Microsoft Open Document Standard Not So Open

avik42 wrote to mention an EWeek article discussing Microsoft's attempts at an Open Document Standard. From the article: "According to a Microsoft representative, 'The covenant language is what was referred to as the updated license for the Open XML formats that will be submitted to ECMA International for the standardization process.' The only difference between Microsoft's November 2003 open and royalty-free license for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas and today's Office 2003 license, according to the company, is that 'Microsoft is offering a covenant not to sue for the Office 2003 Reference Schemas.'" We reported on this initiative when it was first announced.

Comments

Re:Oh! Oh! I have a question!

[I'm Don Giovanni]

OpenDocument format was created because OO.o (and ostensibly others) couldn't compete with MS Office (whether it be based on merit or based on format lock-in). So they created a new format and proclaimed the openness of the format as the primary reason to use OO.o (as opposed to reasons like features, UI, integration, etc). But this format was made with OO.o in mind. It naturally fits with OO.o's features and code structure. OO.o can easily support this format because it was made *for* OO.o. MS, on the other hand, would have to jump through all kinds of hoops to force their apps to support OpenDocument. And for what purpose? To support a format of competing product with tiny fraction of MS Office's userbase? Developers of other non-OO.o apps are willing to jump through the hoops to support what is essentially OO.o's format because they don't have the userbase that MS Office does, and don't have the responsibility to support the features on which that large userbase relies.

And yes, I know that the OASIS committee invited Microsoft to have input in OpenDocument format, but why should Microsoft jump thru hoops (both technical and political) to shoehorn their features into a format designed with a competing product in mind? "Hey, Microsoft, we created a new open format for OO.o. We cordially invite you to forcefeed your features into this format."

Microsoft is the fittest entity to design an XML format for their products just as OO.o (and whatever tokens that are on the OAISIS committee) is the best entity to design an XML format for OO.o. Both are going to be open standards (neither has gone through the ECMA process yet). And Microsoft's initiative isn't solely supported by them, they have others like Apple backing them, that will participate in the ECMA committee that standardizes the Microsoft formats.

In summary:
1. Both formats will be open ECMA and ISO standards.
2. Both formats have *multiple* entities backing them and participating in the ECMA committees standardizing the formats.
3. OpenDocument was submitted to ECMA on Oct 25, 2005 (so I've read), and Microsoft's will be submitted shortly. It's not like OpenDocument is a longtime well established standard.
4. Microsoft Office a much much larger userbase that relies on particular MS Office features that are not supported by OpenDocument (or at least not easily or well). It is Microsoft that must transition their large userbase from the old formats to the new, and Microsoft is the appropriate entity to design a format that will drive that transition (by contrast, the OASIS committee has a vested interest in seeing that such a transition NOT go smoothly; meaning they have an incentetive to make OpenDocument clash with MS Office and its feature-set).

Given the above, forcing Microsoft to support OpenDocument (created with OO.o in mind), rather than Microsoft's own open format (created with MS Office in mind), when Microsoft Office's userbase is orders of magnitude larger than OO.o's woulb be a classic example of "tail wagging the dog."