[Linux-aus] mark shuttleworth blog post on ooxml (and what you can do)

[Janet Hawtin]

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/132

Emerging consensus in favour of a unified document format standard?

It's too early to say for certain, but there are very encouraging
signs that the world's standards bodies will vote in favour of a
single unified ISO ("International Standards Organisation") document
format standard. There is already one document format standard - ODF,
and currently the ISO is considering a proposal to bless an
alternative, Microsoft's OpenXML, as another standard. In the latest
developments, standards committees in South Africa and the United
States have both said they will vote against a second standard and
thereby issue a strong call for unity and a sensible, open, common
standard for business documents in word processing, spreadsheets and
presentations.

It's very important that we build on those brave decisions and call on
all of our national standards committees, to support the idea of a
single common standard for these critical documents.

The way the ISO works is interesting. There are about 150 member
countries who can vote on any particular proposal. Usually, about 40
countries actually vote. In order to pass, a proposal needs to get a
75% "yes" vote. Countries can vote yes, no, or "abstain". So normally,
10 "no" or "abstain" votes would be sufficient to send the proposal
back for further consideration. In this case, however, Microsoft has
been working very hard, and spending a lot of money, to convince many
countries that don't normally vote to support their proposed format.

So there is something concrete you can do, right now, today, this
week! Find out which body in your country is responsible for your
national representation on ISO. In SA is the South African Bureau of
Standards (SABS) and in the US I believe it is ANSI. Your country will
likely have such a body. There is a list of some of them here but it
may not be complete so don't stop if your country isn't listed there!

Call them, or email them, and ask them which committee will be voting
in the OpenXML proposal. Then prepare a comment for that committee. It
is really important that your comment be professional and courteous.
You are dealing with strong technical people who have a huge
responsibility and take it seriously - they will not take you
seriously if your comment is not well thought out, politely phrased
and logically sound.

If you have a strong technical opinion, focus on a single primary
technical issue that you think is a good reason to decline the
proposal from Microsoft. There are some good arguments outlined here.
Don't just resend an existing submission - find a particular technical
point which means a lot to you and express that carefully and
succinctly for your self. It can be brief - a single paragraph, or
longer. There are some guidelines for "talking to standards bodies"
here.

Here are the points I find particularly compelling, myself:

(1)  This is not a vote "for or against Microsoft".

In fact, this is a vote for or against a unified standard. Microsoft
is a member of the body that defines ODF (the existing ISO standard)
but is hoping to avoid participating in that, in favor of getting
their own work blessed as a standard. A vote of "no OpenXML" is vote
against multiple incompatible standards, and hence a vote in favour of
unity.If the ISO vote is "no", then there is every reason to expect
that Microsoft will adopt ODF, and help to make that a better standard
for everybody including themselves. If we send a firm message to
Microsoft that the world wants a single, unified standard, and that
ODF is the appropriate place for that standard to be set, then we will
get a unified global standard that includes Microsoft.The reason this
point is important is because many government officials recognise the
essential position Microsoft holds in their operations and countries,
and they will be afraid to vote in a way that could cost their country
money. If they perceive that a vote "no" might make it impossible for
them to work with Microsoft, they will vote yes. Of course Microsoft
is telling them this, but the reality is that Microsoft will embrace a
unified standard if the global standards organisation clearly says
that's a requirement.

(2) Open, consensus based document standards really WORK WELL - consider HTML

We already have an extraordinary success in defining a document format
openly, in the form of HTML. The W3 Consortium, which includes
Microsoft and many other companies, defines HTML and CSS. While
Microsoft initially resisted the idea, preferring to push Internet
Explorer's proprietary web extensions, it was ultimately forced to
participate in W3C discussions.The result is a wonderfully rich
document format, with many different implementations. Much of the
richness of the web today comes directly from the fact that there is
an open standard for web documents and web interactions. Look at a
classy web page, and then look at a classy Word document, and ask
yourself which is the most impressive format! Clearly, Word would be
better with an open standard, not one defined by a single company.

(3) A SINGLE standard with many implementations is MUCH more valuable
than multiple standards

Imagine what would happen if there were multiple incompatible web
document standards? You couldn't go to any web site and just expect it
to work, you would need to know which format they used. The fact that
there is one web document standard - HTML - is the key driver of the
efficiency of the web as a repository of information. The web is a
clear example of why ODF is the preferred structure for a public
standard.ODF, the existing standard, is defined openly by multiple
companies, and Microsoft can participate there along with everyone
else. They know they can - and they participate in other standards
discussions in the same organisation.

(4) ODF is already implemented by many different companies.

This means that there are many different tools which people can choose
to do different things with their ODF documents. Some of those tools
are optimised for the web, others for storage, others for data
analysis, and others for editing. In the case of OpenXML, there is not
even one single complete implementation - because even Microsoft
Office12 does not exactly implement OpenXML. There is also no other
company with any tool to edit or manage OpenXML documents. Microsoft
is trying to make it look like there is broad participation, but dig
beneath the surface and it is all funded by one company. The ODF
standard is a much healthier place to safeguard all of our data.

I'd like to thank the team at TSF for the work they put into briefing
the South African standards committee. I hope that each of you - folks
who have read this far, will pick up the phone and contact your own
standards body to help them make a smart decision.

The USA, South Africa, China, and other countries will be voting "no".
Let's not allow heavy lobbying to influence what should be a calm,
rational, sensible and ultimately technical discussion. Standards are
important, and best defined in transparent and open forums. Pick up
the phone!

_______________________________________________
Noooxml mailing list
Noooxml at ffii.org
https://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/noooxml