RSSMicrosoft's Open XML Format Hits Standardization Speed Bump
By Nate Mook | Published July 17, 2007, 2:58 PM
Microsoft's Office Open XML format, which were introduced in Office 2007 and already certified by European standards body Ecma International, hit a speed bump Friday on its "Fast Track" process to become a worldwide ISO standard.
A technical committee called V1 established by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to submit a recommendation on the format to the INCITS Executive Board, which decides the official United States position on proposed standards, failed to reach a consensus before its July 17 deadline.
According to reports from both sides of the aisle, 15 members voted to approve Open XML "with comments", while 11 voted to "abstain with comments" and 10 voted to "disapprove with comments." Those who voted to disapprove also voted to abstain once the disapproval vote failed.
However, because the 15 V1 members voting for approval with comments only reflected 60 percent of the total committee, a 2/3rd majority was not reached and no official position could be decided. Microsoft was one vote short of having V1 send a recommendation to approve Open XML to INCITS prior to the ISO vote scheduled for September 2.
According to Rob Weir, an IBM employee who supports OpenDocument (ODF) -- a rival format that is already an ISO standard -- and vocally opposes Microsoft's Open XML, "The result is that V1 will report out a large list of technical comments for consideration by INCITS, but will not report a consensus position on this controversial ISO 'Fast Track' submission."
Weir noted that V1 began with only 7 members, and only 1 -- Microsoft -- supported approving Open XML. By the July 13 vote, 16 new members had joined V1 and 14 of them joined Microsoft's position on the format. "This is not surprising since the new members were largely Microsoft business partners," he said.
Microsoft shot back Tuesday with its own take on the matter, saying initial reports on the vote "show a skewed perspective about what really happened in Friday’s meeting, and what this means to the overall process."
According to Microsoft's Doug Mahugh, "The main focus of V1's work has been to review technical, editorial, and general comments about DIS 29500, the spec for Open XML. We've talked through 96 comments in detail during our meetings, and all but a handful of those have been processed since the beginning of June."
"As of May, only two of the V1 members (Microsoft and Mindjet) had any experience implementing Open XML, but now there are many companies with hands-on Open XML experience involved in the process," Mahugh added.
IBM, which publicly backs OpenDocument and voted "no" on Open XML becoming an Ecma standard, submitted the far majority of the comments - 234 in total. The rest of the V1 committee submitted 66 in total, while 207 comments were submitted to the INCITS Web site. 171 of those 207 comments were letters of general support, 31 were in opposition.
Weir and IBM support the position that the world does not need a second ISO-certified office format, and say Microsoft should simply adopt and contribute to OpenDocument. While Microsoft has said it will support ODF, and has helped build translators between the format and Open XML, it has long claimed it needed its own format due to backward compatibility issues.
ISO certification is important to Microsoft, because it holds more sway than Ecma standardization, especially in the United States. And with businesses and governments embracing a push toward open office formats, the acceptance of Open XML and Office 2007 hinge on its perception as an open standard.
Ironically, Microsoft is using the same argument that was once used against it regarding its support of alternative and open source office formats and suites: choice.
"We and a growing list of IT users and technology companies believe in choice among document formats. In addition to receiving rapid uptake among users and across the IT industry, a clear majority of the participants in the V1 process voted to recommend ISO ratification of Ecma Open XML, recognizing that this is the path to take to enable choice," remarked Tom Robertson, General Manager of Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft.
Without an official position from V1, the INCITS Executive Board must now come to its own conclusion - one that Microsoft hopes will follow the majority of V1 committee members.
"It is typical practice for INCITS to follow the recommendations of its technical committees. But since the committee of technical experts in V1 was not able to develop a consensus recommendation, it is not clear how the INCITS Executive Board will now make their decision," concluded IBM's Weir.
What if there was a new standard for electrical outlets and plugs? The whole world could use the same electric appliances anywhere.
But that would not address the outlet converter issue.
-- because nobody would need outlet converters anymore.
How stupid can people be? Backward compatibly is not a valid consideration for a new format. Solve backward compatibility! Put it behind you and never look back! Don't drag the old crap along with you forever!
Score: 0
|Easy to fix backwards compatibility Microsoft.... Adopt the 1 CERTIFIED STANDARD and assist in adding the functionality.
I think the public see through your thin veil now... we realize the only reason you won't do such a thing is because of the lock-in you've created with your proprietary Office formats.
Interestingly enough even MS-OOXML has backwards compatibility issues... so this is a mute point.
I guess if they did support ODF... just why would anyone buy Microsoft's overpriced Office suite... particularly when the free alternative delivers what the majority of people require. I guess that's the real story.
Score: 0
|That's just it. By using the ISO standard ODF, Microsoft Office could free itself to "compete" with any office suite that ever comes down the pike. It's no longer about the software, it's about the format.
It's like websites that require you use Internet Explorer to view them — that's not only coercive, but makes me never want to visit them again, as if only IE can interpret HTML. At least with ODF, my data is not locked-in to Microsoft's proprietary format forever. MS-OOXML cannot even translate accurately to Microsoft's own .doc format!
Score: 0
|The amount of people not knowing how ISO standardization works is astounding indeed.
If OOXML is proprietary, it will not be approved.
IF Microsoft bribed/cheats to make OOXML a standard and then found out later, the certification will be revoked.
And most importantly, just because there is another standard already in a given field, ISO will still grant a certificate to a similar standard. Happens all the time if you just read. OOXML can be rejected for any reasons, but not because ODF is already there. IBM is fighting a losing war here.
Score: 0
|If MS OOXML had a reason to exist there might be a case for a second office document standard. But the only reason they have is that people will not need backward compatible software if they move their documents to ODF.
The point of having one standard is that tools and applications can be built and used into the foreseeable future. Data mining, search, and compilation are just some of the things governments and business' cannot do when there are multiple formats. Open-standard, proprietary formats, de facto standards, open-formats it doesn't matter if there are multiple formats we are still stuck.
One open standard format is the only good solution. Then all vendors can compete, all customers can chose from many products from many vendors, and any developer can build their own tools for any special needs.
Multiple standards is equivalent to no standard.
Score: 0
|and any developer can build their own tools for any special needs.
This cannot happen with format-locking.
Multiple standards is equivalent to no standard.
Yeah, tell that to those computers programmers around the world who suffered because there are multiple ISO standards in computer programming (C++ and C# comes to mind)... NOT!
Computer programming is doing just nicely even with multiple ISO standards. I guarantee it will also happen in document creating standard.
Multiple standards == more freedom.
One standard == the sh*t we got from CompuServe.
Score: 0
|"While Microsoft has said it will support ODF, and has helped build translators between the format and Open XML, it has long claimed it needed its own format due to backward compatibility issues."
________________________________________________
According to FSFE, Microsoft's whole MS-OOXML converter argument is a hoax:
Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the Open Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because this was the only way for them to offer the full features of its office suite. But if Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data structures in the Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office suite, how could an external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish this task?
The answer to both questions is that it is not possible because two things cannot be the same and different at the same time.... If the two formats could in fact represent the exact same data, there would be no reason for MS-OOXML to exist. And there would be no excuse for Microsoft not to use ODF natively for its office application.... So Microsoft had to add some additional features to make both formats represent different data and function sets. This means it will never be possible to convert all documents from one format to the other.... The promise of the converters is an empty one. It is a hoax.
Score: 0
|This report by Nate Mook is the best I've read so far on this development. And pitdingo summarizes the issue succinctly.
Even regarding Microsoft's legacy formats, I don't think Microsoft should control those either. This is a people's issue — the right to access and control their own data, without asking a corporation's permission in perpetuity, or without having to pay the Microsoft tax, which they've already paid if they ever bought MS Office.
The FSFE asks six key questions you should answer if you're going to continue using Microsoft's file formats, whether you're a business, government, or individual. Either way, you will be forced to pay Microsoft for access to your data. And that, my friends, is a steaming load.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
In related news
Microsoft tripped en route to world domination (and dev doom)
"Microsoft is changing their tactics, and is admitting defeat in their previous and current attempts to get MS-OOXML approved. Worse, Microsoft has essentially lost the technical argument, given how many flaws have been discovered in such a short time in MS-OOXML. 'MS-OOXML is unusable by professionals as it's written.'"
OOXML does not buy its way in Italy
"It is quite impressive, seeing how the voting panel was formed. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that among those favouring the adoption of the standard without reservation a large majority is made of business partners of the proposing entity (Microsoft), a law firm retained by the latter, the official certified business partners association of the proposing entity (Microsoft). "Money can't buy me love" Beatles used to sing: perhaps neither a standard.
ITworld.com - Microsoft OOXML spec "dangerously flawed"
"Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) document format specification is fatally flawed where it comes to spreadsheets, with many functions filled with careless errors, according to a critic."
ANSI denies OOXML approval in the United States, Portugal Subverted
"There has been much fear that this far-reaching standard may be adopted at ISO despite the serious and grave technical deficiencies in the proposed standard, despite its vendor specific nature, despite troubling licensing concerns and most importantly, despite strong objections from technical bodies of 20 countries."
OOXML End Game: Things Start to Become Interesting
"The progress of a technical specification from development to adoption has a certain, often-lamented glacial quality to it, due to the consensus process involved. But while that process may be slow, it is not inexorable, and that which starts does not always finish. It was over a year and a half ago that Microsoft first announced that it would offer its Office Open XML specification to Ecma, and it has been pushing the process of adoption as hard as possible ever since. It pursued that plan first through it's choice of Ecma as a vehicle, due to its ability to move OOXML through that organization at the maximum speed possible, and with the minimum risk of change. Once OOXML became Ecma 376, it has been pushed through ISO/IEC as quickly as possible, as witnessed by JTC1's decision to move directly from the one month contradictions phase directly to the five month full review phase without addressing, through changes, any comments received during the contradictions phase. In the United States committee, INCITS V1, Microsoft was even successful in blocking the inclusion of any comments at all."
V1 committee gives thumbs down to Open XML doc spec
"...a number of countries argued that the Open XML proposal conflicts and overlaps with a previously established standard -- ODF -- and is poorly written and technically unsound."
Standards Org Deals a Blow Against Microsoft's OOXML Format
"The group which recommends the way the U.S. votes on international technical standards failed to approve Microsoft's Open Office XML office document format."
Microsoft open XML standard faces setback
"Given that pressure from many companies and governments has pushed them to creating an open standard, they have been working to doing just that – the Microsoft way."
OOXML Denied INCITS V1 Approval
Among the obstacles vis-a-vis ODF, MS-OOXML faces:
— MS-OOXML is controlled by one company, not a standards body.
— Microsoft likes proprietary formats and has only gone the open format route because the market/industry forced them to do so.
— Microsoft was invited several times to join the ODF standards committee and refused all invitations.
— MS-OOXML is not actually open for anyone to implement: part of the specification references proprietary file formats (older ms-office formats) and proprietary, binary code interdependencies off-limits to anyone else.
And here's more, for argument's sake via the Free Software Foundation Europe:
http://www.noooxml.org/arguments
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
http://www.xmlopen.org/o....php/DIS_29500_Comments
Score: 0
|Some of the news headlines are simply misleading.
For example, the OOXML Denied INCITS V1 Approval. For god' s sake, if you read the article, you would have realized that they only failed to reach consensus whether to submit OOXML as ISO standard. Majority of the V1 committee still support OOXML as an ISO standard.
If you do not know how the fast track procedure works out, you should take a breath and do more reading. As of today, OOXML's chances of becoming an ISO standard is pretty good. This is coming from a country's (not USA) representative to ISO.
Keep this in mind, barrier of implementation of a standard is not a factor in certification. If it does, ODF will not be approved. Although I do not read the OOXML yet, if anyone has proof that Microsoft is fudging some of the documentation inside, any parties can make comments to make Microsoft to reveal everything that is needed. I do not think Microsoft is stupid, surely they have learned the lessons from Compuserve on how not to screw the ISO standard body.
Score: 0
|I know, it should have been denied, expect M$ stacked the group to get a vote in its favor. LOL. added all those friendlys to the group as their crappy "non open OOXML format" would have be rightfully shot down.
I also have no doubt that the corrupt people in power will _not_ do the _right_ thing and kick "non-open OOXML" to the curb with the rest of the trash. M$ will get its money in the right places and get ISO approval.
It really is a shame the ISO is going to loose all credibility by approving M$ proprietary crappy format when a clearly better alternative already exists and is ISO approved.
Score: 0
|If it was not open OOXML will not be approved. Do you really think ISO steering committees are that corrupt?
Let me say, if Microsoft bribed its way to make OOXML an ISO standard and then later being found out, the certification will be revoked. Simple as that. Regardless of the technical differences/superiority between ODF and OOXML, I did want both to become standard. More choices is better for end users.
Score: 0
|I don't understand, why MS would give a sh1t about this? I mean they have 80%+ market shares. Why does they even bother with the little guy.
The only thing I see is if they don't get their format "standard" or certify, they will get sue again, and again.
Score: 0
|they care because people are demanding their government use non-proprietary format documents for the public record.
If M$, or any vendor for that matter, controls the format, then they can control who has access to the documents. A citizen should not be forced to buy a single vendors product to read/write government documentation. What if that vendor disappeared? All the docs would be lost.
A single ISO approved format is the way to go. ODF is already approved. M$ just does not like it because it means the end of their lock-in via formats. Once that goes, there is no reason to pay $499 for Office when you can get Open Office or any number of competing products for free....as in $0
I am proudly M$ Office free for over _four_ years now at home.
Score: 0
|A single ISO format is not the way to go. ODF is not a panacea that will solve will your digital document needs. If there are only one ISO standard, there will be no choice for the end-users, which will be a loss to all.
And, can anyone tell me why the ODF ISO specification does not include a reference implementation the way other ISO standards such as the MP3 format did?
Score: 0
|"ODF is not a panacea that will solve will your digital document needs"
LOL Choice....i love M$ new line of arguement. The beauty of standards is there are so many, right? There shoudl be _one_ format for Office documents. That format was _already_ specified by the ISO, it is called ODF.
You can personally use any format you like. ISO should have _one_ standard.
Score: 0
|Haha, this is a strawman argument. When the AAC file format was standardized (I'm in here BTW), why there are no people coming out and say "MP3 is the only one we need, no need for another digital music format".
Ditto for PNG with JPEG and also C++ with C#.
Multiple ISO standard for any given field is desirable, so that there are no format lock-in.
Format lock-in == bad. We were lucky with GIF format, do not repeat it with ODF and OOXML.
Score: 0
|" it needed its own format due to backward compatibility issues."
The issue is if you convert documents to ODF you won't need backward compatible software anymore.
Legacy data format problems should be solved, not propagated into the future.
I am sure Microsoft loves all the worn out, out-grown, out-of-style stuff it has packed into your hard drive, but it's closet cleaning time.
Score: 0
|You should still be able to do that conversion in the new verison of office, otherwise you are stuck with previous versions. I think its important to continue to allow customers to upgrade to get the new features and give the ability to open old documents to convert to ODF. Many organizations could spend countless hours doing this. It isn't going to be an overnight switchover. Just in my department we have thousands of documents that are in proprietary format.
Score: 0
|"...the world does not need a second ISO-certified office format, and say Microsoft should simply adopt and contribute to OpenDocument"
Especially a horribly documented and patent encumbered one. there is no reason M$ could not contribute to the existing standard other than it does not allow them to maintain their illegal monopoly.
Score: 0
|