OOXML becoming an ISO standard
I’ll write more conclusively on this subject soon but the premise of my thought is as follows:
For those unaware, OOXML is Office Open XML which is the base for Microsoft’s new Office 2007 file formats like .docx and so forth. Rather than being a wholly binary format like .doc; it uses XML to define the file format. This is fine. Except a lot of information can still be embedded in binary form. Secondly, there are some facets of the 6000 page long specification that are not defined in the documentation with interesting tags like AutoSpaceLikeWord95 being the famous one.
Its ‘competitor’ which has been ratified as an ISO standard is ODF (Open Document Format), which OpenOffice.org, Star Office, KOffice, Google Docs & Spreadsheets all use by default. The ODF specification is transparent, a mere 700 odd pages long and nothing is left ‘undocumented’ which cannot be said for OOXML.
So the issue is: am I against OOXML because it’s Microsoft? No. So what am I against? The rushing through of a proposed standard that has extremely verbose documentation that selectively leaves parts undocumented and has many undocumented facets of behaviour. The crux of the issue is that OOXML is ‘incomplete’ from the perspective of someone successfully implementing a fully functional OOXML import/export facility on non Microsoft software. There is much more to it than I can explain here but I will do.
The other dismay is how it would appear the voting process in some countries has shown irregularities, suchn as the Swedish vote. Whilst what happened (a whole bunch of Microsoft Gold Partners only signing up on the day of the vote and voting Yes) was perfectly legal; it was on very dubious ethical and moral grounds. (Ethics and Morals have no place in business but c’est la vie.) Irregularities and evidence of external pressure namely from Microsoft have come to light in other countries like Switzerland, Norway and Hungary.
The thing is, that OOXML should become a standard when it has gone through a just and carefully vetted examination. The time frame for the ‘fast tracking’ of OOXML as an ISO standard is not ideal to truly evaluate 6,000 pages of technical documentation to ensure that it is complete and worthy of being an ISO standard. I have no doubt if the errors, ommissions and unclear aspects of the documentation was made available then it will proceed ahead based on its own merit, rather than the business prospects for one vendor: Microsoft. It would be nice if they just did things properly rather than blundering in like the fat school bully on these things.
And the reason for all the hoo har? Well the documents I create today, yesterday and tomorrow I want to be able to access them in the future without having to rely on a single vendor: Microsoft, and as OOXML stands, it looks to be a case of lock in at present. I don’t want to lose my hard work.
I’ll flesh this out a lot more this evening, as this isn’t a bunch of anti-Microsoft baloney, or unsubstantiated zealotry, it’s just some cold hard facts about why I think OOXML should become an ISO standard, but only when it’s ready and not pushed through by Microsoft’s pressure on partners and offering incentives as was the case in Sweden.
