Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 1

message: Well I agree...sort of. If the resulting name will be Microsoft Office Open XML. The WordprocessingML is about the format for Microsoft Word only but somehow also covers the other applications from the Office suite. --seweso 11:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the one who created the WordprocessingML enty, I have even changed the name two or three times. It seems in constant flow, I am under the impression that the name has not really stabilaised yet. I think the name we should use in WP is the one used by MS Marketing. Or according to your suggestion we should add a paragraph in the article mentionning in what context WordprocessingML is used. Maybe this terms will be abandonned alltogether by MS. --Khalid hassani 14:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Is the WordprocessingML likely to get more content? Right now, it's really just five sentences of content, mostly duplicated in Microsoft Office Open XML, and so should be merged. Lisamh 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That article could well be deleted or just left as a stub. The limited info in the article has no real added value in this article. Possibly when the format will be widely used after the release of MS Office 2007 someone might be interested to put down some info on the separate markup languages that exist in OOXML hAl 10:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: I think the issue of "Openness" warrants an own section on this page.
This would include the question whether OpenXML is compatible with the GPL, which I think is a relevant issue that deserves to be covered in some more detail.
(I don't have an opinion yet: I'm still trying to figure out whether OpenXML is GPL-compatible as this has been subject of some heated debate, that's why I came here ;)).
I just found the OpenDocument vs. Microsoft Office Open XML licensing page. This has some relevant information that I think would be interesting to add here, for those who are not so interested in ODF but just want to know what they can and cannot do with OpenXML. 
I think a link to OpenDocument vs. Microsoft Office Open XML licensing at the bottom of this page would be relevant.
: This article has some POV needing editing and move to the OpenDocument debate page, which covers all the discussion on what OASIS and Microsoft do (or fail to do). I'll do the editing as soon as I get some time.--- Louie 16:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openness 

message: Add any additional comments
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
How can there be "no consensus" on whether to call this entry by its actual name or not?  There's no ambiguity, the name of the standard is Ecma Office Open XML, and that's the name used in 100% of communication from standards bodies regarding the format, whether Ecma, ISO, IEC, or anyone else.  Why is it perceived as necessary for this entry in Wikipedia to be based on the made-up name "Microsoft Office Open XML"?  Why not just call it what it is, what it says on every copy of the spec, "Ecma Office Open XML"?
If a single person's insistence on using a made-up name is sufficient to prevent an entry from using an actual published standardized name because of "lack of consensus," perhaps we should change the entry entitled "GIF" to "CompuServe GIF"?  I don't understand how this process can be so fragile and beholdon to FUD and obfuscation -- why not just say the truth?  This isn't a matter of opinion we're talking about, it's a PROPER NAME.
- Doug 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: This article has a very un-Wikipedia-like tone, with editorial all over the place, presumably as the result of editing and counter-editing between opposing sides. Come on -- we can do better than this! If we can manage NPOV on articles like Scientology, Communism and Opus Dei, we can do it here. -- Karada 13:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree here. The tone is rather too casual, with too much emphasis on "you". I have put on an NPOV tag till we can sort that out. I should note, incidently, that I have no problem with MS or anyone editing the article, just we need to sort out the tone. I should also note that I wrote large slabs of Windows 2000 and MDAC, so if anyone thinks I'm anti-MS... have another think. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took a pass through the article, cleaned up a bunch of stuff, and removed the NPOV tag.  Your concern about inappropriate tone is still valid, though, so I tagged the offending section appropriately.  -/- Warren 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Warren, an excellent start and a better choice of tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial tone 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Support I guess the move request shows my motivation already hAl 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support I guess the move request shows my motivation already hAl 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Support a more generic title. Note that ECMAScript is used for the standard version of what is called JavaScript, and JavaScript is used for the Netscape/Mozilla implementation (which leads the ECMA standard, but is nevertheless subtly different). It should be called what it is called. I think the present title, Ecma Office Open XML, is a good one. If the MS implementation turns out subtly different, make that a subsection here and maybe an article later - David Gerard 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - not 'Microsoft' in name as yet

message: #oppose - trying to drop any mention of microsoft? Towsonu2003 05:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: :Add any additional comments:
Anoyingly someone has moved to page to yet another name after I added the move request. Typical. hAl 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it should not be annoying. It is a wiki, after all and moving a page to a proper title should be something that can be done by using the buttons. -- Mathias Schindler 21:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is rather anoying as it easily creates a page moving war where a poll and discussion as I used seems a smoother solution. Also in an earlier attempt for renaming Ecma Office Open XML was dismissed as being the best choice. Also check: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_.28possibly.29_controversial_page_move  hAl 21:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, even Ecma does not call the format Ecma Office Open XML. Check the  Ecma page on OOXML .  hAl 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry, I did not notice that earlier move attempt. Ecma calls this "Office Open XML", the same way that BMW does not put "BMW" in front of their car models (we do). I also did not expect moving this page to be controversial. -- Mathias Schindler 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And when does the all out move to drop "office" start?  Charles Esson 08:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: By analogy with ECMAScript, should this perhaps be titled ECMA Office Open XML instead of Ecma Office Open XML? --Gwern  (contribs) 23:02 23 January 2007 (GMT)
:Back when JavaScript was standardised, they called themselves ECMA so that's its name; now (and in Nov 2006 when the standard was released) they call themselves Ecma - David Gerard 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've researched this. ECMA was an acronym for the European Computer Manufacturer's Association. They later did a formal change of name to Ecma International, perhaps to obscure their origin an industrial trade association that evolved into a standards organization. Marbux 08:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed it was because they're no longer just European and no longer just Computer Manufacturers. It's certainly not a secret or even very concealed - David Gerard 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Their secretary general told us at an ISO SC34 briefing that the name is definitely "Ecma" not "ECMA". It no longer is a Europe-targetted organization, and the name is not now a contraction of a longer real name.Rick Jelliffe 06:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: I think that people should be able to see the article posted on msnbc regarding microsoft trying to pay someone to change this article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16775981/
THis is something that has been done to try and change what other have researched to show their own agenda and I think an entry regarding this story should be aloud on this page. I would like to see if anyone else feels this article should be added.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stang99gtv8 (talk • contribs).
: Yes, we know about that article, but it's not relevant to a discussion about the file format itself.  Wikipedia almost never documents cases where outside forces try to influence an article, in the article itself.  You won't, for example, find any mention of Stephen Colbert in the article on Elephants.  If you want to write Criticism of Microsoft, do it in the correct article -- but this article isn't it.  -/- Warren 07:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not black-and-white IMO, it's a grey area requiring editorial judgement. OOXML, the file format, is controversial, and this particularly controversy hit the press. I would personally err on the side of saying "probably not" in this case, but any future conflicts would need to be evaluated one by one - David Gerard 11:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It probably doesn't belong in this article, but I dunno if it may in future. That said, this mostly needs to be a better article about the file format itself - technical details, history, notable criticisms, all the usual - David Gerard 12:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AP article