Have mud. Will sling.
According to ZDNet UK's Ingrid Marson, Microsoft is saying that the OpenDocument format is too slow:
"The use of OpenDocument documents is slower to the point of not really being satisfactory," Alan Yates, the general manager of Microsoft's information worker strategy, told ZDNet UK on Wednesday. "The Open XML format is designed for performance. XML is fundamentally slower than binary formats, so we have made sure that customers won't notice a big difference in performance."
Meanwhile, in post headlined Specs should lose weight, not gain it, IBM's director of open standards and open source Bob Sutor says Microsoft's alternative to OpenDocument is too heavy:
There’s starting to be a real buzz if not shock about the latest draft of the so called ECMA “open XML” spec weighing in at a hefty 4081 pages. If you do take a look at it, be prepared to wait a while because the PDF is 24.4 Mb in size. Broadband required....These numbers alone should be enough to make the point that there will be very few perfect complete implementations, if any. It’s also a measurement of just how bloated with features any software that implements it would have to be. Bear in mind that I said “bloat” and not “wonderfully featureful.” Is this real evidence of why people are moving to more elegant “keep it simple” solutions? Maybe Microsoft needs this to cover everything they have ever thrown into their proprietary products. Maybe the rest of us don’t.....For comparison, the OpenDocument Format standard from OASIS is 706 pages (3Mb PDF)....Now we have to be careful with numbers and not simply say that one or the other spec is simply better because it is bigger or smaller. That said, I think looking at the specs will show you that the ECMA spec is much, much bigger than ODF.
First, they argued about which one is more open. Then, came which one is an international standard (soon, both will be). Now, size matters. Speed too. Any guesses where this he said/she said will go next?