Office Open XML is an ISO standard: Now what?
It's all over except the press release. But in other ways, it's just the beginning.
After a document appeared on Tuesday showing that Office Open XML (OOXML) gained enough votes to be ratified as an ISO standard, Microsoft on Tuesday confirmed the result.
Once final, ISO/IEC certification means that development of the specification, officially called Draft International Standard (DIS) 29500, will be done by members of the ISO, an international organization with representatives from over 100 countries.
On a technical level, changes proposed during the standardization process will need to be incorporated into Open XML, which is now the default document format in Microsoft Office 2007.
In the near term, that means Microsoft, Novell, and other companies that have software that works with the file formats will need to update their products. As the specification evolves in the future, these companies are expected to conform to the changes.
There remains distrust of Microsoft's efforts to promote interoperability between its products and others, including open-source software. But ISO ratification is a significant step towards Microsoft's pledge to support standards, said Peter O'Kelly, an analyst at the Burton Group.
Open XML will now be subject to more scrutiny on a technical level and people can feel less apprehensive about any possible legal entanglements from writing software based on the specification, he said.
"A lot of people continue to believe that Microsoft hasn't changed its modus operandi and the onus is on Microsoft to very clearly demonstrate a track record," O'Kelly said. "It's not like 1998. They really are enlightened about the importance of standards."
Asked what impact the ISO status would give Open XML, standards expert Jan van den Beld who now works for the pro-Microsoft industry group CompTIA, said "not much at the very moment."
Government customers and large corporations that favor certified standards now have a choice, he said. "It certainly is one less barrier to doing business in an environment that otherwise would be difficult," van den Beld said.
Not buying it
But many people committed to standards, including open-source advocates, are certain to be dismayed by the ISO ratification.
A number of national standards bodies voted "no" in the Open XML vote or abstained even after a Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) in February, which was meant to resolve technical issues. The tally shows that 75 percent voted to approve with 14 percent voting against.
A representative from Standards Norge, Norway's standards body has lodged a complaint over how the voting was conducted but a reversal to a "no" vote does not look like it will affect the overall result.
IBM executives lobbied heavily against the standards bid, arguing that Open XML was redundant with the OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard, technically flawed, and not sufficiently "open." A spokesperson declined to comment before the official ISO announcement.
A few days before national standards bodies were to submit their votes, the Free Software Foundation issued a legal analysis saying that the legal protections on Open XML were not to be trusted.
Some issues raised in the long-running debate seem intractable.
Microsoft executives and others have said that different "standards" suit different purposes, while others claim that multiple standards for the same purpose is wrong.
The episode has also stirred up intense anti-Microsoft sentiment.
The editor of the ODF specification, Patrick Durusau, lobbied for Open XML ISO approval to improve interoperability with ODF. At one point, he said that businesses opposed to Open XML were operating with "spite as a business strategy."
One of the most common complaints was that Microsoft and Ecma--the standards body that controls the specification--sought ISO status through its accelerated Fast-Track process, which made thorough examination of the 6,000 specification challenging.
Standards expert and ODF advocate Andrew Updegrove predicted on Tuesday that there will be a thorough review of the entire process.
"Clearly some changes need to be made in how the process works, so that the next time such an important and commercially strategic standard is processed, the process works better than this," he said.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
http://www.crn.com/software/207001046?_DARGS=/article/rating/showPoll.jhtml#community
I understand that the thought of the enemy trying to switch sides makes a lot of people sick and/or suspicious, but I think for the moment they should have the benefit of the doubt. This is a big first step, so let's just see where things go from here.
I am not an expert, but I have read several complaints, by supposed experts, that there are parts of the OOXML standard that are not open. That MS itself doesn't even conform to the "standard" OOXML because it plants many "old" binary parts into the XML which other vendors cannot emulate.
I, like many, do not have a problem with Microsoft seeking an ISO standard. What I have a problem with is the absolute abuse of the fast-tracking of this standard. The fast-track was never intended for this contentious of a standard, and should never be used for such. The very fact that it was, to me, pretty much discredits ECMA and ISO as a valuable standards body.
I believe that is what has really upset many people, at least that is what upset me.
"Having two fully open and competing sets of standard formats,
each with its pros and cons, should keep things interesting."
Problem is there is *NOTHING* "open" about ooxml. It's 6,000
pages of legalese trying to hide the fact that it's a patent trap
that refers to multiple M$ proprietary standards. Tell me what's
open about that? It would *NEVER* have passed through the
normal channels, so M$ fast tracked it and shoved piles of
money onto everyone's lap to force it through so they could say
"see, we like open source!", right before they rape you to death.
Just because Satan is smiling, doesn't mean he's looking out for
YOUR best interests!
I can't comment on stagnation yet, however MSOOXML is quite probably the most bloated standard in the rather bloated history of the ISO.
That is unless those product references themselves are an open standard. If, say, RTF is an open, ratified standard, the Microsoft standard may reference it and still remain open.
If, instead, the "standard" uses Microsoft program-specific commands, it's not an open standard, any more than it would be to say <RunApp type="RunThisLikeXP"> would be an open standard.
In this example, in theory, one could make an application "run like XP", but in practice, it would be so difficult, it would only be effectively implemented on Microsoft products.
Encapsulating proprietary methods of formatting into XML doesn't magically make them open.
If, on the other hand, Microsoft's standard only references other open standard format specifications, it is truly an open standard.
I don't know enough about the 6000 page standard to say either way.
It is a true standard, unlike OOXML which is not a standard by any rational definition.
Enjoy your "REDMOND" ride; and, we will see you and your family on the other side of the moon. ;-) !
For instance, take your assertion that ODF is an OpenOffice only format. Several vendors, including Google and IBM, implement the format. The specification is open and implementable.
As far as CDF ("Compound Document Format") goes, Open XML is obviously going to be compatible with a format specifically developed to be backwards-compatible with Microsoft Office formats.
The problem with OOXML is not with its progenitor. The specification as proposed was filled with documented and serious holes (e.g., when does "1234" not equal "1234"? when it's actually "1233.9999"). In all the hubbub about the Ballot Resolution Meeting, there was little mention of the specifics of the resolutions and whether these problems have been addressed in an implementable fashion.
The only problem I have with the specification is that the length of the specification is going to make it hard to produce a compliant implementation. It will be also be hard to produce a certification test.
As for standards, multiple standards is an oxymoron. A standard is a standard is a standard.
For those traveling abroad, we know what the advocacy of 'multiple standards' mean: travel-kit for phone socket, travel-kit for electrical socket, transformer, multi-band mobile phone, etc. Each country or region talks about the benefits of its 'choice' of standard.
T-Base-10 is a standard, so is 802.11a, yet they did 'innovate' - build-on.
OOXML does NOT build on anything. It comes itself as a competitor to ODF. It does NOT enhance it, it is not compatible with it.
The worst part is the hypocrisy of all claiming that it's a fair competition. Microsoft REFUSED to, and HAS NOT, implemented proper native ODF format (although a standard) in their MsOffice suite. Their excuse is the worst example of cynical lying: "ODF is not rich enough". ODF already as rich or richer than the doc or xls format. ODF is open, so NOTHING can prevent Microsoft for implementing it.
We can see what Microsoft wants, make OOXML the de-facto standard for office document: all new MsOffice application will open/save documents in OOXML format by default; CIO's and lazy IT Managers will feel justified because of the 'standard' label, although Microsoft will change the specifications of OOXML on each release of their applications, and post (perhaps) their changes to the ISO for the others to play catch up (or post them much later, when competitors complain of compatibility issues).
Whether Microsoft's OOXML is a good set of specifications is not the point at this time. There WAS an existing standard that Microsoft NEVER implemented because it would put them on a playing field with everyone else, and they know they can't win on features (90% of users only use a maximum of 20% of Office features, which other applications out there have anyway) or justify the high cost of their suite.
Some people chose to forget the above to pinpoint some 'shortcomings' of ODF. Sorry but that doesn't add-up. ODF is not perfect, but standards evolve (as 802.11 did and still does). I have seen MANY web frameworks and applications that have ODF compatibility - whether natively or via plug-in, and more are coming every day.
I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that says that Microsoft is besieged by hordes of competition-or-innovation-haters. It's actually the opposite and Microsoft has been found guilty of improper business conduct over and over again - and not just by Europe, and many people have grown distrustful of the company that claims to innovate or champion choice, yet stifle the innovating competitors by spiteful or illegal means.
All Microsoft need to do is walk the walk and talk the talk for a while, but unfortunately, as in the case of OOXML, it has chosen not to do so.
2) OOXML is not an open standard (look up "binary blobs" and get back to us).
3) OOXML is loaded to the gills with patent traps. This means that no one else can use it except MSFT and anyone who pays MSFT a ton of cash for the privilege.
Come back when you have at least some inkling of what you're talking about, 'kay?
/P
Your all so dumb.
Its credibility is gone.
MS leaves nothing but destruction in its wake.
I don't like this any more than the next person, but it's done and trying to deny it won't make it go away.
Move on with your life.
fact it doesn't seem to be, which means nothing more than the ISO
has been caught on the street corner prostituting itself. I hope they
at least enjoy the screwing that micro$loth is giving them!
my head. But one user-level point that really amuses me is that
files created by Office 2007 apps, such as Word documents
(.docx), Excel spreadsheets (.xlsx), and PowerPoint (.pptx),
cannot be opened with older versions of Office, such as 2003. I
am currently taking a evening University class, and many of my
classmates have had trouble exchanging documents between
the "old Word" and the "new Word". But, my Apple iWork '08
applications (Pages, Keynote, and Numbers) will read all those
Office 2007 documents. Micro$oft has more interoperability with
one of its major competitors than with itself! And, iWork has also
maintained backwards-compatibility with the legacy AppleWorks
application.
There are certainly some really strange goings on down there in
Redmond, WA.
Wrong. Microsoft has released a patch which allows office 2000 and 2003 to open the office 2007 documents. Get your facts straight before you spurt lies. Also what you are complaining about is not backwards compatibility, but forwards compatiblity (an application of the past working with data from a newer revision). Microsoft has solved that issue. Can you say the same for every other application?
"...has also maintained backwards-compatibility with the legacy AppleWorks application."
I'll take your word for it. But I also remember the switch from OS9 to OSX is not backwards compatible. Applications written for OS9 do not work well with OSX. You of all people should not be bad mouthing when your favorite has done a worse job of compatibility.
- Office Open XML is an ISO standard: Now what?
- by AppleSuxLeo April 3, 2008 10:47 PM PDT
- Wow...and I thought Apple set the standards with iWork ! LOL bwahahahaha.
- Reply to this comment
-
(39 Comments)