An alternate possibility is that any user that attempts to save in any format except MSOOXML gets an warning message that features or formatting will be lost if they continue to save in anything but the MS-desired format, so they ‘choose’ to save in whichever format does not give them the scary error/warning message.

I routinely save documents in older doc formats because I realize that there is nothing in a typical document that is not perfectly saved in the binary formats despite constantly receiving the MS “you will lose data/formats/features if you continue” pop-up dialog boxes.

It became clear to me a long time ago that that dialog box is prompted by an attempt to save in a deprecated or non-MS file format – not because of any content in the document itself. This is much like the old “You are not using MS-DOS. Failure to do so could result in less than 100% compatibility or in frequent Windows Systems crashes…” stunt from the days of MS-DOS/early Windows 3.x during the DOS-wars.

– Ed

“In most cases, the creators were forced to create files in OOXML, because the software they were using (Office 2007) could only maintain full featured editability with OOXML (i.e. something would break if they saved the file to ODF or any other format)”

Not at all. In most cases Office 2007 users save their files in the old binary formats to make sure they can be opened by other users with older versions of Office.
Most people are not aware of the OOXML-plugin for Office 2000-2003.

Consider the dates. OOXML was submitted to JTC1/SC34 for Fast Track processing on December 21st, 2006.

Consumer availability of Office 2007 did not come until January 30th, 2007.

So, it is hard to measure things like “market acceptance” when the proposal was submitted before there was even a single commercial implementation.

In any case, Microsoft/Ecma did not need to answer these questions, since they used the no-questions-asked Fast Track process.

Btw, you have some nice material in your Dear Microsoft Office Team, Please fix this blog.

RE: M.7.4.1.4 Stability (M and M.7.4.2.4 Credibility:

Do they take into consideration Microsoft’s record of successes and failures utilizing their own new file format with their own software products (especially Office 2007 + previous versions with Compatibility Pack)?

RE: M.7.4.2.2 Response to User Requirements:

What is the definition of “user” in this case? Is a “user” another company writing software to work with the new format, or is a “user” the actual end-user of any software designed to work with the new format?

RE: M.7.4.2.3 Market Acceptance

How is “market acceptance” measured? By only counting the numbers of files that exist in the new format? Do they also consider the reasons behind the numbers? For example, a large number of OOXML files may exist in the new format, but it does not necessarily indicate that the creator of those files made a conscious choice between ODF and OOXML. In most cases, the creators were forced to create files in OOXML, because the software they were using (Office 2007) could only maintain full featured editability with OOXML (i.e. something would break if they saved the file to ODF or any other format)

Which is, of course, why Microsoft is using OOXML :)

The document you refer to was from an OASIS request for Class A Liaison to SC34 from October 2001. It was approved.

When trying to find the ECMA-information as well as the ODF submission document, I stumpled upon N6696

http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objAction=runReport&objId=3894169&inputLabel1=45020&inputLabel2=6696&inputLabel3=6696&inputLabel4=&customview=3902363&const_and1=&const_and2=&const_and3=&const_and4=&const_and5=&const_and6=&const_sort=-s_nnumber&nnumber_from=6696&nnumber_to=6696&title=&doctype=&createdate_from=%3F&_1_1_4_1_year=-1&_1_1_4_1_month=-1&_1_1_4_1_day=-1&_1_1_4_1_hour=0&_1_1_4_1_minute=0&_1_1_4_1_second=0&_1_1_4_1_ampm=0&createdate_to=%3F&_1_1_5_1_year=-1&_1_1_5_1_month=-1&_1_1_5_1_day=-1&_1_1_5_1_hour=0&_1_1_5_1_minute=0&_1_1_5_1_second=0&_1_1_5_1_ampm=0&duedate_from=%3F&_1_1_7_1_year=-1&_1_1_7_1_month=-1&_1_1_7_1_day=-1&_1_1_7_1_hour=0&_1_1_7_1_minute=0&_1_1_7_1_second=0&_1_1_7_1_ampm=0&duedate_to=%3F&_1_1_8_1_year=-1&_1_1_8_1_month=-1&_1_1_8_1_day=-1&_1_1_8_1_hour=0&_1_1_8_1_minute=0&_1_1_8_1_second=0&_1_1_8_1_ampm=0&action=&sort_by=s_nnumber&sort_order=-&ApplyCmd=0&subbutton=Search

The abstract says:

“Approval of JTC 1 N 6599 – SC 34 Request for Category A Liaison Between the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) and JTC 1/SC 34. [...] The majority of JTC 1 National Bodies support the request for a Category A liaison between SC 34 and OASIS. Therefore, the request is approved and the concerns of the Canadaian National Body are duly noted.”

Was this status revoked?

This happened with Jan Van den Beld, retired General Secretary of ECMA, who now works for Microsoft, going to ISO National Bodies around the world lobbing for OOXML and bloging about the wonderful OOXML format

http://janvandenbeld.blogspot.com/

Nice partnership: standards organizations and big corporations; big bucks for everyone!

Microsoft: What standard do you want to fast-track today? ™

Franco Merletti

There exist today only three Class A Liaisons with JTC1: The European Commission, the ITU and Ecma.

Ecma is the submitter of 80% of all Fast Tracks processed by JTC1. The other liaisons and NB’s use this process only rarely.

Well – I don’t know where to find the ECMA-application for liaison A. I must admit that I don’t even know when ECMA got the Liaison A status. I agree with you that is would be interesting to see as well. As far as I remember “The Xml Guild” applied to become Liaison A to JTC1 in late Summer 2007, and they basically just asked for it. The ISO/IEC document is N0854. I also found the OASIS PAS Submitter status request – or traces of it – in N0941.

I will see if I can find the ODF submission request for you.

Don’t you have access to the JTC1/ISO/IEC documents through NCITS V1?

I hope I’ll get at chance to meet you in Geneva.

:o)

Where can I find Ecma’s original application for Class A Liaison status? I assume this document, as well as OASIS’s PAS applications are in the non-public JTC1 repository, and that SC34 weenies like us don’t have access to them.

Thanks for the clarification of the differences between PAS and FT. As you I really don’t get the reason for talking about them as if they were the same … they are, as you point out, quite different.

(even though “PAS-track” and Fast-track sound “remarkably similar”)

:o)

Do you know if the documens submitted by OASIS to become PAS submitter and the document to add ODF v1.0 in the PAS-track are available?

And finally: I am looking forward to meeting you in Geneva in about a week’s time.