Google: Microsoft's OOXML shouldn't be a standard

Google: Microsoft's OOXML shouldn't be a standard

Summary: Google said that after "further technical analysis" of Microsoft's OOXML document standard the search giant has concluded that it's an "insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office."You can file this argument in the "and what did you expect Google to say" department.

SHARE:

Google said that after "further technical analysis" of Microsoft's OOXML document standard the search giant has concluded that it's an "insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office."

You can file this argument in the "and what did you expect Google to say" department.

Google's statement adds a smidge of drama as Microsoft pitches OOXML as a document standard in Geneva this week. Mary Jo Foley has a handy FAQ on what's happening this week with the ISO folks. Mary Jo argues--pretty successfully--that Microsoft's interoperability pledge last week was really about winning over ISO. Google points to the OpenDocument Format Alliance's findings to make its point that OOXML shouldn't be a standard. And you can walk 10 feet and trip over a few OOXML critics along the way. Microsoft obviously disagrees.

Google then makes its final pitch:

As ISO Member bodies around the world work on possible revisions of their vote previously submitted, the deadline of March 30th approaches fast. I invite you to pay close attention, and heed the call of many for unification of OOXML into ODF. A document standards decision may not matter to you today, but as someone who relies on constant access to editable documents, spreadsheets and presentations, it may matter immensely in the near future.

Topics: Google, Emerging Tech, Enterprise Software, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

51 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • surely OOXML should not be standard

    Ever we dont need google to tell it to us.

    But if google really wanna put a end to MS Make a OS damn'it

    a nice BSD knockoff like apple is doing
    Quebec-french
    • Just knocking off a Mac OS X like OS is a tall order even for Google - NT

      NT
      raycote
      • Not relly, it could be based on Ubuntu. Google could have an OS running

        fairly quickly. At some point they WILL supply an OS / applications platform for personal computers, just as they are doing now with Android for cell phones. Only makes sense.
        DonnieBoy
        • Duh?

          If it will be based on Ubuntu, why not just let the good folks at Canonical keep producing a better Ubuntu??? You make no sense. Google didn't get where it is by spreading too thin: that is why M$ is in trouble right now - too many fingers in too many pies, such as XBox, Zune, Windows Mobile, etc., etc., etc. Instead they should have focused on taking their core competency and making the next step for the next era with it. Neither Zune nor XBox fit that.
          Techboy_z
          • A Google branded desktop would not spread Google too thin. I would be very

            little work. Google could dedicate a few engineers to Ubuntu, and the configuration of a Google branded version. Heck, it would probably even be dual branded with Ubuntu.

            And, I am not sure all the things you mentioned for MS have been all that bad for them. You have to realize that they all have helped maintain the monopoly, and you can not measure ONLY what the individual profit and losses. MS does NOT want to find out where the tipping point is.
            DonnieBoy
          • A Google branded home server would also be GREAT. Jeremy Alison a top guru

            for the Samba project, actually works at Google.

            They could include a local caching server for Google Docs, automatically synced up to the cloud, automatic backup for Windows computers, etc.

            I would imagine that lots of hardware manufactures would jump at the chance of using a royalty free nationally recognized brand.
            DonnieBoy
    • Google already has a much more powerful platform!

      It's called The World Wide Web!

      I can imagine Microsoft shaking n' trembling..... :-)
      Mikael_z
  • The axis of evil includes Google!

    As you said, what did you expect from Google. It just more of the same from them.
    USArcher
    • Still, a standard document format, not controlled by ANY in the axis of

      evil is a good idea. Remember, Google does not control ODF.
      DonnieBoy
      • Who does control ODF?

        ?
        TheTruthisOutThere1
        • It is an OASIS standard, and there are many companies on the board.

          Sun, IBM, many others . . . . .

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
          DonnieBoy
        • It's free! Nobody controls it..............

          That's what Microsoft doesn't like.... they
          can't control it, therefore they can't
          collect a fee for it.

          No more control, no more fee, no more
          Microsoft! Why do you think they are busting
          a gut to get rid of ODF?
          Ole Man
          • Well, a standard must be controlled by somebody. And, ODF is controlled by

            a group, but, it has broad representation, with no one company able to steer it for personal gain.

            That is not true with OOXML.
            DonnieBoy
  • well said

    The OOXML is just a ODF rip off laced with proprietary extensions.
    Linux Geek
  • Well, this is a good point. The two standards should just be merged to

    once and for all eliminate all of the conversion confusion and compatibility problems. As it stands, we spend billions are spend every year on document format problems. All features needed for MS Office Documents could be easily added to ODF. Actually, MS can not name even one feature missing from ODF needed for MS Office.
    DonnieBoy
    • Why merge them?

      OpenDocument is a standard written by a group of competitors with 3% market share. Microsoft Office has 90% market share. Tell me why the specs for their file formats should be merged.

      Name me ONE other industry where the 3% entity can have such pull over the other 90% of the industry.
      PB_z
    • And you have asked Microsoft?

      [i]Actually, MS can not name even one feature missing from ODF needed for MS Office[/i]

      That would mean that you have been in Redmond talking to Microsoft's top people again?
      GuidingLight
      • Let's see, you say they can?

        Simply haven't bothered to up til this point. Could be - where's your authority on this?
        IT_User
    • what would happen is

      everything in the ODF would be left out (because it aint upto the mark).
      So whats the point in merging, just to get a new name.
      Its a waste of everyones time.
      code_Warrior
  • Merged?

    XML means "eXtensible"!! No merge of OOXML is needed! M$ should just use ODF, which has the ability to be extended as needed!
    Techboy_z