a 'mooh' point

clearly an IBM drone

Mummy, Tom from school is an idiot

Back in the day when I started blogging, I showed a friend of mine a blog post I had written. He noticed the large number of links to other bloggers in the piece, and he asked me (tongue-in-cheek) if those links were some kind of geeky way of saying "I love you" to the people I linked to.

Well, to some extend, he was correct. But that is not the only way people communicate varm feelings to each other - without saying it directly. If you look at kids in (pre)school, when they start to have feelings for the opposite sex, the message to everyone else is typically "No, I don't like Tom at all ... he's a total idiot!". So parents (I presume) quickly learn that sometimes name-calling is a token of love and affection.

So ... Alex and I have made a little game. As you might now, name-calling is quite the way to do stuff - at least if you are in some way opposed to this whole "oh oh xml thingy". Classics are "drone" and "$hill" and more exotic examples are "nazi" or "saboteur". The current score is listed in the table at the right of this page.

The rules are quite simple:

  • Each mention of either of us with a special name scores one point
  • If one of us are mentioned with name in the title of the article/post, each score for each mention in the article is doubled

The prize is beer in Paris for the next WG4-meeting in the beginning of December.

This is all fine ... except for one thing ... I am loosing miserably. I had a good thing going for a few months (and I even was so cockey to suggest a wager on beer, because I "knew" I was winning"). But somehow Mr. Fox has gained momentum and with the latest bashing of Alex, we are now tied.

So Roy, Pam ... give me a hand here ... think about all the frustration I might have caused you (and you families) and put it down in writing ... otherwise I'll be the one buying beer in Paris and Alex will be winning ... and none of us want that to happen, do we?

PS: Roy, I love you too ...


Microsoft Office 2010 CTP1 TODO-list (Teaser)

It seems about time somebody wrote a bit about how Microsoft has chosen to implement ISO/IEC 29500:2008, aka OOXML. As you might know, Microsoft claims that Microsoft Office 2010 will implement “29500” in Transitional (T) sense. As far as my tests have shown (and they are in no way a complete and thorough application test) there no signs that this is not in fact true. So by launch day of Microsoft Office 2010 we (as in “the world”) will have at least one big implementation of 29500.

However – the devil, as always, lies in the details. So the question is not if they have implemented 29500 – the question is how.

This will be the first post in a series looking at the details (from a format perspective) of how Microsoft has chosen to implement 29500.

[Note: Documents markup for documents conforming to Transitional conformance clause (T) and for those that conform to Strict conformance clause (S) are virtually identical – for simple documents.]

I will maintain a list of items for Microsoft to consider as I go along. It is available at this permanent location.

Excel 2010

I will start by looking at Excel. Some of the most controversial parts of 29500 were focused on how Excel handles e.g. dates, VML, document protection etc., so this seems like a reasonable place to start. Also, the markup of SpreadsheetML is much easier to read than the markup of WordpressingML or PresentationML (methinks), so it should be the right place to kick this off.

Stay tuned for the first article looking at how the Excel team of Microsoft Office 2010 has dealt with ISO/IEC 29500.

Denmark votes "yes" on IS29500 COR1 and FPDAM1

I know it has been a couple of weeks, but I just wanted to share current development with you.

On September 7th (in Danish), the Danish mirror committee to ISO/IEC JTC1 SC34 met at Danish Standards in Charlottenlund. On the agenda was, amongst other things, processing of documents under ballot. The relevant documents to WG4 was these

As appointed expert from Danish Standards in WG4, I have been working hard with the other experts in WG4 on these papers and I have for each meeting in Denmark provided oversights to the mirror committee on the current work. The members of the Danish committee have access to the same set of papers that I have, so we have primarily been discussing the more controversial ones - like usage of ISO-8601 dates in transitional files, reintroducing ST_OnOff in transitional schemas and changing the namespace name for strict files. A couple of times Danish committee members have requested information on more "trivial stuff", and we have then discussed this.

At the meeting of September 7th, I gave a quick sporadic overview of the more tough parts of COR1 and AMD1 and no comments were presented. We talked a bit about general principles of the work in WG4, but that was basically that.

After this, Denmark (Danish Standards) approved the document sets for COR1 and AMD1.

Obviously I think this is great news and the chairman of the Danish committee expressed his appreciation of the work put into creating these files.