Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

International standard

I don't agree with User:Alexbrn. Open Office XML is an international standard. A "consortium" standard is also an "international" standard if it is standardized by an international consortium.

• International standard: "International standards are standards developed by international standards organisations."
• Ecma International: "Ecma International is an international, private (membership-based) standards organization for information and communication systems."
• References:
  • "Standards body Ecma International passed a vote to make Microsoft Office document formats an international standard on Thursday."[1]
  • "Open XML, a data format used in Microsoft Corp.'s Office software line has been approved as an international standard — a move aimed at preserving access to documents created with the package for years to come."[2]
  • "Ho said another important change is that Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac (like Office 2007 for Windows ) will be based in the Office Open XML Format -- which was approved in December by the standards body ECMA International as an international standard."[3]
  • "The milestone marking the completion of the first step was the publication of ECMA-376 in December 2006, the first publication of an international standard for OpenXML."[4]
  • "And while Microsoft was expected as far back as 2004 to submit XAML to the ECMA organization, which last year approved its Office Open XML document format as an international standard, since that time, there's been no detectable international standardization activity on the XAML front."[5]
  • As an Ecma member, Draper-based NextPage will work with Microsoft, Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the British Library, Essilor, Intel Corporation, Statoil ASA and Toshiba to co-sponsor a submission to Ecma for the international standard for Microsoft Office Open XML document format technology.[6]
  • On 7 December, 2006, Ecma International voted to approve Microsoft's Office Open XML document format as an international standard.[7]

Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite right, I think. Of course Ecma want to brand their standards as "international" and it might be argued by some that (in laymen's terms or by the non-specialise press as quoted) they can be referred to that way (though always with a small "i"). However, the true test for an international standard is that is has been made by nations. The primary standards bodies for that are ISO, IEC and ITU-T. An Ecma standard cannot ever be called an International Standard (capital "i"), and because of this I think it is better to avoid any ambiguity and use more precise terminology. Some commentators (like Andy Updegrove) have tried to introduce the phrase "global standards" to refer to things like Ecma and OASIS standards, as distinct from International Standards, but that is not generally understood usage.

Of course if/when the spec is published as ISO/IEC 29500 then the phrase "International Standard" shall be used. Alexbrn (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As an ISO committeemember you might say that but the Office Open XML format standardized by Ecma qualifies if looked at the wikipedia definitions given elswere on wikipedia in these articles Standards organizations#International Standards Organizations and International Standards. I think these wikipedia definitions should be used as reference for definition of international standards. hAl (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just me that thinks so :-) Take a look for example at Rob Weir's blog entry here ... and Rob is no ISO apologist. Just because some other article on Wikipedia says something doesn't make it right (good gracious, the evidence of this article testifies to that!). If "international standard" is allowed to describe anything any organisation with any international dimension decides to call a "standard" then the designation is meaningless anyway! There is absolutely nothing about an Ecma standard that guarantees that it has an international dimension - and the same goes for all consortia. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me quote from LinuxJournal.com, reporting on the Danish UNIX User Group's submission to the ISO: "It is noted that ECMA 376 is not an international standard. Furthermore it is noted that ECMA 376 contains a number of specifications that are undocumented about specific information on implementation of MS Office. And it is noted that a report procured by ITST itself found that ECMA 376 cannot be said to be entirely open, which has been a condition of the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) for accepting the regulations." With contentious issues like this, you can find quotes either way. Either attribute the statement to whoever made it, or leave it out completely.--Lester 23:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another quote. From an official report from the New York State Information Officer, titled A Strategy For Openness (6MB Microsoft Word .doc) says: "OOXML is not an international standard, nor is it completely implemented by anyone other than Microsoft. Therefore any study around the use of OOXML would necessarily be about the use of Microsoft’s products and not about interoperability of standards-compliant products among competitors." (page 396). --Lester 23:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

From an official report is just a funny way of hiding the truth. That report is just a list of statement/report receiced from 3rd parties starting with a stament from Sun. And what part are you citing from. Ah, the part submitted by the IBM corporation. You are suddenly making sense, above you already cited Vinje who is a payed lobbyist by Microsoft competitors (including Sun and IBM) and now you are citing directly from reports submitted by such competitors and fierse opponents of Office Open XML. At least we now know your NPOV intentions.... hAl (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it is relevant in this discussion whether Ecma standards in general are guaranteed to have "an international dimension". What really matters here is that Ecma-376 has "an international dimension". I believe the phrase "global standards" is more often used to describe ISO standards. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I like to quote the ISO article on Wikipedia: "In practice, ISO acts as a consortium with strong links to governments." ISO standards only become law through treaties or national standards. No nation is ultimately forced to use them. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking further into this issue, I strongly believe that ISO does not own the term 'international standard'. Standards organizations such as W3C, OASIS, IETF, IEEE and many others are commonly called international standards organizations due to their international members. The standards that they publish are also commonly called international standards and are used world wide. Omitting the term will probably mislead readers into thinking that the Ecma-376 Office Open XML standard only applies to a single nation or only to Europe (Ecma's root) which is just wrong. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it; the text current says the standard is an "Ecma International standard", where "Ecma International" is hyperlinked (so keeping the "International" bit with "Ecma" rather than with "standard"). That is factually correct. If readers want to see how "international" that is, they can read about Ecma. As this thread shows, applying words like "global" or "international" is (at least) a matter of interpretation and opinion. Why go into that murky area when we've got a clean factual statement already? (BTW, I also note that the OpenDocument article does not claim ODF is an international standard, and in its OASIS form it is only as "international" as Ecma 376.) 80.177.145.170 (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

No this is not original reasearch but a statement which is fully confirmed by cited information. If something is clearly defined by a definition of properties (which is the case in this issue) than one only needs to support that the defined properties are actually present (which is also clearly the case in this issue). hAl (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So in a in a nutshell we have at least six independent and verifiable sources that say it is an international standard. Then I think we have Alex Brown's and Rob Weir's points of view who are directly involed in this issue, so they are not good references. Then we have the list of quotes from lobbyist by Microsoft competitors such as IBM and Sun, which are also no good sources in this regard, the same goes for the Danish UNIX User Group which IMHO can be considered biased towards everything that originates from Microsoft. I think – in consideration of the sources provided – it is fair to state in the article that Office Open XML is an international standard. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Unreferenced claim

I am giving a last chance for other editors to find a reference for this claim.

With Ecma International publishing the specification for free and patents made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis through the Open Specification Promise, Office Open XML conforms to all characteristics [citation needed] of the European Union's definition of an open standard.

I placed the request for a reference on May 10th and no reference has been placed. As it sits it is original research. The only reference is to a EU document that lists what the characteristics are. There is no reference that says OOXML conforms to the European Union's definition of an open standard. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You already waited a month for a suitable reference to be provided. It wasn't. I'd say delete the claim. The other issue of concern, is that there is debate in the media as to whether or not the Open Specification Promise gives small companies protection against being sued by Microsoft (see ZDnet article. Because the OOXML spec refers to proprietary and patented Microsoft software, Ecma may not be a reliable source to say who could (or couldn't) get sued.--Lester 01:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section. User hAl tried to add more original research references. References need to state the conclusions for the section. They cant solely link to what the guideline is. WP:NOR.

Wikipedia does not publish original research 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.

We need a reference that says OOXML conforms to a specific guideline, not what the guideline is. At this point I gave almost 2 months for it to be fixed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually references only need to support the stated claims in the article. And that is the case. hAl (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer to this edit where User:HAl has inserted the disputed material once again. It is highly problematic for the following reasons: (1.) The European Union has not stated that OOXML conforms to its definition of an "open standard". The reference supplied does not mention OOXML. To draw such a link is original research, is factually wrong, and breaches WP:SYNTH. (2.) The frequent use of the word "free" is not appropriate in a software article, where free software is generally accepted to mean free of copyright and patent restrictions, rather than just a reference to purchase price. (3.) The claim that OOXML is published "without copyright restrictions" is false, once again WP:SYNTH, and the references supplied don't mention OOXML. (4.) OOXML is embroiled in a worldwide controversy involving Microsoft, Ecma and the ISO. These organizations are in damage control, with public relations teams working the media. References from those organisations are not reliable or independent, and should not be used in this article. We need references that are independent of the organizations involved in the dispute, such as known technology magazines and news organizations. (5.) The repeated insertion of the disputed text is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Independent reliable references were requested months ago, yet not supplied. The reinsertion of this disputed content must stop. --Lester 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mind sorting the issues that you're commenting on in corresponding sections instead of mixing them all together in one post? This does not help in the discussion. The headline is "Removal of Unreferenced claim" and you complain about User:HAl adding content [clarify: which is fine, since the section is about this content in question]. But then you go on and discuss the "free" concept again. What does this have to do with free software? Also, "generally accepted" is not a reference. And regarding the copyright, "all Ecma publications including standards, can be freely copied by all interested parties without copyright restrictions". I don't think they need to write this on every page of the specification, when everybody can just look it up on their website. Do you think removing this statement from the Ecma website in a few years is already planned as part of some kind of evil plan? I think it is kind of funny that apparently nobody bothers about the original research in OpenDocument related articles, but I'm pretty sure that this now also on your agenda: "More details about and the rationale for the EU's definition can be found in European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European eGovernment Services, Version 1.0.[4] Currently, OpenDocument fulfills all four of these requirements.[citation needed]" (Source: OpenDocument adoption#EU Definition of an open standard) Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And talking about free software: In the GPL the author retains copyright and permits redistribution. In public domain software the author has abandoned the copyright. IMHO the Ecma statement reads more like public domain. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sticking to one subject on this section. That a reference needs to have the words "Office Open XML conforms to all four characteristics of the European Union's definition of an open standard" or something that is close. Editors can not give a link to a guideline and then say that the specification conforms to it. That needs to be done by a 3rd party. Unless that reference can be found the claim can not pass WP:NOR. No amount of rewording or shifting the sentences can make this right without a reference. References also have to be found that say that any of the claims in that section apply specifically to OOXML. So the references need to be found that say

1. Office Open XML conforms to all four characteristics of the European Union's definition of an open standard - Not just what that standard is.
2. the Office Open XML specification for free - Not that all ECMA is free, but that OOXML is specifically free.
3. and without copyright restrictions allowing reuse of the standard - That OOXML is free from all copyright restrictions as ECMA recuires, not just that ECMA requires it for eveyone
4. and possible patents are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis through the Open Specification Promise - that all "possible" patents in OOXML are covered by the osp.AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To respond to Ghettoblaster. This is not the OpenDocument page. I have not edited that article. I want to focus on the issues that are in this article. Bringing up what is in another article does not make the problems here vanish. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have checked with the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard and the conclusion is that this is original research. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is similar to having a stament that substance A is heavier than substance B by adding in references that state the weight of both substances. hAl (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, this is clear Original Research. You need to find clear 3rd party references that say the claim as is stated on the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard. I am Now going to remove the unreferenced claims. To replace them you need to find reliable references that state the conclusions of the claims, not just a reference that states the criteria for the claim. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that it clearly is Original Research? On the OR/noticeboard User:Someguy1221 only stated that "third-party sources are generally needed to make the connection" but he also stated that "There is the rare exception when the logical deduction really is as simple as 2+2". One might argue that the logical deduction in this special case really is that simple (given that the EU open standard definition is straightforward). As User:Someguy1221 mentioned, this "requires discussion, consensus, and dispute resolution as necessary in order to decide". Don't claim that all this is clear when right now there is obviously NO consensus that this qualifies as Original Research.

However, I'd also like to suggest a compromise. There is no reason not to state the individual criteria for the European Union's definition of an open standard. In addition to this, we can then add a list of all open standards criteria (e.g. published, royality-free, cross-platform etc.) which Office Open XML meets including the references for each criteria. Then we should allow the readers to form their own opinions. Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I cant see how anyone can read the comments of User:Someguy1221 in any other than to suggest that it is Original Research.

"Yes, this is a classic bait-and-switch form of false references, which may or may not be done in good faith."

I don't see how that isn't clear. You have selectively quoted an explanation of what may be placed, not a comment that the material is in that category. The multiple criteria claim is not a simple 2+2=4. There is also no consensus that it meets that criteria since I have challenged the statement by requesting a reference.

Now there is a a second comment on the section by user DGG has also said that a surly we should be able to find a source that states the claim. That says to me that one is needed.

I do not compromise on Wikipedia guidelines. They need to be followed. WP:NOR is one of three main content policies. All that is needed is a reference that states the claim by a 3rd party. What you are suggesting is a unpublished analysis of the criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment again. Where exactly did I suggest that you are compromising Wikipedia guidelines? Where exactly did I suggest they don't need to be followed? Where exactly did I suggest an unpublished analysis of the criteria? Also, don't accuse other editors of selectively quoting an explanation when you're actually doing just the same. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have found a third party statement, referring exactly to [8], which says that OOXML is not an open standard per that definition, because of patent problems (which are also discussed in this Wikipedia article). Also, look at the examples in WP:SYN - they look even more trivial than this one. If you look at samples on Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research, you'll see that they're a lot simpler. However, we could discuss forever about how easy is the deduction. But a trivial logical deduction, for which there is no consensus (and here there is not, even because a premise is disputed), surely requires an external source. Especially since there is a reliable source stating the opposite. --Blaisorblade (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As User:hAl has already pointed out above, the link to the noooxml site has already been removed by a Wikipedia admin in the past, because Wikipedia articles are not ment as a platform for protesting campaigns. This is an extremely biased lobby and certainly not a valid reference in this issue. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen, and must quote, "the EU competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes" talking about OOXML: [9]. The commissioner agrees that the ISO standardization process has been unfairly influenced by Microsoft. Also, "The Commission's examination will therefore focus on all these areas, including the question whether Microsoft's new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office, is sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products." Do you still maintain your position? The article does not mention the words "open" or "free", but restricting to that would be wikilawyering. Hoping for consensus, Blaisorblade (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a quote in which Neelie Kroes "agrees that the ISO standardization process has been unfairly influenced by Microsoft"? Somehow I can't find that in the provided reference.

Furthermore, the fact that the EU Commission will examine "the question whether Microsoft's new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office, is sufficiently interoperable with competitors' products." is by no means a proof or judgement that the Office Open XML file format is not a free and open format. Presumption of innocence means being innocent until proven guilty. Neelie Kroes did not make any statement at all about whether the file format is free and open or not. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misread my article (in good faith). There are other statements from the commissioner (on the third page) which are (indirectly) against Microsoft, but it's another decision. Nor I missed presumption of innocence. However, saying that "OOXML agrees with this definition, but EU is examining whether this is true" would mean "we know better than EU itself". And I agree: Neelie Kross never stated OOXML isn't open/free. --Blaisorblade (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly time to remove the unreferenced and contentious claim that the European Union considers OOXML to be an "open" format. This has now gone on for months. Other editors have been very patient, requesting a reference and waiting for it to be produced. It requires an independent reliable reference (eg news or known tech magazine) that explicitly states that the EU considers OOXML to be "open". You can't synth it by putting together two unrelated references to draw your own conclusion. The requested reference has not materialized, therefore it's clearly time to delete the contentious statement.--Lester

Unless I'm mistaken, this discussion is about Office Open XML conforming to all characteristics of the European Union's definition of an open standard. As far as I can see there is no "contentious claim" to remove right now. Ghettoblaster (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lester and AlbinoFerret. My understanding is that the question isn't whether we feel it conforms to the EU definition, but whether trustworthy sources feel it conforms to the EU definition. For us to put one and one together and combine statements by the EU about open standards as well as statements of other about what OOXML is in order to say "EU says X, other organisation says Y, therefore OOXML is Z" would be contrary to WP:Synth: "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". Even if OOXML was the most open standard in the universe and is the best ever example of the EU guideline that there has ever been, we still couldn't say it without finding a reliable source explicitly coming to that conclusion. --RS Ren (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism of the Open Specification Promise

User HAl has removed a huge chunk of criticism from the open specification promise section and has instead placed original research. [10] There is no refute of the specific criticisms in the section he removed. The reference he added does not say that the criticism is wrong. The reference does not back up the removal of the criticism and a 3rd party reference would be needed to analyze that the changes to the open specification promise in fact fix the issues that were removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The Open specification promise only applies to Covered Implementations. The Software freedom law center has pointed out that the GPL requires the code be reusable. This use may not be a Covered Implementation. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As Office Open XML is a covered specification the OSP covers it. Critisism of SFLC is thus only relvant for implementations that are not Office open XML. That is mayby relevant to the OSP licensing article but not relevant to this article as any implementations for the format in this article are fully covered by this licensing. hAl (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And for the record GPL only deals with 1rd party IP rights. Contributor rights. Only parties that have contibuted code in a GPL licensed piece of software are entering their IP rights by agreeing in the licensing. Nowehere in GPL are there requirements about 3rd party IP rights. hAl (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that the Software freedom law center is infact criticizing the OSP in general. The critisism affects all covered specifications such as SOAP, WSDL, Hyper-V, USB, Sender ID etc. – not just Office Open XML. Therefore I think this critisism belongs in the article Microsoft Open Specification Promise. We should not mirror it on all covered specification's articles just to make a point. For the same reason, we are not adding the same general criticism of Microsoft to each and every article about a Microsoft product. Critisism on any specific subject belongs in the corresponding article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:HAl That is in essence the criticism. The gpl requires that the code covered under the gpl is free to use in a multitude of ways. Code usd to implement the Office Open XML specification under the gpl has to be reusable in other things. While the code implementation of the Office Open xml spec is covered, if the code is used elsewhere for some other purpose it isn't. Therefore the author of a gpl developer cant implement because "*"Any code that implements the specification may also do other things in other contexts, so in effect the OSP does not cover any actual code, only some uses of code." and "...it permits implementation under free software licenses so long as the resulting code isn't used freely.". This is right on point. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The Code used to implement the Office Open XML specification can be used elsewhere for other purposes – as long as it does not infringe upon Microsoft's patents in these other purposes which are not covered by the OSP. The point here is, nothing stops you from releasing your own Office Open XML implementation under GPL. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the GPL requires the code to be free for other purposes. As such GPL has issues with the OSP. That stops GPL implementations. The Freedom law center reference says that. If you think it otherwise, please find a third party reference that says that. Because the OSP page says "we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL" so the Microsoft page is unusable. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is the GPL, that has issues with the OSP, then this content should probably be merged to the GPL article instead. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:GhettoblasterI dont think so, the software freedom law center released its findings on Office Open XML and the open specification promise. Therefore it is on point for this article. Perhaps it would not be on pages dealing with those other topics. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GPL only requires patent licensing from contributors to the work. Not from third parties. Even for W3C standards which require Royalty free RAND licensing from working group members those licenses can be only limited to the standards (recommendations) themselfs [11]

may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and to what is required by the Recommendation;

And those w3c standards are heavily in use in GPL software. Limiting licensing for a standard to implementation of that standard is therefore normal practise and is not interfering with GPL code at all. hAl (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the Office Open XML page. Your reference does not refute the Software Freedom Law Center reference. I think you should study the reference and the GPL because you are incorrect. The GPL gives the freedom to modify and use any code released under it without limits. If a piece of software can not be reused or modified to fit another use, it cant be placed under the GPL. The Software Freedom Law Center reference says correctly, the OSP doesn't have issue with the GPL, it is the GPL that has issues with the OSP with specific consideration of implementation of Office Open Xml but also on reuse of the code. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

My reference show that the existing limitation on the licensing of a standard to belimited to only use of that standard does not interfere with the evident use of those w3c standards in GPL licensed code. The factthat the GPL has issues with reuse of code would then also apply to any standard. It however is not relveant in this article as is does not limit implementation of this format. Any such code can be freely reused in [Office Open XML]] implemetations. It might limit resuse of code that has patented technolgy in it for use outside implementations of office Open XML. That however is a lsiensing issue with GPL which would apply to reuse of code implementing any open standard format but is not of concern to implementers of Office Open XML that can freely implement this standard format and freely reused for implementing this format. It therefore is a limitation that does not apply to any use of this format itself and has no place in this particular article. hAl (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant because as the reference from the Software Freedom Law center points out it stops GPL developers from implementing the specification with specific reference to Open Office XML. The GPL developer can not implement Office Open XML because of the limitations of the OSP in offering only coverage to covered implementations. This is even more relevant now that Microsoft who developed Office Open XML originally has changed the OSP trying to make it look like GPL implementations are possible. The section is heavily one sided and without this little section is even more unbalanced and also untruthful. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Actuallty the SFLC document nowhere conclusivly states that Office Open XML cannot be implemented by GPL developers because of limitations. It does state that the limits of the OSP licensing for Office Open XML but that is fine as the limitations only apply when you try to reuse the code for other things than. The analysis only states that the OSP is inconsistent with GPL (which is true for licensing on almost every standard in existence) but that as I already stated is not a problem for implementing Office open XML itself but only for non Office Open XML implementations that are not within the scope of this article. Your statement that GPL developers cannot implement Office Open XML is original research that is backed up by the SFLC analysis. GPL developers are only required to sublicense patentrights they control (1st party rights) and not any possible 3rd party patents. So developers implement the w3c XML implementation in a GPL licensed application they automatically get intellectual property rights from the W3C workgroupmembers. Developers cannot sublicense that rights using GPL just like you cannot do that for OOXML. However that is not a problem for any developers as long as the code is reused for implemtation of the format. Those will also be granted the same rights. So for all Office Open XML implementations which are in the scope of this article there is no problem. If the SFLC would be interested in stating that standards from standard organisations, with licensing that has scope limitations on them, cannot be implemented by GPL then the GPL licensing would become worthles immediatly as nearly all commen ICT standard fall into that category. I would like you to notice that Microsofts OSP licening also applies to about 100 common internet and communication protocols like FTP and HTTP v1.1 . If you want to suggest that OSP licensed formats cannot be implemented under GPL I suggest you also add that information to the articles of those formats. It would be interested to add to the Firefox article that according to the SFLC it can no longer be GPL licensed because it uses OSP licensed technologies. hAl (talk)

The GPL requires that the code be reused or modified for whatever purpose as the reference states. "The OSP cannot be relied upon by GPL developers for their implementations not because its provisions conflict with GPL, but because it does not provide the freedom that the GPL requires." as it relates to Office Open XML. This is a clear statement that the GPL developers cannot implement Office Open XML because of limitations of the OSP not granting the freedom the GPL requires. "Any code that implements the specification may also do other things in other contexts, so in effect the OSP does not cover any actual code, only some uses of code." and "They would also be unable to distribute their code for any type of use, as is integral to the GPL and to all free software." I have no knowledge of other specifications, neither does the SFLC document discuss other specifications. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. The reference does not state that "The GPL requires that the code be reused or modified for whatever purpose.". Also, do you mind explaining in which way the OSP relates to Office Open XML any different than to any other covered specifications according to the given reference? It seems that Office Open XML is merely used as an example here.

Furthermore, I see no difference between Microsoft's OSP and Sun's public non-assertion declaration in this issue. Sun's declaration is "an irrevocable covenant not to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation of the OASIS OpenDocument specification".[12] Reusing any of the GPL code from the OpenOffice ODF implementation for any other purposes that are not covered by this covenant will also infringe upon Sun's patents. However, we all know that there are already implementations of both OpenDocument and Office Open XML under GPL. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference states "They would also be unable to distribute their code for any type of use, as is integral to the GPL and to all free software." That is a referenced claim that the GPL requires reuse of the code for other purposes. A restating by me does not make it any less referenced. I suggest you read the reference and not simply scan for words.

No I am not going down the path of coming up with unreferenced examples of your claims. The SFLC article is expressly about the OSP, GPL, and Office Open XML. That is the only topic we can discuss when dealing on the Office Open XML article and using the SFLC article as a reference on this talk page. I will also not enter into discussions on the differences between Microsoft and Sun because they are not the OSP and not included in the SFLC article. AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The SLFC reference does not state that OSP licensed formats cannot be implemented by GPL developers. That is interpretation on your part. That qualifies as WP:OR. The GPL license does not state that 3rd party IP licensing has to be transfereed but only states that for 1st party controlled IP rights. Also you can distribute the code and have all the same rights applied to it as the original code. The OSP licensing extends downstream as well. hAl (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To actually claim that the "GPL requires reuse of the code for other purposes" you need to provide an exact quote of the GPL that directly states this. Any vague interpretations of the GPL are not sufficient for this kind of far-reaching claim. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you insist, its easy to find. [13] "that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things." That is directly from the GPL. But the SFLC article is sufficient to fulfill the requirements of WP:VER. In fact the 3rd party nature of the SFLC article is what WP:VER requires, not direct quotes from the GPL. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as I said, reusing the code is optional, it is NOT required. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The freedom to reuse code is not optional in the GPL, it is required of GPL code. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The freedom is to reuse code is not changed by OSP. The OSP license applies the same to everybody. hAl (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

But the OSP does not cover code except in covered implementations. That is why, since the GPL requires the freedom to reuse code, the GPL developers can not rely on the OSP to protect them. That it may not cover under any license is not discussed in the SFLC article. But I will start looking for a reference now so more criticism can be added about other licenses in relation to the OSP. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The OSP does not limit any freedom to reuse code. It does not interfere in that freedom. It is a seperate entity. The OSP might not extend to any reuse of code but it does not in anyway limit the reuse of code. GPL itself is the relvant license about the code. Only GPL can limit reuse of GPL licensed code. That however is not relevant to this article as it does not apply to implementations of Office Open XML under OSP licensing. hAl (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If the critisism remains I feel it is only correct to add to all article that use OSP licensed technologies in GPL implementations that they can not longer be GPL licensed. A few of the included technologies in the OSP licensing are HTML, FTP, Appletalk, USB, UPnP and SOAP. hAl (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited those articles. neither is this a discussion of them. This is the talk page for Office Open XML. The SFLC document does not address them specifically you would need specific 3rd party references that say the OSP can be applied to those specifications in that manner. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about all technologies included in OSP, but there is a big difference between say OOXML / Windows Metafile / USB etc.. types of format, that were truly formats created by Microsoft and/or associated companies, and FTP, IPV4, etc... The first FTP standard was published in 1971, some years before Microsoft ever existed. IPV4 is coming from DARPA, not Microsoft, etc... And HTML is not part of OSP, or so it seems. It would be funny, considering it originated from Tim Berners Lee works, and later the W3C, not Microsoft. Not all OSP is dealing with true Microsoft property !! Hervegirod (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't matter who created the technologies. They might be created by organizations like the W3C or any random company, but can still be based on patents owned by Microsoft. You can for sure reuse GPL code for any software, but you have to respect patent laws. This is similar to a picture that is licensed under Creative Commons, but contains a trademark. You can still use and copy the picture, but you have to respect trademark laws. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was actually HTTP in stead of HTML. Same problem though. The OSP applies to many of the most common protocols currently in use on the internet. Micrsoft is allso probably the single most active company in standardization participation meaning that their technology contributions extend to nearly all know standards currently in use.

what manner can they be applied to  ?? What are you suggesting ? that SLFC does applies the OSP specifically different to OOXML ? hAl (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a failed tactic, the SFLC article only discusses Office Open XML, the OSP and the GPL. It does not discuss any other specification. Please read it before going off on some tangent. You can not discredit it by trying to read into it, or apply to it more than it contains. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is evident the SFLC analysis was only ment to try and confuse ISO members as it was specifcally target at the BRM meeting for Office open XML. It does not contains any definity conclusions but only some kind of vague statements about inconsistency with GPL and that it the OSP cannot be relied upon by GPL developers. It does nowhere in any kind of explicit way state that the GPL licensing does not allow the use of OSP licensed formats. hAl (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect and you are just looking for any excuse to remove it. It is a valid reference. The OSP on the other hand is full of vague statements. Perhaps the entire OSP section should be removed? AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No that is correct. The analysis does not state anywhere that GPL developers can't use OSP licensed formats. And for this article it is of little relevance that the licensing does not extend to implementations that are not Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The reference says that GPL developers cant rely on the OSP protections, it only deals with Office Open XML. The GPL requires the freedom to reuse code. If other specifications are of no relevance, stop trying to bring them in. Put it 10000 different ways its still the same. The criticism is referenced and valid. There is no consensus to remove it. AlbinoFerret (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact this wording even supports that the OSP can be used by GPL developers for Office Open XML implementation. hAl (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The SFLC article says. The OSP does not give the freedom the GPL requires. GPL developers can not rely on the OSP. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

@Ghettoblaster: based on patents owned by Microsoft is sort of funny for FTP, which first publication is anterior to Microsoft creation. And actually, it's the same for HTTP as it was for HTML. We have to credit Tim Berners Lee for that too. @hAl: Microsoft is also probably the single most active company in standardization participation meaning that their technology contributions extend to nearly all know standards currently in use: hmm, I would not say for example that Microsoft is the sole or even the major contributor to all W3C, or ECMA, or ISO, or IEEE, or OASIS standards, etc... But I digress. Hervegirod (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You might not say that they are an major contributor but it is rather true anyways. For example Microsoft is currently leading the HTML workgroup in W3C and is or has been the lead in several OASIS workgroup that deal with webservices. That you are unaware of Microsofts extensive involvement in ICT standards this does not make it less important. hAl (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, please be neutral once. It seems to me that you see all of the tech world through Microsoft glasses. They are at the basis of some advances in this area, but not all. The HTML WG has 73 participants from 23 organizations, not counting experts, it seems unfair to dismiss them (and also the fact that HTML did not originated from Microsoft at all). About the WG, first, it is a dual-head Chair, and the editors of the HTML 5 draft are from Google and Apple, not Microsoft. Please note that I'm not saying that Microsoft is not participating actively in the next versions of HTML standards here, but they are not tech-gods from where all the world originated. Also I did not write I would not say for example that Microsoft is the sole or even the major contributor to W3C, or ECMA, or ISO, or IEEE, or OASIS standards, but I would not say for example that Microsoft is the sole or even the major contributor to all W3C, or ECMA, or ISO, or IEEE, or OASIS standards, but this bring us back to the beginning of my sentence. Hervegirod (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

your suggesting things I'm not stating. I am stating that they are a major contributor in ICT standards and overall probably the most actuive contibutor. So their IP licensing is relavant to those standards and the OSP licnesing is actually a very free license compared to what is required from most standardization organisations. It is form instance a lot more free than the IBM Interoperability Specifications Pledge which applies to OpenDocument and which license only applies to fully complient implementations whereas Micrsofts OSP also applies to partial implementations. So actually Micrsofts OSP licnesing on Office Open XML is less demanding/strict than IBM'sd ISP licnesing on Opendocument. It is just anti-OOXML activists here trying to suggest that OSP is not a good licensing. You asked me to be neutral. Do that yourself and compare IBM's ISP licensing on OpenDocument that only applies on fully compliant implementation with the OSP licensing for Office Open XML and consider what would be better for developers. hAl (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Under what basis do you write that they are overall probably the most active contributor ? I'm not comparing here the merits of OSP compared with IBM's. Furthermore, OSP and their equivalents (Sun's, IBMs) were not designed to imply that they (IBM, Sun, or Microsoft) were at the basis of the specifications covered by the patents (although it is obviously the case for some of the specs covered by OSP, or IBMs, or Sun's equivalent), but just (note that this just is not derogatory in my point of view) that they will not sue implementors on the basis of patents that may be detained concerning the aforementioned technology. Hervegirod (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point as the OSP license provides that patented technology licensing for Office open XML which is even less strict in it's application that IBM's ISP and as such are the challeges to this OSP just effort to try and spread misinformation. How can a even less strict licensing than IBM's licensing for OpenDocument in any way pose a problem for OSS developers. this effort is a pure anti-OOXML effort spearheaded by a well-known sockpuppeteer who added the info to the articel in the first place and revert any edits on it. hAl (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your attempts to remove this criticism is an example of war editing, of which you have been found guilty on more than one occasion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It was hard to edit against the vandalism by you and your sockpuppets. hAl (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no sockpuppets, its just an excuse to war edit on your part. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Are your serious ?? ALL 6 or 7 normal articles you have editted in the last two weeks were on articles I had made a prior edit on in the days before and on most you either removed my edit / place a fact tag. You are a known sockpuppetteer and the king of edittwarring and your following of my edits and trying to revert the edit behaviour is just ridiculous but also pathetic. Get a life of your own. hAl (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey,hAl, why not argue the OSP on it's merits instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks? ... or is that all you've got left for this issue?Jonathan888 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The merits of the OSP are clear but that person tries to obfucate them. It is a irrevocalble free patentlicense to be used by anybody for implementations and use of OOXML. And it is obviously a more relaxed license then for instance the licensing that IBM has given for OpenDocument which is almost identical but not valid for partial implementations. hAl (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As someone that actually implements ECMA376 and in the future, ISO29500, I can attest to the fact that it is open and unencumbered enough to work with from a risk management point of view. The fact that partial implementations are covered (we only support spreadsheets - by design) makes it more clear cut than the IBM analog for ODF. I even went as far as asking Microsoft's Gray Knowlton outright regarding the OSP on his blog. I would contend that criticism should probably be limited to the fact that it has not yet been tested in a court of law, however private and public corporations have implemented support in their commercial software products. One might say that this is probably indicative that it is not likely to happen, given the long history of Office binary format reverse engineering that has not caused Microsoft to pursue anyone, even their biggest? competitor - OpenOffice, who even publish the results of their reverse engineering. I have not made any edits in the main entry, as I think there may be a conflict of interest - I am responsible for the Monarch product, which supports ECMA376 AKA Open XML. Any guidance on whether this is the case?Gareth Horton (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you have a conflict of interest when editing the Office Open XML article as long as you're not on the payroll of Microsoft or have been directly involved in standardization of the file format or something like that. The Datawatch Technology Alliance seems to include Sun Microsystems and IBM and not only Microsoft - therefore it seems to be unbiased in this regard. IMHO, having first-hand experience in implementing an existing Ecma International standard actually makes you an expert in this area - just like a physician or microbiologist editing the vaccination article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

IT Pro

This article from IT Pro is a good reference:
http://www.itpro.co.uk/605142/ms-ooxml-a-format-without-a-future
It sums up the situation. It's amazing how different the Wikipedia article tells the story. --Lester 07:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That is because it is not a very balanced article. It states: Microsoft has no date for implementing OOXML. If a journalist is so ignorant that he did not follow that Microsoft has already implemented Office Open XML as it default format for MS Office 2007 since december 2006 you should not be writing articles about the subject at all. The writer probably means the future ISO version but since that is not a published standard yet it is hardly surprusing that it is not yet implemented and he probably has not seen that Microsoft has already commited to supporting that future version in their next Office 14 version. hAl (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

IT Pro is a major publication. One of the world's most known and respected technology magazines. It is also yet another of a long list of major publications that says that OOXML is not an open format. So what's it doing in our intro?--Lester 12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

@HAl Microsoft has never implemented Office Open XML (and will never), if you are referring to the ISO "standard" version of it.--Celtic hackr (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The ISO version is not yet published as an international standard so noone has ever implemented it yet. Why you think Microsoft never will is unclear. They already announced they would. And they would be foolish not to. It is unlikely that any competing office product will support an official ISO standard as their default format any time soon.

The reason competing office product won't support an official ISO standard any time soon is because it's not an open format. The general tech media speculate Microsoft won't either.--Lester 11:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You seem to have forgotten that for instance Wordperfect is already supporting OOXML, Apple's iWriter has OOXML support and OpenOffice.org will be supporting OOXML within de upcoming months. hAl (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this "Apple's iWriter"? . . dave souza, talk 14:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant Pages from the iWork suite. But TextEdit also has Office Open XML support. Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, TextEdit seems to have "Word 2007 Format (docx)" which I suppose is the same thing without the confusing name. No sign of this famous ISO version. Chap doesn't seem to be very well informed. . dave souza, talk 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert to target text.

when I look at the history of the Wikipedia text I get the impression that there is a kind of "target text" and any corrections of false statements are reversed over time to get back to the "target text" through biased editing.

"In May 2004, governments and the European Union recommended to Microsoft that they publish and standardize their XML Office formats through a standardization organization."

As we already discussed before the remark is factually false. The "European Union" is no institution which makes recommendations. In fact the word relates to a committee of government officials organised under the umbrella of the European Commissions IDABC. Neither do representatives there speak for their government nor the European Commission. Further the recommendation was not specific to the vendor Microsoft.--Arebenti (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One or two concerns

I still have a few (!!) concerns about this article:

• I think the application support part should be in a separate article, there are two many references now, plus I think that some of them are not clear or even dubious. For example, some apps only support a subset of OOXML, some of them only read it, etc (and I'm sure some of them support the whole ECMA format, of course)... These should be separated, else it is no more than a link farm, but to do this requires to have a specific article for that.
• The criticism section is ridiculous. I think this is because a LOT of critics which appeared before it was "officially" an ISO standard were deleted (by pro-OOXML people, I think, but this is a POV I agree). Looking at OpenDocument, I see that this other format has much more technical criticisms than OOXML, which is clearly not the truth. I agree that putting all detailed critics in the main article is often not very good, especially when there's a lot of them and people want to explain, put counter-arguments, etc... Again I think that a specific article should be created.
• The fact that the ISO version seems to be not supported (for the moment) by any tool, and the fate of the ISO version in the future (what will be the future of the OOXML ecosystem when Office will implement the ISO version of the standard, and how the user will be able to work his way through the two versions ?), has been voiced as a critic (some went as far as saying that the ISO version as it is may never be implemented at all), but this problem is nowhere to be seen in the article.

Hervegirod (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• First, I agree that we need a separate article (like: OpenDocument software) when the list of supporting applications becomes to long. I don't think it is that urgent right now.
• Second, I think from all ODF applications out there only OpenOffice (including direct code base forks like StarOffice etc.) (fully) supports that standard. Afaik, there have been some round-trip conversion test with OpenOffice, Abiword, Gnumeric and some other apps that claim to support ODF - the results were all pretty disillusioning.

Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the same Office Open XML Software list on two places

Why is Office Open XML Software list on two places - OOXML and Office_Open_XML_software ? Is someone, who will do all changes created in one article to the another ? For what is this useful ?? I suggest to remove Office Open XML software from article OOXML and let only separate article Office_Open_XML_software. In ODF article is also OpenDocument_software list separated and main article contains only base and very short list of "basic applications". Why is OOXML list of software different ? --213.151.217.130 (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the list here was now big enough to warrant a separate article (see discussion above). This article should highlight the most important/notable applications while the new article Office Open XML software should try to list all supporting applications. I already removed most of the minor applications that don't have a Wikipedia article. The remaining applications should give the reader a concise overview. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ECMA "approved as free and open" tag part ad infinitum

The article currently says:

"The Office Open XML format specification has been approved as a free and open Ecma International standard.", with the words "free" and "open" linked to Free file format and Open format respectively. The implication is that the approval by ECMA makes it free and open.

Well, it ain't that simple...

ECMA publication makes the specification freely available. But both the linked-to pages say "there are no restrictions (e.g. legal or technical) on its use" or equivalent. ECMA publication doesn't do that. It does not give anyone a right to practice the standard. Only the Microsoft open specification promise (if believed) and the theory that no other company has a patent that would restrict practice of the standard does that.

I tried to disentangle the two statements by moving "free and open" to a separate paragraph, and modifying the text to say that "many people claim that it's free and open" (given the considerable controversy reflected further down in the article). But I was reverted by User:HAl [14].

I think the statement that is currently in the intro is clearly false. Either the statement about ECMA has to be reworded to "freely available", or the statement about "free and open" has to be moved as I did. But I don't like edit warring. What do others think? --Alvestrand (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

and before anyone makes claims about ECMA: the ECMA patent policy is at [15]. It's RAND, not Royalty-Free. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You state: It does not give anyone a right to practice the standard. Only the Microsoft open specification promise (if believed) and the theory that no other company has a patent that would restrict practice of the standard does that.. That already is totally incorrect. Ecma is the standasrds owener and it has all the IP rights to it. Micrsoft has no IP rights on the Ecma 376 standard AT ALL. The OSP licensing is additional licensing for technology (so it is not licensing for OOXML itself because MS does not own any rights to it) that applies to any possible technolies from MS required to implement OOXML or parts of OOXML. So Ecma allows full use off the standard in any way you like. MS allows that if you need their patentented technology to implment the format that you are allowed to used that free. I am also not sure what you are trying to suggest with OSP being RAND licensing. Actaully the OSP is both RAND and Royalty FREE. Ig you had ever bothered to look up the W3C licensing it clearly states that their Royalty free licensing is the same as RAND licenisng but then added that no rayalties of fees are to be paid. As is very evident that for Ecma standard nor for the additional tech license from MS no payment of rayalties or fess is required the OOXML licensing is infact RAND, FRAND and Royalty free alltogether. In addition to that MS has alreeady put OSP licensing to many W#C standards as well. You stated that OOXML licensing is not rayalty free. So to Who do you have to pay royalties/fees ? It is really terible and unfounded info you puuting up here. I sugest you place a source of information of people that have actually payed for Ecma 376 OOXML licensing or the additional MS patent rights licensing. for OOXML technology un der OSP. That would be rather interesting hAl (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can you please respond to what I wrote instead of what you imagine that I wrote?

Remember the difference between a patent and a copyright? In order to practice a standard covered by patent rights, you have to have licenses to those patent rights - either in a promise of non-prosecution like the Open Specification Promise, or as a license with the patent owner. ECMA has been given enough license under copyright to publish the document with their copyright on it (and has passed that on to ISO); it has not been given any patent licenses from Microsoft; publication of the specification does not make it freely practicable.

The combination of the OSP and ECMA's freely available publication is enough that many people think that it's a free and open specification according to the linked definitions (although many people disagree, too) - but one of them is not enough. That's all I'm trying to say; can you please read what I wrote?

BTW, the W3C licensing is totally different from ECMA licensing, and W3C has nothing to do with OOXML.

For an amusing discussion of patents as they relate to practicing of a standard (H.264 in this case), please check out this recent court case: [16] - it makes it pretty clear that even without involving copyright issues at all, a patent can be brought to bear upon the practice of a standard (but if companies attempt to cheat, the results might not be good for them). --Alvestrand (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

sigh, I reacted to your words in that I stated that your assesment that OSP is RAND but not royalty free is incorrect. Actually OSP license is both RAND (Satisfying Ecma requirements) AND royalty free (satisfying W3C requiremnts and certain open standards definitions). I asked you for any indication that anybody is reuired to pay royalties/fees to implement or use OOXML and you haven ot provided any. And to add to that I also suggest you read up about what royalty free licensing actuallly is ([http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-RF example). Your statement that Ecma has not been given a license is laughable and shows a total lack in understanding standards licensing. OSP does not apply to Ecma but applies to everybody worldwide. hAl (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't say that. I said that *ECMA POLICY* is RAND not RF. I *agree* that OSP is royalty free, but OSP is *NOT* ECMA policy - it's an unilateral Microsoft action. (BTW, being chair of the IETF's IPR working group for 3 years gave me *some* insight into what royalty free licensing is.) --Alvestrand (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that the OSP licensing exceedes Ecma requirements. Ecma's free copy right licensing and requirements of RAND licensing for any required technology are already in itself enough to satisfy certain definitions of open standards but MS OSP licensing provides even royalty free licensing above those requirement to satisfy most other definitions of open standards (Like the EU definition that requires standards to be free). I am unsure why you are the still removing the words free and open from the article ??? The text actually does not state that de standard is free and open is purely related to the Ecma approval itself but states that the approved Ecma standard is both free and open which is correct. hAl (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, please read what I wrote. I did not remove the words "free and open" from the article. I moved them from seeming to imply that ECMA publication *by itself* made the standard free and open according to the linked-to words. The ECMA requirements themselves (which are disclosure and RAND) do not make the standards free and open, because there can still be patents that apply where only RAND licensing is available. I believe that you can make an argument that ECMA publication + OSP is sufficient to make the standard free and open (even if some other people don't believe it; the article text later on makes that reasonably clear). --Alvestrand (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed your edit again but removing such an implication is not just what you did. You moved the open and free text away from the Ecma standard which the current text correctly states to be an open standard but not only that you also started to change the free and open statement with weazel wording. To add to that I do object to your statement about what constitutes an open standard because Ecma requirements in itself DO make it an open standard according te several of the openstandards definitions listed on Wikipedia (even under RAND licensing). The existing wording does not so much imply that the Ecma approval made it free and open but only it from that moment became a free and open standard. It does not say free and open because it is an approved Ecma standard. Before that approval it was merely a free format but it at that moment became a free and open standard. That seems correctly reflected in the text. However in an effort of mine to accomodate your concerns I altered the text slightly. This should adress you concerns and put more emphasis on it being the moment when it became a free and open standard. hAl (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the VML an ISO/IEC standard now?

I wonder if it is correct to say that the Vector Markup Language is an ISO/IEC standard, now that it is specified in Part 4 of the Office Open XML standard ISO/IEC 29500:2008 (and also ECMA-376 which should make it an Ecma International standard?). What do you think? Ghettoblaster (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is only a part of the transitional elements in the ISO/IEC standard. I would not call it an ISO/IEC standard on itself. Same as that ZIP is not an ISO/IEC standard even though the OOXML spec now contains spec on how ZIP files are made up. hAl (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What about it being an Ecma International standard? Afaik, it is not transitional in ECMA-376. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still only a part of. I would personally only refer to it something like "the VML format is also defined in the Ecma 376 standard". hAl (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

VML is "transitional" in Ecma 376 since Ecma 376 is now identical to ISO/IEC 29500. On the wider question, VML is not an ISO/IEC standard. ISO/IEC standards have distinct numbers, and VML has no number. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about this. ISO/IEC 29500 is a four part standard. AFAIK each of the four parts is an ISO/IEC standard: "ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008", "ISO/IEC 29500-2:2008" etc. Even if ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008 (VML) is just an international standard for transitional migration features, it is still a standard. The Open Packaging Conventions (OPC) are specified in ISO/IEC 29500-2:2008. Is it correct to say that the OPC is an ISO/IEC standard then? Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Part 4 is more than VML (it defines a complete alternative set of schemas for example), so VML is only contained in an IS. It is not, in itself, an IS. The JTC 1 Directives do not define whether a part of a multipart standard is considered as an IS (formally it is only part of a multi-part standard) - though such things are standalone specifications which have the force of an IS. RELAX NG, for example, is ISO/IEC 19757-2. So i nformally speaking, OPC is "a" standard - one that could (should?) certainly be reused in other standards inside and outside JTC 1. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

National bodies adoption and Application support paragraphs

This article has become huge IMHO. To reduce its size without deleting interesting content from wikipedia, I propose to spawn a new article for the two "National bodies adoption" and "Application support" paragraphs, which could be named "OOXML adoption". Hervegirod (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WorldWide adoption paragraph title

This title is misleading. Using this title, I expect to find statistics about market share of OOXML, whereas it deals with national / official bodies adoption of he standard. Please note that I think that title of the same paragraph in the OpenDocument article is equally misleading IMHO. Hervegirod (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The document referenced for Belgium ["note 64"] does NOT allow interchange of Office Open XML, it selects ODF as the sole interchange format:

4.3 De federale overheidsbesturen hebben volgend(e) documentforma(a)t(en) voor het uitwisselen van kantoordocumenten vastgelegd op de aangegeven data

• “OpenDocument Format” (ODF) (vastgelegd op 1 september 2006, op voorwaarde dat, zoals

voorzien in de impactanalyse, uit de testen van de ODF-plug in blijkt dat uiterlijk op 1 maart 2007

leesfunctionaliteit en op 1 maart 2008 schrijffunctionaliteit gegarandeerd wordt in een Microsoft

Office omgeving, met behoud van de benodigde metadata en functionaliteiten).

This translates roughly as "The federal governing bodies have selected the following document format(s) for exchanging office document formats as of the indicated dates" followed by the the sole mention of ODF. I will adapt the Belgian entry accordingly. --Promethean promise (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the roadmap on page 11 correctly then current users of Microsoft Office in the federal administrations may use the Office Open XML format for office documents. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No criticism of Office Open XML?

I'm wary of getting mixed up in this obviously heated topic, but I am *very* surprised to see hardly any mention of criticism of this standard here. The editors involved may not agree with the criticism, but it would be difficult to claim that there is little of it, and it surely doesn't deserve being buried in a few lines in section 6.1.1 of such a document! Just look at all the discussion on this talk page, the least it deserves is a full section heading "Criticism", with an outline of the major points against it. Put the counterpoints as well in there to balance it out, but at least MENTION the fact that this standard has stirred up a lot of controversy! Thrapper (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, given the large number of comments in this page and the frequent edits and reverts, would the marker "Template:Unbalanced" be appropriate here? 78.43.107.185 (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's not balanced. But in the past, it's been in the news that Microsoft has paid people to edit this and other Microsoft related articles, to slant the view in favor of Microsoft. Sad, really.--Lester 03:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting tip, I wasn't aware of that. But I'd like to assume that just because it happened in the past doesn't *necessarily* mean that it's happening now. In the absence of any information either way I'll assume that the repeated, persistent reverts are more the result of high personal enthusiasm rather than financial incentives. I do find it surprising though that just one or two people can exert such control over this (and other) articles, with repeated reverts without (imho) responding appropriately to the discussions here. I find the other languages' articles on this subject in wikipedia far more neutral than this one. Do you agree with putting some kind of "disputed" tag on this article? Thrapper (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as one can "properly" cite a published source of criticism, Microsoft or whoever shouldn't be permitted to delete it just because they don't agree with it or have vested interests. If they wish to add counter-claims and cite that also, that should also be permitted. --66.120.226.81 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing the label above the background paragraph

I'm going to once more remove the recently added label that some user keeps adding to the background section. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that editors should "resist the temptation to apply labels". The reader should not be told what to think or what to do when reading the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we just state the facts and "let the facts speak for themselves". Other reasons for removing the text include that it contains weasel words and unreferenced statements ("a lot of discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA"). Also please keep in mind that this article deals with the Office Open XML file format and contains a whole paragraph of referenced crtiticism thereof. It also contains several links to the article dealing with its standardization process and the criticism of this process. Ghettoblaster (talk) 09:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this tag, but the fact that the article contains almost nothing about the huge criticism of the voting process is a problem for me. It's OK not to devote a big section on this matter, but the Standardization section should contain something about it. Even the (very small, compared to OpenDocument) Criticism section does not contain anything about it. Some of the facts are not there. :: And for something completely unrelated, almost half the article length is used for the "Worldwide adoption" (hmm you know what I think of this title, in this article or the OpenDocument article), and the "Application support" sections. My crappy PC has problems to open this already huge page, I really think we should create a new article for these two sections, I really prefer to have more information about the file format here (if necessary) than endless lists about what application support what. Hervegirod (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is already quite long. Therefore we have to be careful not to mix up the criticism of the file format itself and the criticism of its standardization process. Otherwise we will end up mirroring all the criticism on both articles (which seems to be the aim of some editors), which will make it even longer for no apparent reason.

As you know, I don't think that the "Worldwide adoption" headline is wrong or misleading. The content in the section clearly states where in the world the file formats have been adopted so far (or are in the process of being adopted). However, we might use a different headline as long as we use the same for the Office Open XML article and the OpenDocument article since both paragraphs deal with the same thing. I agree that additional adoption or usage statistics as we have them for webbrowsers would be nice, but I'm not aware of any reliable sources for this kind of data. Also, I don't think that we need a seperate article for Office Open XML adoption right now since it really hasn't been adopted that much in the world so far. I think it is better to have it here until it is big enough to stand on its own.

The content in the "Application support" section is — for the most part — already included in the article Office Open XML software. I didn't have time yet to make sure that all applications in this section are listed in that article. However, I think once that this has been done we can safely remove some of the less important apps from this section and only list the important ones here similar to the "Application support" paragraph in the OpenDocument article. Ghettoblaster (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I agree that if we (ever) change the title of the "Worldwide adoption" paragraph, we would have to do the same change with the OpenDocument article. As for the application support / Worlswide adoption, it's OK to remove only the bulk of the "application support" paragraph, as the other is maybe not still not big enough to be worth a separate article. It would be great for readers to have only the more important apps here !! Hervegirod (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the text which keeps getting removed is not worded perfectly, but the sentiment should be represented in this article - there *is* substantial disagreement about the balance of this article. There *are* many people who believe it does not give enough weight to the controversy and criticism surrounding the subject. Therefore I don't agree with this text being arbitrarily and repeatedly removed just on one person's say-so without it being replaced with something more suitable. Thrapper (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's 2 people (HAl and Ghettoblaster), so saying that it's just one person is unfair. Myself, I'd like to see the link to the standardization process called out in a way that makes it more obvious that there's a story there - I agree that the controversy doesn't really belong in this article. (The technical weaknesses of the format identified in the standardization process do, IMHO, belong in the article - different topic.) --Alvestrand (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but "repeatedly and arbitrarily just on two people's say-so" isn't much better. Can we at least have consensus that this article deserves a "neutrality disputed" tag, to reflect the concerns about its imbalance? Note that doesn't mean that *everyone* disputes the neutrality, just that everyone agrees that the neutrality *is* disputed by a number of people greater than 2? Is that possible here? Thrapper (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

OpenDocument (the XML document format used by OpenOffice.org)

Im going to revert the recent changes to the distinguish2 template at the top of the article once again. Obviously someone is misunderstanding the purpose of this template. It should not be used to promote your favourite office suite. When looking at the article OpenDocument software, you'll see that there are dozens of applications that use the OpenDocument format. There is no reason to mention a particular one in this context. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Another revert, great. I think you misunderstand the purpose of the clarifications made by several people here. Please don't assume it's because of a "favourite" office suite, that's unfair. The office suite "OpenOffice.org" is popularly known as "Open office" and not everyone knows that the format it uses is called OpenDocument. Therefore, making this clear in the beginning of the "Office Open XML" page is relevant and *useful*, to avoid confusion. I'm surprised you don't understand this (or don't want to). Thrapper (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Relative relevance of criticism and subtle advertising.

I do not understand why it is that anything even remotely critical of Microsoft and their behavior during the ECMA and ISO voting process is systematically deleted from this article while sections like the "covenant not to sue" which is marginally relevant to an article about an office document standard is allowed to remain. I can only draw one conclusion and that is that this article has become a vehicle for promoting Microsoft's agenda and a blatant attempt at rewriting history. For posterity, here is the paragraph that keeps getting deleted. Quote: When reading this article, please be aware that there is a lot of discord surrounding allegations that Microsoft hijacked or rigged the voting process in ECMA and/or ISO. The reader should keep this in mind when considering the merits of this particular document format. Unquote. I am re-inserting this paragraph in the article, with the hope that it is allowed to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.111.68 (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft's behaviour in the standardization process is not strictly necessary to describing Office Open XML as a file format, so there is little detail about it in this article. There is an entire separate article on the topic: Standardization of Office Open XML. Warren -talk- 05:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but listing each country which adopted OOXML is also not necessary to describing Office Open XML as a file format. Hervegirod (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note I'd like to see that example pie-chart updated to 2009 browser figures :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamish1980 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is scope for far more material about the controversy regarding the 'standardisation' of Office Open XML

The article as it stands, even with the - relatively short - paragraph about the controversy, reads like promotional material for Microsoft. Maybe that is the intent?

No mention of the several very small countries, who joined ISO during the year prior to the vote, whose ISO representatives, as if by magic, all voted in favour, tipping the vote in Microsoft's favour.

Is it really necessary to include countries in the section on countries which have 'adopted' the standard, when at least some of the countries listed haven't actually adopted it at all, but are considering it, or merely adding it to other standards already used. That section makes it appear that Office Open XML was adopted to the exclusion of everything else in those countries.

Even the name of this 'standard' seems intended to confuse rather than enlighten the ordinary user: 'Open Office', 'Office Open'... I would laugh if it wasn't so obviously underhand in intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is actually an entire article about the subject. hAl (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it's very existence is probably a classic example of WP:POVFORK. Let me quote that guideline: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article." No one stumbles upon this other article; it's not linked near the top of the article as several other related articles are; it's not even linked here while we talk about it. It serves to get all the inconvenient facts squirrelled away where hardly anybody will ever read them, while being a stick to use to stop anyone adding balance to this one. It's frustrating as several editors have been trying to get this article balanced for some time now, with little effect. Meanwhile this article gets longer and longer, with lists of obscure technical details (complete with XML code samples, like we need help designing our own parsers), lists of the parts of each standardisation editions (copied from the contents pages?), even a growing list of each country in the world whose civil servants have ever mentioned OOXML in print: So, of course, there's no room here for a proper balanced discussion of the main issues. --Nigelj (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, anyone up for the humongous task of merging these two articles together? I'd do it myself but I'm a newbie, lol :) 91.153.107.4 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The issues surrounding the standardization of the format have little to no barings on the format itself. They are almost entirely made up of POV references and have little encyclopic information to give on information on the format. The standardization article is more about an event in time that has passed while the format still remains. The only remaining impact on the format itself is actual changes created in standardization proces leading to ISO/IEC 29500 leading to improvements in the specification. Many of the issues surrounding the standardization where about either Microsoft vs other office suite vendors or about ISO/IEC and its procedures and often only remotly related to the document file format itself. This is not an article to put in complaints about ISO/IEC procedures or the politics of office vendors but an article about a fileformat and as such should focues on the fileformat. The standardization of Office Open XML article is a good place to keep issues around the standardization but is dated and deals with more than just fileformats. hAl (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be such a stick-in-the-mud hAl! Surely you agree this article lacks much needed criticism, despite there being another article about it? Merge I say! 91.153.107.4 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For once, I agree with hAl. The technological mess that is the file format and the procedural/political mess that is the standardization process are both large subjects, and heavily interlinked (lots of political capital was expended on not fixing certain of the technical issues, for instance), but it is right to have two articles about the two subjects. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

People getting paid to remove criticism and maintain 'fluff'?

While, obviously, we always continue to assume that every individual editor is acting in good faith and for the good of Wikipedia, none-the-less, we also know without doubt that there are allegations of people being offered money to keep criticism of Microsoft out of WP articles, and that this one is at the core of the area where these allegations arose. See MyWikiBiz, Rick Jelliffe, List of The Colbert Report episodes (2007), History of Wikipedia#Controversies, Criticism of Wikipedia etc for such allegations, just within WP - there are many more on the big wide web.

Therefore, without entering into a detailed debate with any individual editor(s) who doggedly want to keep this article's positive spin intact (as that may risk losing that essential assumption of good faith wrt individuals), I think the consensus of this discussion page, going back right through its archives, is that the majority (of unpaid) editors want more criticism and less 'fluff' in this article.

So, we should just go it, and police our edits, and not be intimidated. Isn't that right? --Nigelj (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on changing the overall focus of the article. However, I strongly believe that an unsourced sentence inserted into the lead along the lines of "When reading this, bear in mind that Microsoft has been accused of lying and cheating to push this standard through" is unencyclopedic in tone and in nature, and blatantly pushes a particular POV. That is why I have removed this addition twice. Stannered (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think that's the reason you've removed it. Not at all. It is historical fact that Microsoft have lied and cheated and especially in regard to this standard. And it is also historic fact that they've been accused of it. Disallowing these facts is sabotaging the article. It may not be proper to phrase it as "while reading this..." but it is more than proper to detail Microsoft's behaviour in another context. And it is anything but proper to not attempt to modify the presentation but to remove the truth altogether. To every rule there is an exception. And you and the other Microsoft goons here are the exception to the 'good faith' rule.

That was just trolling/uninformed editing of wikipedia. But in other news, I think most people have given up editing this article regarding criticism 91.153.107.4 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't say whether individual editors are being paid or not, but there is little question that there's a small number of editors of this article who are _very_ persistent on removing criticism and maintaining fluff (as you call it). Quite sad. But any attempts to rectify it get met with extremely arrogant accusations of "warring", which puts people off. Thrapper (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

http://openxmldeveloper.org/

Statement in article is: The Open XML Developer site was launched to promote these formats and to support developers impementing the specification This seem very plain info. Someone suggest this need to be sourced. Why. Is this contested/challenged ? Is someone suggesting the site not for promoting these formats en supporting developers implementing the specification. What is next ? Do we need to source that ISO is a standard organisation ?

As you can see in Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

please edit according to Wikipedia's policies.

ISO is no longer a neutral/trustable organization anymore. The fairness of the votes on OOXML are doubtable (see Complaints about the national bodies process). If such an organization like ISO can't be trusted, what we can? Don't we need to source third-party material when mention ISO?

This article has been severely disputed and biased, don't we need to improve the citations in order to raise its reliability? Requesting sources is no harm if you can justify and confident of your edit. - Justin545 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to ask citations to improve reliability. There is no challenges that the openxmldevelopers.org site does not promote Office Open XML. You seem to add request for citations for no apparant reasons. You asked for a citation on a on statement of support by de Icaza allthough this was obviously cited in the article already by Slashdot and asked for citations on a stament that opendevelopers.org site is a site supporting OOXML which is actually as obvious as amazon wikipedia being an on line encyclopedia site. hAl (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You should probably justify a sentence first than you can use it:

"There is no challenges that the openxmldevelopers.org site does not promote Office Open XML."

You didn't explain why the above sentence is true. Even ISO is doubtable, how can opendevelopers.org be trustworthy? - Justin545 (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So how can you justify: "You do not seem to ask citations to improve reliability"? If you can't, you was probably FUD. - Justin545 (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"You asked for a citation on a on": that is usual. Likewise, you reverted editors' work (not just mine) on and on if they tried to improve the reliability of the citations or tried improve the neutral point of view of the article. - Justin545 (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after you finish editing, as you can see in Wikipedia:Signatures#When_signatures_should_and_should_not_be_used:

"Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages should be signed."

- Justin545 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the statement from a third party claim on what the site supports to a 1st party statement what the states that it does that is readable on the site so it is 100% verifiable. Do not ask for references on somehting you can readitself again. hAl (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence:

"The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."

The citation is not clear enough to support that Intel is one of those companies. There's nothing related to Intel can be found in the given two sources. Do not remove citation request about unrefered text (Intel) again. - Justin545 (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything violate Wikipedia's policies would be challenged. - Justin545 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to a different part of the article. Please do no mix your citation requests. This section was about your unnescesary request on a citation about the site Openxmldevloper.org site being launched to promote the office open XML format. Nothing to do with Intel. hAl (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit off-topic is normal in regular discussion. Besides, I strike out the Intel part before you response, so what I meant is just to remind you don't violate Wikipedia's policies. - Justin545 (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Point of View (Blog comments) is duly noted. hAl (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advertisement for my user page. So what's the relationship between this talk and my user page? You didn't make any sense. By the way, don't judge the content merely by the title, unless you understand Traditional Chinese. - Justin545 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)