[Linux-aus] Response from Janet Hawtin on OOXML proposal to Standards Australia

[Janet Hawtin]

Vote no with comments

This is an open letter which I would like to be considered in the
Standards Australia review of the ooxml proposal. I have not been sent
information by Standards Australia about the required format and would
be happy to adapt this material to a format when provided.

While I appreciate the original scope of the process around technical
concerns I also am writing about the proposal process and feel that
the primary problems with the proposal are process related. I am
writing more broadly because I feel the broader concerns are important
to our Standards organisation and would avoid similar proposals using
the same process.

Overview: Double standards are counter productive

In this issue there are two kinds of double standards. The proposal
and its counterpart existing ISO standards, and the open or closed
processes which the different projects have followed.

Microsoft's OOXML replicates functions covered by the Open Document
Format standard and other standard XML formats. Duplication of
standards reduces the value of the original openly developed
standards.

Microsoft supporters in the Australian meeting suggested that "OOXML
was enough of a standard, that we should expect there would always be
proprietary material in Microsoft formats, and that their clients
understand this."

The MS OOXML proposal is not 'enough of a standard' to make it useful
for all developers and users because it is undefined both legally and
technically. This will devalue a standards based approach in
information formats.

The process for the OOXML format has been closed in its development
phase and structured to reduce meaningful review. The result is a
vendor centric document which is inward looking in its implementation.

Standards usually are developed to enable consolidation of current
best practices and they need to be written and legally framed so that
they are reliable and safe to use. ODF provides this function. OOXML
undoes that work by approximating a standard but being sufficiently
noncompliant to provide data compatibility problems with material
matching existing standards.

Competing standards

I feel that standards organisations need to take a stand to recognise
the value in the work they have done on ODF XML SVG and to stand firm
to support them.
In each case where there is a multiple standard there is a cost to the
wider community in accommodating multiple approaches to the same
function space. Forking the market into two separate standards to
cover the same material is not a step forward.

The market in documents has been vendor oriented for many years. Open
Document Format was developed as a common format two years ago. The
purpose was to agree on a way to make information accessible
regardless of vendor.
The effect of the OOXML proposal is undo that commonality.

Document specification is a core requirement in our information and
computing based economies and therefore the cost of multiple standards
in this fundamental space is an expensive outcome.

In any case where an information format is as fundamental as this
there will be increased temptation for vendors to try to find ways to
gain control of the space. ISO has approved a standard which has
worked through this space and is continuing to develop and refine
functions. Introducing a vendor based standard at this point would
compromise all that work in negotiating common ground. While the
market might include many products which match specific vendors, the
role of the standard in that space is to share information regardless
of vendor. A single vendor standard on the other hand operates as a
kind of franchise over a sector of the market.