Warning Shot?

Escalation on the XML document front... Microsoft has posted an open letter discussing the conflict around ODF and Open XML. It seems that they are no longer going to sit by and watch IBM try to sabotage their efforts to get Open XML approved by ISO, the next step in the standardization of their XML format for Office.

Was the letter warranted? Perhaps. To me, the more IBM appears to stonewall Open XML, whether it be through independent employee blogs, their vote with the ECMA, or straight up corporate marketing, the more it seems they fear the format for monetary reasons, and not the principals of interoperability and ease of use, or open software in general.

I'm no Microsoft proponent, nor am I anti-IBM, but to me it sounds like the real reason IBM is trying to block Open XML is because they are afraid their format will be stuck with a tiny market share (as they are now) if this format is formally adopted by ISO. There is no question a lot of their ammunition for getting corporations and governments to switch from MS Office goes out the window if it does.

Look, the majority of word processing users out their use MS Office already, so ODF obviously has an uphill battle. Right now, ODF and MS Office don't play very nicely together. There are a few solutions, although they are quite difficult given the current documentation and binary format of Word. However, with independent projects to enable transformation from ODF to Open XML and vice-versa, people will no longer be handcuffed to one format or the other, at least that's the current hypothesis.

Size of the specification is not important. What is important is that plenty of tools already exist to manipulate XML and ZIP, both of which are standards, which immediately makes working with the new Open XML format much easier than with its binary older sibling. And that documentation going from 2,000 pages in first draft to 6,000 pages when it was finally approved? Great. Be glad it's extensive. Who wants to guess what goes where, and how, when trying to work with a file format? That's like guessing how much habanero chile powder to put in your salsa. Four teaspoons sound about right? Good luck with that.

The bottom line here is that while Microsoft and IBM have always had dislike for each other, Microsoft has affirmed with this letter that they won't be afraid to take off their gloves for this battle. IBM may learn quickly that when picking a fight with someone, be sure it's for the right reasons, and it's not with the kid with the most friends.

- Chris

Comments

[F.Augusztin]

You are missing one point here - only one vendor can implement OpenXML, namely Microsoft. Those concerns are valid.

[Chris]

I'm not sure you understand what an open standard is, and what being approved by the ECMA (and soon ISO) means.

Any vendor that wants to can implement OpenXML, and many, like Novell, already have plans or are working on solutions around it.

[Rytmis]

You're mixing up "can" and "is allowed to". Microsoft's format is tailored not to describe documents in general, but Microsoft Office documents in particular. The fact that the format is open doesn't mean the specs are. How exactly do you expect someone without access to internal Microsoft documentation to implement something like this:

"footnoteLayoutLikeWW8

This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 6.x/95/97) when determining the placement of the contents of footnotes relative to the page on which the footnote reference occurs. This emulation typically involves some and/or all of the footnote being inappropriately placed on the page following the footnote reference."

You can argue that things like this can be ignored in an application that doesn't know how to emulate an old version of Word, but have you considered that this puts Microsoft in the position where it can say it's the only one with a 100% complete implementation of this "open standard"?