Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 8

Two lists?
The article currently cites 163 references. How about, while the article is protected, we begin to compile two lists here on the Talk page of sources that we will, and those that we will not, use as trustworthy references after the protection ceases? As per Lester's comments above, we should avoid sources published by the primary interested parties and go for trustworthy secondary sources that cover the territory wherever possible. If we can at least agree on a few of each kind, we will have made considerable progress, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A method I suggest won't work on any subject that is related to Microsoft as almost the entire ICT world is either supporting MS products or competing with MS products. There is hardly any information that does not come directly or indirectly from parties involved. In fact the very subject is already part of the conflict in itself where info on a group of organisations that support Office Open XML development have been removed from the article because an editor (Scientus) does not find them suitable because Microsoft is a promonent member and host their site whilst of course as the main implementer of OOXML Microsoft will be involved in just about anything that is related to supporting the format. In general Wikipedia editting is heavily biased towards oss which favors the opendocument format over office open xml. This is exactly why I would prefer neutral editors allthough so far I have not seen any interest on the RFC above. hAl (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds a little bit like saying that it's impossible to agree on the sources for the Arab–Israeli conflict article, because everyone who writes about it is either pro-Arab or pro-Israeli. Nonetheless, it is in fact possible to find independent commentators and truthful reports in reliable, citable and secondary sources and to create a balanced article. --Nigelj (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The way around any controversial issue is to state both sides' claims. "Side 1 claims XXX". "Side 2 counter claims YYY". That's better than two sides continually reverting each other's edits. The fact that there was press coverage that Microsoft had paid people to edit Wikipedia articles on Office Open XML means that care should be taken in regards to neutrality. That's why it's important to have independent sources and citations, so the Wikipedia article can be independent, and be seen to be independent.-- Lester  22:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at the Google cited criticism of OOXML which HAl repeatedly removed you would notice that there is a clear distinction between fact and opinion. HAl removed 11 times "If ISO were to give OOXML with its 6546 pages the same level of review that other standards have seen, it would take 18 years (6576 days for 6546 pages) to achieve comparable levels of review to the existing ODF standard (871 days for 867 pages). Considering that OOXML had only received about 5.5% of the review comparable standards (ostensibly ODF) have undergone, Google sees "reports about inconsistencies, contradictions and missing information [as] hardly surprising." " Scientus (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you should note that the size of the article is not dsiputed and the critisims of Google on the size of the specification itself is not a problem (allthough but the so called statement by Google is not verifiable because the only source of the critisims is from anti OOXML source and Google itself have retracted it), however the calculation is of 5,5% review time is totally unverifiable and was in time made before the review of the OOXML was actually completed. So the 5.5% cannot be true because it was made before the complete review of the OOXML format was done. Also it is incorrect which I already showed in the talk page. For instance the ISO/IEC standardization proces on ODF/IEC from submission to approval last only the aboslute minimum of 6 months while the ISO/IEC standardization proces from submission to approval last 16-17 months. If the facts in a critisism do not match reality and this is shown to be invalid it can be removed. I asume it is either a calculation error or a based on incorrect data. That is defenitly sure as the ISO/IEC proces was still being done at the time of this critisism so that Google culd not know how long that would take unless google could predit the future. Also as one thing have been evident in the standardization proces of Office Open XML which had a lot more participation than any other standardization proces in ISO/IEC is that OOXML is one of the most reviewed specifications EVER. Mayby you should explain that you remove possibly 20 or 30 times fully sourced information from the article on support for the format. hAl (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're thinking at the wrong level, hAl. We're not here to review the validity of Google's logic, but (if we agree that this Google statement is a reliable and noteworthy independent source, which is by no means a done deal) we would just report the fact, "Google said this", and maybe "someone else said the opposite" too, for balance. --Nigelj (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. So we report the factual part of the critisism which is the large size of the spec (which some even calim is actually better than a spec that is too small) but as we do have tons factual information the the review time of the ODF and OOXML spec and can verify this is not factual critisism we can leave that out. hAl (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential sources
Here are some initial (easy) suggestions. Please feel free to comment and add constructively. We can put these to use when the protection is lifted, especially if enough can be agreed here beforehand. --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources OK to use as references for stated facts and, with attribution, opinions when given due weight

 * zdnet.com (Ziff Davis Publishing Company)
 * Independently-owned technology commentator


 * arstechnica.com (Condé Nast Publications)
 * Independently-owned technology commentator

Sources to avoid as references supporting article statements

 * microsoft.com
 * As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB


 * ecma-international.org
 * As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB


 * iso.org
 * As per Lester's suggestion, WP:SELFPUB


 * This is totally ridiculous. It is not about the sources but about the content. Objecting to the ISO/IEC as a source is laughable. Still waiting for independant editers as Lester and Nigelj have recent history in the article here. hAl (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So by editing the article you somehow disqualify yourself from editing the article?!?!?! Such circular argumentation is certainly better suited for uncyclopedia than here, and in any case if your proposal was applied would disqualify yourself from editing the article. Scientus (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No but I have made the request for people from outside to get independant mediation on certain content issues that lead to edit conflicts and I would like to see that mediation happening and not get in a new discussion on something totally different (the list of sources in the article) and create new issues and conflicts. Which is what Nigelj is doing. hAl (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote: "It is not about the sources but about the content" - Not so. The two are linked. The sources you use affect what content you can put in. By collecting the information directly from the source, eg, Microsoft, ISO, ECMA etc, it is using what's known as primary sources, and becomes original research. We don't need to do original research for this article, as independent articles proliferate on the internet. We should be reflecting what the mainstream media is saying (such as ZDnet, Infoworld, ArsTechnica etc etc). The most notable publications.-- Lester  09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You should read up on primary sources. Primary sources are sources very close to an event. The standardization proces of Office Open XML was an event. The Office Open XML format itself is not an event. Microsoft is a primary source on Microsoft related events and not a primary source on Office Open XML itself. And even then primary sources can be used for descriptive purposes. So for information relating directy the free publication of ISO/IEC specification you can use ISO/IEC as a valid primary source to link the date of publication or the location of the specification itself as that is descriptive information. Microsoft stating in a release note stating that a new versions of MS Office supports OOXML is descriptive or Microsoft stating that they submitted the format to Ecma on a certain data is descriptive and is describing of factual events that have verifiably happened. The entire section on file format and structure is descriptive on the format and not an event and virtually all sources can be use on that. ISO/IEC stating they have approved the Office Open XML standard is purely descriptive of an event. It migth however no be acceptable to use primary sources sources to interprete the information. So for instance using ISO/IEC as a source for stating that the standardization proces was the best ever would be incorrect use of a primary source as that is interpretive of the standardization event by a primary source. That is why the sourcing is more likely to be bad in the Standardization of Office Open XML article where the entrire article is about an event. It is full of sources who participated in the event of the standardization proces itself as almost everyone did so. If you want to cull primary sources that is probably the article for you. hAl (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you find a connection between primary sources and events? A primary source on Relativity is Einstein's paper, a primary source on Chippendale furniture is a book by Mr Chippendale. There is no need for an event as I understand it. --Nigelj (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At WP:Primary sources of course. hAl (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Primary sources says ''Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.'' So a simple citation of a ISO/OASIS/ECMA standard in the context of describing what it clearly says with page or section number is certainly an allowed use of a primary source. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice and offer for meditation
As a completely uninvolved editor, I want to offer some advice. Rather than focusing on which sources "can" and "can not" be used, it is more productive to simply look at which claim is being cited to which source, and hedge the claim as needed. So: I would be glad to help mediate disagreements about the content, but perhaps it would be good if editors here first commented on the points above. If everyone can agree about the general process for citing things here, it will help a lot when you discuss the actual content. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Claims that are accepted by all sides in the real world can probably just be stated as fact with a footnote. For example, most of the information in the "file format" and "structure of the standard" sections is probably not contentious
 * Claims that are only accepted by some can be attributed in prose to the people who make them. For example: "The ODF Alliance argues that the Office Open XML file-format is not vendor-neutral [1]". In this way, it is clear that the claim being made is not universally accepted
 * Avoid putting things in the lede that are not universally agreed. There is simply not enough space in the lede to go into detail. So, for example, instead of saying "free and open ECMA standard", just say "ECMA standard" in the lede, and discuss openness lower down where space permits. There is an unlimited amount of space for the article, after all, but a limited amount of space for the lede.
 * Pay attention to claims that have numerous citations after them, all of which are meant to support the same fact. If the motivation for the huge list of citations is that some people dispute the fact, put in a sentence that says some people dispute it, so that everything is clear to the reader.  Careful wording and explanation is much more valuable to the reader than huge numbers of citations.


 * I would certainly appreciate someone mediation in the article. Before I already tried to get mediation via the Wikiproject computing pages and the request of comment procedure but noone has reacted so far. Your comment on the sources seem fair enough. I detailed three of the most contested edit issues in the above sectionTalk:Office_Open_XML. hAl (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to voice my agreement with the points that Carl has made (above). I think it's sews the groundwork for all sides to agree on something, and all issues can be placed against this framework. I hope all other people editing this article can also agree to this.-- Lester  06:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Patent infringement issue
Should this be in ths article at all. It is of course relevant for the Microsoft Word article. The patent issue is about the specific Word implementation of custom XML in Office Open XML and the Microsoft Office 2003 XML formats before that. The patent infringement issue is not about custom XML and not about Office Open XML This was recently stated even by the i4i patent holder himself, Michael Vulpe, in an interview (interview in dutch, Google translation) hAl (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This issue was widely covered in the technology media, as well as the non-technology media, so there'll be plenty of references in English that can be relied upon (See Google for links). The lawsuit is a small company, i4i, which is suing Microsoft. i4i specifically wants to get Office Open XML (OOXML) off the market, claiming patent infringement. It wants to stop Microsoft distributing OOXML. How can it not be relevant to OOXML? -- Lester  06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You state i4i specifically wants to get Office Open XML (OOXML) off the market, claiming patent infringement.. That is definitly not true. As I have shown above i4i's Michel Vulpe, the person owning the patent, himself states that the issue is not with custom XML of with Office open XML or with document formats but with a specific implementation of custom XML in Microsoft Word. So iti s an issue with word and not so much with OOXML. In addition to that the USPTO has already provisonally rejected the patent in re-examination so it is unlikely to stand anyways. hAl (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no point making this out to be a positive rosy thing for Microsoft, by saying that the "judge has thrown it out" because you say the patent is "unlikely to stand". This is your opinion, that you're welcome to have, but it's completely at odds with the mainstream reporting of this issue. Again, the patent lawsuit is specifically about how Microsoft uses "custom XML" within the Office Open XML file format. It only applies to OOXML. We must be reflecting how the majority of the mainstream media covers this. We can't apply a completely different slant to this issue.-- Lester  01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We must reflect the correct information. You suggest I gave an opinion but I actually gave the opinion of the patent holder himself in a very recent interview to and I gave factual information that the uspto has provisionally rejected the patent. I think your suggestion of slat are very strange. Fact is that most patents do not survive reexamination . You prefer bad information on facts. hAl (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is a little subtle. My understanding is that the patent applies to a method, that i4i say that MS uses this method in the way they deal with "custom XML" internally in Word, that the court agreed, and that the remedy was to fine and order MS to stop infringing the patent (which was what i4i asked for). The Judge then ordered a separate permanent injunction on MS supporting "custom XML" in the future: either because he thinks the patent covers all possible uses of custom XML, which would be a farce, or to be punitive because of MS' persistent pattern of behaviour (the judge clearly was pissed off by the MS lawyers) like a court would prevent a child molester from living next door to a school. Whether the article is better off in the Word page or the OOXML page, I don't have an opinion: it is an interesting new twist to the saga and could be important in area of software patents. But there seems nothing directed at IS29500 per se or other people's implementation of OOXML and customXML. Please note that many online and mag articles are making an awful lot of basic technical mistakes on this: when I started to write a blog entry on the judgement (I had written 4 on the patent and prior art) I decided to wait because I couldn't find any description of in what exact way the patent was infringed: without that, talk is just speculation and more suitable for newspaper than an encyclopedia. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Tango icons in infoboxes
Presently, we're using the document icons from the Tango icon theme to represent the various formats in the infoboxes. These aren't the official icons; I don't think we should be using unofficial substitutes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think Office Open XML holds official icons representing the different document formats described in it. So there ain't no such thing as official icons. hAl (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Ah, right, good point. For some reason I'd considered the MS Office icons to be official OOXML icons, but that clearly wouldn't make sense. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please try to avoid wholesale revisions
This is a very controversial topic. Please try to avoid wholesale revisions and discuss issues on an individual basis. This makes it a lot easier to address them on the talk page. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * How do you reconcile that request with this wholesale set of revisions made by you yourself (with two bits from hAl) between 18:00 and 18:50 while you were writing the above?!!! I think I have a problem understanding you. --Nigelj (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article history, you'll see that these are actually several single edits each with an individual edit summary that can be addressed individually if needed. If you don't agree with one or more of my edits please discuss each one on the talk page individually. I just tried to remind everyone that discussing an edit that consists of several different and unrelated changes and that comes with just one short edit summary is not easy for everyone. So please everyone try to make one change at a time in the future and provide an edit summary for each of them if possible - especially when editing controversial topics like this. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of free and open claim
Office Open XML is a fully free ISO/IEC standard. How much meer free and open can it be ?? Trying to reopen a discussion from even before the ISO/IEC standard was available for free seems not a wise descision. If a free ISO/IEC standard can not be claimed to be free and open then NO standard is. hAl (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It was removed for two reasons. It's a controversial claim, and as user Carl suggested in the mediation (in a recent discussion above), disputed 'facts' should not be in the intro. The other aspect is that the claim was not attributed to who made it. So, the claim could be placed in the body of the article, but it should say something like "Microsoft and its proponents claim the format is free and open", followed by counter argument from organisations and publications that disagree with Microsoft's claims.-- Lester  18:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That old discussion actually predates the completly free availability of the official ISO/IEC standard. I will look for a citation that reference the that free publication of the official ISO standard for readding the statement. Any discussion before that has little value anyways as it cannot account for the factual current situation. hAl (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said, hAl, "I would certainly appreciate someone mediation in the article." Carl (User:CBM) is a very experienced and neutral administrator who kindly offered to mediate here. He only made four obvious points above to get things started and this was one of them. This is not "that old discussion" again. Please move with the times. --Nigelj (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he was referring to the old discussion that user:Scientus mentioned in the discusion above. However you are free to find notable sources claiming that OOXML is not free and open even after ISO/IEC has approved it as an international standard and added it to their list of PUBLICLY FREE available standards and I have no abjection to a mediator adjudging the any claim on the free and opennnes of the OOXML standard discussion but not just based on some old discussion predating the ISO/IEC standardization at a time when certain parties had interest in discredeting OOXML. Since that dicsussion even adversary IBM Symphony and OOo have implemented OOXML in the newest version of their products.hAl (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking: The ISO page is titled "Publicly available standards", and start off with "Freely available standards". It doesn't use the term "free standard", probably because ISO doesn't want to confuse their "free availability" with others' use of "free standard" (given that the copyright notice says you can print one copy, but not two, I agree with that judgment). --Alvestrand (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the standards were not free then you could easily show who is requiring money for it. And as for the copy right. Everyone on earth can make a free ISO/IEC copy and use it however they want and you can make as much copies of the standard as you want from this site http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm as OOXML is also an Ecma standard and as such can be freely copied without any copright restrictions (as you are free to copy any Ecma standard without any restriction). If you want the ISO/IEC copy you can download it freely. If you are unable use a single copy and want thousand copies then you can download gazillions of the technically identical Ecma version. hAl (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * hAl, I was making the point that you're using the terms "free standard" and "freely available standard" interchangeably, and I think the two terms are different. Thanks for demonstrating the point. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussing the freely availalbe format would be logical as part of the text removed in the discussed was actually the wikilink to Free file format which is basically a format that is freely availalble. So I have shown the free availability of Office Open XML to be factual, justifying that wikilink, and protesting against its removal. hAl (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never disputed that Microsoft claims its format is free and open. I accept Microsoft says that, as do Microsoft proponents. It's just that it omits that tiny weeny little fact that there's a significant sector of the IT industry, and IT media, that thinks it's not free & open, and that Microsoft has been accused of improperly influencing the ISO. You can find references to back both arguments. Put Microsoft's 'free & open' claim in the article, and also include the counter argument after it. What's wrong with putting both sides in?-- Lester  04:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you do not dispute that the format is open but still you removed the "free" and "open" claims without any counter claim. I have not seem any oposing claim in this discusion either. The format is used widely even by open source implementations. I find it hard to understand why certain people here want to remove a claim that the format is freely avaiable and for any one to implement without any restrictions. Could you for example direct me to any recent independant media that states that Office Open XML is not freely available. Any such arguments were only used by opponents to try and stop Office Open XML standardization but haved compleltly died out sinde the ISO/IEC standardization has been completed and ISO and Ecma have provided the free copies of the standard and since oss implementations like openoffice has implemneted the format. hAl (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

hAl, Lester removed the statement from the lede, as per Carl's suggestion. If you want to start a section in the article that gives due weight to the claims and counter-claims, please feel free - and we'll all help to make it a balanced discussion of the various viewpoints with citations. There isn't just 'one view of the truth', and you can't have your view of the truth baldly stated in the lede. End of. --Nigelj (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are twisting peoples words. Carl did not suggest that as a part of mediation he just used a line as an example from the staments above. hAl (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious from this discussion that more than one person thinks that the word "free" with a link to "Alvestrand (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange because it is the same wording as in the Opendocument lead. So using the word "free" for the translation to the wikilink for Free file format is actually normal acceptabled practise in articles like this. And that OOXML is freely available and I have not heard any restriction on its use. So if I rewrite this lead I will certainly transpose that to the Opendocument article as well.hAl (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The text is actually "In addition to being a free and open OASIS standard, it is published (in one of its version 1.0 manifestations) as an ISO/IEC international standard" - the claim of being free and open attaches to the OASIS standard, not the ISO standard. In the case of ODF, the freeness of the standard has not been challenged, so it's not controversial. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly asked now from you or the other commenters here not seen anybody challenge with any decent argument that OOXML is free and open since it publication as a freely available ISO/IEC standard. I state that OOXML is as open as ODF is. The fact are fairly simple. The following info can all be referenced from it original sources. Ecma copyright on standards is at least as free or freeer (fully unrestricted) than OASIS copyright (requiring attribution). ISO/IEC copyright is exactly the same for both standards. Additional Patent licensing from major contributors is definitly freeer for OOXML (MS with OSP licenses patent right to ALL implementation including partial implementation whilst IBM's ISP license which has near identical wording only applies to full implementations of ODF). I still wait for anyone in the above discussions to give an argument of any substance that provides us with information on why OOXML would not be free. Arguments that were used before (like there is only one implementation or specs have undefined MS specific features) have long been remedied. since the ISO/IEC standardization now former opponents like OpenOffice and IBM have implemented OOXML in their office products. The controversy you claim is not there anymore but is something that has evaporated after the ISO/IEC publication of the standard. You definitly need to back up your claims of controversy as you seem to be refering to something of the past. hAl (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * IANAL, and I don't have all day to research legal issues, but, hAl, you cannot seriously assert that there is no remaining controversy in this area. "Where ODF meets the four objective criteria of open standards handsomely, OOXML does not satisfy any of the four as extensively." and "Free software is software that all users have a right to copy, modify and redistribute, and as Microsoft points out in the OSP, there is no sublicensing of rights under it." came up after a quick Google search. You may argue that these sources are biassed, but you have to accept that for the purposes of an encyclopedia so is Microsoft. That's what a controversy is. We don't just put in one side of the argument, we discuss both and give their references. There isn't room to do all this in the lede, so it is suggested that we cover it in its own small section. Not the whole history of the standardisation process (which has its own article) but the remaining controversy as to whether there are any remaining restrictions to the 'free and open' use of the format and spec. Also, not ODF's alleged restrictions either as these have their own article too. --Nigelj (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think hAl's arguments above fall under the definition of original research. He claims that the word "free file format" can be applied to OOXML, despite the fact that many sources claim that it cannot, and that he hasn't even shown sources supporting that exact claim - based on the idea that those claims to the contrary "do not have substance".
 * As I've shown, the sources clearly support the claim that OOXML is freely available. Going further than that is WP:OR. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the article still hold several sources in it that state that OOXML is an open standard. hAl (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Niglelj. Your arguments show that you hold on old arguments prior to the ISO/IEC standardization. For instance maintenance and developement of the OOXML format now rest complelty in the hands of ISO/IEC where a vendor has no voting rights but all proceding are controlled by the natinal bodies whilst ODF is still developed by OASIS where the Sun and IBM have a large control over the vote in the ODF committee. Also your argument suggest undefined items in the specifcation but that was also solved during the ISO/IEC standardization proces. And as for the sublicensing. The licensing of patents of IBM for ODF (ISP) and Microsoft for OOXML(OSP) is identical. So if sublicensing is an issues than ODF is not free and open either. It is also not a requirement in ANY open standard definition. OASIS nor Ecma nor W3C nor ISO require such licensing for their formats. Unless you find me a clause stating that any such requirement exist for something to be called an open standard it is not a relavant argument. And if you do find such a clause we can use it as a referecne it to remove all open standard claims from any W3C, ISO and Ecma standards. Even the most basic open standards like XML does not have patent sublicensing by its contributors (which include Microsoft). hAl (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This rhetoric is all very well and good, but I haven't seen any reliable sources noting that the groups who previously disagreed with OOXML being a free standard changing their minds. Whether you're convinced that this is the case or not is basically irrelevant, as we're not allowed to present the article from your point of view. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That point is moot as most of those groups are not likely to publish about on it ever again as they likely published those opinion to influence the standardization proces which is now in the past. If an opinion is shown to be outdated by the facts then it is irrelevant for an encyclopic description of the current situation. There might wel be people that have once stated the sun orbits the earth and never recanted on that statement but it does not prevent us to describe the earth as orbiting around the sun in the wikipedia article. I do not have a problem with arguments based on facts but Nigel brought up a link on an opinion blog written by Sam Hiser which holds many statements which are are prior to the standardization by ISO/IEC and are totally inaccurate and in the past. I have now heard 4 people arguing against me and I have not seen single referenced piece of info that is relevant to this current situation after the ISO/IEC standardization and the publication of OOXML as a pubilicy available ISO standard. An important part of that standardization was to make the standard fully indepent of vendor references and to put the manintenance in the hands of the ISO/IEC joint technical committee (JTC1) to put all of the worries certain people might still have to rest. And since that standardization even previous important opponents of OOXML like IBM and sun have not implemented OOXML even in open source solution. So what part of OOXML is not free or open then ? hAl (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, the issue is very simple. We cannot state unequivocably that OOXML is a free standard because our reliable sources do not unequivocably state this. Whether or not you interpret the protestations to have been addressed since they were raised, in the absence of reliable independent sources to confirm this we are unable to report it as such. Our policy on original research is abundantly clear on this point. I find it hard to believe that a major initiative by one of the world's biggest software companies cannot be adequately covered without conjecture on behalf of our editors. At this point, there looks to be pretty firm consensus on this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there are quite a few sources that support that OOXML is free and open. That is not the problem. The problem is apperantly that even though sources support that OOXML is free and open apperantly some other source from the past have once claimed that OOXML is not open and it seems that some wikipedians see that as meaning forever. (or want that to mean forever). That even though the arguments behind those statements in the past have evaporated during the cause of the ISO/IEC standardization proces and the implmentation of OOXML by even other major office products (including oss) and no new arguments against OOXML being open have been produced by those arguing that. The only argument I saw above that still holds true today is that the OSP patent licensing is not sublicensable (as it already applies to everybody). However this holds true for just about all free licensing by standards contributors (especially so on ODF as well) and has no real meaning in the context of open standards discussion as those require non discriminant patent licensing to everybody anyways. hAl (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When you say that the arguments have been addressed, I look in the article and see only references to the specification itself. As a tertiary source, we require reliable secondary sources to make such assertions; we cannot infer them directly from the original material. This applies to almost the entire section titled "Criticism of ECMA-376 1st edition". I find it difficult to believe that no reliable independent sources have discussed these changes. We cannot use our reading of the specification to refute criticisms made of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole critisism arguments have virtually died after the ISO/IEC free public release just over a year ago. There is little to discuss on the specs especially on the free and openness of the spec. And we can refer to a specification on the content it contains as long as we do not interprete the content as that would be original research. So the spec would be a bad source for stating that an Office open XML feature is good/bad but it is a valid source for stating that the specification contains certain elements/features. You can for instance use the Office Open XML spec as a valid reference for supporting that the format uses ZIP compression for its filecontainer. Also the specification is an oficially approved standards document so you could also use it to describe approval on features or properties or changes in the format by the standards organization that has approved the specification. Similarly I can refer to a draft (like a w3c draft) as a proposal for a new feature. hAl (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not have to argue argue from my point of view if there was any valid argument used for the removal of the spec. Noone has however brough any arguments to light that warrent removal of the sourced inforamtion. The information was removed from the article without arguments. If an argument would have used I could likely disscuss it here in the talk page. hAl (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear oh dear oh dear. We removed the "free & open" words from the opener, but now that has been replaced with multiple references to it being "freely downloadable". Whether you can download it or not is complete trivia. I can download Microsoft's logo from its website, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed use it however I please. I can freely download or record a television program off-air, but that doesn't mean I can use it however I please. Whether or not you can "freely" download the format spec has no relation to whether or not others are able to use that file format. It's complete trivia, just to get the word "free" into it as many times as possible.-- Lester  07:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am still waiting for your argument on why OOXML would not be free or open and why you removed it. If I find your argument to be false or if you refuse to give an argument I will reinstate the claim. It seems like you are suggesting that ISO/IEC standards (or any standards for that matter) cannot not be used after you aquired the standard. From your reaction about logo's and TV-recordings it seems you seriously lack any understanding of copyright laws. Copyright applies only to the text of a standard (or indeed to logo's or TV recordings as you mentioned). However implementing a standard in an application based on the text of a standard does not violate copyright unless you litterally copy the specification into the implementation. All copyrights to Office Open XML belong to standardsorganizations ISO/IEC and Ecma International. They both provide free downloadable copies of the specification. So if you download a copy from either you can freely implement that in any implementation you want. In fact you can implement a standard freely even without having a aquired specifications of the standard however having access to free specifications is often mentioned as a requirement for a free file format and open standard (some open standard definitions allow for non free RAND licensing but that is irrelevant in this context as OOXML is available completly free). hAl (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing will be reinstated unless there is consensus to do so. There are good editorial reasons for not spamming the lede with references, if nothing else. We also mention the various standards documents being freely downloadable twice in the lede currently, which is one time too many. I would encourage further discussion on specific points to be made on new threads below, as this is getting far too long. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

 * (splitting from above. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

You say there is no consensus. I have asked for arguments and no arguments have been provided for removal of the information. How do you propose to create consensus with people not discussing the facts. Apperantly people like user:Lester think copyright issues exist on OOXML (refering to logo's and televisions programs) which is totally ridiculous as the copyright is fully in the hands of two well known standardsorganizations. He still removed the free and open claim. He however does not provide any reasonable argument against OOXML being free and open. hAl (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * hAl, What on earth do you understand by the word consensus? One experienced admin (User:CBM) as part of an "Offer for mediation" said, "So, for example, instead of saying "free and open ECMA standard", just say "ECMA standard" in the lede, and discuss openness lower down where space permits." It was removed, and then we have nearly 4,000 words of discussion of you alone against four experienced WP contributors (Lester, Nigelj, Alvestrand and Chris Cunningham). We have given reasons and arguments and refs as to what the new coverage might contain. But it is all to no avail; your position has not changed one bit; you insist on going back to your preferred text, based on your reading of primary sources. I suggest we simply leave these three words alone for now, and try to get on with other more pressing issues in balancing this article to normal WP standards. --Nigelj (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what "for example" means. His example referred back to an old discussion that was referred to a few paragraphs above by user:Scientus from years ago. A discussion predating the ISO/IEC standardization that was totally irrelevant for the current situation. That would have been relvant for mediation years ago but is not relvant for today. You have not brought up a single argument relevant for the current discussion. hAl (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the third time, we are prohibited from using our own reading of material to overrule that given in reliable secondary sources. You would be far better off using your time to find new reliable secondary sources which agreed that the issues raised in the first draft had been corrected in the second than trying to convince us that this is the case based on your reading of it. As for Lester's argument about what "freely available" means, you've misunderstood his argument, and it is you who is conflating (or attempting to conflate) gratis with libre. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the 4rd of 5th time then produce any reliable sources that state that the ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML standard is not a free and open standard. It has been over a year since the ISO standard has been published a a free publicly availalble standard. There is nothing to overrule. I have not you opr anyone else produce any reliable source that states that. If you claim the status of this ISO/IEC standard is controversial then produce reliable sources for your claim. hAl (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand how this works. Until such point as a reliable secondary source disproves the allegations made by the existing references regarding the first draft, we are obliged not to contradict them. Whether you believe that a primary source (i.e. the second draft) does so or not is irrelevant. I would advise you to stop edit warring on this, as your recent doubling down on your own position (re-adding the link to free file format in this edit) is unproductive and if continued liable to get you blocked for tendicious editing in the face of obvious consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually you misunderstand how it works. Previously the "free and open" text applied the the old 1st edition Ecma standard. What you claim to be reliable information only applied to that format version as the ISO/IEC standard did not exist at the time. I have altered the article to reflect the ISO/IEC standard as being free and open. Previous discussions were never about the ISO/IEC standard. As some of the basic things around the format like the ownership, copyright and maintenance of the format have altered that old information cannot be considered reliable on the information about the format anymore. What you think of as reliable information is actually ancient history. hAl (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of the ISO standard (only), I think there is universal agreement that it's freely available, and that is the words ISO uses to describe it, and that anyone who wants to can read it (which is one definition of "open"). There is no consensus that the standard passes all definitions of "free", there is no consensus that the ISO process used to produce and maintain it passes all definitions of "open process", there is no consensus that the permission to practice all parts of the standard is enough to clearly qualify it for the term "open standard". hAl, if you were satisfied to use the term "freely available" for this standard in the lede, I think you would not be reverted. Why don't you just do that? --Alvestrand (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You state there is no consensus on thing like permission to practise all part of the standard applying to the ISO/IEC standard. This is very strange as OOXML is widely implemented by hundreds if not in thousands of software products and even by several open source implementations. Could you name any restriction on OOXML that would be preventing it from being an open standard ? You talk about an undefined abstraction like an "open proces" but commonly used open standards definitions when talking about the proces only talk about "consensus driven process" and "open descision-making procedure available to all interested parties". Those concrete items can easily be shown for both the Ecma and ISO/IEC standardization processes where information on those how those processes work is freely available on line and where all members have only one vote (unlike for instance OASIS where only a few parties can have majority vote in all technical descision on a format). hAl (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... what turned out to be the case in the OOXML mess is that each national organization that is represented in ISO has one vote. The ability to influence the decision of a national body turned out to be an extremely murky matter. (I was a member of the Norwegian standards body's subcommittee on TC46 at the time of the vote). I think that the other parts of your note show that you and I are not going to reach agreement any time soon - you keep on replying to something other than what I wrote. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I thought I was responding to your points quite well. I do remember the situation in Norway where the size of the committee suddenly grew a lot with an (organized) influx of opponents of OOXML that wanted to influence the committee and the national standards organization eventually ignoring that committees advisory descision in favor of support from companies and organizations that replied to the standards organization with letters of support. hAl (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing from above: I said "there is no consensus that the permission to practice all parts of the standard is enough to clearly qualify it for the term "open standard".". You replied "You state there is no consensus on thing like permission to practise all part of the standard applying to the ISO/IEC standard." That's not what I said, and what I said cannot be refuted by your argument; very many people practice standards that they do not consider "open". I'll leave it at that. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to adress better what is you point. As I read it I applied your statement to the ISO/IEC standard allthough you did not state it was about the ISO standard. If there is lack on the consensus on the openness of the ISO/IEC standard since it has been published as a publicly available ISO standard last year then please then show us that lakxc of consensus with some references. You and all other claim a lack of consensus about the ISO standard being an open standard but do not back that up with actual fact about the format relating to open standard definitions. You say thing about "permission to practise" but I have not seen you relate any factual argument about that relating to the ISO/IEC standard. I want to discuss those things but nobody seem to put any on the table realting to the ISO/IEC standard. hAl (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)