That’s the irritating thing. People who actually knows the science behind the proposed draft found it flawed; only to be bypassed by stupid politicians who probably thought that XML is some film categorisation for porno with medium to large actors.

Again, my beef with OOXML is not because it’s by Microsoft, but because there are bugs in the spec that is yet to be fixed.

Of course there’s the issue of Microsoft trying to steamroll OOXML into public adoption. But at the very least, they should at least make it worthy of being even a proposed standard in the first place.

According to the International Herald Tribune Sept 4, 2007:
“Although Malaysia’s Industry Standards Committee on Information Technology decided to vote against Microsoft’s proposed standard, the Malaysian government overruled the panel and abstained in the end.”

It is Ok to adopt it as standard, I guess, if their code is deposited in the public domain.

lordapprentice, that’s the thing! Contrary to what many will think, this is not an anti-Microsoft post. I’m vehemently against OOXML purely because it’s broken. It’s as simple as that.Everything requires funding, so what? Does that mean for some monetary benefits, we will not vote against something that’s flawed?Microsoft should have focused more on addressing the concerns voiced by the standard bodies and improve on the proposed standard. Instead, they seem rather happier to use backdoor methods.

On the flip side, Malaysia might have plans on getting Microsoft to step foot in this country, so voting against them deffinately won’t help this cause.