INCITS chair: Failure of OOXML could endanger ODF

While the official ISO vote on Microsoft's response to thousands of technical comments on OOXML is being tallied, the man who made a personal U-turn that helped rally the US delegation now says the question of interoperability hinges on adoption.

The chairperson of the INCITS V1 technical committee -- the US' standards body representative to the International Organization for Standardization -- expanded on his stated position yesterday in support of Office Open XML's adoption as ISO standard DIS 29500, by suggesting that if ISO decides against adoption, the result could negatively impact the already adopted OpenDocument Format.

"The bottom line is that OpenDocument, among others, will lose if OpenXML loses," wrote Patrick Durusau, who was also a principal steward of ODF as a member of the OASIS standards group, and who was formerly an OOXML opponent (PDF available here).

Durusau's argument is that for ODF to flourish, it will need to co-exist with OOXML whether or not it's an international standard. The latter case would be preferable since that would make it easier for the community at large to forge changes or amendments to ODF that make it more interoperable -- to meet OOXML half-way.

"As the editor of OpenDocument, I want to promote OpenDocument, extol its features, urge the widest use of it as possible, none of which is accomplished by the anti-OpenXML position in ISO," Durusau continued. "Passage of OpenXML in ISO is going to benefit OpenDocument as much as anyone else."

As a case in point, he cited the problem of spreadsheets, which ends up being about as big a problem as you can get, from his perspective. ODF, he says, lacks a definition for spreadsheet formulas. Without international stewardship of both formats, Microsoft could end up being the one continuing its Excel-based spreadsheet formula definition on its own track. "If OpenXML is unclear, it must be fixed in order to create a robust mapping between the two," Durusau wrote.

Without referencing Durusau by name, IBM software architect Rob Weir took issue with his stance, at times invoking his now-trademark sarcasm.

Listing his five bad reasons for approving OOXML, Weir's #2 reads as follows: "If you approve OOXML, you can have the privilege of spending the next five years in the glorious work of fixing thousands of defects in the text. You can get a seat at the table, fixing bugs that should have been fixed in Ecma before OOXML was even submitted to JTC1.

"Forget the fact that maintenance in JTC1 is a ponderous, time consuming activity, where individual defects are enumerated, changes proposed, discussed, voted on, etc.," Weir continues. "Forget the fact that the recent [Ballot Resolution Meeting of the ISO] showed that you can't really get through more than 60 defects in a week-long meeting. Forget the fact that fixing defects in Ecma, not JTC1, would be far faster and easier due to the lighter-weight process Ecma imposes on their TC's. Forget that Fast Track is intended for mature, adopted standards not for ones that will require a 'Perpetual BRM.' Forget all that. You want a seat at the bug fixing table? You got it."

In short, certainly an approval of OOXML would transfer responsibility for its alleged defects from Microsoft's hands to international ones, though those new hands would be quite full, Weir argues.

His #4 bad reason appears to be a contrapuntal argument against further impediments to the standards process by more standards. "More standards are better. More standards means more choice, means more decisions, means more consultants, means more money paid to XML experts," Weir wrote. "You'll sooner find the American Dairy Council recommending less milk consumption than a standards professional calling for fewer standards. So ignore quality, maturity and need. More standards are a good thing. Like Blu-ray and HD DVD."

Weir's current stance expands on that of his employer, which put forth in early 2006 the proposition that the end goal of multiple choice among consumers and businesses is the eventual adoption of single standards.

"I wish that customers and consumers would increasingly make it clear that they need choice among implementations and don't want to be locked into non-open products or solutions," wrote IBM VP for standards Bob Sutor in January 2006. "Choice drives competition and so drives innovation and cost savings. Here, as in many other situations, we really need only one standard. Multiple standards increase development and maintenance costs and those get passed on to the consumer."