof that something is censored, of course you use blogs. A whopping 2 of them. One even admits he was blocked for language, but says it wasnt that bad. But personal blogs never lie. Nice to see you making the rounds, how is life on the west coast? What time is it in PST now? Kilz (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz please read what "peer reviewed" means. Peers for Groklaw's PJ are other lawyers-alike, not the largely "IANAL" FOSS community. You can find more information about Groklaw's favorite flavor of censorship (making comments visible only to their poster) in your favorite search engine. Finally, PST is UTC−8:00 as any WP user can discover in about 2 seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.92.82 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what PST time is, I'm just amazed that we get so many ip's from a small section of California on the OOXML pages. You dont get to choose who the peer is. The site is about bringing the law and technology togher, but there are some members of Groklaw that are lawyers. Since its law and technology, technology people are peers. Its not one person editing but hundreds. Even if some posts are removed there is no proof that the reason they were removed was for good reason. Even if they are removed are they from corrections? We dont have any information, just statements, mostly from those biased against the site.Kilz (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The ZDnet blogs just are not self published sources. They are part of ZDnews. hAl (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the comments above concerning undue weight. Kilz (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read the above comments and I do not see anybody agreeing with your point of view.hAl (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No this discussion went off on a tangent, no one disagreed with it either. Kilz (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The blog link says the statement by Larry Rosen is on the Microsoft Open Specification Promise page and links to it in another section. But the statement is not on the Microsoft Open Specification Promise page. Hal please provide a link to the statement, otherwise I am going to either rewrite the sentence to something along the lines of: A blog on zednet says that Lary Rosen said something, but the link in the article contained no statement. That or remove the whole claim. Kilz (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (de-indent)I do not see the various content disputes here being resolved by ourselves. I suggest a mediation. --soum talk 05:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Length of the specification is 6000 pages - Comments missing ...
Could somebody please comment on the length of the specification as well on how it is structured? Is this because there is a lot of duplication? How does it compare to ODF (700 pages)? Is OOXML 8 times "better and more comprehensive"? If yes in which areas? --HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.14.42 (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some major issues contributing to the length of Office open XML.
 * The spec is written in 1,5 times the line spacing compared to ODF
 * The spec contains formulas definitions
 * The spec contains many code examples whereas ODF has onyl few
 * The spec contains very extensive parent child references for each and every element
 * The spec contains larger and more complex graphics (DrawingML) specifications than ODF's 3 graphics markups and in addition contains transitional VML graphics.
 * The spec contain an Office Math markup language whereas ODF references MathML (even no schemas are included so)
 * The spec contains surplus material needed for backwards compatibility with current office documents. hAl (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it still 6000 pages, after the splitting of OPC et al? --soum talk 15:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The OPC is not really split of. DIS 29500 is now a 4 part standard of which the OPC is just one of those parts (which can be used seperatly because it has it's own conformance). The parts combined with (transitional) annexes will still be likely to pass 6000 pages (unless they lower the linespacing). hAl (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What is OPC_ --HJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.69.195 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DrawingML and VML make the specification bulky
User HAl says that DrawingML and VML make the specification bulky. How many pages do they account for? What about the surplus material? --HJH

Licensing Section
I am removing the Mark Webbink quote, the reason is that in his blog dated Aug 10, 07 he states that the use of the quote in our Article is wrong. The quote is being used to try and show the statement by the Software Freedom Law Center is incorrect in saying the OSP is not compatible with the GPL because of what Mark Webbink who was a member is quoted to say. In that Quote from Mark Webbink it did not mention the GPL, and his statements refining his quotation say "'My statement is that the Open Specification Promise is sufficiently flexible that it is compatible with the requirements of most free and open source licenses.'" Again it doesn't refute that the OSP isn't compatible with the GPL. It says "most" and doest give specifics. If the quote is being used to prove the Software Freedom Law Center wrong, it needs to say the GPL or ALL licenses in a statement. It says most, well which ones? It doesnt say. We cant use it to refute specific licenses. To shoot down the use even more is this quote. "'The question not asked is whether Microsoft can be trusted to implement OpenXML strictly according to the standard and without proprietary extensions that will render the standard ineffective when used by other parties. Based on past history, the answer to that question is simple: no.'" Saying that the osp in relation to ooxml will not be enough for some parties to implement ooxml. Kilz (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The critisism you added states: "and its incompatibility with free software licenses, including the GPL." which is not limited to GPL but including GPL. So any comment to refute that critisism is valid. You however are always anoyingly removing correct edits again and again. Stop doing that !!! Also you in your edits you suggest that the comments were outdated. I suggest that it is evident that those positive comment on the OPS were made before OOXML was among the listed specification. Apparently then the OSS commity was very pleased with this improved licensing from Micrsoft when it was mostly webservices protocols that were licensed ::that way. But now that OOXML is being standardised which the OSS community is against that OSS community is changing its mind on OSP licensing because it is not opportune to be in favour of OOXML licensing method at this time. The comments themselves are not outdated as the OSP has not changed and nobody in the sourced critisism references is stating that the anything has changed. That user:Kilz think only positive comments on the OSP are outdated mean nothing to me. So if one suggest the positive comments on the OSP are outdated then find sourcing for that or leave that personal interpretation from the article. Else I could add a long monologue about how I personally feel about the timing of this critisism, the critisism in relation to the same issues with the ODF licensing and whatever more adn add that to the articel as well. hAl (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have only clarified when the statements you have included were made in my last edit, the references are dated. The date of the report by the Software Freedom Law Center is also important information. It is verifiable and referenced. Your edits make it seem that the quotes you are using are about the Software Freedom Law Center's report, and not 2 year old quotes.
 * Mark Webbink himself said that his words were never meant to imply that ooxml could be implemented according to the osp. You are talking his words out of context, so was Microsoft, they cant be used for ooxml licensing. Clearly it can be proved. Just read the Mark Webbink blog I have quoted above. If it isnt removed I will be adding a section on how his words were twisted.
 * No ones changing their minds, but your long post shows clear opinions and bias that have made their way into your editing. They are very close to edit waring. Kilz (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually that blog post of Mr Webbink does not show he has changes his opinion on the licensing but that he has a different opinion when it comes to OOXML. His words on the OSP are not touched by that blogpost but are actually confirmed by this blogpost very recently. He has not changed his (positive) view on the license but has a negative view on OOXML/Microsoft. However as I use the quote relavant to the licensing in a section on licensing I see it only validated by your information. His statment also confirm what I said before. OSP licensing was fine for all of the OSS community untill the moment OOXML became licensed with the OSP. The OSP licensing was actually put before representatives of the OSS community before its conception. How strange that now in a descisive phase of the standardization proces some OSS organisation suddenly thinks OSP licesing is bad.


 * And to add to that mostly on points that are an virtual exact copy of things in IBM's and Suns licensing of OpenDocument). Why does Mr Eben Moglen state that licensing of Opendocument is fine and OSP is not, because for instance OSP mentions only existing versions, whereas IBM's interoperability pledge for Opendocument also specifically only mentions two existing versions. The whole statment by the SFLC should have some very bad implications for ODF licensing as well as you can virtuall transplant ODF for OOXML in that statement. The SFLC piece appears another piece of sickening propaganda more than a serieus legal analysis and that it specifcally mentions OOXML show the true intent of that document being published right before the ISO standardization voting. I think it is a disgrace how this publication was handled. I have understood that the IBM VP Bob sutor who was blogging on ths statment explicitly removed commenting from his post to avoid question being asked on the similar IBM licensing for ODF. We can only wonder who contracted the SFLC for publishing this analysis but I think it should not be a hard guess. hAl (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about OOXML, as such the statements that his quote were never meant to apply to OOMXL are very on point. It cant be used. He stated he doesnt beieve that ooxml can be implemented with the osp. Saying he said the osp is good for ooxml on a page about OOXML is a lie. Just dont use it.
 * This article is not about ODF, as you are so fond of saying. Feel free to find a article that compares them in relation to the osp. If not all that you wrote in your second section is original research. How about this, find a article that says the Larry Rosen, and Andy UpdeGrove dispute or conflict with the Software Freedom Law Center's report, or they are original research. You need a article trying them together. Kilz (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The licnese critisism is about thte OSP. It cannot be that members of the OSS community including several legal experts support the OPS when is put before them and when the OSP is published as a license and then suddenly a few weeks before the vote on OOXML the OSP is suddenly incompatible with free software licenses as the SFLC claim. That kind of reversal at this point in time is pure bullshit. That it is even in this article I find offensive but I leave in the article because it should represent more than one view. However that you are trying to remove all prior claims from OSS supporters made before on the OSP being a positive step and compatible with OSS licensing I find downright vandalism. You are vandalizing the article user:Kilz. hAl (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No I am not vandalising, I am editing. I placed a referenced piece of information, the the Software Freedom Law Center statement. With Dates, you then placed something that is not referenced. Mainly that the statements of people contradict that statement. But you cant do that for a few reasons.
 * The Mark Webbink statement was taken out of its original context according to Mark Webbink. It was never meant to prove that ooxml could be implemented by anyone with the osp.
 * In order to say that the statements contradict the Software Freedom Law Center statement you need a reference that says they do. Otherwise it is original research.
 * You also cant bring the claims you now bring forth without a reference that says those claims. I suggest you find references, then place in anything those references say. But dont come to your own conclusions. Kilz (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Kilz said: ''It was never meant to prove that ooxml could be implemented by anyone with the osp.

''
 * Actually you should read the SFLC reaction better because even that statement fully support all claims that Office Open XML can be implemented by anyone using the OSP. Nothing in the SFLC statement refutes that (allthough you seems to have that impression somehow). The SFLC statment applies to licensing future versions (in which the OSP is EXACTLY like the ISP licensing of IBM for OpenDocument) and to licensing being inconsistent with gpl because of the reuse of code that was used for implementing OOXML for other purposes (i.e NOT OOXML). It actually is about that the OSP is limited to OOXML so that reuse of patented gpl code is limited to OOXML implementations as well. (which is exactly the same as the limitations in the CNS of Sun on openDocument and the interoperability pledge by IBM on OpenDocument). If you do not understand this subject it will be hard to discuss it any further and even more strange that you are trying to remove my edits all the time. hAl (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of all that. You have also been edit warring have have reverted the page 3 times. I have filed a report on that. Kilz (talk)
 * Actually anybody can should notice that i made the original edit to add infomation on the positive notes (citation by Updegrove and Webbink) on OPS licensing . That is an original cited edit and not a revert. You have been the one removing it. If anything you are the one editwarring. I hope you reported yourself! hAl (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * and as your comment "regardless of all that". You are the one repeatedly removing original citations by OOS expert on OSP licensing. This is nothing less than vandalism as I has said before and you continued doing so even though it seems now apparent that you do not even know what the SFLC document you added to the article is about. That you actually seemed to think it said the OSP licensing would prevent ooxml implementations is juist plain funny. Please get some legal insight before repeatedly removing the cited opinion of real legal experts. hAl (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, the sections for Mark Webbink is a misquote he corrected in a blog post of his. Second, his and the others are original research. You dont have references saying that they conflict with the the Software Freedom Law Center statement. You have the statements referenced. But you lack the reference that ties them together and points out that they supposedly contradict the the Software Freedom Law Center statement. Without that it is original research. So I have reason to remove them, and you replaced them without a reference that ties it together. The the Software Freedom Law Center statement is about the GPL, you use quotes that dont even mention it. I asked for citations, you removed the tags. I place dates to show when statements are made, you remove them. I rewrote the section, you reverted it. I think you have shown you are the vandal.   Kilz (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark Webbing did not retract his quote. He even confirmed it in his blog post. He is just pissed it now applies to OOXML which he does not like and he made the remark before he know that OOXML would be brought into the same licensing. However his quote on the licensing which is unchanged still stands. The SFLC states that the OSP is inconstant with free licenses. The three OSS licensing expert I cite all say that OSP licensing is compatible with OSS licensing and some like mark Webbink were even consulted by Microsoft on the OSP licensing wording. His cited quote is therefore most relevant to OSP licensing even if he now regrets it because his political alliance (he is now working for the SFLC) is against standardization of Office Open XML. user:Kilz repeated efforts to remove this relevant info can only be seen as vandalism hAl (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reading thiswhole discussion, Hal you have an WP:NOR problem with the quotes. It also looks like you have reverted alot of edits by other editors. I think you need to talk more. So I am reverting to the last edit before your revert. McConathy (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you saying. I used pure positive quotes of known OSS licensing experts on OSP licensing. How can that be called WP:NOR ?. It is experts stating that and even experts that do not agree with OOXML standardization but still are positive on the OSP lisensing. hAl (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Btw, are you a new user having made one edit now directly entering a discussion citing WP rules ? hAl (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * McConathy is agreeing with me Hal, you dont have a reference that says the quotes contradict the Software Freedom Law Center statement. The quotes themselves in your opinion may, but you need a source that says they do. WP:NOR says:
 * "Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences."
 * The argument, speculation or analysis is that they contradict the Software Freedom Law Center statement. I placed tags requesting the references for this that you removed. Kilz (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The SFLC complains OSP should not be relied upon because incomptability with free software licenses as is in the literal quote you added. All the OSS experts I cited state the opposite stating OSP compatiblity with free and OSS licenses. That is no original research but perfectly viable quotes from experts. hAl (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Point me to the page that says they contradict the Software Freedom Law Center statement. Not the quotes themselves. But the page that says they contradict. Kilz (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you want me to point you to an exact quote on how they contradict. If you add information from a single biased anti OOXML source on how the OSP licensing is not compatible with free software licensing and I have three known experts on OSS licensing citations being postive on the OSP for free and OSS software and softwarelicensing the wikipedia readers can do their onw conclusions. That is untill you started removing those expert opinions. and then later you clearly suggested on this talk page that you thought the OSP licensing was actually hindering OSS implementations of Office Open XML which is actually not even stated by the anti OSP SFLC information you added. So you are adding information that you really do not understand fully and clearly confusing the issues. I was just adding positive relevant quotes from real OSS licensing expert on the OSP licensing after you added information about the negative SFLC statement on the OSP licensing. It is legimate to add such expert quotes on a topic but your repeated removals suggest you think otherwise. hAl (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of going back and forth, let's work towards consensus on the wording.
 * I have made some changes. You can review them here.
 * The sections criticizing the OSP and supporting the OSP are approximately the same in length, giving equal weight to both viewpoints. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not problem with your edits WalterGR. They leave the expert quotes I added intact and do not try to diminish them in any way. hAl (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It still does not remove the original research problem. The sections below the Software Freedom Law Center statement, the use of the quotes is original research. They are in place to refute the Software Freedom Law Center statement. There is not a reference for those quotes that say they differ from or contradict the Software Freedom Law Center statement. As such they are unusable according to WP:NOR.
 * The section using the "sum up of the statement" is not consistent with Software Freedom Law Center statement which is about the GPL, not nameless other free software licenses. Hal replaced it after I had removed the article and the statement and replaced the reference and quotes directly from and to the Software Freedom Law Center statement.
 * Since the Software Freedom Law Center statement is about the gpl, and the quotes are being used never mention the GPl, it is an apples to oranges comparison.
 * The Mark Webbink statement has even more problems because in his own words, that statement was never meant to be used to prove that the osp enables ooxml to be implemented. Thats what its being used on this page. In his own words, if "Microsoft can be trusted to implement OpenXML strictly according to the standard and without proprietary extensions that will render the standard ineffective when used by other parties." the answer is "no". So the promise isnt proof that everyone, including those that use the GPL, can implement the specifications. Hal is using the quote to prove it can be with the osp.Kilz (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Kilz states that the Mark Webbink quote is being used to prove that the osp enables ooxml to be implemented. That is incorrect because nothing in the Licensing section states that otherwise. There are some reservations made about compatibility with OSS licenses with the OSP by the SFLC but those reservations apply to software falling outside the scope of the OSP and OOXML is clearly falling in the scope of the OSP. So if any information is inappropriate in the licensing section it is the SFLC statement. It does not state anything about the OSP not enabling Office Open XML to be implemented as user:Kilz who added the info still seems to think. The SFLC statment deal with scope limitation in a patent promise but is useless here as that limitation does not apply to a covered implementation like Office Open XML that you can implement freely using the OSP licensing. hAl (talk) 07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Say it how many ways you want, it still doesnt change the fact that the Mark Webbink quote itself is being used to osp enables ooxml to be implemented. Because it is being used to refute the SFLC on the osp in exactly the way that Mark Webbink said it shouldn't be used. Even if you get around that, there is still the fact it that there is no quote that says it refutes, differs, or anything the SFLC statement, that it is clearly placed to refute. That is original research. 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

<--indented backwards for readability>

No, you suggesting the quotes are there to refute anything the SFLC has said on OOXML is the original research, as I have already repreated several times the SFLC statement just confirms that the OSP is a valid licensie for OSS implementations of OOXML. Nothing in the SFLC statement suggests that the OSP does not freely enable opensource OOXML implementations. How then can I be using to refute what has not been said. The SFLC statement is about consistency of OSP with free softare licensing when it comes to reuse of code outside covered specifications. So actually the whole SFLC statement does not belong in the OOXML licensing section as that is an actual covered specification and there for can be freely implemented in any opensource implementation. If anything it belongs in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise article. I only used the quotes of 3 experts on OSS licnesing to make evident that the OSP can be used fine with OSS licensing. hAl (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The SFLC statement says that the OSP conflicts with the GPL, in the old edit and the current one the statements afterward described as (old version) "This contradicts" and (new version) "Others have a different perspective". Both clearly show you are using the quotes to refute the SFLC statement. You cant do this without a reference that comes to that conclusion and uses the quotes. You have the quotes, but no conclusion that they refute the SFLC statement. That clearly fails WP:NOR "and that directly support the information as it is presented." You are presenting the quotes to refute the SFLC statement, exactly where is the reference that says they do? Kilz (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Kilz said: The SFLC statement says that the OSP conflicts with the GPL
 * No it does not. It says it is inconsistent with GPL. That is because OSP does not transfer rights like GPL does. However it does not conflict with GPL. GPL hands down contributors or 1st party rights on code. OSP grants (additional) third party rights on covered specifications. That cannot be in conflict. OSP does not limit any GPL rights and therefore does not conflict with them. Again you show that you have no clue what the SFLC statment is about and I wonder why you have added it to this article. hAl (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The SFLC statement says that specifications released under the OPC should not be used in GPL software. Conflict is my word, added by me on a talk page, not in the SFLC. It probably isnt the perfect word to use. As such it isnt in the article. For these main reasons.
 * The GPL requires that you pass along all rights that you have gotten to recipients of the code. This is impossible with the osp as it says rights do not pass to others.
 * The promise does may not cover future specifications because of this "New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list." it may not also cover past or older versions of specifications as there is nothing in writing that guarantees that.
 * The promise only covers the specification not code, and code that may do other things would not be covered if used for other uses. The GPL requires that the covered code be modified and free to use by whoever receives it as they see fit.
 * Now, after I have explained all this, you explain exactly what exemption to WP:NOR allows you to refute the SFLC statement without a reference that says the used quotes refute it. Clearly the quotes are being used to prove the SFLC is wrong, that the OPC is consistent with free software licenses, and that would include the GPL. Where is the, The SFLC is wrong because of these quotes reference? Kilz (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added tags to the quotes, provide a reference for the reason (to refute the SFLC or say they have a difference of opinion) they are used. Kilz (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are so wrong in many ways:
 * Firstly what you are saying on GPL is totally incorrect. In general GPL does not require you to pass along all your rights. GPL2 for instance only requires copyrights of its contributors. Only GPL3 has additional requirements om passing on contributors patent rights (and not on third party patent rights).
 * The promise does not cover future implemntations which is completly normal as no onesides promise on format does. IBM's Interoperability specification Pledge for OpenDocument only covers explicitly named ODF v1.0 and ODF v1.1 and Suns patent promise on openDocument only covers versions that Sun has contributed to to a point of obligation. So no others relevant granted patent right promises do a blind promise on future unknown versions and this is therefore a meaningless issue that the SFLC also strangely happened to forget mentioning in their ODF analysis even allthough this is evidently the same situation.
 * Thirdly, You misstate what the GPL entails. The GPL only requires freedom to modify and use code from its 1st party contributors. It does not protect against any third party patents like the OSP additionally does. The OSP is however limited to its covered specifications. If it were sublicensable outside the covered specification then anybody could create something using known patented technology in an obscure implementation and then transfer it to a non covered specification under sublisencing. It would for instance allow MS patents to be used freely for pure ODF implementations in that way effectivly making the patents useless. Also not that both suns promise on opendocument and IBM's pledge on Opendocument also only apply to implementations of Opendocument and are not valid outside those implementations and therefor had exactly the same limitations that the SFLC now sees as inconsistentensies with GPL but did have their eyes closed for when analysing ODF licensing before.
 * All this makes the SFLC analysis not more relvant for OOXML. You can fulyl implement OOXML using OSS and even GPL licenses. Nothing in the OOXML licensing hinders that. You can't sublicense the MS granted patentrights outside covered specifications but that itself does not limit OOXML implementations. So again I suggest that the SFLC statment is removed from this article and possibly is added to the Microsoft Open specification Promise article as the limitations metioned on the OSP by the SFLC have no real bearing on Office Open XML implementations but on limitations of patent grants (like the OSP) in general. hAl (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The SFLC should stay because the article says the OPC is consistent with the implementation of OOXML by anyone. But that is not true and may impact all the open source projects listed as implimenting OOXML. The statement itself says that specifications under the OPC, of which ooxml is one cannot be implemented in GPL code because of inconsistancies with the GPL. Because the OSP is inconsistent with the GPL. The SFLC statement itself is a reference that says it cant be implemented.
 * In an effort to now remove the SFLC statement because you now see the WP:NOR problems you have you have turned the GPL on its ear. None of the things you mention are true.
 * 1.The GPL has a patent clause. "to extend the patent license to downstream recipients." People choose gplv3 for now, feel free to find some reference that says it isnt used.
 * 2. Feel free to find a reference that says other patent agreements dont do it either, but I fear that is more in line with the OSP page as it covers more than just ooxml and ooxml isnt under those patent agreements like ooxml is under the OSP.
 * 3. Read number 1
 * I have replaced the fact tag you removed when you tried to rewrite the lead sentence to the quotes. Do not remove it without a reference, because no matter how you rewrite the sentence to show a use for the quotes you will need a reference that says they can be used that way. Kilz (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are making repeated misleading claim on the section you added.
 * GPL3 only states thinks on the patent rights by contibutors to the licenced code See GPL3 section 11. So unless Microsoft produces GPL3 licensed code that included patent technolgy the GPL3 licensing does not say anything about Microsoft controlled patents. The OSP however does state something on Micrsoft patents for covered specs. The can be used together but do not interfere as such. they however are not consistent as the GPL rights and the OSP right do not always apply to the same things. This is what the SFLC statement claims. Nothing more.
 * You state that the SFLC statment says may impact all the open source projects listed as implimenting OOXML. The statement itself says that specifications under the OPC, of which ooxml is one cannot be implemented in GPL code because of inconsistancies with the GPL.. This is misleading as that is not said by the SFLC stament at all. Apperantly how ever that was your reason for adding the information but since that is your personal interpretation hAl (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And for your reference on other patent promises that do not allow future versions See IBM's pledge. It show the exact extent of how misleading the SFLC stament is because this kind of list with existing versions is exactly the same as the list of the OSP. hAl (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No I am not, the patents protections needed for any GPL code need to be passed downstream. It doesnt matter who created the code. So if I use the OSP, I need to pass the OSP downstream. Which the OSP states I cant do. That is exactly the point of the SFLC statement in one of its points on inconsistency with the GPL.
 * That reference does not say that the quotes used can be used in relation to the SFLC statement. Feel free to add it to the OSP page if you can find a reference that compares them. If not it is original research to do so. You cant draw conclusions from a reference and say they impact another reference without a reference that says the 2 have that impact. Kilz (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Kilz misbehaviour
User Kilz is now destroying the article by challeging every pieve of text in the article and even asking for citations on citations. That is just ridiculous. He is challeging fully correct citations on the Open specification licensing because he claim they are there to refute an SFLC statement on OSP licensing he added. This person is deliberatly trying to destroy this article with his biased edit behaviour. hAl (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I already said, this is not going to be resolved without mediation. Go for WP:RfM or WP:RFC. --soum talk 16:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect HAl, asking for citations on blatant original research is not destroying the article. If you cant find references the material cant be used. This is Wikipedia policy. One of the 3 main policies. This is not misbehavior, and you only bring it up because you cant find the required references to show the way you are using the quotes. Kilz (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also consider this section a personal attack. I have filed a request on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a very early step toward mediation. Kilz (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no original research. I listed the opinion on OSP of three renowned OSS licensing experts. Fully cited as well. If there is any original research it is your interpretation of what the SFLC is saying. hAl (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hal, others are seeing it even if you are not. WalterGR has tried to write it out without success. On the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page user Mangojuice has suggested that perhaps the original research needs to be removed. What you dont have it the reference for how you are using the quotes. Kilz (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop adding the Fact tag user:Kilz. The article states clearly there are experts with different view and I already added three cited experts opinions to support that. You are not getting any more citations. No more that this should be needed. Three expert opinions are plenty to support the claim that expert have different views than the SFLC. hAl (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No the references only show the quotes, not how you are using them. The references dont say they have a different perspective, that is your research. I am in the process of reporting you for gaming the 3rr rule and disruptive editing for removing fact tags. You didn't talk this out, you keep reverting when others have tried to go forward. Kilz (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt at reaching concensus
I have changed the text once again. Now it reads:

"Other people have said things too."

I have removed the fact tags. Does this meet with everyone's agreement? Diff:


 * You can say it a million different ways, it still doesn't change the fact that its original research. The quotes are there to dispute the SFLC statement. Thats why they were placed there, thats why they are under it. The quotes were made in 2006, in a different time. The question is why are you bringing statements that conflict and saying "Other people have said things too.." Simple, to refute what came before it. If you want to use them, or make it work, simply find a reference that says they are related and how they differ. Otherwise its Original Research. Kilz (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This also still doesn't solve the removal of referenced claims, removal of dates placed, removal of my complete rewrite of the SFLC section. WalterGR, you requite precise attribution on other pages, but go right along with the removal of important dates making it seem one set of quotes are about another, when in fact they are 2 years older.Kilz (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Kilz, I don't know what removal of important dates you're referring to. In the diff I linked above, I just rephrased the linking sentence and removed the fact tags.
 * We're trying to work towards consensus. Please feel free to attribute the quotations precisely. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dont you see, its not just the words, its how the quotes are used. WalterGR, Can you honestly say they are not meant to refute the SFLC statement? You have tried, Ill give you that to make it work, but now to me at least it reads like Weasel Words trying to get original research in the door. Kilz (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This morning I woke to find that hal had removed WalterGR's edits (thanks for trying WalterGR) and replaced them with text that is a clear orignal research problem. I replaced the tags. I also replaced my version of the SFLC comment section. If it is rewritten I would like to see all the points remain. Kilz (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed an edit that removed that the cited sources were experts. However the crudentials of the people in question have not been challenged. In fact the article even states several of those crudentials Lawrence Rosen, an attorney and lecturer at Stanford Law School, Mark Webbink, a lawyer and member of the board of the SFLC, former laywer for Red Hat and Standars laywer Andy Updegrove. One would be hard pressed to find three better expert opinions on the OSP licensing in relation to Opensource licensing. Expert opinion is not original research. hAl (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you would read what I write you wouldn't have to write as much. No one has said that the credentials of the experts was at fault. But you are taking 2 year old information and presenting it to refute the SFLC statement. You need a reference that says they do. Not the quotes, but a reference that says the quotes are different opinions that the SFLC statement, using both the quotes and the statement. Your removal of the tags has resulted in harm to the page. Its close to vandalism. I have made a report on your gaming the 3rr rule and edit waring. Kilz (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I really recommend you replace those tags before the admins read that 3rr report. Kilz (talk)


 * Kilz: showing differing opinions on a topic is how Wikipedia achieves NPOV. Having pro-OSP opinions and anti-OSP opinions in the same article is not original research, it's working towards NPOV.
 * Saying, "Others have different opinions," is not original research, it's common sense.
 * Do you realize how many articles on Wikipedia would have no content if, to show different opinions, each source had to specifically say that it is contradicting the opinion of another source?
 * Your opinion is welcome here, but you absolutely have to permit other people to have opinions too. Would it make you feel better if the anti-OSP opinions were after the pro-OSP opinions?  That way, it looks like the anti-OSP opinions are contradicting the pro-OSP opinions? WalterGR (talk | contributions) 14:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as he references those opinions there is no issue. But when you take 2 year old quotes and say they have a difference of opinion, you better have a reference that says that. Most references will state that difference in the reference of the quote. These dont. He has even undone your attempt to work around it. It is clearly original research. He is gaming the system and removing Fact tags, not replacing quotes, but removing requests for references. I wont even get into using generic (free software licenses) quotes to refute specific problems (GPL) now.Kilz (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WalterGR, I know you know that its original research as you tried, tried hard to write around it. You know that the fact tags are in place for good reason, convince Hal to replace them before the 3rr report on him gaming the system is looked at for his own good.Kilz (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I edited it again. Let me know what you think.
 * By the way, the information that we're arguing about is a subject that already has a wikipedia page: Microsoft Open Specification Promise. The analysis of the OSP belongs there, not here.  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like your edit much. The SFLC statement is not very specific on which licenses or on any specific licesing clause so why should the other experts opinions be more specific. Your wording suggest that the GPL may by exempt from their opinions which it isn't. hAl (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this belong in the OSP article and have already stated that several times earlier. But as user:Kilz is focussing his entire efforts on POV Office Open XML edits this is what you get. hAl (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * user:Kilz said But you are taking 2 year old information and presenting it to refute the SFLC statement. You need a reference that says they do. Firstly september 2006 information is 18 months old and not two years. Also the OSP license has been unchanged in that time so opinion on the licensing is still very much relevant. The big difference from then is that the Office Open XML specification is now a covered specification. Apperantly the OSP has been fine before Office Open XML with all expert opinions positive on this licesing being used even in relation to OSS licensing but now that Office Open XML standardization is at the forefront and it is just weeks before the final ISO/SEC vote, the SFLC (who also produce payed for opinion papers) has published that the OSP is not consistent with free software licenses (with not being consistent having very little legal meaning). Strange timing, no name of a legal expert under the SFLC document, unclear and weasel like wording in the document itself and no comments on the same clauses also being present in Sun and IBM licensing promises. The whole SFLC papers with its timing and vague statments on the licensing smells like a premeditated effort to influence ISO/SEC voting even though ISO/SEC CEO's have allready agreed that the OSP fully satisfied ISO/SEC licensing requirements.
 * More original research, find quotes hal that say the timing is suspicious. 18 monthis is splitting hairs, the point was it much older. As for Walters suggestion that it be placed on the OSP page, perhaps some of it, specifically the quotes as they are not about ooxml. But the SFLC statement was made to comment specifically on use of the OSP in relation to ooxml
 * Its close Walter, but perhaps the quotes being older should be dated and above the SFLC comment to remove any possible question they are being used to refute it. Kilz (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, then please make a specific suggestion of what wording would be good for you, or change the article and we can discuss. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)