Microsoft's last chance for OOXML standard approval

gallery

The final decision on whether or not to accept Microsoft's OOXML specification for approval as a standard by the International Standards Organisation (ISO) is to be made over the weekend of 29-30 March 2008.

Acceptance assumes a level of satisfaction with the current definition of the proposed standard. Although rejection of the process would not imply complete rejection of MS-OOXML, it would allow time to highlight the glaring inconsistencies inherent in the current specification and ensure proper examination and revision of the proposed formats.

The worst possible outcome would be the acceptance of a specification that is not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, this is also the likely outcome.

Other people's browsers

Standards are about interoperability, or they are about nothing. By definition a standard assumes a level of commonality that enables multiple implementations that are totally conversant with one another.

The basic requirement of a standard data format for office suites is that it preserves the integrity and neutrality of the data. Governments and other organisations have a vested interest in the implementation of open standards because they want to ensure that the documents of today will be readable tomorrow. Vendors and developers want open standards because they allow the opportunity to develop alternative ways to edit, interpret and view the data.

Too many users save their documents in binary formats that are both proprietary and transitory. The justification for this practice is that the proprietary formats are 'de facto' standards. A "de facto standard", (usually an undocumented format that dominates because it is owned by the dominant player in a particular market), effectively confers ownership of documents on the "owner" of the standard.

Currently, Microsoft owns the "de facto standard" for office documents. Not so long ago the "de facto standards" for office computing were owned by WordPerfect, WordStar or Lotus. A current monopoly does not ensure a future monopoly. A "de facto standard" has a limited lifespan and confers no guarantees.

Microsoft has not encouraged independent implementations of its protocols or data formats, and in the past has published them, if at all, in piecemeal fashion. Each release of Office has coincided with changes in the data formats, designed to encourage conformance to the upgrade cycle. Competitors have been forced to reverse engineer Microsoft Office outputs to achieve some level of compatibility. Such a set of circumstances inevitably inhibits competition and innovation. Monopolistic or proprietary control of a "standard" inevitably reduces the incentive and opportunity for competitive innovation, especially when the "owner" of the "standard" has a history of extending and breaking the parameters of that standard.

Bill Gates illustrated Microsoft's historic attitude to interoperability and standards in an internal memo (pdf) from December 1998:

"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company", he wrote.

Email to a friend

Print this page