ODF _is_ based on multiple formats [LWN.net]

ODF _is_ based on multiple formats

Posted Nov 27, 2007 5:19 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216)
In reply to: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML by jensend
Parent article: The GNOME Foundation on OOXML

Hmpf. I respect Jody's efforts to get OOXML more fully documented. And I agree that better documentation of OOXML is a good thing, because that will help people escape OOXML.

But the notion that ODF represents only one developer's system is nonsense. OpenDocument was certainly influenced by OpenOffice.org, but its co-developers include Corel (Word Perfect) and many others. KDE KOffice has had a heavy hand in its direction. And most of the OpenDocument developers were deeply familiar with Microsoft Office's format. Notice that the ODF group's charter permitted significant changes, to enable generalization and improvement - and it WAS changed. In contrast, OOXML was only permitted to document more or less - not to make any substantive changes. Anyone who thinks OOXML didn't NEED changes obviously hasn't looked at it :-).

OOXML is a single-vendor proprietary format. In contrast, OpenDocument is designed to enable interoperability between suppliers. Documenting OOXML is important, because it simplifies the transition from OOXML to OpenDocument, but that's all OOXML is really good for. There's no need for OOXML to become an ISO standard. Any vendor is free to document their internal format, and ISO doesn't need to rubber-stamp this.

I agree that it's terrible that there are two different competing specifications. But Microsoft was asked, repeatedly, to join the OpenDocument group. The fundamental problem is that Microsoft does not wish to cooperate with other suppliers to create a vendor-neutral format. I wish they did.

ISO's tagline includes "One standard, one test...". It's not clear that they really mean it; if they accept OOXML, it may mean the beginning of the end of ISO. If they accept OOXML, it's not clear why they should be trusted.

There are a lot of reports about suspicious activities at the standards body level, yet OOXML still hasn't been approved. OpenDocument didn't have to stuff the committees with dozens of new members. Instead, it got through OASIS and ISO _without_ these shenanigans. Somebody (I think it was Weir) documented that in the international committees, the experienced members tended to vote against OOXML (because of its many problems), and only the new members (paid to join SPECIFICALLY to vote for OOXML) typically vote for it. OpenDocument sailed right through, when only the experienced people were there to vote. Pretending that the two specifications are "the same" is ignoring reality.

(Log in to post comments)