Behind or ahead

Clarifying versions:

OpenOffice.org 2.0 - 2.3.1	ODF 1.0	Approved by ISO
OpenOffice.org 2.4	ODF 1.1	Has not submitted to ISO for approval
OpenOffice.org 3.0 (upcomming) - ?	ODF 1.2	Under development

The problem with Alex Browns validation test (http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f0384bed-808b-49a8-8887-ea7cde5caace) is, that he is using a document from OpenOffice.org 2.4 and validates it against the ISO-approved standard. Jesper Lund Stocholm claims (http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx) that he has created some documents with various versions of OpenOffice.org that doens't validates correctly. From my knowledge, Jesper hasn't put any documentation to support witch validation method he used nor put forward the bespoken documents. He has not even told us the seriousness (number of errors) of the 'variations'.

ODF file format is maintained by a technical committee under OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office). Members of the committee are developers and managers from Sun Microsystems, IBM and many other companies (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=office) and it is in fact OpenOffice.org and StarOffice, that is 'pulling' the development, because OpenOffice.org happens to be the project ahead in development. OpenOffice.org comes with about four releases each year. A standard specification is not work from an office desk, but experience from real world development. Therefore the technical development will be a little bit ahead of the specification work and approval. Thats how standard specifications are developed.

When the specification is ready from OASIS, it can be submitted to ISO for approval. One important condition for ISO approval is "multiple implementations". It's a question about the hen and the egg. The specification can't be approved if it hasn't been implemented and now we are been criticized for implementing it before it's approved. That doesn't make sense.

Both the standard and the programs are simultaneously developed over time. The question is, if we should make a choice in the program, that makes it possible to 'Save as...' ODF 1.0. This is of cause possible but not that simple. But should we develop OpenOffice.org according to what the users need or what the politicians need ? Probably both. But an extra 'Save as' option could do more harm than good, because it would confuse users. Nevertheless, this problem will be taken care of in OpenOffice.org 3.0. Another problem is, that higher ODF versions contains much more information and is of better quality. There is no need to use any ODF versions lower than the latest, except of cause, the ISO stamp.

So what's the difference between Microsoft/OOXML and OpenOffice.org/ODF ?
The difference is, that Microsoft Office is behind OOXML. OpenOffice.org is ahead of ODF. According to the ISO rules, a specification can only be approved as an ISO-standard, unless it has been implemented.

It didn't make it !

The BRM meeting in Geneva is over. The plan was, from the Microsoft point of view, that OOXML should now be an ISO standard. It didn't make it.

OOXML was proposed an ISO standard by the industrial organization ECMA in a fast track route. The basic philosophy behind this is, that a standard that has already been prepared by one organization can be submitted to a fast track route in ISO. This requires that the submitting organization does all the work and make the proposal ready to be confirmed before submission. In this case ECMA didn't do their homework properly.

At this BRM meeting there should be no outstandings and the process should have been a core formality. It wasn't. Still there are several open issues and the meeting couldn't even get through all the issues. The head of the U.S. delegation at the meeting, Frank Farance says:

At this week's ballot resolution meeting (BRM) in Geneva, the sponsor of the draft standard, industry consortium ECMA International, presented 1,100 recommendations for changes to the draft.

However, delegates only had time to discuss and modify around 20 percent of those, said Farance, an industry consultant with expertise in standards issues.

http://www.cio.com/article/190752/Changes_to_OOXML_Draft_Standard_Waved_Through

http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20080229055319727

Comment on Linux.com

Russell Ossendryver on January 26, 2008
Commentary: ISO should kick OOXML off the standards bus
http://www.linux.com/feature/125630

This commentary is discussing whether OOXML is qualified for ISO in the first place.

I will add a discussion about the Fast Track Path. Normally it takes several years to get a new standard through an ISO approval. ISO has this special Fast Track method in case a standard has already been qualified in another similar organization. Of cause this is to avoid double work.

But was the Microsoft format qualified at the time of submission ?

NO !

No, because the Fast Track Route was invented for standards that is already made ready before submission to ISO and with more that 3.500 objections in the process, the format wasn't qualified. Obvious faults needed to be fixed (e.g. several errors in the date-time specification) in the ISO process.

Commentary: ISO should kick OOXML off the standards bus

By Russell Ossendryver on January 26, 2008 (2:00:00 PM)

http://www.linux.com/feature/125630

Rob Weir writes about the upcomming BRM

Rob Weir writes...

You are Here

Within the next 24-hours, Microsoft will submit to JTC1 a set of proposals for addressing the 3,522 comments that accompanied OOXML's failed ballot last September. We'll no doubt hear a lot of yip-yip-yahooing on their end. Expect a major media campaign. I don't want to take away the surprise, but I'm hearing that journalists are being flown into Redmond next week from around the world for briefings on OOXML. So, for their benefit, and yours, let's review where we are in the JTC1 process.Read his complete post here: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/01/you-are-here.html

3522 comments on ECMA OOXML

...thats a lot.

662 proposed dispositions of comments posted ( http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_current_work/First%20group%20of%20662%20proposed%20dispositions%20of%20comments%20posted.htm ) on the ECMA portal. Unfortunately we are not able to see neither comments or how ECMA is acting on them. According to Brian Jones ( http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/11/19/update-on-open-xml-s-iso-progress.aspx ) from Microsoft and member of the TC45, the ISO regulations forbids the members to reveille anything from the process. It would be nice if we could follow the work in an open forum.

Charles-H. Schulz comments on this lack of transparency on his blog here: http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/11/22/where-did-you-go-publicity-what-have-you-become-transparency/

The answer might be a complete new and more modern way of handling development of standards. Please take a few minutes to read the feature article from the newsletter Standards Today distribuated by ConsordiumInfo.org (Gesmer & Updegrove):
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/#feature