I know it may appear at times like we are against ODF, but it actually isn’t the case. We just didn’t think we could use ODF as our primary format and still meet our customer needs, so instead we wanted to make sure that our default XML formats were also given the same consideration by policy makers. The only times I have made negative comments about ODF is when I’m trying to illustrate why it wouldn’t have worked as the default format for Office.

-Brian

Considering the strong arm tactics they are using around the world, I find their moaning and groaning about my blog, GrokLaw and Wikipedia pages pathetic.

The axis should be labelled “Pro-OOXML” and “Anti-OOXML” because I don’t see anyone saying ODF is not the format of choice for some uses, nor that the people who need it should not have a choice, nor that we are not better off with it as an ISO standard. (MS had the opportunity to play dirty tricks and put obstacles in the way of ODF mid 2006, but they didn’t, as you will remember.)

Now your side’s rhetoric has people and newspapers talking of me in the same sentence as “bribery”. A commenter to this page talks of me “admitting”, for heavens sake. While I appreciate the diagram, as an attempt to say I am not some looney extremist with a Gates-brown nose, and while I understand the rationale for the diagram, I think it would be farer to draw me as a horizontal line spanning ODF and OOXML: I am pro both. But that is not a category you want to allow, because you want to present OOXML as a threat to ODF.

As you know, I published benchmark figures that were unfavorable to MS Office at the time when they were putting a lot of PR effort into how fast their loading was. And I have consistently said that I thought the interchange story was a hierarchy of increasing fidelity and decreasing reach: HTML, ODF, PDF, OOXML, and that governments concerned with a level playing field would have to mandate ODF. And that even mandating ODF by itself was not good enough: they would need to mandate a profile (subset) along the lines of the Irish Governments’ RIG profiles.

So thanks for the dot, but I don’t fit on your axes.

If you are looking for “Big Picture” statements on file formats, you can check out some of the other blogs on my blog roll. I figure there are a number of people already doing a good job at commentary at that level and there is no need for me to provide redundant content.

I believe you are mistaken in the impression that these formats are not extensible, or that adding features would require applications to add support for the features as well. There are several mechanisms in XML that allow a well-ordered evolution of a format.

An example everyone is familiar with. Take a look at HTML. Is HTML unable to do things today beyond what NCSA Mosaic did? Did evolving from through versions require that applications added new features? Certainly some added features, but this was from market forces, not forced upon them from the format.

But OOXML critics have, seem to focus on minor issues. Nobody, as far as I am aware, has compared the feature set of ODF and OOXML. Which format can DO more? In which areas? I wonder if this silence is because MS Office is the most feature-rich office suite around, and because OOXML supports 100% of its functionality, it is inherently more capable.

Also, it’s interesting that nobody has mentioned the concept of technological forcing. None of these formats can do things that their flagship producer/consumer applications cannot. Adding new capabilities to the format would in effect force these applications to add the respective capabilities.

So I fear that the process of becoming an expert inherently requires them to form their own opinions. The only problem, therefore, is whether they can fairly evaluate those who disagree with them.

Let’s say there really was a neutral, independent observer of this issue. If she were to find that, technically, or ethically, or by any other measurement, either ODF or OOXML was a better standard, would she still be considered a neutral observer?

People in the middle of the chart keep mum because they let talk those that know better. I can tell because I am one of them. The outcome is that no amount of FUD or half-truth resist this knd of scrutiny.

Have I written more about OOXML faults recently? Yes, of course. This is a newsworthy topic, now that Ecma has submitted it to ISO. I, and most other people, will write more about things when they are newsworthy. No one talks about Gerald Ford for years, then he dies and everyone is writing about it. That is the way news works. The push of OOXML through ISO is a newsworthy event that is attracting a lot more attention, by me, by other bloggers, by the press, and obviously by Microsoft.

For example, we just had a meeting yesterday of INCITS V1, the committee that votes the US position in SC34. I was surprised to see three new Microsoft guys in attendance. IBM has only one (me). When things are topical, you will see more activity, from me and others. And the activity you don’t see will be greater as well.

Remember that ODF had a similar amount of attention back in May of 2005 when it was sent to ISO, coverage both positive and negative. Was this some sort of evil bias? Why should OOXML be excused from scrutiny?

To quote Harry S. Truman, “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”

You just couldn’t help but toss in the last sentence, huh? Me either.

There is nothing wrong with having a cause and having opinions and expressing them vigorously. I’m not knocking that. But I am pointing out that it is good to have someone commenting on the ballgame who is not also playing in it.

Any chance of you indicating on the chart where you think you stand?

Microsoft past history shows that they rather employ someone else to do the dirty laundry for them so they can hide behind and say “I did not do it”. See the recent Massachusetts ODF campaign.

At least IBM allows their employee to state that “I don’t like OOXML” and say it loud and clear. Hiring somebody to modify wikipedia looks more like covert operation.

Nobody really think that any company will hire an independent expert to modify wikipedia. I guess the contribution will be less drastic than it would be if Microsoft’s employee do it.

Anyway, the cover is blown. We have Rick admitting he receive such an offer. Guess Microsoft have to go on to a bit of damage control. To say that Microsoft does not anticipate this possibility is like saying Microsoft is dumb, which it isn’t.

This will be another test for wikipedia’s editors. Let’s see what they do about it.