There have been some poor decisions of late in Australia. Not playing Hauritz and persisting too long with the out-of-form Clarke and Ponting probably cost Australia the Ashes and has led to terrible self-flagelation. While it’s generally not done to take pleasure in the discomfort of others, I do think an exception can be made in the case of the Australian cricket team.

From various recent blogs and tweets I’ve noticed a fuss surrounding the decision by the Australian Government Information Management Office (AGIMO) to recommend the use of OOXML as a document format, and from the tenor of the comments it would seem this is being treated as similar calamity for Australia. However, there appears to be some misunderstanding and misinformation flying around which is worth a comment …

Leaving aside the merits of the decision itself, one particular theme in the commentary is that AGIMO have somehow picked a “non-ISO” version of OOXML. I can’t find any evidence of this. By specifying Ecma 376 without an edition number the convention is that the latest version of that standard is intended; and though I do think there is a danger of over-reading this particular citation, the current version of Ecma 376 is the second edition, which is the version of OOXML that was approved by ISO and IEC members in April 2008. The Ecma and ISO/IEC versions are in lock-step, with the Ecma text only ever mirroring the ISO/IEC text. And although (as now) there are inevitably some bureaucratic and administrative delays in the Ecma version rolling in all changes made in JTC 1 prior to publication, to cite one is, effectively, equivalent to citing the other.

[UPDATE: John Sheridan from AGIMO comments below that Ecma 376 1st Edition was intended, and I respond]

IBM employee and ODF TC co-chair Rob Weir’s latest blog entry seeks to rebut what he terms a “disinformation campaign being waged against ODF”. The writing is curiously disjointed, and while at first I thought Rob’s famously fluent pen had been constipated by his distaste at having to descend further into the ad hominem gutter, on closer inspection I think it is perhaps a tell of Rob’s discomfort about his own past statements.

In particular, Rob takes issue with a statement that he condemns as “Microsoft FUD […] laundered via intermediaries”:

Now Rob Weir is a great blogger, a much-praised committee chair, and somebody who can, on occasion, fearlessly produce the blunt truth like a rabbit from a hat. For this reason, I know his blog entry, “Toy Soldiers” of July 2008 has enjoyed quite some exposure in standards meetings around the world, most particularly for its assertions about ODF. He wrote:

While the anti-MS line here represents the kind of robust corporate knockabout stuff we might expect, it is Rob’s statement that “no one supports ODF 1.0 today. All of the major vendors have moved on […]” which has particularly resonated for users. A pronouncement on adoption from a committee chair about his own committee’s standard is significant. And naturally, it has deeply concerned some of the National Bodies who have adopted ODF 1.0 (which is ISO/IEC 26300) as a National standard, and who now find they have adopted something which, apparently, “no one supports”.

So, far from being “Microsoft FUD”, the idea that “No one supports ODF 1.0” is in fact Rob Weir’s own statement. And it was taken up and repeated by Andy Updegrove, Groklaw and Boycott Novell, those well-known vehicles of Microsoft’s corporate will.

Today however, this appears to have become an inconvenient truth. The rabbit that was pulled out of the hat in the interest of last summer’s spin, now needs to be put into the boiler. Consequently we find Rob’s blog entry of July 2008 has been silently amended so that it now states:

The pertinent change is to item 1 on this list, which now has a weasel-worded (and tellingly tautological) assertion that might make the unsuspecting reader think that ODF 1.0 was somehow supported by the major vendors. Well, is it? Who is right, the Rob Weir of 2008 or the Rob Weir of 2009? Maybe I’ve missed something, but personally I’m unaware of an upsurge in ODF 1.0 support during the last 11 months. My money is on the former Rob being right here.

Okay, I use OpenOffice.org 1.1.5 (despite its Secunia level 4 advisory) out of a kind of loyalty to ISO/IEC 26300 (ODF 1.0), but I’m often teased about being the only person on the planet who must be doing this, and onlookers wonder what the .swx (etc) files I produce really are.

Blog Etiquette

As a general rule, when making substantive retrospective changes to blog entries, especially controversial blog entries, it is honest dealing to draw attention to this by striking-through removed text and prominently labelling the new text as “updated”. Failing to do this can lead to the suspicion that an attempt to re-write history is underway …