Open XML versus ODF—Redmond's Latest Move
- By John K. Waters
The Document Format Wars heated up
this week with news that Microsoft has joined a group closely involved in
approving ISO standards—a move the Redmond software maker says was intended
to facilitate ratification of its own Open XML format, but which proponents of
the OpenDocument Format (ODF) fear is designed to delay approval of that rival
The group Microsoft joined (V1 Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems
Interface group), is a very small subcommittee made
of member companies within the International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS).
V1 is the subcommittee that deals with office document formats, and is, in
fact, charged with reconciling the votes cast for ISO adoption of the
OASIS-developed ODF. Microsoft is a long-time member of OASIS,
which is a global consortium that develops data representation standards for use
in computer software. But the company decided not to support the ODF, nor has it
been involved in the ODF Technical Committee.
This file format standards rivalry is shaping up to be a
real David-and-Goliath contest. According to analysts at Gartner, Microsoft owns
more than 95 percent of the office applications market. And its closest
competitor in market share (at least in word processing), Corel, currently has no plans to support
the ODF. To my knowledge, the only office suites that support the
ODF are Sun Microsystem's StarOffice, and the free OpenOffice.org.
So I think it's fair to pause here and ask the question: If
Microsoft has submitted its latest file format to a standards group—even the
reputedly compliant Ecma—does the fate of the ODF really matter?
''That file format may be XML,
but it's actually just a serialization of their internal data structures, so that
their product has an inherent time-to-market advantage over everybody else,'' Simon
Phipps, Sun's chief open source officer, told reporters last month during a company
chalk talk. ''What they are doing is getting the product-implementation
file format rubber-stamped. That's a recipe for a single-vendor-controlled format.''
That charge doesn't make sense to Microsoft's Brian Jones, lead
program manager for the Office suite, who reminded me recently that his company has
given Open XML away. ''That's the revolutionary thing,'' he said. ''The formats
are no longer Microsoft formats; they are controlled by an international standards
body. That they happen to be based on, and fully compatible with, our legacy
binary format just helps to get rid of any existing user pain.''
Again, I have to ask: Why should we care whether we
end up with the OASIS standard or Microsoft's? Why not just let
the company whose productivity apps are used by damned near everyone set
reason, says attorney Andrew Updegrove, is that nothing is forever, not even
Microsoft. Updegrove is one of the most outspoken and oft-quoted supporters of
the ODF. He's a partner at the Boston law firm of Gesmer Updegrove, and the
creator of Consortiuminfo.org, an information site covering standards, standard
setting, and open-source software.
''It's a mistake to imagine
that we have this immortal guarantor of these file formats,'' Updegrove
observes. ''Who could have imagined a world without Arthur Anderson? I’m a
technology lawyer, and the idea that Arthur Anderson might some day not exist…
well, five years ago I would have said the odds were ten thousand to one against
that happening in my lifetime. They had been in business since 1913, and now
they're gone. Look at Microsoft’s anti-trust worries. Could the company get
broken up? Sure it could.''
Whether or not we think the ODF matters, it's pretty clearly that Microsoft
does. The timing of the company's recent actions—its decision to send Open XML
to a standards body a month after the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced
plans to phase out use of proprietary formats for storing government documents
and switch to the ODF; the latest INCITS subcommittee news—strike me as counter
It would be easy to blow off this very lopsided rivalry, but that would
be a mistake, too. This is about something basic: access to information.
It's about making sure that corporations, educational
institutions, libraries, and individuals have long-term access to their documents, free
of the restrictions of proprietary software or the limitations of outdated technologies. It's
clear that we do need a standard, and that no single vendor should control something so fundamental.
If you're interested in this issue (and everybody should
be), you'll want to check out Pamela Jones's
Groklaw.net. Jones was among
the first to draw attention to the news that Microsoft had
joined the INCITS subcommittee.
Also, be sure to visit Andrew
Updegrove's blog. Updegrove has been holding forth on this and related
standards issues for ages, and his blog is not only chock full of opinions, but
it provides a historical context and insights into the stultifyingly complex
world of global standard setting that is virtually unavailable anywhere else.
BTW—The members of INCITS V1 are:
- Microsoft Corporation
- Patrick Durusau Inc
- Retrieval Systems Corporation
- Sun Microsystems Inc
- Text Structure Consulting
- XML Factor Inc
- Y-12 National Security Complex