Reference: Streamlining your documents with Open Office XML
Author: By Sarah Bond, Microsoft Australia platform strategy manager (6 June 2007 11:48)
I am sorry, but I have to address some of the issues that occur in this article and the misconceptions that are in play that could, and most likely will, confuse people in the business world.
The article starts off by describing how important it is for business and government to embrace technologies that will allow different businesses to share information in a standard, unified way independent on what application or platform they are using.
The initial self-praise is by stating that Microsoft has supported such technologies in the form of XML since 2000 in Microsoft Office. They clarify that this XML support was a feature of the HTML format and extended this format, but don't elaborate that it was not part of the proprietary, binary format being used in Microsoft Office.
The article continues on to explain that this HTML format was redeveloped into "an open standard - known as Ecma Open Office XML (OOXML)". The first misconception here is the name that is used. The OOXML file format is actually known as 'Office Open XML' which is the attempt by Microsoft to create a format based on XML to try and accommodate changing business requirements for open standards.
The second misconception here is whether OOXML is an open standard or not. This so called standard was approved as a standard format through the Ecma which is a body based on business representatives which could skew the idea of an independent review committee. For a proper open standard, Microsoft and Ecma should be looking at a few points to achieve this:
* Look at using a recognised, international standards body such as ISO for certification.
* Look at a format that is platform independent.
* Look at a format that is shared without any licensing or royalty tied to it.
The article goes on to explain that Microsoft is looking at getting the OOXML standard put through the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) to be ratified. This was attempted as a rush job, but failed after they submitted a 6000 page document and were looking at having it ratified in a very short time. It was obvious that it was not humanly possible to read the document in a short time, let alone look at how the format worked and what benefits it would offer.
The article then continues to state that "ISO ratification is considered critical to widespread adoption of technologies, particularly in the government sector where it is often a mandated requirement for agencies to accept only communications presented in ISO-approved formats." If this is the case, then why are Microsoft pushing this OOXML format rather than embracing the current ISO endorsed standard in OpenDocument Format(ODF)?
The ODF format is an ISO standard for office documents and is currently being endorsed by a number of European countries as the new standard for government use. This was first seen in the Massachusetts local government endorsement of ODF getting overturned. Another 6 USA states have had similar bills to standardise on ODF format for government use, but have had extensive lobbying from business to reject these bills.
The advantages put forward by the author of the article includes the benefit of greater component access and interoperation with other applications and backends on the system. It would be interesting to see how much of this interoperation and advantages would come into play if a Linux or Solaris platform was being utilised for the OOXML formats.
"The move towards open standards such as Ecma OOXML is also facilitating for the first time the separation of content and presentation, making data reusable in many different contexts." (Emphasis added)
The preceding quote may be a misunderstanding as the ODF file format has been around before OOXML back to the original OpenOffice.org file format which is the basis of the ODF standard. ODF offers these same benefits of separation and contexts.
"In document formats, organisations globally have said loud and clear that they want interoperability, choice and innovation." This is what was and is being put forward by many of the governments around the world, but it seems that choice is not part of the game when lobbyists are pushing to block adoption of ODF which already meets all these standards.
Lets look at the three different points that are promoted in the previous quote:
1. Interoperability - ODF is supported on different platforms and different applications and all can use the documents interchangeably.
2. Choice - OOXML is currently offered under the Microsoft Office application while ODF is supported under a range of applications including OpenOffice.org, KOffice, IBM's office software and the upcoming Lotus Notes version just to name a few.
3. Innovation - XML is not really an innovation for new formats. Neither is the idea of separation of presentation and contexts which were implemented in the ODF format already. I have not read the 6000 pages so I am not sure if there is innovation available, but there is nothing obvious on the surface it seems.
"Beyond open standards for document formats, the IT industry is now focusing its attention on standards for security, identity management, web services and virtualisation..."
What benefits can be offered in the OOXML format and Microsoft Office to help these areas of interest to the industry? OpenOffice.org using ODF can address some of these such as XForms and XPath implemented in the document choices (W3 standards), digital signatures, specific security on export options and extensibility with multiple languages to add extensions for further capabilities.
There may be a valid reason for Microsoft to push the ratification of OOXML through ISO, but when there already exists an international standard in ODF that meets there recommended ideals, why are they trying to muddy the waters?
