Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

EU recommendation?

I just want to add a lie that was corrected several times and discussed "In May 2004, governments and the European Union recommended to Microsoft that they publish and standardize their XML Office formats through a standardization organization.[16][17]" has been reverted several times. We had lengthy discussions. The links provided do not source the factually incorrect statement. As I argued before I believe the unfaithful editors have a "target text" and regardless what edits or improvements are made they wash down the text to become the target text again. Formulations which were discussed and proven misleading do not reappear by accident. It is time for Wikipedia management to take action and block the responsible persons. The "we must use reliable sources" argument is unsatisfactory as long as the article includes statements where sources that do not confirm the claim, or the argument follows a riddiculous positivism. --Arebenti (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that particular statement (modified to say what the sources support) belongs on Standardization of Office Open XML, not here. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alvestrand that this would be better in the standardization article. And Arebenti seems right in that the Brian Jones blog post seems irrelevant here. But one of the recommendations of the TAC (the other citation) is that "Microsoft should consider the merits of submitting XML formats to an international standards body of their choice". Perhaps it would be better if this was stated directly (both the body making the statement and the actual words) rather than the loose summary which is there at present. Alexbrn (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More - it turns out this reference was already included in the standardization article, so I have removed it from here. Also removes some similar speculation from this Background section Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The EU recommendation predates the standardization by a year. It is very significant as background as without that recommedation to Micrsoft and OASIS we likely would not have seen this article exist but in stead have been at a "Microsoft Office 2007 formats" article. That the EU recommends Microsoft to submit their existing office xml format and that Microsoft has done so a year after is a significant part of how the format came to be. hAl (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree this belongs in the article. The Office Open XML standard might not exist if it was not for this EU recommend. We would be looking at the MS Office 2007 XML format article then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.171.246 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Standardization"

I see the "History" section is back to being "Standardization". The reason I originally changed this was more to avoid the cross-Atlantic spelling divide than anything else; is there any way we could phrase this succinctly to avoid the use of that Z? The same obviously applies to the parent article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much bothered by the transatlantic Z, any more than I'm bothered by the lack of an U in "color". I don't even want to insist on consistency. If you really want to bother, maybe we can use "Creation of a standard"? --Alvestrand (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason not to just go with "History" again? That also allows the section to grow by adding adoption details et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'z' looks as foreign to me as to anyone, but I introduced it here for consistency's sake. I think it is wise to name the section after the sub-article it summarises, and the title of that has a z. I imagine, from past experience, that with regard to file formats invented by a US corporation, it would be impossible to maintain that that the articles should not follow US spelling. Even on truly international subjects like World Wide Web someone always comes along pretty soon and puts all the spellings into the American vernacular. So I thought, it's one argument that's not worth starting and used US spelling and punctuation from the start (including "hello." not "hello".) --Nigelj (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK "American punctuation" is discouraged by several formal bodies in the States (as it should, being wrong and all). This one was more of a niggle; I don't really mind one way or another, but it's a good way of heading off future disputes early. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that words spelt with the '-ize' ending are perfectly acceptable in British English. They always have been. The '-ise' spellings are simply something most Britons have become accustomed to. See here. Xyiyizi 12:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As Fowler was at pains to point out, what is "acceptable" in a given dialect is what the speakers and writers of it find acceptable. Whether or not a textbook may say that -ize is "acceptable" in BrE it's seldom used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and ISO use "standardization" - so that is (ahem) the standard spelling ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This is where I mutter something about "aluminium", I suppose. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

COI tag

This isn't productive. I'm removing it again. Scientus, consider this a warning for tendicious editing; either you can work with other editors to collaboratively improve the article or you can join hAl in the group of editors who disagree with the direction of the article but who are unable to do anthing about it due to being blocked from editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. You mean Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. At this time, it's not appropriate to place the COI hatnote on top of the article. The issues need to be debated first, before we resort to tagging.--Lester 04:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that tagging isn't productive at this time before any attempt has been made to flesh out the issues here on the talk page. At the same time I agree with Scientus that there is a potential conflict of interest regarding Alex, and I protest thumperward's harsh characterization of the move. Indeed, talk before tagging! Yet the tagging was not entirely out-of-place. We should welcome Alex's expertise in the article, but also carefully weigh his contributions in the context of his intense involvement in the issues. A simple claim that "Well, I have been criticized by both sides", as Alex has stated on this talk page in the the past, is not sufficient reason at all to disregard the possible conflict of interest for someone who has been the object of such intense public controversy. It is up to Alex to prove that he can contribute neutrally, especially in the manner he presents (or even allows for the presentation of) positions he disagrees with and the sources for them. Indeed, to show neutrality, he should be going out of his way to help this article include documentation of criticism of himself, his role in the process, and links to verify them. If he can fairly document both sides that is even better. Dovi (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure I need to "prove" anything - Wikipedia provides a nice history of my actual contributions (which you may find differ in nature from how they have been reported in some quarters). I think it is rather presumptious of you to imply you know what I agree/disagree with and that I'm in danger of not setting aside any bias I may have. As to myself - I am not a notable figure: despite some "intense" coverage in the sillier blogs my role has received very little coverage from authoritative citable sources (e.g. the trade press). As a matter of personal policy and COI avoidance I try to avoid making any edits to material directly concerning my "role" in the process. As to COI generally, I'm waiting to hear what "interests" are in conflict exactly. Alexbrn (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The "interests" are hinted at within this very comment of yours. Only the trade press is authoritative? Open Source organizations are not? Some of the "silly" blogs that have criticized you (not all of them) are written by recognized experts. Because of the nature of this article's topic, of intense interest to technical people but not high on the general public's agenda, selected blogs and other sources from outside the "trade press" are called for here in order to document the POV's from both sides. That, by the way, is what NPOV means: Not citing supposedly neutral analysis, but by fairly documenting all relevant perspectives. Dovi (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to maintain/improve the quality level - allowing "selected" (by whom?) blogs and collecting all shades of POV from "both sides" (the existence of "sides" is in itself a POV) is not what we should be doing, and in fact it is what this page has suffered from with edits and counter-edits from over-zealous OOXML opponents and enthusiasts. It's interesting you want to re-interpret what NPOV means to include "all relevant" (according to whom?) perspectives; we should confine ourselves to more mainstream, verifiable views (and yes, that might include FOSS organisations' and commercial organisations' views). I suggest you read WP:SOURCES carefully Alexbrn (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is not for debate. It is for showing the neutral information on a subject. Only when the facts describing the subject are disputed both sides of the dispute should be shown. Discussions on wheter or not OOXML is good or bad should not come into the frame of the article. The article is not about critisising the format but only about describing the format. For discussion go to your blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.171.246 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not for us to make our own criticism of OOXML, however it is fair game to include criticism by notable others of the format. The statement above (by IP user) that the article can only describe the format is also not true. OOXML was the most controversial ISO standard in history. Of course the controversy must be included.--Lester