Rob Weir: So the question in my mind is this: How bad was the OOXML Wikipedia page before all the fuss started?
The answer surprised me. Judge for yourself.
Nothing jumped out as being all that critical and it definitely didn’t come across as FUD ridden. Am I missing something? The section titled “Criticism” is obviously somewhat negative.
The grammar is horrible in some spots. This paragraph under “Hyperlink relations” could be improved by being removing entirely:
It doesn’t actually have the URL inline. Just like references to other parts in the ZIP use relationships, so to external references. If you go back to the relationships file for wordDocument.xml, you’ll see can see if it is an internal relationship or for instance a relationship of type hyperlink. This work similar not just for hyperlinks, but for any external reference. Linked images, templates, etc. The relationship file containing all references makes it much easier to do link fix-up if you’re moving files from one server to another. Or if you want to remove all external references for security reasons, you just edit the relationships.
I just noticed this bit under “Licensing” which could be seen as somewhat opinionated:
There has been a lot of argument about the ability for OSS software to use the format even under this fairly open license. Microsoft has tried to diminish these concerns by officially stating in a covenant not to sue[4] [5] that it will not sue any organization for using the format if the implementation complies to the official OOXML Ecma standard file formats. This has led to a greater reassurance that the OOXML formats will also be available for use in OSS software as even expressed by OSS licensing expert Larry Rosen.[6]
It could be cleaned up a bit but where’s the FUD?
Go back a year and find three worrisome paragraphs that aren’t unfair, but also aren’t very kind to Microsoft. Their Office format was defined only by its relationship to ODF.
There are also other Wikipedia articles to consider, such as this OOXML/ODF Comparison. (Itself taken largely from a Groklaw article.)
So many articles! Microsoft may want to create its own centralized Wikipedia Task Force.
Go back a year
Forgive me, but why? I can’t conceive of how Doug’s inquiry into whether Rick would be interested in “some of this kind of work” could be motivated by a desire to fix something that has long since already been corrected.