Geir Isene from Norway recently mentioned :
"How on earth could someone be able to convert old binary files to the new format without having the specification of the old formats and a mapping to OOXML. If you are to translate some text from Chinese to English, it doesn’t much help to only know English
It is a valid issue for a format with the alleged main objective to represent the existing corpus of documents from a single vendor. A request for a mapping was posted by many member states. Consider ECMA International's answer 1021 to GB 0016 (click on Proposed Disposition):
Prescriptive guidance on, or tools to enable, transformation from Microsoft Office "binary" file formats (i.e., .doc., .xls, and .ppt) (the "Binary Formats") to Office Open XML formatted files is not the intention or in scope of DIS 29500. As a result this request is outside the bounds of this process.
A confidential DIN study is another black hole that gets kindly referenced (Ecma response to CA 0001 - click on the Proposed Disposition):
Ecma strongly supports any harmonization effort that enables better sharing of information and allows better translation between the formats in the following way: Ecma believes that the work of the DIN (NIA-01-34) committee is essential to any harmonization effort. The work of DIN (NIA-01-34) will enable the industry at large to understand the detailed differences between the formats. Based on this detailed understanding, the ODF and Open XML formats could be extended in the future in order to enable better sharing of information and allow future translations tools to provide even better translation and interoperability between the formats.
The DIN translation study is unpublished. No one knows what is written in there. Rumours indicate that the study highlights the semantic weaknesses of OOXML.
So we face the following problems:
- the claim of backwards compatibility cannot be falsified (cmp. Karl Popper's falsification teaching);
- Unpublished documents are used to support a claim. However, ECMA has legally no access to the DIN document. Formally they speak about the contents of a document they cannot know. However, Frauenhofer Fokus which sent out a press release about the DIN translation work is an ECMA International member;
- The document from DIN (NIA-01-34) could help the BRM to remove unnecessary translation barriers, but delegations are not being informed about the findings of the Committee.
- No real process is specified to make the specification more compatible in the future (cmp. French proposal), so ECMA provides empty promises.
I believe the backwards compatibility with the documents of a single vendor is totally unsuitable for an international standard. And it is impossible to verify if the OOXML formats represents legacy formats more faithfully than the existing ISO standard. Unfortunately the ISO process does not permit to raise this issue at the BRM. This seems to me an indication that the ISO process is broken as it does not offer room to discuss what really matters.
Tomorrow Microsoft would release a binary specification. So far it seems the main difference to the status quo is that it would be covered patent-wise by the Open Specification Promise instead of the Convenant To Sue and you would not have to ask individually for the binary specification.
Unfortunately the ISO process does not permit to raise this issue at the BRM. This seems to me an indication that the ISO process is broken as it does not offer room to discuss what really matters.
It seems that the ISO has no room to discuss anything to do with opposing the DIS 29500 proposal. If I remember correctly, here in Australia, Standards Australia outlined there was to be no discussion of technical issues with regards to OOXML during the ISO meeting (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070809103920651).
It is well understood. Fast-track is a "technical" process but the whole process was inappropriate from the very beginning.
The BRM can make technical changes and convenor Alex Brown will stick the BRM participants to achieving this.
The problems we have with the specification such as
- patent licensing under the OSP and compatibility with GNU GPL implementations
- vendor specific slack
- no macros specified
- overlap with ISO 26300:2006
cannot be be addressed by the BRM. However, national bodies are free to withdraw their support in consideration of these other open questions. I would prefer OOXML to be put on a usual standardization track that provides all parties with enough time to discuss the format. At least Microsoft can make unilateral committments to respond to criticism.
When ISO members approve an immature standard the battle will reopen on national grounds and many government agencies can be expected to follow the Netherlands.
Regarding the document referenced above from the Netherlands, what I find particularly interesting is the recommended procedure for adoption of open standards:
Procedure "comply or explain, and commit"
• "Comply": apply established open standards to ICT orders for new systems or rebuilds and ICT contract extension.
• "Explain": exception criteria are:
- No open standard is available for the desired functionality;
- The open standard is not supported by multiple suppliers and on several platforms;
- Conduct of business and/or service provision would be unacceptably jeopardised, including in terms of security;
- Agreements made internationally would be broken.
• "Commit": give preference to the application of open standards so that an exception criterion is no longer applicable.
Note the wording "multiple suppliers and several platforms" under "Explain". This currently makes OOXML fail as an alternative, even if it could be regarded as an "open standard" by some.