[A2k] The ODF debate: A real world view

[Michelle Childs]

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/08/13/odf_debate/
By David Perry, Freeform Dynamics 13 Aug 2006 07:02

The ODF debate: A real world view

The file formats fight club

 What exactly is meant by document portability? Does it mean that a
document created in one application can be viewed using a different
application on another operating system? Does it mean that the document
can be viewed and edited within another application on the same or
another OS platform? Or does it simply mean that you can be sure that the
document you create today can be read in the future using proprietary
products from the same software vendor?

Taking an example from another industry, when Led Zeppelin recorded their
concerts at Knebworth in 1979 they did so on 2" video tape that 25 years
later was a challenge to read, requiring a baking process as well as a
trip to the Far East to find a still working player. Setting aside whether
this material is mission critical to rock fans, setting yourself up for a
similar problem from proprietary and unsupported file formats is
unthinkable in a business context=97isn=92t it?


Well, this is the question lying at the heart of a debate that is raging
at the moment, largely between open source advocates and their arch enemy,
Microsoft.

As is often the case with vendors, and Microsoft is no exception, use of
standards is somewhat self-serving. The "open" file format for Office 2007
being a good example. Microsoft is promoting a new standard called Office
Open XML, which the company has submitted to ECMA International (the
current name for the former European Computer Manufacturers Association)
for certification. Following that, it plans to submit it to the ISO, a
likely critical requirement for government use=97the public sector cannot b=
e
seen to be incapable of handling ISO standard documents, even if they are
only used by a minority.

In practical terms, Microsoft admits that the Open XML standard is large,
but argues that this is to encompass the existing legacy base of Microsoft
file formats (no comment on whether the changes in the past were a way to
lock users into an upgrade cycle), enabling, in theory, any document
written with any version of a Microsoft product to be readable in the
future.

Questions have been asked as to why Microsoft didn=92t just adopt the
existing ISO standard OpenDocument Format (ODF), which is also based on
XML and is being promoted heavily by Microsoft adversaries like IBM.
Obviously Microsoft has reservations, primarily based around the
compromises that the existing standard would cause to some of the advanced
features embedded in Office documents, plus the plain fact that for all
its headline status, ODF has many constraints and limitations of its own
that cut against its claim to be a universal interoperable file format.

That said, Microsoft has still come in for some flack for its stance, and,
presumably to diffuse this, it's decided to sponsor an open source project
to produce MS Office connectors to the existing ODF standard (though it
has declined to take the lead). This is also planned to draw the sting out
of any suggestion that Open XML is an interoperable standard for only one
application =97 Microsoft Office.

One wag, commenting on Brian Jones=92 Blog, has suggested that since Open
XML will need to contain information about previous proprietary Microsoft
file formats that it should be possible for the open source community to
add complete Microsoft compatibility into ODF, which would be easier than
trying to make Open XML work on non-Microsoft platforms because of issues
related to Windows dependency in the proposed standard. It=92s a neat idea,
but perhaps the advocates should concentrate on finishing ODF first as a
standard in its own right, before getting ambitions in this direction.

The bottom line with Open XML is that it=92s coming in Office 2007, is
essentially unstoppable, and if you put all prejudices, soap box causes
and vested interests to one side, it will bring some potential benefits
with it. It could, for example, be a significant help in those cases where
we want to make sure that very old documents can be read and distributed
into the future. Even if it ends up as simply another Microsoft-oriented
file format, being openly documented, licensable at no cost and completely
accessible, means it will allow far easier integration between the
Microsoft environment and third party products than the old proprietary
binary formats ever did.

We must also remember that Microsoft has serious plans to build a
developer community around Office 2007 so, just as with .NET and Visual
Basic, we can anticipate a growing level of support for Open XML from ISVs
that is likely to outstrip ODF, at least in the short to medium term. If
you have an application or service that you think should be integrated
with or accessible through an =93office like=94 application, or has the
ability to manipulate an office style document, should you build around
Open XML and reach 90 per cent- plus of the market, or ODF and reach a
minority=97a no-brainer really. Perhaps it ain=92t fair, possible it ain=92=
t
right, but that=92s the real world.

Maybe, Google office or Yahoo! office-style services can plough the open
source furrow and drive the option of ODF (this is pure speculation at
this stage), but if Microsoft gets the standardisation done, and therefore
avoids any government issues with the file format, it=92s hard to see the
open source community denting the Redmond monopoly position through a
debate over file formats, and evangelist spokesmen wearing Big Blue badges
run the risk of appearing out of touch with mainstream reality.

Nevertheless, file formats are proving a rather contentious subject and a
constant source of irritation for Microsoft. There=92s also a bit of a spat
on at the moment regarding the inclusion of a "save as PDF" feature in the
new version of Office. I=92ll be dealing with this in the next article.

=A9 Freeform Dynamics



--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727