This is a bad news for ISO and Microsoft in a whole, first ISO will be looked as a corrupt entity and for MS while this might be a good business for them, the downside is that more people will hate them, and i believe currently this is not what they want.
Here are some of the reasons why the whole process of making OOXML a standard is questionable:
* Votes from 4 countries changed from originally No to Yes
I’m not shock on the Philippine’s vote coz its so corrupt back home
http://topicmaps.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/the-norway-vote-what-really-happened/
http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/25
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39375179,00.htm
* There is already an standard in the name of ODF
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/07/how_a_standard_can_kill_a_stan.html
* No wide use of OOXML
This leads to the question, an iso standard that is not widely used?
http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20XML%20Q%20%20A%20(2).pdf
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/050306-iso-approves-odf-standard.html
* Use of non w3c recommendations
Use of DrawingML and the transitional-use-only VML instead of SVG
Use of Office Math ML instead of MathML.
20 more reasons why you have to say no to OOXML
http://www.noooxml.org/open:rejectooxmlnow
Comments on Slashdot Article
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/15/1749252&from=rss
It is not about "We hate Microsoft", it is about the fact
that something like WordWrapLikeWord95 should not exist in
an ISO standard.
BTW: There was a very interesting graph in the German
magazine c't. The essence was as follows:
XHTML: ~100 pages, ~400 days of standardization process
ODF: ~800 pages, ~900 days
SVG: ~600 pages. ~1050 days
SOAP: ~200 pages, ~950 days
...
OOXML: ~6500 pages, ~350 days.
WTF 350 days only???
After all this stuff, can we still believe in ISO?
