Uh…how about because OOXML did not yet exist then?

But certainly I’d agree that if ISO had a working group creating a document standard in 2002 when ODF was started, then it would have been natural to join that effort rather starting a new standard.

But that wasn’t the situation in 2002. Back then all we had was the binary file formats from Microsoft, formats which had no freely available specification. You could only receive information on these binary formats if you signed an agreement with Microsoft that prohibited use in applications that competed against Microsoft.

Why didn’t anyone think of merging with OOXML before ISO standardising ?
Why the big rush by OASIS to get the ISO standardisation for a format that is not finished even now and will only be at version 1.2
It seems that you support the “rushing out semi finished standard just to to be first theorie” but it is unlikely ISO has the same view.

It seems users could have benifitted more from an effort in merging the formats then in the ISO standardization effort. As for the next few years the binary formats will still dominate there was litte need for an ISO standard to be rushed.

It would have been much better if ISO had developed their own format in a TC using and then both OASIS and Microsoft could have participated and could have been invited to submitttheir own formats , and their own wishes. If for instance the EU would have declared that the resulting format was to be standard for the EU then Micrsoft would have participated .

Now by rushig the ODF format, OASIS has created the two format standoff that you are supporting yourself as well.

As OASIS started with the fast ISO procedure in stead of just waiting for a full standardisation proces the whole stage was set for only one inevitable way to go forward.

Merging of formats has been set back 10 years just by entering ODF as an ISO standard in stead of letting ISO develop their own standard with wide support before it started which could have used ODF as input.

There isn’t really a mechanism to displace OOXML with ODF

Remember, Microsoft is driving standards wedges across their portfolio. This is not just about ODF. Their business model falls apart if users actually have interoperability and the freedom of choice that interoperability brings.

JTC1 is choking on a fish bone. The sooner it recognized that it has a problem, the sooner it can do something about it.

That’s some power MS are wielding, destroying the value of an international standards body that’s been around for fifty years…

New members are invariably states that fully support ANY microsoft position.

Every national body now has 3 or more voting members that are either MS employees or employees of MS gold partners (ie, dependends). These people lose their job if they vote against MS.

Most governments have seen this and now not only require ISO standardization, but also community (stakeholder) and open stewardship, free IP licensing, and multiple, independend implementations.

Or in other words, most states expect ISO standardization of OOXML, and have allready prevented OOXML procurements. The exception is the federal level in the USA and Washington state ;-). However, I expect that most US states will fall for MS funding tactics, like MA did.

Winter

ANSI’s patent policy explicitly allows standards which uses patented materials, see “ANSI Essential Requirements”, Section 3.1. So Microsoft’s approval of ODF does not automatically equate to any disavowal of patents.

@Anonymous,

I hope I’m not saying anything dangerous. But if Office supports triple underlined text and ODF only supports double underlined text, then by all means let’s add it to ODF. But this doesn’t mean we bloat ODF beyond all recognition. We require good engineering as well. You need to build complexity on top of simplicity. XML is simple. OOXML is very complex. ODF is someplace in between, but built upon simpler standards like MathML. The key is to build OOXML on top of the ISO ODF Standard such that the core value of ODF remains, while the functional reach of OOXML is fully specified for those who needed it.

And BTW, ODF 1.1 has the accessibility work completed in it and that was voted an OASIS Standard earlier this this year. And there is nothing that OOXML supports via custom schemas that ODF 1.0 does not already support.

In any case I think you are pretending to be dumber than you are. And there is nothing wrong with your memory. If you are going to be anonymous, at least say what you really think.

@Alex,

You ask “How?”. If I knew I wouldn’t be here blogging, I’d be doing something about it. Let’s just say that this is my observation which I discussed a couple posts ago. Look for “I Sometimes Need to Remind Myself”

Isn’t it dangerous to say things like that, given that Microsoft is using the same argument against ODF? Especially without specific examples?

The accessibility is being addressed, but that does not mean that ODF can not store all the information available in MS Office documents. It just means that ODF can currently not present that information to people with disabilities.

In a similar way, OOXML’s Custom Schema (if I remember that correctly) has nothing to do with (re)presenting information. It is just a way to gracefully extend OOXML — beyond its ECMA standard — to add semantic data (if I understand it correctly, that is its main purpose).

Nitpicking aside, I really enjoy reading your blog. Thanks!

Their recommendation of ODF as a standard will greatly weaken any case of patent infringement and injury they can make against OpenOffice and the like. Many of the 45 patents they assert probably are IN the format!