Linux Foundation: OOXML is Too Long to Be a Standard

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

August 29, 2007, 5:53 PM

In the wake of curious surges in the memberships of national standards bodies, as well as the ISO, prior to upcoming votes to recommend or approve the adoption of Microsoft's Office Open XML as an international standard, the Linux Foundation today pleaded with voters worldwide (both old and new) to listen to reason before making their decisions. But the reasons they're giving have been heard before, and may not be enough to suppress the sudden surges of support for OOXML among national bodies' swelling ranks.

"The Linux Foundation is not only familiar with, but has a vested interest in the preservation of the validity and integrity of the global standards adoption process," writes the Foundation's marketing director, Amanda McPherson, in a statement released today

Because the use of proprietary formats jeopardizes users' assurances that they'll be able to continue to use existing documents well into the future, McPherson goes on to argue, "it is important for effective and robust document format standards to be developed, and for those standards to be universally adopted."

She then adds, in a gentle reminder that may - or may not - make new entrants to the standards process feel a little guilty, "In order for universal adoption to be achieved, it is equally important for the process that creates those standards to be above reproach."

The number one problem with the OOXML specification as it currently stands, McPherson writes, is that it "is extremely lengthy." Members won't have time to review the specifications with an eye toward their technical integrity or efficiency (especially those who joined yesterday). Those who have taken the effort have discovered that the specification makes numerous references to Microsoft's own internal specifications, she said, which leads to questions over whether Microsoft will ever make that information public.

A Linux Foundation blog post today that references McPherson's statement also directs readers to study a position paper published by Google (PDF available here), which brings up the argument that the world already has one document standard and doesn't need another one - that multiple standards that address the same function are bad.

"If Microsoft wishes to create a document format that is better able to address the problems of the many editable legacy documents created in their older proprietary formats," that statement reads, "Google welcomes them to help extend the existing ODF ISO standard, in order to add the capabilities they require. Allowing OOXML to become a parallel ISO standard will propagate the current legacy situation into what is supposed to be a solution to the problems of long-term document storage."

Granted, the whole issue of document format standardization around something produced by Microsoft has brought a number of new players into this debate, for any number of reasons. But a number of misconceptions may have followed them into the ring, as standards activist and O'Reilly author Rick Jelliffe pointed out earlier this month.

In June 2000, in a completely different realm of endeavor - specifically, two-dimensional barcodes - the ISO was able to approve a patented specification from a proprietary company as an international standard (ISO 18004) even though another standard (ISO 15438). The newer standard's inventor, the Japanese company Denso Wave, maintains that its specification meets the international requirements for openness based on this promise alone: "QR Code is open in the sense that the specification of QR Code is disclosed and that the patent right owned by Denso Wave is not exercised."

The Linux Foundation recommends that standards bodies voters register their impressions of OOXML as "No, with comments," or their local equivalent. The reason, the Foundation's Andrew Updegrove stated today, is not to dump or throttle the specification entirely, but "in order to ensure that any resulting specification will meet minimum quality standards."

Add a Comment (43 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Alpha258

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 11:48 AM

I hope OOXML dies and Microsoft with it... although the second one will not happen anytime soon.

But I am patient, I can wait.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Aug 31, 2007 - 11:52 AM

I cannot deny that ODF* is quite long and confusing. It'd be much nicer if it could be trimmed significantly...then again I wouldn't waste my life reading all the content either so I really don't know how much can or should be trimmed for sure.

"*OOXML"

EDIT: Yeah, I meant to say that, Paul :D

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:55 PM

*OOXML

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 12:59 PM

"The Linux Foundation" says it all for me really.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 8:41 AM

Microsoft will not implement ODF because it solves backward compatibility.

Microsoft depends on backward compatibility problems to drive sales and will not support any standard that does not propagate backward compatibility problems into the future.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 12:03 PM

Scotch Moose,

Anyone who knows the least thing about Microsoft (obviously not you) knows that backward compatibility without problems is probably their most important consideration. (For example, you can still open Word 1.0 documents from within Word 2007 without issues).

Also, anyone who has looked at the question of ODF and its ability (or inability) to represent Word documents knows that ODF has very considerable problems properly representing Microsoft Office documents. There are very detailed lists of such issues on the web; many of these issues are real showstoppers.

So, I have rewritten your comment to conform with these facts:

"Microsoft will not implement ODF because it does not in any way solve backward compatibility.

Microsoft depends on backward compatibility to drive sales and will not support any standard that does not solve backward compatibility problems into the future."

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 2:33 PM

"you can still open Word 1.0 documents from within Word 2007"

But can you open a Word 2000 document with Word 97? No, you have to get an upgrade.

Backword compatible software means keep paying us money so you don't get error messages.

Backword compatible file formats means old software can open new files without error messages.

"ODF has very considerable problems properly representing Microsoft Office documents."

That's because Microsoft has not implemented ODF. You might have intended to say OpenOffice has some problems with Microsoft's proprietary file formats.

I still have some Word 2000 documents around here and not a one cannot be represented, perfectly, with ODF. But until they are converted to ODF, a format that really eliminates the incompatible file format errors, they look kinda funny in OpenOffice. And that is because of the old Word file formats that OOXML wants to wrap up in XML and carry around forever.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:00 PM

Scotch Moose,

One last item. I am glad that you have admitted that ODF fails to properly represent Word documents. However, to say that the reason this happens is that "Microsoft has failed to represent ODF" is just plain nonsense.

The real reason is that ODF is based on the capabilities of OpenOffice, which has many points in which it does not have the capabilities that Micrsoft Office has. (This fact is easily checked with a short web search.) As a result, the creators of ODF felt no compunction to add to ODF's file format the ability to represent those missing capabilities. These include the following showstoppers:
- No ODF specification for what a valid spreadsheet formula is (can you believe this!?)
- No ODF specification for how tables are included in Presentations

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 3:49 PM

You fail to mention another reason why people struggle to implement perfect .DOC translation is because Microsoft keep the document format under wraps. Anyone who tries to add this functionality has to reverse engineer it.

So much for interoperability!

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:19 PM

Gee, maybe Microsoft could have contributed to ODF and addressed those issues.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:51 PM

And do the work that the standard writer should have done? I would rather microsoft continue to improve their own product instead of writing the standards for a competing product.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 6:17 PM

The standard writer was a consortium of many companies that are willing to compete with each other on the merits of their products. I understand that Microsoft doesn't like that kind of level-playing-field competition. It is so much easier to prevent interoperability and lock customers in.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 3:43 PM

Scotch Moose,

Once again, you have little knowledge of what has actually happened in the standards process. Rather than the "consortium of many companies that are willing to compete with each other", ODF was almost exclusively standardized by two people, someone from Sun and Garry Edwards of the ODF organization (go Google him and find his blog for the full story).

By contrast, OOXML much better fits your description, since it was standardized by a group of about 20 companies and organizations who were part of the ECMA technical standard committee. This commitee included Microsoft competitors including Apple and Novell. It was done this way precisely to *improve* interoperability.

And before you tell me it was all just done by Microsoft (with the ECMA just rubber-stamping a Microsoft draft), check out the facts for yourself. You will find that in its development of OOXML, the ECMA committee made substantive changes to the format, and in response, Microsoft's developers were contantly updating their Office 2007 code to keep up so that it supported the final OOXML standard.

So, once again, you are completely wrong (and everyone can check this out for themselves)

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 3:51 PM

Scotch Moose,

You clearly don't know the difference between backward and forward compatability. Your latest comment in effect says that Word does not have backward compatability because it does not have forward compatability! That is nonsensical logic.

And, besides, Word (and the other members of Micrsoft Office) DO have forward compatability. All you have to do is to spend a minute downloading and installing a free addon from Microsoft for, say, Word 2000 to give it the ability to read and write future formats (Word XP, Word 2003, Word 2007).

So, in short, you are completely wrong.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 6:22 PM

This is the first time I have heard of this "free addon". If it's true that would be nice.

There were some recent stories in the news about scientific publications refusing to accept submissions in Word 2007 format. Somebody should tell them about this too.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 3:48 PM

I thought everybody who ever used Microsoft knows that Microsoft *always* provides free utilities to allow users of older versions to read and write the latest format. Perhaps you aren't a user of Microsoft Office?

In case you are, you really should go over to the Microsoft Downloads site and look at the free downloads for Office there.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 2:42 PM

"But can you open a Word 2000 document with Word 97? No, you have to get an upgrade."

OMFG, you gotta be kidding me.

FYI there are few differences, if any, between Word 97 docs and Word 2000 docs specifically...but anyway, that's what those compatability boxes are for under the save options.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 2:51 PM

So we should just always select the oldest format available and then we have compatibility.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 4:52 PM

No, as he said, you select the COMPATIBILITY CHECKBOX and you will be able to open said document in word 97 without the extra added stuff from word 2k.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 6:23 PM

He said "under the save option". Thanks for paying attention.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Aug 31, 2007 - 11:56 AM

*Checks MS Word to find the option again*

Actually, it is under the Compatibility tab. My bad.

In Word 2000 I recall it was under the "Save" tab. Again, maybe I'm not remembering correctly. Anybody have Word 2000? Where is the option to save files as Word 97/95 compatible documents at?

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 1:44 PM

Obviously he is here to spread fault information. And many readers have no clue are actually believe it in. Just like how the Mac is better than PC because it can runs Windows while PC cannot run OS X.

Score: 0

By asellus

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 3:33 AM

Ok, who actually made the Ecma 376 balloned to 6000+ pages? The culprit is IBM. IBM submitted plenty of comments thus the original 2000+ pages specification expanded nearly 3 times the original size before becoming Ecma 376.

IBM knows that Microsoft responds well to comments, that's why IBM tried hard to make ISO rejects OOXML with NO without comments. Anything less than that and OOXML is good as in.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 11:21 AM

Let's clear up a few misunderstandings here.

The draft OOXML specification from Microsoft ballooned from 2000 to 6000 pages *not* as a result of comments from IBM (who in fact refused to cooperate and take a constructive part in the ECMA process), but from the ECMA technical committee itself (Apple, Novell, British Library, etc.). The committee felt that the standard would be easier to understand and implement if it included a lot of explanatory and tutorial information. In the end, they added several thousand pages of such material, which in practise is not part of the standard. The ECMA committee then made what is in retrospect a "marketing" error by including all this additional helpful information as part of the actual standard, instead of separating it out completely as supplementary material. They misjudged the extent to which anti-Microsoft zealots would seize upon *anything* to kill OOXML. And, so, one of the things the zealots have seized upon is the fact that the standard (as published by ECMA) has a lot of pages and is thus (according to the zealots) "impossible to implement". This is what the zealots say, even though they actually know that the real part that needs to be implemented is much less than 6000 pages, and that there are by now dozens of implementations completed or in progress. No zealot ever lets the facts get in their way!

As for the statement from asellus about IBM's comments being responsible, he(?) is confused about the comments that IBM came up with *after* OOXML became an ECMA standard. Those comments are intended to stop OOXML coming under the ISO standards umbrella. The reason is if the anti-OOXML campagn suceeds, then governments (who tend to like ISO standards) will be strongly tempted to buy Notes from IBM (which does not support OOXML), rather than Microsoft Office (which of course does).

Score: 0

By Frostek

posted Aug 31, 2007 - 3:51 PM

It's clear you are a supporter of Microsoft's OOXML "standard".

Are you also a supporter of their bribery and corruption to pad votes in their favour?

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 8:45 AM

6000+ pages and still incomplete with references to internal Microsoft specifications and formats. The problem with the size of OOXML is caused by the mountain of code that implements OOXML not by the people that want it properly documented before it becomes a standard.

Score: 0

By easson

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 11:45 AM

There are two wrong parts to this statement by Scotch Moose.

1. The OOXML standard is *not* incomplete with respect to internal Microsoft Specifications and formats. The anti-OOXML zealots have noticed that the spec mentions typical types of objects that can be embedded in an WordProcessingML document (e.g., a Word 2007 document). Just like any modern word processor, Word 2007 allows you -- the user -- to include things like a picture image, say a jpeg image. The things you can embed also happen to include items whose technologies come from Microsoft (e.g., an ActiveX object). There is nothing at all conspiratorial about this fact. As a user, you would probably be up in arms if your Word processor did not allow you to embed such "foreign" objects. Now, the OOXML specification (like that of ODF, which does the ***same*** thing), mentions this fact and mentions some popular types of objects to embed. It is not the role of the OOXML specification (or ODF specification, or any other such document specification) to specify the internal formats for the "foreign" embeddable options. That is outside their scope. For example, the ODF specification does *not* include the entire specification for how a jpg picture file is strcutured and formatted! The fact that OOXML does exactly the same thing as other document specifications in that it does not specify foreign object formats has, however, been seized upon by the zealots, to "prove" that the OOXML specification is incomplete. They are lying, of course, and they know it.
2. There is no such "mountain" of code. As has been shown many times over, the OOXML specification allows for conforming implementations that only implement *part* of the standard. So, for example, the code to write an import/export OOXML filter for a spreadsheet is about 3000 lines. This is not my statement, it is that of the coder for the GnuMeric spreadheet, who has just done that. A few thousand lines of code is not much. Further, as Microsoft and others come out with libraries that implement low-level functions, it will in the future probably take less than a hundred or so lines in the future to write a conforming tool.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 7:52 AM

huh? Any links to back that nonsense up?

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 10:47 PM

It's easy to get bent out of shape over this one.

Microsoft is clearly gaming the process and pushing a sub-standard standard through the system.

But I don't think there is much to worry about. The 200 million Novell got for promising to develop OOXML for OpenOffice is not enough. It cost Microsoft a lot more than that and took them 10 years to build that mess.

There will be no vendors other than Microsoft offering OOXML office suites, at least none that will work worth a darn, or that are not 2 years behind Microsoft's version.

If OOXML is made an international standard or not, it will never be able to fill the role of a real standard.

What's the role of real standard? Vendor independence.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 11:56 PM

It was Massachusetts affair that scared Microsoft into trying to buy itself a "standard". Users would have an effective defense against vendor's lock in strategy by requiring applications to use open standard formats. This is why Microsoft is so keen on buying itself a "standard". It will allow Microsoft to formally get around open standard requirement, while continuing to use lock in strategy with what essentially is still a proprietary format, just as before.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 8:30 AM

Making OOXML a standard is like putting lipstick on pig. Sure it can be done but I still wouldn't kiss it.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 7:39 PM

It doesn't matter how bad it is, all Microsoft needs to continue it's user lock in strategy are words "open standard" next to OOXML.

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 7:54 AM

too bad OOXML is not an "open standard"; it is a "closed" standard. Only M$ created it. Only M$ changes it.

Score: 0

By JeremyGNJ

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 8:52 AM

you mean like Java?

Score: 0

By pitdingo

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 10:22 AM

And what does "Java" have to do with this discussion?

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 9:47 AM

The MAD boy is a nothing but a MS troll. His responds are all bias.

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Aug 30, 2007 - 8:26 AM

That's what I said.

Score: 0

By Tene

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 8:35 PM

Linux Foundation? Saying something political?

Wow, the future must have reached the end of their noses.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 6:18 PM

"parallel standard" is not a standard.

Score: 0

By JeremyGNJ

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 7:59 PM

not true. There's many areas where there are multiple ISO standards for the same purpose.

Score: 0

By HyTeK

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 8:22 PM

yeah, it's pretty silly that the minutes from the WG and ISO meetings be stored in OOXML, and 5 years from now everyone is wondering why Office2012 can't read the minutes from a few years back.

It's not a MS bashing, it's MS's track record and trends that make this a fact.

ODF has the possibility of breaking backwards compatibility too, but with it being more on the open source side and controlled as such, it would be much harder to break. SO long as it isn't managed by the linux kernel team. they love breaking backwards compat between minor kernel revisions =/

Cheers.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Aug 29, 2007 - 9:52 PM

The Linux kernel backward compatibility issues are very limited these days. Fair is fair, now. ;)

Score: 0

By pitdingo

edited Aug 30, 2007 - 7:55 AM

Score: 0