Recall that Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) failed to achieve approval in the first round of balloting that ended September 2 2007. ISO fast-track procedures provide the submitter of a proposed standard, in this case Ecma, the opportunity to address the problems that national standards bodies (NBs) identified in the hope of persuading them to change their vote. Ecma’s Proposed Disposition of Comments was published on January 14, leaving precious little time for NBs before the Feb 25-29 Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM). 

Consider the task ahead for any NB reconsidering its vote:
6,045 pages—the length of the OOXML specification
3,522 comments—the number of errors, ambiguities and omissions submitted by national standards bodies
2,293 pages—the length of Ecma’s proposed “fixes”

“Ecma’s Proposed Disposition of Comments on OOXML: How we got here; What is missing; Why you should vote no” will both lighten your reading load and explain just what is missing from the proposed “fixes”? Beyond the inadequacy of a six-week review period for over 1,000 changes (the total number of “fixes” proposed by Ecma) and the inappropriateness of the “fast-track” procedure (when normal procedures are available) for a specification of this magnitude, the proposal:

-Ignores the request from several countries and EU advisory bodies for harmonization between OOXML and the already ISO-approved ODF.

-Adds to the confusion between the trademarked name of OpenOffice (ODF’s first implementation) and the proposed standard, Office Open XML, or OOXML.

-Introduces new errors, inadequately addresses existing ones, and ignores many other errors altogether.

-Inhibits interoperability.

-Proposes contradictory solutions.

With just four weeks to go before the BRM, it is important for National Bodies to consider what has been “agreed” but not actually resolved; what has been “promised” but not actually delivered; and what has been left unaddressed altogether.

Marino Marcich
ODF Alliance