Perspective: Microsoft's amusing standards stance

When Microsoft talks standards, I listen. Last week was good for listening.

Two of the company's general managers published an open letter on document formats titled Interoperability, Choice and Open XML. In the letter, they argue that Microsoft is doing all the right things with standards and that IBM is not playing by the rules.

The letter is about an ongoing battle between two Extensible Markup Language-based document formats. IBM and others have supported the OpenDocument format, or ODF, from its inception in OpenOffice to its current International Organization for Standardization-accepted status.

Microsoft is trying to give its own Office Open XML (OOXML) the same stamp of approval by taking a shortcut through the "fast track" offered by the European standards body Ecma International into the ISO.

The conflict has provided prime entertainment for document geeks, and the letter adds to the amusement.

Jean Paoli and Tom Robertson share a tear-jerking story on how Microsoft has "stepped up efforts" and "listened to customers." Microsoft "congratulates Ecma" for producing a 6,000-page specification that will "spark an explosion of innovation." The enemy, on the other hand, is using the "standards process to limit choice in the marketplace for ulterior commercial motives." Microsoft has the nerve to criticize competitors for having commercial motives?

While it's healthy to have competition between different standards, it's rarely productive to have competing standards within an organization.

Further, the letter claims that "ODF is closely tied to OpenOffice and related products" (bad!) while OOXML "reflects the rich set of capabilities in Office 2007" (good!). A more even-handed sentence might read: ODF is an XML-based dump of the internal data structures of OpenOffice, while OOXML is an XML-based dump of the internal data structures of Microsoft Office.

"Choice" is a prominent word in the letter. The authors argue that consumers want several standards from which to choose. I don't think so. Consumers never wanted the choice between VHS and Beta, and mobile telephony in the United States was hindered by customers having to choose between competing standards.

Choice soon turns to frustration when your rented video doesn't fit in the slot, or your phone doesn't connect. People want to choose products based on price and performance, not on underlying equivalent standards.

According to the letter, governments have also been asking Ecma to "establish choice." Which countries? Is it Kazakhstan, by any chance? Kazakhstan recently joined the relevant ISO group. In the past, consultants paid by Microsoft have joined standardization groups and have become sympathetic voices. Are they buying countries this time?

In this conflict, ISO must answer a difficult question: is there room for both ODF and OOXML inside ISO? I'm not a fan of either format, but ISO should be concerned about the closeness of the two formats. They are similar in function, solving the same problems and using XML as the syntactic foundation. While it's healthy to have competition between different standards, it's rarely productive to have competing standards within an organization.

It can be argued that, by introducing a competing standard, one risks jeopardizing both standards. Around 1990, the SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) and ODA (Open Document Architecture) standards were competitors. Both of them were ISO standards, and I believe this was counterproductive for everyone involved. For example, SGML added useless features just to compete with ODA. Microsoft is not to blame for this, as they were not interested in standards in 1990. In 1997, however, they were.

Biography
Håkon Wium Lie is chief technology officer of Opera Software. Before joining Opera in 1999, he worked at W3C where he was responsible for the development of Cascading Style Sheets, a concept he proposed while working with Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1994.

More Perspectives

[rapier1]

Kernel of truth

I think one of the most interesting things said in this essay was <br />that 'consumers don't want a choice' and to be honest, they <br />really don't. They aren't interested in what the underlying format <br />is as long as they can use that format anywhere they want to. So <br />what does this mean? The discussion about these open formats <br />is really going to have very little impact on most consumers and, <br />for the most part, they're going to continue to use the doc, xls, <br />and ppt formats because, as of now, everything understands <br />those formats. <br /><br />This is bad because it gives one company a near stranglehold <br />over people's documents. On the other hand, its good because <br />any standard is better than no standard. I used to be an <br />organizer for a relatively well attended technical conference <br />(Joint Techs) and all presenters were required to submit their <br />presentations in advance so we could get them on line and not <br />have to worry about swapping laptops at the podium. Initially we <br />let presenters use whatever format they wanted - we ended up <br />with PDFs, magicpoint, html, RTF, powerpoint, and so forth. It <br />ended up being a logistical nightmare - especially being that <br />presenters would tweak their presentations constantly. We'd end <br />up getting 'revised' presentations 10 minutes before they were <br />supposed to speak and this made things *very* difficult to <br />support. So... after trying to accomodate everyone's choices for <br />a couple of years we just said *every* submission had to be in <br />powerpoint (98) format. It might not have been the best format <br />for everyone, but it was a standard and cut down on our <br />overhead and really let things run a lot more smoothly. <br /><br />The point of this is that standards organizations can come up <br />with any format they like but the public and business community <br />will end up deciding what the real standard is going to be. <br />Which, is kind of how it should be I think.

[Penguinisto]

Sorta...

I agree that when it comes to underlying standards, folks in general don't care, as long sa they can make it do whatever they want it to do. The desire for choice is in the UI and feature-set, not the data structure of the output.<br /><br />OTOH, I'm not 100% sure that in the case of documents, the public at large will be the sole decider; I think it will be governments.<br /><br />The reason why is the same reason ODF was established in the first place: Gov't documents are taxpayer-funded, so transparency is a must wherever possible. Second, the biggest reason of all: there's a great desire for output formats that are (or can be) universal, can outlast the software that originally created it (e.g. try opening a divorce decree for Joe Sixpack, which happens to be stored in Word Perfect v.3 format or a 1995-vintage MS Works document...) <br /><br />A single open standard can eliminate the tons of cash that governments waste annually just in converting old-format crap into new-format crap that someone may or may not ever need.<br /><br />IMHO, MSFT would serve the greater good (which they claim) by helping to tweak the existing ODF standard instead of their attempt at a fast-track pushing of their competing one. <br /><br />/P

[DrDreg]

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

Same old same old from the Evil Empire. "Customers want choice is <br />open standards"? Pah! Customers want a computer that just works. <br /><br />DrDreg<br />www.drdreg.com

[Dandy55]

Just works? Not that simple...

DrDreg wrote: "Pah! Customers want a computer that just works."<br /><br />Not that simple. Customers want a computer that allows them to do what they need - and their needs are many and they are different. <br /><br />Don't take me wrong - starndardisation process is necessary and good, but at the same time too restrictive standards, simply based on one particular existing application, be it Microsoft Office or Open Office, and not ready to "embrace and extend" new requirements and features - are actually quite bad! <br /><br />Such "carved in stone" standards just kill any new development and try to ossify existing status quo and particular set of features. There is nothing "evil" in the evolution as such - including evolution of standards. Standards should be embraced, sometimes extended and - YES, SOMETIMES COULD BE EVEN EXTINGUISHED - all for the greater good!<br /><br />Imagine Egyptians trying to standardize their papiruses forever and talking about "evil Chinese empire and their wicked paper"...

[8ball629]

Amen

Great article!<br /><br />I love the last line but unfortunately I doubt they'll ever start using standards :(.

[System Tyrant]

Choice

Here's what I want with choice. I want to choose the office program I use. I want to choose what platform I run it on. I want to choose who I send the document to. I want them to choose the office program and the platform they want. I want to choose to secure a document or not to secure a document.<br /><br />What I don't want is a choice in document formats. I want a universal document format that works in all office products. I want to send that document to somebody without worrying if they can or can't open it or if they have the right version of a specific program. When I receive a document I want to open it without having to go through conversion filters that sometimes work and sometimes don't.<br /><br />So what is Microsoft doing? That's simple they are giving us a choice where most of us don't really want a choice. Muddying up the water to suit their needs. They are not helping consumers and that's what they are really doing.

[Commander_Spock]

What You See Is What You Will Get!

"When I receive a document I want to open it without having to go through conversion filters that sometimes work and sometimes don't.<br /><br />So what is Microsoft doing? That's simple they are giving us a choice where most of us don't really want a choice. Muddying up the water to suit their needs. They are not helping consumers and that's what they are really doing." I beg to disagree with you in the latter part of your comment and here is why; and, this is an extract from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication; Re: "Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.<br /><br />In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return". Microsoft is indeed helping computer users by letting them have the choice of using alternatives like ISO approved Open Document Format Standard (ODF) "without having to go through conversion filters that sometimes work and sometimes don't...". Remember the Oprah Whinfrey Show when she told the audience: You get a car, you get a car...." so, all should use (get) the Open Document Format Standards (ODF); and, there you have your "choice"!

[jdeisenberg]

ODF not an XML-based dump of OOo

The article says "A more even-handed sentence might read: ODF is an XML-based dump of the internal data structures of OpenOffice, while OOXML is an XML-based dump of the internal data structures of Microsoft Office."<br /><br />It may be evenhanded, but it's inaccurate. ODF is designed as an "idealized" representation of a document. The specification says that ODF "...provides for high-level information suitable for editing documents", and that's not what a dump of OpenOffice.org's internal data structures provide.

[FutureGuy]

Then adopt MS standards!!!

If you think having too many standards is a problem adopt the standard MS is proposing. After all MS Office is used by more people then everything else combined and then some. Support the fact that MS is opening up its document format and start using it and quite complaining!!! You might be a high paid hot shot at your workplace and I am sure that slamming MS is in your best personal interest but think of it in terms of someone who has no agenda for or against MS then everything you are saying seem to be nothing more then trying to push your way into a market using misinformation and FUD since your products suck so bad that people don?t want to use it even for free.

[herkamur]

Microsoft's adherence to standards

I'd be OK with that if I believed Microsoft would actually adhere to the "standard". They don't exactly have a good track record in that department. They've never been good at adhering to the HTML standard (neither was Netscape for that matter). Remember their attempt at Java? They tried to bastardize it enough to kill it. (I know Java isn't a standard per se, but it's the same general idea.)<br /><br />Their idea of adhering to a standard is to start with the standard and add to it or alter it enough such that a document created by a Microsoft product is essentially unreadable by any other similar standard compliant product.<br /><br />No thanks.

[dargon19888]

But thats the point...

Microsoft's "standards" are proprietary to Microsoft and if they hold a patent, then you're at the mercy of Microsoft. If you want to fix a problem or extend the "standard", its not up to you, but up to Microsoft.<br /><br />Seems to me, the poster is a "shill".<br /><br />Please note the ODF is not a product of IBM, but a concensus of several organizations....

[jhhdk]

M$ "standards"

Lets not forget that Microsofts EOOXML is still lacking ISO aproval and was recently taken off fast track, because of UNPRECEDENTED opposition from national standards organisations, because their standards proposal is INCOMPLETE, INCONSISTENT with existing standards and REDUNDANT.<br />Microsoft formats are most widely used because of their dominant market position, not because their products are better.

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

Standards?

What standards? There are 8 or 9 versions of the .doc format. Ever tried to open a Word 97 document in Word 2000/XP?

[Schratboy]

Microsoft likes insider advantage

A friend recounted how he asked to coopt a standards' board recommendations in favor of Microsoft over an open standard at the behest of management. The individual refused on ethical grounds...

[t8]

Let Microsoft take full control

We should just give up and let Microsoft take full control and let them charge the customer like a wounded bull. At least Microsoft and Microsoft sympathizers seems to think so.

[Commander_Spock]

It Is Indeed Unlikely...

... for Microsoft to "take full control" since the signal from the International Organization for Standardisation (ISO) has already been received by the Klingons, the Vulcans and the rest of the Star Fleet which forces are already aboard VOYAGER and CASINNI to fully "engage" the Redmond Campus with their ISO approved/sanctioned weapons (the Open Document Format Standards). From all appearances; and, if anything else, it will be those on the Redmond Campus (a wounded bull) who will be facing defeat!

[jhhdk]

ODF > HTML

HTML has some fundamental flaws. &lt;bold&gt;, &lt;italic&gt;, &lt;blink&gt;, <font> to name a few these are clearly instructions on how document should be rendered and should be separated from document content and structure.<br /><br />I do agree that M$ EOOXML attempts are a pathetic attempt to undermine ODF.<br /><br />There is no avoiding browsers eventually rendering ODF, so you might as well get on it.<br /><br />/apol

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

ODF is NOT OpenOffice

Hakon, you're falling for Microsoft's rhetoric. ODF was developed by committee, and in fact OOo was not the first office suite to implement it; KOffice was. OASIS designed ODF to be generic and easy to extend if necessary.<br /><br />It is OOXML that is based on a memory dump, and Microsoft, ironically, is trying to hide that by claiming that ODF is inexorably tied to OpenOffice.org; that, in short, ODF was produced the same way as OOXML so "the enemy" should not be using the fact that OOXML is a dump of the Office internal structure as a counterargument against it. In reality, it is not.<br /><br />HTML/CSS is very good for web-based documents, but is still very limiting for general documents (I always suspected that was the reason for XSL-FO's existence in the first place). While I imagine HTML and CSS could be extended to the point where they could be used where ODF/OOXML might be used instead, odds are such a transformation would make HTML something that it shouldn't be.<br /><br />Keep in mind, also, that ODF uses XHTML, CSS, MathML, SVG, RDF, and other W3C standards under the hood, and that is why the standard is shorter than the behemoth OOXML spec. The OOXML spec contains proprietary replacements for all of these, including Microsoft's failed Vector Markup Language and Windows Metafiles for semantic data. This limits OOXML to Windows-based systems (because WMF was patented by Microsoft last time I checked)...

[DarkPhoenixFF4]

Actually...

<b>, <i> and &lt;blink&gt; haven't been in the HTML standards for a while. Still, you make a good point; HTML still needs some work to be effective as a non-web formatting language, and the result is likely to change HTML into something else.

[swhiser]

Hakon, You Don't Understand the Difference

Your understanding of standards history appears sound (even though Opera ignores a few); however your knowledge of the document formats is weak.<br /><br />"I'm not a fan of either format..."<br /><br />Nor, apparently, do you understand the difference. Your broad-brush statement about both formats being implementations of XML ignores the wide quality differences between the implementations.<br /><br />Do you imagine that the "contradictions" presented to ISO JTC 1 in the Groklaw/Grocdoc paper...<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections" target="_newWindow">http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections</a><br /><br />...are based upon nit-picking?<br /><br />As the EOOXML objections document clearly indicates for you to read (which you should do before commenting further in ignorance), the Microsoft implementation of XML is fundamentally in defiance of the objectives of XML itself.<br /><br />Pause and add this new information to your argument, which when it concerns the disadvantages of having duel standards is basically correct. The argument is 'duel standards bad; MS Office Open XML *REALLY* bad!'

[xtrdu]

Sorry about the messed up margins

I like how the author tosses 33 out there as if it's a monstrously large number of errors without making any attempt to find out whether or not that really is a high number. Case in point: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.w3c.org&#38;charset=%28detect+automatically%29&#38;doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional" target="_newWindow">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.w3c.org&#38;charset=%28detect+automatically%29&#38;doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional</a><br />and then: <br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.news.com.com&#38;charset=%28detect+automatically%29&#38;doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional" target="_newWindow">http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.news.com.com&#38;charset=%28detect+automatically%29&#38;doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional</a><br />Nice work there, news.com!

[r8rooy]

Let the validator do its job

You shouldn't override the document's doctype. You ain't the author.<br />www.w3c.org/Home.html is xhtml 1.0 strict<br />the news.com.com is xhtml 1.0 transitional, and validating it as such gives 1 less error :)

[adlyb1]

Bah, standards

After years of working with so called "standards committees", I have learned that they either dysfunctional herds that produce bloated, unusable garbage (especially if the government is involved) or vehicles for the participating companies to get their IP included to reap the returns of licensing.<br /><br />I actually have more faith in a single company pushing an 'open standard' than the stuff above. Adobe proved it's viability with PDF, and Sun with Java. They mave have their own interests at heart, but at least the specification is reasonably focused and comes to market in usable amount of time.<br /><br />ODF is a decent standard, but it is still quite loose around the edges resulting in inconsistent formatting from one product to another, something that any reasonable company is not going to put up with.<br /><br />If companies or governments want to use it over the existing alternatives (Office, PDF, etc.), then I say let them, but for myself, I will not recommend it any time soon.