OOXML Won't Get Fast-Track ISO Standardization

realdodgeman writes "The International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) recently held an internal poll to determine the position that the United States should take on Microsoft's request for Office Open XML (OOXML) approval. With eight votes in favor, seven against, and one abstention, the group was one vote short of the nine votes required for approving OOXLM ISO standardization. This will mean a huge slowdown to the standardization to the OOXML format. 'Given the controversial nature, relative complexity, and significant importance of the standard, the results of INCIT's vote is unsurprising. An INCITS technical committee also voted against fast-track OOXML approval last month prior to the executive board's vote. Further deliberation is clearly needed as well as further refinement of the format. It seems as though many of the organizations participating in the approval process are generally supportive of the standard itself, but are unwilling to voice unconditional support until their concerns are resolved. OOXML may be down, but it's certainly not out.'"

Comments

OOXML

[Tuoqui]

Its by Microsoft, they cant even make their various versions of office forwards and backwards compatible and people expect them to put a standard out that will hold to the same?

Also why doesnt Open Office.org sue Microsoft for trademark infringement or something for their obviously deceptively labeled standard that is being proposed?

Re:OOXML

[CastrTroy]

Too bad iWork isn't open source. I really would like to see how they implemented the "AutoSpaceLikeWork95" feature. I would also like to know if the implemented all the spreadsheet functions incorrectly as they were documented in the standard.

Re:OOXML

[marcello_dl]

Well, firstly it's Office Open XML, not Open Office XML.

Whoa. Try selling Koka Kola or MyCrewSoft-brand software and see how far you get. Just try - please.

Exactly. Or try selling "lindows".
To launch openoffice apps, on linux at least, one uses oowrite, oocalc, and so on. So OOXML name is a clear admission of hypocrisy: not a surprise to me anyway.

this is disgusting

[mmmiiikkkeee]

it is disgusting that it came out with: "With eight votes in favor". i think these 8 members of the board need re-evaluated. This is a sad reflection on how big business can mess-up wonderful things made by society.

Re:this is disgusting

[JohnFluxx]

What are you talking about? ODF was designed by the OASIS group - a group of a dozen different companies. It was open for any to participate in. Even Microsoft themselves were at the start involved, but they decided to drop out.

It was then developed in the open over a period of 3 years. It reuses as many previous open standards as possible (MathML for math stuff, SVG for vector graphics, etc).

In what possible way can you claim that this is a proprietary proposal and not an open design process? It seems your love for MS has blinded you.

Re:this is disgusting

[csirac]

The fact that everyone acknowledges here is that Office is the defacto standard for document markup.

"Document Markup" is an interesting way of describing of .doc and friends.

The ISO process does not require standards to be open.

And yet, Microsoft prance around with the "Open" prefix. And yet, their RAND patent license excludes free software.

Meanwhile Sun's proposal is just as proprietary as Microsoft's, neither is the process of an open design process, they are merely a schema dump from an existing program.

The difference being that Microsoft's spec has things like "do it the way Office 97 does it", and the ODF spec doesn't.

The simple fact that there are other Office suites already reading and writing ODF files other than OOo/StarOffice (Abiword, KOffice for example) demonstrates that it is a viable and workable standard.

It's my impression (others have read more of the 6,000 pages of documents than I have) that the same could not be successfully achieved from the OOXML spec.

And Sun has a vastly worse history as far as open standards go, suing companies for not implementing Java in their prefered maner.

That's funny, exactly what Microsoft seems to be planning. Their royalty free patent license may only be granted if you implement their standard EXACTLY (a herculean feat in itself). Want to enhance or modify your software, as the GPL explicitly sates you should be allowed to do? Sorry, you just agreed to get sued by Microsoft..

Personally

[PJ1216]

I don't think this standardization is being passed for the benefit of the consumers. Microsoft has had a firm grasp on business establishments with MS Office for quite a long time. There was competition, but nothing ever really came close to worry Microsoft. I find it not all that coincidental that now Microsoft has real competition (Google, Open Office, etc.) that they're trying to pass a standard. Microsoft is trying to reinstate a strong presence in the office. It hasn't really lost the one it has, but its teetering over the edge. Especially with all the relatively recent reports of various government offices going to open source, free software suites.

Re:Personally

[ozmanjusri]

I think Microsoft looked at that (along with what Google and the like have been doing) and simply saw a really good opportunity to extend their near monopoly on productivity into an entirely new business. I really do believe it is nothing more evil than that.

Then why the unseemly haste, committee stacking, and other nefarious practices to get adopted as an ISO standard?

Why the attacks on ODF adoption? If Microsoft had any intention of being interoperable, they'd have supported ODF from the start..

Re:Personally

[DrSkwid]

I know two offices that have switched to Open Office (one Mac based one PC based).
They still use Word format as the default but got free of the dreaded costly upgrade treadmill. The Mac office was particularly pleased with "Save To PDF".

I don't mind it being a standard if....

[Fallen Kell]

I don't mind this becoming a standard if it is truly "standard", which means that in the implementation documentation, EVERYTHING about it is disclosed, with no NDA, or proprietary "features". If that happens, I support OOXML for standardization. I (and many others) would welcome MS disclosing how it will work, as well as how all parts are suppose to work, which means explaining how to make something "work the way Office 97 cell format spacing" works and all other definitions in the standard which state it will the same way something else already works in previous Word and Excel versions. Tell us how to do everything and I will give MS full support for it being a recognized ISO standard.