RTF Vs. OOXML

Rob Weir has an interesting essay comparing the viciousness of RTF and OOXML: "The [document format standard] concerns of 2004 (or 1995 even) are very similar to the concerns of 2007... 'RTF is defined as whatever Word saves when you ask it to save as RTF.' This should sound familiar. OOXML is nothing more than the preferences of Microsoft Office. Whenever Word changes, OOXML will change. And if you are a user or competitor of Word, you will be the last one to hear about these changes. The coding of Office 14 a.k.a. Office 2009 is well underway. Beta releases are expected in early 2008. But are file format changes needed to accommodate the new features being discussed in Ecma? No. Are they being discussed in ISO? No. Are they being discussed anywhere publicly? No. By owning the 'standard' and developing it in secret, in an Ecma rubber-stamp process, Microsoft rigs the system so they can author an ISO standard with which they are effortlessly compatible, while at the same time ensuring that their products maintain an insurmountable head start in implementing these same standards. Is this how an open standard is developed?"

Comments

Re:RTFM 'against' OOXML

[harlows_monkeys]

That was thoroughly torn apart last time it was posted here. One example of a fatal problem with it: the author edits the XML of a spreadsheet and breaks it, and then tries to blame this on OOXML. News flash: the exact same problem happens with ODF, and with every other XML format in the world when you edit it so as to make it no longer follow the schema for whatever type of document it is. Make the by-hand edit actually following the spec, and it works fine.

If OOXML is so bad, how come opponents have to resort to purposefully corrupting files, and other underhanded tricks, to argue against it? Why can't they stick to non-FUD arguments?