<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
		<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such&quot; - Jon Bosak, the Sun Microsystems XML guru, is mentionning that Sun is supporting the ISO standardisation of OOXML. But maybe not at any price.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:35:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148#post-36717</guid>
				<title>Re: Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such#post-36717</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Anonymous</wikidot:authorName>								<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>It seems the INCITS no with comments included a comment (voted for by Sun) that the standard should also include all previous binary office document formats of Microsoft.<br /> That is extremly unlikely to be the case and would make the "No with comments" the same as an unfixable straightforward NO.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148#post-36537</guid>
				<title>Re: Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such#post-36537</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>Anonymous</wikidot:authorName>								<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>In Spain IBM (backed by FFII) has asked for the same "conditioned no with comments". We have no problem with this standard if everything that is wrong in it is fully fixed with enough warranties that this will happen. Microsoft just wants to get its "yes" promising that some day they will fix some things… that never will come if you don't force them with a "NO" or "CONDITIONED NO" vote. Sun is just naming in another way the "Conditioned NO" vote.</p> <p>So IBM is not any "dogmatic anti-OOXML supporter". Indeed, never have been, the same as FFII, FSF, OFE et al.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148#post-36258</guid>
				<title>Re: Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such#post-36258</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:59:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Sun is not supporting OOXML as such, but well a modified version of OOXML which would fullfill the rules of interoperability. But with Microsoft, that won't happen soon.</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148#post-35863</guid>
				<title>Re: Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such#post-35863</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:11:22 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>IvBeg</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>27710</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Quite unusual that Sun really going to support OOXML. Isn' IBM now the only dogmatic anti-OOXML supporter or not?</p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148#post-35321</guid>
				<title>Sun Microsystems supports OOXML, but not as such</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-14148/sun-microsystems-supports-ooxml-but-not-as-such#post-35321</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>zoobab</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>2946</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>Here is what he <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200707/2007Jul16-081558.eml">wrote</a> about the INCITS vote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007&nbsp;08:13:59 -0700 (PDT)<br /> From: <span class="wiki-email">moc.nus|kasob.noj#moc.nus|kasob.noj</span><br /> Subject: INCITS-V1: Conditional approval (disapproval with comments)<br /> To: <span class="wiki-email">gro.1v-sticni|1v-sticni#gro.1v-sticni|1v-sticni</span></p> <p>Correction to the minutes of 13 July 2007:</p> <p>Sun Microsystems specifically requested several times during the<br /> meeting that the option recorded in the draft minutes as<br /> "Disapproval with comments" be recorded as "Conditional approval<br /> (disapproval with comments)." We observed that the language of 9.8<br /> in the JTC1 Directives explicitly equates these two forms. That<br /> request was accepted with no objection.</p> <p>This change is important to Sun in ensuring that our position is<br /> correctly represented. <strong>We wish to make it completely clear that<br /> we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete<br /> agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability<br /> among different implementations and providing interoperable access<br /> to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.</strong></p> <p><strong>Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based<br /> on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as<br /> presently written is technically incapable of achieving those<br /> goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an<br /> ISO Standard that would enable them.</strong> Sun voted Yes on Conditional<br /> approval (disapproval with comments) because this is the only one<br /> of the options we were given that would guarantee that the<br /> specific changes already agreed upon by consensus in V1 would<br /> actually be implemented.</p> <p>We observed during the meeting that according to 9.8, the option<br /> sometimes described as "No with comments" actually contains an<br /> explicit promise of approval once "the changes that would make the<br /> document acceptable" have been implemented. We voted in the<br /> expectation that those changes will be made and that a version of<br /> DIS 29500 capable of achieving its objectives would be approved as<br /> an ISO Standard. We welcome the opportunity to work with others<br /> during the resolution phase to bring DIS 29500 to a level of<br /> specification that would enable its approval, and we request that<br /> our vote for conditional approval be correctly represented in the<br /> minutes.</p> <p>Jon</p> <p>======================================================<br /> Jon Bosak, Distinguished Engineer, Corporate Standards<br /> Office of Global Government Strategy, Sun Microsystems<br /> Chair, Universal Business Language Technical Committee<br /> Member, INCITS V1 and ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34<br /> <span class="wiki-email">moc.nus|kasob.noj#moc.nus|kasob.noj</span> <a href="http://www.sun.com/standards">http://www.sun.com/standards</a><br /> ======================================================</p> </blockquote> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>
