Tech Center Current

Microsoft is attempting to get the International Standards Organization to fast-track the approval of its Office Open XML (OOXML) document format which it developed to compete with the already-established OpenDocument Format (ODF) ISO standard. The Linux Foundation has recently made an official statement urging ISO members to vote “no” on fast-track approval, citing numerous implementation problems and allegations that Microsoft is attempting to use its wealth and business connections to hijack the standardization process.

I’ve written about these document formats before, and many of the technical issues with the 6,000-page OOXML specification have not yet been resolved. Several ISO members have raised concerns about these issues, but the United States, Germany, and Sweden voted to fast-track the approval process anyway.

However, critics have accused Microsoft of bribing ISO members to vote in Microsoft’s favor. Microsoft has admitted to sending e-mails to many of its partners saying that they are “expected” to vote in favor of fast-tracking OOXML, and that they would be rewarded with “market assistance” and “extra support in the form of Microsoft resources”. Many countries that have historically stayed out of the ISO standardization process have suddenly announced plans to vote on OOXML, and there is worry that this change was due to further misconduct by Microsoft, attempting to stack the vote.

The Linux Foundation is a group that develops standards to be used across Linux environments and submits them to international standards bodies like ISO for approval. The Linux Foundation is now worried that corruption will cause ISO to lose credibility in the industry and thus hinder the Linux Foundation’s mission.

The Linux Foundation also reviewed some of the open concerns about the technical merit of OOXML:

• The OOXML specification is extremely lengthy. Based upon all that we have been able to learn, the review period that has been allowed is insufficient to provide confidence that all issues that may need to be resolved before OOXML could meet minimum quality standards. Accordingly, the Linux Foundation believes that adoption of OOXML, after addressing only those issues that have been identified to date, would be unwise.

• That said, there have already been hundreds of issues that have been raised. While some of these issues are minor, many are not. The Linux Foundation believes that OOXML is simply not mature enough at this point to be granted approval as an ISO/IEC standard. Many, but not all, of these issues have been summarized here <http://www.noooxml.org/local–files/arguments/TheCaseAgai…>.

• ISO/IEC standards are supposed to reference other globally adopted standards where those standards exist. In the case of OOXML, many proprietary Microsoft specifications have been referenced. In some cases (e.g., language codes, vector graphics), Microsoft has used its own, internal codes and specifications rather than already existing, publicly available alternatives. This not only violates ISO/IEC rules, but also puts in question whether implementers can fully implement OOXML without infringing intellectual property rights (IPR) of Microsoft. Will those IPRs be available? If so, upon what terms will they be available? The answers to these questions appear to be currently unknown.

• OOXML is specific to Windows and other Microsoft products. It is uncertain whether OOXML-based documents will be easily created, saved, and opened using other operating systems - like Linux - and applications, with or without converters or translators. An international standard should be created in the first instance to be neutral to all operating systems and other products.

The group concludes:

For all these reasons and more, the Linux Foundation calls upon those National Bodies that have not yet cast their votes to vote “No, with comments.” Those comments should reflect their best, neutral, technical judgment, based upon OOXML in its current form. Only by doing so, we believe, can both the future availability of documents, but [sic] the integrity of the standard setting process be assured.

It should be noted that ISO is not considering replacing the OpenDocument standard with OOXML. If OOXML is approved, the two competing formats will exist side-by-side as separate ISO standards, with neither being officially favored.

Update: SiS, the group which represents Sweden in the International Standards Organization, has just announced that its own vote was invalid due to fraud. The vote has been retracted, and SiS has decided that it is too late in the process to issue a replacement vote. More information, including the official statement and a partial translation, is available at this Groklaw post.