Martin Bekkelund

On Wednesday 22nd of August, about 30 members of the «Standard Norge» (Norwegian Standards Institute) committee K 185 gathered at «Standard Norge’s» offices, just outside Oslo. The occasion was to discuss what Norway will vote on the issue of standardizing OOXML as an ISO standard (DIS 29500). As a member of the committee K 185 i will discuss the topics that was subject for discussion at the committee meeting. This article reflects my personal opinions for both the understanding of the committee meting, as well the topic itself.

What is K 185?

K 185 is a committee in «Standard Norge», the Norwegian Standards Institute. The committee is set to discuss Norway’s official point of view on the ISO certification of OOXML. It is an open process, and anyone can participate. However, it is not a democratic process, as the committee member compound does not reflect the Norwegian people’s opinions. It is solely up to the board of «Standard Norge» to vote on the OOXML certification in ISO, based on the input and comments the board get from the committee members. In the mandate of «Standard Norge», it says that «Standard Norge» has letter of attorney to give Norway’s vote, «with the support of King and Government». An interesting point of view regarding this matter, is that if «Standard Norge» says «Yes» to the ISO certification of OOXML, «Standard Norge» is in conflict of interests with the Norwegian government, as Norway’s government only wants ODF. (Link only in Norwegian.) If «Standard Norge» says «Yes» to the ISO certification of OOXML, «Standard Norge» does not fulfill their mandate.

K 185 is represented by board members of «Standard Norge» as well as several well known faces in the Norwegian IT industry. My self included.

What is OOXML?

OOXML is a document format developed by Microsoft, which has later been accepted as an Ecma standard. OOXML is capable of storing documents, spreadsheets and presentations. Microsoft tries to ISO certify OOXML through their membership in Ecma. The background for this work, is clearly that Microsoft wants to compete with ODF, which is already ISO certified. Despite rumors going around, OOXML is not the default document format of Microsoft Office 2007.

What’s the problem?

Conflicting standards

A political headache for Microsoft and Ecma is that ODF is already ISO certified. Furthermore ISO and WTO has a clause on not having two competing standards that are in conflict of interests. By ISO certifying OOXML we violate this clause and open for equivalent conflict of interests in other areas. As a consequence, ISO certification of OOXML may contribute to undermine the liability of ISO as a standards institute. That’s why Microsoft is putting great effort into convincing «Standard Norge» and ISO that OOXML is not in conflict of interests with ODF.

Microsoft claims that OOXML is not in conflict of interests with ODF, as OOXML is supposedly created to solve different needs than ODF. Microsoft’s arguments claims that OOXML is created to store historical data from old documents. However, this is only a rhetorical argument to avoid ISO’s clause on competing standards and conflict of interests with ODF. These arguments are not valid, and I’ll tell you why.

If you ignore all the rhetorical acrobatics, OOXML is a document standard created to store documents, spreadsheets and presentations, either the data is old or new. ODF is also a document standard created to store documents, spreadsheets and presentations, created for the exact same purpose as OOXML. Simplified, OOXML and ODF fulfills the same needs, and it’s just rhetorical acrobatics that claims otherwise. OOXML is clearly in conflict with the already ISO certified ODF format.

The difference — which according to Microsoft is supposed to be the important matter — is that OOXML is created to store data from old document formats. Microsoft claims that the difference between OOXML and ODF is so big that there are no conflict of interests between the standards, and that they are not competing. However, Microsoft is making a great mistake on this matter. By implementing functionality to store document data from old documents, Microsoft also implements the need for knowing how old Microsoft Office versions worked. This is information no one else that Microsoft has access to, not even with an exclusive appointment with Microsoft. Knowing this, it is impossible to implement OOXML in it’s full for any other vendor than Microsoft. Furthermore, Microsoft also misses on the engineering of OOXML, as features for handling old document data is not supposed to be implemented in the document standard itself, but in separate conversion applications. Microsoft is trying to ISO certify problems created in old versions of Microsoft Office. These arguments where discussed in K 185, but Microsoft did not seem to understand the problem.

If converting data from old documents is a point, Microsoft must also include conversion from other vendors of office applications, which they have not done. There once was a time when WordPerfect was the text editor.

OOXML is not an open standard

OOXML is an acronym for «Office Open XML» and is supposed to be — as indicated by the name — an open standard that anyone can implement without involving Microsoft, or taking on the risk of being sued by Microsoft by implementing the standard. This summer, I’ve been frequenting the Norwegian IT newspaper Computerworld, where I claim that the only thing that’s open by OOXML is the name.

OOXML is a closed, vendor-owned and proprietary standard because it has references to functionality implemented in old versions of Microsoft Office. In the OOXML standard, you can find references like useWord97LineBreakRules and autoSpaceLikeWord95. Directly translated into human, this is code telling me to «do line breaks like Microsoft Word 97» or «do auto-space like Microsoft Word 95». To implement these features I need to know how this is done in Microsoft Word 97 and 95. Furthermore, the OOXML standard is packed with code like this. There is no doubt that no one else than Microsoft knows how this is done. OOXML is provably a closed, vendor-owned and proprietary standard.

Microsoft has however made the specifications on old file formats available, in an erroneous attempt of complying to the criticism on this point, which they of course tried to make a big point of in K 185. However, Steve Pepper pointed out that Microsoft clearly misses the point, as it is not the specifications of the file formats that we need to implement this functionality. We need the algorithms on how the specifications should be treated in the applications that we create. The only way to find this, is to study the source code of Microsoft Word 97 and 95, and that — I can promise you — will Microsoft not give you.

OOXML contains references to VML, a proposed W3C standard developed by Microsoft, among others. The proposal where however rejected and VML never got to be a standard. Old Microsoft Office documents contains VML in a large scale. Those familiar with web standards from W3C probably knows the expression «deprecated». VML is a deprecated standard. ISO should not under any circumstance certify a standard containing references to deprecated standards or standard proposals.

Microsoft understands the marketing value of open standards. Furthermore, Microsoft understands that by making their document formats completely free and open, they open for the use of alternate applications and platforms, and that is what Microsoft is desperately trying to avoid with a closed, proprietary standard, which is only poorly camouflaged by a misleading name.

The public sector does not want competing standards

K 185 has a member from KS, the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities. KS is a national member’s association for municipalities, counties and public enterprises under municipal or county ownership. It is not in the interest of KS and their members to have competing standards. Public sector only want to use one standard that is completely free, open and vendor independent. The member from Software Innovation — a large provider of proprietary software in Norway — claimed that competing standards is good for the market, but seemed to forget that one of their largest customers, KS, was sitting on the other side of the table. He also seemed to forget that Microsoft’s most important argument is that ODF and OOXML is not competing standards. What irony.

Technical errors in the standard

OOXML does not include references to other ISO-standards, as in example the ISO standard for dates and times, ISO 8601. If ISO is going to certify a standard containing dates and times, the standard must comply to existing ISO standards. The reason for OOXML not using ISO 8601, is that old versions of Microsoft Office has a bug related to handling dates. By switching from the existing date handling to ISO 8601, error in data may occur, Microsoft claimed.

There was a lot of buzz in K 185 when several members of the committee defended further use of erroneous date handling. Again, Microsoft and Ecma is trying to ISO certify old problems instead of solving them in third party applications for data converting.

As mentioned earlier, OOXML is an acronym for «Office Open XML». Several committee members, myself included, found it strange that OOXML does not produce valid XML, and claimed that we cannot ISO certify a standard that does not comply with standards it refers to. To produce valid XML, the existing OOXML standard must be re-written, and to do this it has to be taken off «fast track» in ISO by voting «No» to OOXML. There should under no circumstances be made changes to a standards that is in the «fast track», as there’s no time.

OOXML has no implementation

A member of the committee claimed that OOXML has been implemented in several office suites on the market. This where however declined by several other committee members. OOXML has no implementation in any office suite on the market. Microsoft themselves uses a variant that goes by the name of MSOOXML in Microsoft Office 2007. In IETF it is a requirement that a standard must have at least two separate and independent implementations to be IETF certified. IETF is cooperating closely with W3C, IEC and of course ISO. Thus it’s not IETF certification that’s up for discussion, it’s interesting to see that ISO’s partners requires at least two separate and independent implementations, which OOXML does not have.

Håkon Wium Lie from Opera Software and the creator of CSS, thinks that OOXML will never be used as the default document format in any application, not even Microsoft Office. He thinks it could be an option, but that there’s more likely to be used Microsoft Office’s existing format.

What’s needed to get OOXML ISO certified?

To get ISO certified, Ecma and Microsoft needs two thirds of the votes. During the last couple of months, Microsoft has literally bought whole countries to get them to vote «Yes» to ISO certification of OOXML. Based on their previous history on IT and standardization, who would believe that countries like the Ivory Coast has a strong relation to IT standards? If Microsoft is capable of buying whole countries, imagine what power Microsoft possesses. And believe me, they will use it to gain control in the market to what’s in their interests, not what’s in the interests of their customers.

The final vote on DIS 29500 in ISO is on September 2nd, by the members of ISO Standard Committee 34 voting either «No, with comments», «No», «Yes» og «Yes, with comments». It’s also possible to abstain.

What’s the ISO certification worth?

During the meeting in K 185, Microsoft where asked why it’s so important for Microsoft to get OOXML ISO certified. The answer given clearly indicated that they do not have any good, reliable arguments. It where quite clear that Microsoft is only doing this to compete with ODF and gain control in the market. This where of course not mentioned.

Statoil is a Norwegian oil and gas company with substantial international activities, and is a member of the committee. During a break, one of Statoil’s members told me that it’s not too important for Statoil to get OOXML ISO certified, as long as they have a guarantee that their 20 million documents will be accessible in the future. That’s a very interesting point. Statoil is sitting in a meeting with «Standard Norge», defending ISO certification of something that’s not too important for them. That’s nothing else than amazing. What Statoil gets from Microsoft to represent Microsoft’s view in the certification process is only speculations.

For Microsoft, ISO certification probably has no value. Microsoft has never been acknowledged for complying to standards, not even their own, and I don’t think that will change as a result of this process. However, it’s of great market value to Microsoft. ODF is already ISO certified and I believe that we in the future will see that public sector will have a greater focus on the importance of using standardized formats to exchange information. This because it will be important to exchange information on different platforms and applications. Microsoft will by natural causes try to avoid this, by binding their users to their products like Windows and Office, with their closed, proprietary formats. As mentioned earlier, Microsoft is just covering this up by naming their standard «Office Open XML».

What happens if OOXML is (not) ISO certified?

Outsiders may as what all the buzz is about. Why is it so important to Microsoft to get OOXML ISO certified? Why is it so important to others to avoid OOXML of being ISO certified?

If OOXML gets ISO certified, Microsoft will have a huge sales argument on why enterprises and public sector should choose Microsoft Windows and Office, and furthermore tighten their already tight grip on the market. Microsoft already has a de-facto monopoly situation on their operating system and office suite, and it’s not hard to imagine how the situation will be if Microsoft gains even more market share. Increased license costs, sharpened terms of use, reduced freedom in the choice of platform and application freedom, and of course dependencies to other applications or solutions may be the consequences.

If OOXML is not ISO certified, this may be the beginning of the end as Microsoft as we know it. A futuristic scenario may look like this: OOXML is not ISO certified. ODF, which is ISO certified, becomes the preferred standard for storing and exchanging information in public sector in even more countries. At the beginning, Microsoft does not support ODF natively in Microsoft Office, and looses market shares to alternate office suites. People switches to alternate office suites to communicate with public sector. Without Microsoft Office, the users does not see any value of paying for Microsoft Windows, and switches to alternate platforms. Microsoft looses market shares even in the operating system.

Now, you may think that you’re better off with one single vendor, to avoid involving several vendors, and you think your solutions communicate better. What you may not imagine, is that by selecting a vendor of proprietary, closed solutions, the vendor decides how and where you may use your software and the data that you produce with the software. You give away the ownership of your own information. You give away your freedom. For what price your vendor decides. With the functionality that your vendor decides.

The process of «Standard Norge» and K 185

This is my first time participating in meetings with «Standard Norge». Prior to the meeting, I had some expectations on how the process should be. I expected «Standard Norge» to have a clear format on how they’re running their meetings, an agenda for the meeting, and not at least a standardized process for how they deliver information to ISO. My expectations where not met, to put it gently!

The form and agenda of the meeting where discussed initially. «Standard Norge» had no routine on how meetings like this where accomplished. I did not believe what I heard when the Vice President in «Standard Norge» told that the Norwegian vote to ISO can only be given when there is an agreement in the committee for what to vote. I can assure you that in K 185, there would never ever be any agreement what so ever.

Prior to the meeting, committee members had the possibility to comment on the OOXML standard. The comments where gathered by «Standard Norge» and where subject to discussion in K 185. It’s common practice that comments are passed on to ISO. Once again I did not believe what I heard when the VP of «Standard Norge» told that a comment will not be passed on to ISO if the committee did not agree on the comment. All Microsoft needed was to proclaim that they do not agree on a comment to prevent it from being sent to ISO.

Already under discussion of the first comment, it was clear that no comments where going to be passed on to ISO with this outlandish process. I’ve never witnessed a less democratic process in my whole life. Håkon Wium Lie has great experience in the field of certification, among other things from W3C, and pointed out for the VP that the process where unacceptable. The committee agreed that comments could be sent to ISO if the content where discussed in the committee first. No wonder the meeting took almost five hours. With only one break, everybody was exhausted afterwards.

The lack of objectivities in the process

Those against ISO certification of OOXML gathered Tuesday 21st in a meeting to discuss how we intended to accomplish the meeting at «Standard Norge» the following day. I made a point that we had to gather forces in the committee meeting. No disrespect, no lack of objectivities and only hard facts where going to be presented.

However, several committee members presented some highly nonobjective allegations during the committee member. One of the members from Statoil — the one claiming that ISO certification is not important to Statoil — claimed that ODF is an odd format only used in academic environments. I find it horrible that a representative from one of Norway’s larges companies can utter such an erroneous and incompetent opinion.

Software Innovations representative used the word «religion» several times on why the opponents where involved in this process. Furthermore, he also claimed that «it’s obviously trendy to dislike Microsoft». All utterings greatly shows how little knowledge these committee members are possessing, both on OOXML and ODF, as well as their fellow committee members. Personally, I don’t think they show ISO any respect for making ODF a standard. It doesn’t show any respect for other peoples daily work, either.

When one does not understand what one is arguing against, one does probably not understand what one is arguing for either. Many of the committee members where obviously in the process to be Microsoft’s mercenaries, obviously well paid, without having the proper knowledge on document standards.

Now what, Norway?

I believe all committee members left the meeting with a mixed feeling. Personally, I have no feeling on what Norway will vote. At least, noone bought champagne when parts of the committee gathered for a beer after the meeting.

  Slashdot It!