Misplaced Pages

Standardization of Office Open XML

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HAl (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 7 March 2008 (→Standardization within Ecma International). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:24, 7 March 2008 by HAl (talk | contribs) (→Standardization within Ecma International)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The article's lead section may need to be rewritten. Please help improve the lead and read the lead layout guide. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Standardization

Standardization within Ecma International

More than a year after being asked by the European Union to standardize their Office 2003 XML formats, Microsoft submitted the Office Open XML to the Ecma International standardization process to make it an open standard. Ecma formed a technical committee (TC45) in order to produce and maintain a "formal standard for office productivity applications that is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats, submitted by Microsoft". The technical committee is chaired by Microsoft and includes members from Apple, Canon, Intel, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil ASA, Toshiba, The United States Library of Congress, The British Library and the Gnome Foundation ..

Ecma International approved Office Open XML as Ecma standard (Ecma-376) on 2006-12-07 and submitted the approved submission for fasttracking standardization to ISO/IEC JTC 1.

The Ecma-376 Office Open XML File Formats standard can be freely downloaded from Ecma international.

Submission to ISO

As an ISO/IEC JTC 1 external Category A liaison, Ecma has submitted Ecma 376 to the JTC 1 fast track standardization process. To meet the requirements of this process, Ecma has submitted the documents "Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track" and "Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML".

The fast track process consists of a contradictions phase, a ballot phase, and a ballot resolution phase.

During the contradictions phase, ISO/IEC members national standardization bodies submit perceived contradictions to JTC 1. During the ballot phase the members vote on the specification as it was submitted by Ecma and submit editorial and technical comments with their vote. In the ballot resolution phase the submitted comments are addressed and members invited to reconsider their vote.

Ballot result

ISO announced in September 2007 that the submitted draft of Office Open XML had not achieved the required number of votes for approval during the ballot phase. Eighty-seven ISO/IEC member countries responded to the ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions. "P-members", who were required to vote, had to approve by 66.67% for the text to be approved. The P-members voted 17 in favor out of 32, below the required threshold for approval. Also, no more than 25% of the total member votes may be negative for the text to be approved, and this requirement was also not met since 26% of the total votes were negative. The standardization process then entered its ballot resolution phase, described below.

Response to the ballot

Ecma has produced a draft "Disposition of comments" that addresses the 1,027 distinct NB comments submitted in the letter ballot phase. The ISO/IEC members have 6 weeks to review this draft, and have an opportunity to participate in several informal conference call sessions with the Ecma TC to discuss it before the BRM.

Ballot resolution process

A Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) is an integral part of the ballot resolution phase. The outcome of, and period following, this meeting decides whether DIS 29500 succeeds or fails in its bid to become an International Standard. The DIS 29500 BRM took place in late February 2008

Final outcome

At the BRM 873 proposed changes to the specification were submitted by Ecma (of their 1,027 responses 154 proposed no change). Of these only 20% were discussed and modified in meeting sessions, given the 5 day time limit of the meeting. The remaining 80% were not discussed and subject to a voting mechanism approved by the meeting (see Resolution 37 of the meeting resolutions cited below). Using this voting mechanism NBs could approve, disapprove or abstain on each and every one of these proposed changes. This allowed a set of approved changes to be decided upon without discussion.

With the original submitted draft used as the base, all the agreed upon changes are applied by the Project Editor to create a new document incorporating the changes mandated by the BRM. In parallel with this, NBs have 30 days after the BRM in which to decide whether to amend their votes of 2 September 2007, and if at the end of this period the ISO voting criteria are met the new text is passed for publication as an ISO/IEC standard (JTC 1 Directives clause 13.9). The final revised text must be distributed no later than one month after the end of the meeting (JTC 1 Directives clause 13.12).

After that, if successful the text goes into the publication process which takes several months. It may take additional time for ISO/IEC to make the standard a free publication, if ever.

Maintenance regime

The precise details of a maintenance regime for OOXML (should it become an ISO/IEC Standard) are yet to be determined. Ecma have however put forward a maintenance proposal.

Whatever maintenance regime is decided, the JTC 1 Directives stipulate that:

  • Proposals to amend the text, and acceptance of any such amendments, are subject to normal ISO voting processes (JTC 1 Directives clause 15.5)
  • The standard cannot be "stabilised" (i.e. no longer subject to periodic maintenance) except through approval in a JTC 1 ballot (JTC 1 Directives clause 15.6.2).
  • For the standard to be stabilised it must have passed through 'one review cycle' (JTC 1 Directives clause 15.6.1). In this review cycle the text would have to have been re-written to comply with ISO's formatting and verbal requirements (JTC 1 Directives clause 13.4).

Complaints about national bodies process

Substantial complaints about the procedures in the national bodies have surfaced during the five-month ballot process.

  • At Portugal's national bodies TC meeting, it was suggested that Sun Microsystems be represented. An unofficial transcript suggested that this was refused for "lack of space". This has been criticized by opponents of OOXML, while Microsoft claims that the number of seats (not chairs) on the committee was limited to 20 by the national body before the meeting.
  • In Sweden, Microsoft Sweden asked its partners to get involved in the standardization process. In total 22 Microsoft partners (four of which were IBM partners as well) and Google paid a 17.000 SEK fee to join the committee shortly before the decision on Office Open XML. Microsoft also themselves notified SIS that an employee send a memo to two its partners, requesting them to join the SIS committee and vote in favor of OOXML in return for "marketing contributions". Microsoft stated that the memo was the action of an individual employee acting outside company policy, and was retracted soon as it was discovered. In the end, SIS decided to invalidate the vote as one company cast more than one vote, which is against SIS rules.
  • In Switzerland, SNV registered a vote of approval with comments, there was some criticism about a "conflict of interest" regarding the chairman of the NK 149 committee, who did not allow discussion of licensing, economic and political arguments.
  • Malaysia's vote is registered as abstain, although its Industry Standards Committee on Information Technology, Telecommunication and Multimedia (ISC-G) voted overwhelmingly No, with comments. The Chief Executive of Sirim had to interfere in the standardization process after, There has been unprofessional conduct and a lack of ethical standards among some members of the technical committee, and more specifically, some TC/G/4 members had taken to belittling other members who did not share their pro-ODF views, both during committee meetings and in personal blogs. These pro-ODF members were also attempting to short-circuit the normal consensus process for adopting a document standard.
  • Cyprus was accepted as a P-member a few days before voting, and has been accused of not following a responsible process in analyzing OOXML.

Investigation of Microsoft By the European Commission

The European Commission has started an antitrust investigation the interoperability of the Office Open XML format on the request of European Committee for Interoperable Systems, "a coalition of Microsoft's largest competitors." Anonymous source(s) of the Wall Street Journal claim that this investigation also includes an investigation into the ISO/SEC standardization process. The Financial Times reports that several national organizations in Europe have confirmed receipt of a letter by the European Commission. The letters ask for views on these charges and any supporting details of "alleged irregularities in several countries over the OOXML standardization proposal, and accusations of attempts to influence voting."

Microsoft complaints about IBM behavior

In an interview with ZDNet, Microsoft's senior director of interoperability and IP policy, Nicos Tsilas, expressed concern that IBM and supporters of the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to use the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard exclusively because they are unable to compete with Microsoft through their Office products:

  • "They have made this a religious and highly political debate," Tsilas said. "They are doing this because it is advancing their business model. Over 50 percent of IBM's revenues come from consulting services."
  • "Our competitors have targeted this one product — mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream."
  • "It's a new way to compete. They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."

Arguments in support and criticism of OOXML standard

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (February 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Support

Microsoft have argued for standardization on the Open XML community web site. The Microsoft arguments for OOXML regards that it is designed to cover most kinds of document data, so that old documents can be converted to OOXML with little data loss, that the format is compact, since it is compressed, that it is easy to learn and that it inherits a lot of benefits from XML, such as document data integration, Unicode, and easy integration of new formats.

To counter this argument ODF Alliance India, published an extensive technical report in 2007 containing concrete issues by members of the association and replies from Microsoft. In December 2007 ECMA has announced, that many of reported issues will be taken into account in next edition of the standardisation proposal to ISO.

User base argument

The most widely used office productivity packages currently rely on various proprietary and reverse engineered binary file formats such as doc, ppt and xls. For users of the binary formats there could be an advantage to migrating to an open XML standard that maps the features of previous binary file formats. Office Open XML for this purpose explicitly states as a goal of the format to preserve investments in existing files and applications.

Microsoft key benefits arguments

Microsoft makes the following claims about Office Open XML as compared to the format currently used with Microsoft software. The benefits mentioned are: integration of business information with documents, open and royalty-free specification, compact and robust file format, safer documents, easier integration, transparency and improved information security, and finally compatibility.

Policy arguments

Ecma has provided the following policy arguments in favor of standardization with respect to Overlap in Scope with ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (ODF): overlap in scope of ISO/IEC standards is common and can serve a practical purpose; OOXML addresses distinct user requirements; ODF and OOXML are structured to meet different user requirements; OOXML and ODF can serve as duo-standards.

Technical arguments

  • The use of the Open Packaging specification which allows for Indirection, Chunking and Relative indirection.
  • Uses the ZIP format, making ZIP part of the standard (Due to compression, files are smaller than current binary formats)
  • It supports custom data elements for integration of data specific to an application or an organisation that wants to use the format.
  • It defines spreadsheet formulas.
  • Office Open XML contains alternate representations for the XML schemas and extensibility mechanisms using RELAX NG (ISO/IEC 19757-2) and NVDL (ISO/IEC 19757-4)
  • No restriction to image, audio or video types. Images can be in WMF, GIF, PNG, TIFF, PICT, JPEG or any other image type, Book 1 §14.2.12.
  • Embedded controls can be of any type, such as Java or ActiveX, Book 1 §15.2.8.
  • WordprocessingML font specifications can include font metrics and PANOSE information to assist in finding a substitution font if the original is not available, Book 3 §2.10.5.
  • Alternate Content Block, a solution to define alternate content (like an image) which can be used in various situations where a consuming application might not be capable of interpreting what a producing application wrote, Book 3 §2.18.4.
  • Internationalization support. For example date representation: In WordprocessingML (Book 4 §2.18.7) and SpreadsheetML (Book 4 §3.18.5), calendar dates after 1900 CE can be written using Gregorian (three variants), Hebrew, Hijri, Japanese (Emperor Era), Korean (Tangun Era), Saka, Taiwanese, and Thai formats. Also, there are several internationalization related spreadsheet conversion functions.
  • Custom XML schema extensibility allowing implementations to the format with features. That can for instance facilitate conversion from other formats and future features that are not part of the official specification yet.
  • The format has design features that can be used to enhance performance. for instance * SpreadsheetML has an optional performance feature to track which cells have to be recalculated when spreadsheet data changes. In spreadsheet formats lacking this feature you always have to verify all of the used cells in the entire spreadsheet at least once for recalculations of the spreadsheet.

Criticism

The standard has been the subject of wide and varied debate in the software industry. Many of the participants in the approval process are generally supportive of eventual ISO standardization, but are unwilling to support the ISO fast track process until their issues are resolved. Over 6000 pages long, and allegedly containing ambiguities, the specification is difficult to evaluate quickly. The existence of the OpenDocument format (ISO 26300:6000) raised the issue that there is overlap with this standard. Critics suggest Microsoft adopt the OpenDocument standard as its default format for future versions of Office. Objectors also complain that there could be user confusion regarding the two standards because of the similarity of the "Office Open XML" name to both "OpenDocument" and "OpenOffice".'

Microsoft, whose products use the current version of Office Open XML has not committed to use the specification for any length of time. But according to a Techworld article, "to organisations that need a well-defined, XML-based format to manage huge numbers of documents that may be archived for decades, this is important. These customers want a standard that Microsoft will promise to use - even if it’s not convenient for the company’s plans." Brian Jones, the Microsoft manager working on OOXML in his blog stated "We’ll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. Now my impression is that won't happen, as the folks on the TC all have pretty similar visions for the future of the spec, but since it's not guaranteed it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement."

Sources of criticism

Criticism originates from a wide variety of organizations and individuals, including the free software and open source communities, FFII, OpenDocument supporters and major industry players that develop Office software around OpenDocument, such as Sun Microsystems, Novell, IBM, and Google.

Office Open XML has been widely criticized by these organisations on technical and legal grounds.

In addition, the standardization process itself has been questioned, including with regard to balloting irregularities by some technical committees, Microsoft representatives and Microsoft partners in trying to get Office Open XML approved. FFII launched a campaign against this standard.

Technical criticisms

  • Reliance on application-defined behaviors to support important functionality that should be documented or supported via existing standards. Book 4 §6.1.2.19 defines the "equationxml" attribute of "shape" elements, "used to rehydrate an equation using the Office Open XML Math syntax"; however, the "actual format of the contents of this attribute are application-defined"..
    • Ecma has proposed solving this issues by adding on the lacking syntax of this element and encourage the use of an open format for the embedded math like the specs onw OMML or the w3C's MathML formats
  • Locale conventions (such as decimal points, date formats, and character settings) are inconsistent. SpreadsheetML documents are internally represented in the US English locale, but font types such as "bold" can be specified in any language (e.g. "gras" in French), even though the specification does not provide a list of equivalents in different languages..
  • Non-standard language codes and color names.
    • Ecma has proposed solving the language issue by adding support IETF BCP 47 for representing languages during the ISO standardization process.
  • Use of DrawingML and the transitional use only VML instead of SVG, and use of Office Math ML instead of MathML. MathML and SVG are W3C recommendations. VML was rejected as a W3C standard in 1997.
  • Internal inconsistencies and omissions. Book 4 §2.18.4 lists styles such as "apples", "scaredCat", and "heebieJeebies", but does not fully define these styles. Missing properties include height, width, color depth, and orientation.
  • Inconsistent notations for percentage units. Book 4 §2.18.85 uses predefined symbols (like "pct15" for 15%) in 5 or 2.5 percent increments, §2.15.1.95 uses a decimal number giving the percentage, §2.18.97 uses a number in fiftieths of a percent, and §5.1.12.41 uses a number in thousandths of a percent.
  • Inflexible numbering format. Book 4 §2.18.66 describes a numbering format that is fixed to a few countries and contradicts both the W3C XSLT recommendation and Unicode ISO 10646 standard.
  • Accessibility issues according to University of Toronto, such as form fields not being associated with their labels, absence of a tabbing order for forms, and limitations in the use of alternative text descriptions of objects.

See also

References

  1. "The new open standard safeguards the continued use of billions of existing documents". Ecma International. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
  2. "TC45 - Office Open XML Formats". Ecma International. Retrieved 2007-02-08.
  3. "TC45 - Office Open XML Formats". Retrieved 2007-10-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publiher= ignored (help)
  4. Cite error: The named reference pr_tc45_dec2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ "ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 2.0". iso. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
  6. Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track
  7. Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML
  8. "Vote closes on draft ISO/IEC DIS 29500 standard" (Press release). International Organization for Standardization. September 4 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-04. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. Tom Ngo (2008-01-14). "Proposed dispositions for National Body comments on DIS 29500 complete – New phase to begin". Ecma International. Retrieved 2008-01-14.
  10. SC 34. "Resolutions of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  11. "CT-173 meeting of 2007-07-16 By Rui Seabra". {{cite web}}: Text "author Rui Seabra (ANSOL - FSF Europe)" ignored (help)
  12. Pamela Jones. "Notes from Portugal on the July 16 meeting on ECMA-376".
  13. Jason Matusow (Microsoft senior director of intellectual property) (2007-07-31). "Ecma Open XML and the Portuguese National Body". MSN blogs.
  14. "Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML".
  15. "Microsoft pressed partners in Sweden to vote for OOXML".
  16. "Open XML - The Vote in Sweden".
  17. Kim Haverblad (2007-08-30). "The Swedish OOXML vote has been declared invalid!". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  18. FSFE formal objection to the UK14 meeting. Free Software Foundation Europe. 2007-08-13.
  19. Appeal to the decision by Swiss Internet User Group. 14 August 2007.
  20. Yusseri Yusoff (2007-09-04). "OOXML is not (yet) an ISO standard, as Malaysia votes "No" ... or did we?". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  21. "Sirim pulls plug on format fight". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  22. kgi (2007-09-04). "Cyprus votes Yes". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  23. "PRess release by EU on Microsoft's antitrust investigation". EU. 20080114. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. "EU looks into Microsoft's influence on ISO standardization process". heise. 08.02.2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  25. "Microsoft's Office Push Scrutinized by EU". February 8, 2008.
  26. "Probe into votes on Microsoft standard". Financial Times. March 5 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. Brett Winterford (2008-01-30). "Microsoft: IBM masterminded OOXML failure". ZDNet Australia.
  28. Open XML community. "Hear what Ecma has to say about Open XML (paragraph: Key benefits of Open XML)". OpenXMLcommunity.org.
  29. http://odfalliance.in/files/Response%20to%20Comments%20of%20June%2030th-1.pdf
  30. ECMA. "New proposed dispositions extend progress in addressing all National Body comments, seek to document and resolve legacy issues – Nearly 2/3 of comments now reviewed". ECMA.
  31. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Office%20Open%20XML%20Part%201%20(DOCX).zip
  32. "Ecma Office Open XML File Formats overview".
  33. -Response Document- National Body Comments from 30-Day Review of the Fast Track Ballot for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (ECMA-376) Office Open XML File Formats
  34. Rick Jeliffe (2007-07-29). "(comment on) Can a file be ODF and Open XML at the same time ?". O'Reilly XML.com. Retrieved 2007-08-06.
  35. ^ Cite error: The named reference ecma_tc45_white paper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. "Six thousand pages, one month, no chance..." Retrieved 2007-02-03.
  37. "I have seen the second complete copy of OOXML specification proposal". Retrieved 2007-10-18.
  38. "Emerging consensus in favour of a unified document format standard?". Mark Shuttleworth. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
  39. ^ "EOOXML objections". grokdoc. Retrieved 2007-01-02.
  40. "Microsoft won't commit to the open document standard it's pushing so hard".
  41. ODF Alliance. "Office Open XML factsheet" (PDF). Retrieved 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  42. Peter Korn (Sun) (2007-07-09). "Talking with Microsoft's Gray Knowlton about MSOXML accessibility". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Pbulisher= ignored (help)
  43. ZDNet.co.uk (2007-09-26). "Killing Microsoft's Clippy with open source". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  44. "IBM Comments on INCITS LB 2212 - DIS 29500". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  45. "Preliminary Google reply to DIS 29500" (PDF).
  46. Stéphane Rodriguez (August 28, 2007). "OOXML is defective by design".
  47. Brian Jones (2007-12-11). "Over halfway there… including some positive changes to the Open XML standard".
  48. Kosek, Jiří (2007-08-02). "Czech comments to OOXML (translated in English)". Retrieved 2007-10-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  49. Stephen A. Hockema, Jutta Treviranus (2007-08-07). "Accessibility Issues with Office Open XML". University of Toronto.
Category: