ISO defends the positive outcome of the OXML vote

The very fact that there may still be problems to iron out with what used to be Microsoft's XML-based file format suite, is the justification for the creation of a managing body to manage it as a standard, reads a fresh statement from the ISO.

A newly published FAQ from the International Organization for Standardization, which on the surface would appear to address questions regarding the standard now known as ISO/IEC 29500, actually goes all out and responds to concerns individuals may still have about how fairly its predecessor, Microsoft's Open XML format, may have been judged.

Among those concerns: Was it reasonable for standards committee SC 34 to have given itself only a few months to fully consider the viability a 6,000 page document?

"The number of pages of a document is not a criterion cited in the JTC 1 Directives for refusal," reads the new FAQ. "It should be noted that it is not unusual for IT standards to run to several hundred, or even several thousand pages. ISO/IEC 29500 has spent a total of 15 months being processed within the ISO/IEC system, from its submission in December 2006 to the deadline of 29 March 2008 approving it."

A key articulation of the length concern came late last month, when Jim Melton, the editor of another ISO standard -- the already ubiquitous Structured Query Language -- noted on O'Reilly.net that the standard he marshaled into existence took over two decades to complete, with hundreds of errors meticulously worked out over time, for a document that ended up consuming only 4,000 pages.

"You've written 6000 pages of specification largely in secret (and, I understand, recently added over 1500 more pages) and given the world five months to read, absorb, understand, review, critique, and establish informed positions on it," Melton wrote, addressing his organization directly. "Worse, whether it happened because of unreasonable methods, pure random chance, or genuine and unexpected interest, the fact that the size of the JTC 1 Subcommittee that was to vote on the document suddenly exploded gives the appearance that somebody was trying too hard to stack the deck...almost as though it wasn't really desired to have too much real review. Please note, I don't know any facts at all about the membership changes in SC 34, except that it happened. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, merely stating what people have inferred from those facts."

Inference was becoming an art form in the remaining days leading up to the final JTC 1 vote. The blog post to which Melton was responding was written by O'Reilly author Rick Jelliffe, partly in response to something Melton had written before, and partly responding to comments raised by IBM developer and noted OXML opponent Rob Weir.

In one passage, Weir had suggested that had the ISO been capable of performing a complete review of the 6,000 pages of material in five months' time, then committee members would have been assured that the thousands of comments -- which were characterized as "errors" -- that the draft standard had accrued, were "repaired."

But in its FAQ, the ISO effectively implies that it was not its job to have repaired everything prior to the draft standard's adoption, but rather to determine whether the draft was worthy enough of a governing body being created to marshal the perfection of that standard -- which is, from its perspective, what the process is all about.

"It is possible that others [concerns] may still remain, but these can be taken care of during the maintenance of the standard," reads the FAQ. "In all cases, the final decision on whether there are contradictions and how to resolve them rests with the national members of ISO and IEC."