It's official: OOXML is a standard

It's official: OOXML is a standard

Summary: Surprised?Here's the full release from ISO:The two ISO and IEC technical boards have given the go-ahead to publish ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML formats, as an ISO/IEC International Standard after appeals by four national standards bodies against the approval of the document failed to garner sufficient support.



Here's the full release from ISO:

The two ISO and IEC technical boards have given the go-ahead to publish ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML formats, as an ISO/IEC International Standard after appeals by four national standards bodies against the approval of the document failed to garner sufficient support.

None of the appeals from Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela received the support for further processing of two-thirds of the members of the ISO Technical Management Board and IEC Standardization Management Board, as required by ISO/IEC rules governing the work of their joint technical committee ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information technology.

According to the ISO/IEC rules, DIS 29500 can now proceed to publication as an ISO/IEC International Standard. This is expected to take place within the next few weeks on completion of final processing of the document, and subject to no further appeals against the decision.

The adoption process of Office Open XML (OOXML) as an ISO/IEC Standard has generated significant debate related to both technical and procedural issues which have been addressed according to ISO and IEC procedures. Experiences from the ISO/IEC 29500 process will also provide important input to ISO and IEC and their respective national bodies and national committees in their efforts to continually improve standards development policies and procedures.

Topic: Enterprise Software

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


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • A right decision

    You can only FUD so much.
    • Nah...

      This whole OXML thing should have never been placed on the fast track. Fast tracking is for existing, complete and stable specifications. Something OXML is not, even to this day.

      Would you care to point out one existing, complete and stable implementation of OXML? For that matter, who's actually doing anything at all at making a) the OXML standard stable, b) a product that can use it (if and when it becomes stable)?
      • yah. How can you argue with Miguel?

        <i>The adoption process of Office Open XML (OOXML) as an ISO/IEC Standard has generated significant debate related to both technical and procedural issues which have been addressed according to ISO and IEC procedures</i><br><br>
        Who has been working with this standard? <br><br><br><br>
        How about: <br><br>
        Jeff Waugh assured me that Jody was merely experimenting with OOXML support, but the above shows that he?s in alignment with Miguel de Icaza?s stance. <b>Miguel says that OOXML is a ?superb standard?.</b> <br><br>
        This a little clip from a linux apologist site: <br><br><br>
        Or this: <br><br>
        "There are many translation tools already in existence that enable interoperability between different formats by providing useful translation capabilities between ODF, Open XML and UOF."

        zkiwi you are definately going to want to bookmark this: (seriously, unless you are really that stupid. Like I haven't built a portfolio of linux skills. Sams Ubuntu 8.04 and any PHP book and you know more about Linux than half those posting) <br><br>
        don't you love the codeplex? I know you do. <br><br> <br><br>
        There are hundreds of efforts, whether finished, or in process. It's a done deal zkiwi....full steam ahead.
        • Quoting Miguel...

          ...shows you must know little about the current state of the community.

're right...full steam ahead for MS...with ODF that is. Now I know you haven't forgotten this.

          You even ranted senselessly on that thread. Fact of the matter is that MS was in such a rush to make sure they were the ones in charge of the "open" standard that they forgot to actually implement it...and now they realize even they can't do it.

          The fact that they even came up with a standard in this way shows their intent. If they truly wanted to add to something open they could have just worked with the ODF standard in the first place. That is the point of an open standard. Its almost as if they don't understand that what the open in OOXML really means. If its open then you aren't going to be able to break it for everyone else but yourself.
          • Is this why commercial software packages have OOXML support? <nt>

          • Is this why the next service pack of Office 07 will support ODF? (nt)

            You just had to look didn't you?
          • Also, i find it laughable how quickly those.....

            who endorse people and standards bodies like OSI and how impressive it was when ODF was awarded a standard, but then turn their backs on anyone and anything that seems to have deviated in the least from their object of worship. This theme plays out again and again on these blogs.<br><br>
            By the way, what you call a rant is you reading my tone and mood into my posts, so I'd thank you to not pretend you are a mind reader and stop with the personal accusations. <br>
            I am writing in a very matter of fact manner with no anger or emotions. People like you havn't the ability to affect me in any way whatsoever and i put no emotional stock in any of this as you appear to do and many others.<br>
            Do you think it's coincidental that non-tech related parody sites and shows portray the Linux person in the light of a geeked out zealot? Art imitates real life you know. <br><br>
            But many in the "community" which now includes more large greedy corporate entities that have combined anti trust behavior that dwarfs Microsoft, are even turning their backs on Linus Torvalds. <br>
            One person even said he was vain for using his name for the kernel. And that he did the smallest amount of work and it's RMS that really built gnu/linux. <br>
            That was becaue Torvalds has repeatedly denounced people like those that come here to bash closed source constantly and become religious about it. And he stated that DRM is a good technology even if it may not be used for it's best use now. <br><br>
            That made thousands, 10s of thousands of zealots turn their backs on him as an umimportant wacked out dude. <br><br>
            Funny how RMS tried to build a kernel for his GNU and failed so miserably he packed it in and was headed for a job with a large corporation when Torvalds released the kernel. <br><br>
            Double standards and hypocrisy so permeate the "community" that it's pure irony that they talk down about any other business model. <br><br>
            btw, ubuntu and almost all linux desktop distros have a good deal of proprietary code modules in them. How acan that be good? You only use the 100% USDA distros i have to assume, right?
          • If you worked with standards, you would know.

            If OOXML were an implementable standard, by anyone (hence the word standard), and was superior to ODF, it would have won hands down and already KOffice, OO, Abiword, and all the others would have implemented it. You can't, no matter how hard you try, rewrite history and push 3000+ comments (2912 which weren't addressed) under the rug.

            ODF CowTippingXML4.3, OpenZipper8, ... it doesn't matter what the standard is, as long as ANYONE can implement it. Nobody, not even MS, will ever be substantially compliant (defined as no known deficiencies or exclusions, not including bugs, they always exist).

            That's the reason your get questioned over your posts, you tend to stick with the party line.

            I will ask you one question, seriously, how is MS penalized by supporting ODF? Nobody, and I mean nobody ever said "MS you can't implement ODF". It is the disingenously slanted views of those who don't like Open Source, love MS, or otherwise depend on MS revenue who rail against the level playing field, removing the advantage MS enjoys, and then calls that unfair.

          • Fighting for nothing...

   what he is doing. Reaching a truly open standard for documents in no way stops MS from making and him from wasting his money on MS Office. He just believes MS should make and control everything.
          • Now wait a sec here., TripleII

            Not only do the OSS folks here stick with the party line, they can't get enough of telling everyone why Microsoft is wrong in every aspect of everything they do bar none. none, period. I have never seen one of these people say, hey, i found that one MS solution really nailed a customer's issue for me, and if they do say they "used" it, it was because their customer is ignorant and buys software based on advertising. Please don't even go there. <br><br>
            They get vein popping mad over Microsoft at every single product they release. <br><br>
            Comparitively speaking, I'm as open minded as they come. <br><br>
            What makes this so disengenuously wrong is Apple and Google and IBM and SUN, all who employ corporate mindsets and dwarf Microsoft in their combined monopoly power, are given a free pass. There was a time any corporate involvement with open source was as wrong as saying something positive about Micrsoft out loud. <br><br>
            Now it's basically owned by the corporate world and they are just using it. They don't support the politics behind it one bit and anyone would be naive to think so. That's laughable. If open source had not happened but another proprietary OS hit the market that was not onerously tied to it's own hardware like the Mac, they would be licensing that OS in the same fashion. <br><br>
            From the very beginning when RMS wrote his gnu code, at the core of it was his political philosphy and it had very little to do with technology in that sense. <br><br>
            Torvalds did not release the linux kernel to create a vocal minority that became religious about the software, he thinks that is the wrong direction, so now he's been tagged as dispensible by the overwhelming majority of activists. This is a political movement at it's core and like in politics, everyone is dispensible if they do not follow the party line. <br><br>
            The ODF having OSI approval is what sat it apart from ooxml which only had ecma recognition and the OSS world used this idea as ammunition against the closed source world. <br><br>
            Now MS has an OSI standard and his body that represented "true" standards has been villified and tossed aside like a rag doll because ooxml became a standard. <br><br>
            I will admit, I do not like the idea of politics driving the market. Not one bit. <br>
            It would take a total moron to think FREE software won't swallow MS whole once it has reached mainstream ease of use and the cost of service contracts can be eliminated due to the populus growing comfortable with it and it has windows server 2k3/8 level ease of administration. *Of Course* it will totally squash Microsoft and Apple as a by product along the way. How could it's FREE. <br>
            The courts claim the license is valid now, like and artists copyright I guess, but there is no accountability of the control over the copyrights each owner is said to have. They are said, by the courts to have complete control over the distribution and direction of the copyright or copyrighted code....I first off that makes it as onerous as windows is claimed to be. But how is that enforced? There is no system in place to keep compliance the least bit in check. <br>
            I think if it's legal on those merits, then it should have to demonstrate it can literally and physically use that control if needed. But it can't. Not unless you are working with a Red Hat or Novell and even then anyone can get a copy anonymously and ignore the licensng all their lives and there is nothing to even keep some general idea of the scope of such a thing let alone enforce it if necessary. <br><br>
            Yep, I'm against the dumping of any product on the market. It goes against my principals. <br><br>
            I don't dislike you because you believe everything should be free and somehow controlled by the central government...that's your right. <br><br>
            I guess I better start picking up those linux books more often than I have been and get ready for when it eliminates closed source for good. I hate being forced into anything, and the fact you believe Microsoft has done any forcing is nothing compared to what will happen when anyone can get a system that is as easy to use as windows and perhaps better and therefore the idea there is still choice at all becomes like the choice between paying for your food or having it delivered to your home for free. There is no choice. <br><br>
            It'll be interesting to see where Mr. Shuttleworth or whatever his name is, and the those who run Red Hat et al do when the users no longer need their support but only their software. Where will they turn for revenues then? I guess at that point, software becomes a God given right like having the government inform you how to live said life.
          • @stom14k

            Wasting money on Office? First of all i have an MSDN subscription personally. It has been the best investment I've ever made, bringing in thousands...many thousands it's cost in returns and will be for a long long time. <br>
            It includes MSO 2007 but I would purchase it and it's being rolled out at all sites i work with due to it's incredible power. Office automation, letter writing, emailing etc. are still first rate but only a tiny fraction of what it can do. It's the GUI to the entire system for most workers at all levels. And since you obviously don't "waste your money" on it, don't pretend to know anything about it. The learning curve is not the least bit steep. Most proficient MSO users have it down within the first few days, a week at most. The sales numbers and reviews speak for themselves. I see productivity boosts as high as 80% when measuring the time to perform a a given task against the time same task took in prior versions. I absolutely love the added power and features and VSTO programming has reached a whole new level of ease and powerful techniques.<br><br>
            Because you don't like Microsoft doesn't mean others have not had great success with it's software and built great solutions in an almost plug and play fashion at the software coding level. MOSS delivers such a high level of collaboration and data delivery (along with SQL 2005 reporting services *extremely powerful and if you've used sql 2000 reporting services...don't use that as a measuring stick. This version is a homerun...out of the stadium). <br><br>
            You don't seem to understand business and costs and the differnece between service contracts and capital expenditures. <br><br>Again, don't be so arrogant and condescending as to tell me what is good for me and what I know, feel or do.
          • Since the code is open....

            Please head to the distro sites in question and come back here with the proprietary bits. You said you know its there so you shouldn't have a problem finding it. I'll be waiting.

            In the meantime...

            Theres nothing worse than an emotional IT person such as yourself lmao. Who do you think wants to "affect" you. I'm simply pointing out your foolishness. Its quite clear that you don't understand the meaning of an open standard and the reason people don't trust MS to come up with one. You are comparing a company thats known for breaking standards to a community thats known existing because of them. Point to something in FOSS thats not open and implementable by anyone.

            Hardly anybody in the community cares that greedy corporate entities are involved. Thats an argument usually made by people with little understanding of the community. Take some time and actually read the GPL sometime. I'll paste the basis of it here for you right from the website...

            * the freedom to use the software for [b]any purpose[/b],
            * the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors,
            * the freedom to change the software to suit your needs, and
            * the freedom to share the changes you make.

            This includes big corporations. There was never anything against big corporations in the first place. You only think that because MS is constantly at odds with the community. The difference between MS and these other companies is that they are working within and therefore bound by the rules above. You didn't realize that because you didn't read the rules obviously. MS doesn't like those rules, doesn't want to follow them and wants to run them out of existence. This and this alone is why there is pushback from the community when MS makes a move.

            Plain and simple no one cares if IBM, Red Hat, Canonical, Sun, Oracle, Google or even MS get filthy rich off of FOSS provided the follow the rules. Why?? Because I, you, the original developers and anybody else can do the exact same thing by adding our own value. Isn't this why some of you claim capitalism is so great...just work hard and you'll be ok? Funny how we forget that when someone actually puts everybody on equal ground. Now lets see if you can wrap your head around it all.
          • Well....

            thanks again for your advice to live by. <br><br>
            You haven't a clue. I know C and C++, I guarantee it, more than you'll ever possibly be able to wrap your head around it. <br><br>
            I worked with Unix for 10 years and could easily slide into Linux. I don't do programming for a living anymore anyway, I am contracted for services above just that one small techical level of the IT dept. In fact IT is meaningless w/o those who understand how to apply it for what it's needed for, not just for the sake of technology, like so many linux geeks who wouldn't understand businesses or organization's actual needs for IT if it slapped them in the face. I have no problem using any linux monkey's code if I can apply it to an architecture that solves complex problems whether they be business problems or scientific problems, and does so in the most robust and elegant fashion. Architecture is not a place for most desk monkeys and welding multiple solutions together does not fly. <br><br>
            You don't understand the beginnings of the gnu/linux open source project nor the current state of it like you think you do. <br><br>
            But at it's core, and you can read the interviews and writings of RMS yourself, but it was motivated and driven entirely out of his political philosphy moreso than any "open" software design. <br><br>
            You have your opinions, I'll have mine. Just don't try to be so arrogant and condescending as to try and dump your politics on me. <br><br>
            I'm interested in technology and what it can do for the world, not what your political leaning happen to be. <br><br>
            You are clueless about me. Windows/gnu/linux...doesn't matter. it's like switching phone providers. I can use either equally as well. That will never be an issue for me. I have no vested interest in either one. Emotional involvement in such a thing is ignorant.
          • Message has been deleted.

          • you are....are you still waiting?

            How about this: <br><br>
            There, you wanted them...what are you going to do now?
        • You don't believe Microsoft themselves?

          [B]"ODF has clearly won," said Stuart McKee, referring to Microsoft's recent announcement that it would begin natively supporting ODF in Office next year and join the technical committee overseeing the next version of the format. [/B]

          The fact that the body is still twitching doesn't mean a whole lot.

          The translators of which you write are for the current format of Office 2007. The newly ratified format was based off, but is now radically different than what MS produces today. These translators are read only, to get the data out, nobody has any kind of write translator that is even ready.

          And, as already reported, when 2/3rds of your potential growth market (India, China, South America) have already publicly refused to go OOXML even if it was ratified, OOXML, even before the appeals were launched, have accurately described OOXML as a dead standard walking.

          MS wanted it to be fast tracked, largely unchanged. It is now radically revamped, and enforces the release of things they probably don't want released. Better for them to keep things secret, support ODF, and keep their native format secret to preserve compatibility problems longer.

          • Remember, when you start naming countries...

            and quasi unions like the EU, who are often quoted as being anti MS, you are only talking about a small handfull of the rich and wealthy aristocrats, not even measurable in terms of the population. <br>
            Some love to pretend EU decisions or proclamations refer to the companies and general public of the EU, which is obviously not the case. <br><br>
            Now I'm not sure about the countries you named here, perhaps those govenments can dictate what their companies and people use. <br><br>
            That's choice at it's finest TripleII.
          • Leveling the playing field is lack of choice?

            That's all that the Open Source community (and the Anti-MS ecosystem) people want. When every company works from one standard (a real standard) for documents, you get a level playing field. OOXML is not that standard because only MS can come close to implementing it.

          • Leveling the playng field?

            What about the multi billions of documents already in use or in place? <br><br>
            Are you willing to say they should stay with Microsoft Office licenses until the year which the data is no longer necessary to retain?
            That wasn't what I said anyway. Linux has the advantage all the way, only a moron would say differently. <br><br>
            MS has become to represent America in the minds of many, including goverenment officials. <br><br>
            there is no lack of hatred of the U.S. in additon to Microsoft, even within the EU population. <br><br>
            Funny thing, I've never noticed the U.S. do anything but help the EU over the better part of the last century. <br><br>
            Yeah, i'm sure the dictatorships and other oppressive governments like China may force Linux on their people, is that a level playing field? <br><br>
            Linux quite honestly has not earned any such thing when viewed by the favor of the people. Not even close. Should a format that IBM and SUN pushed through with their combined monopoly powers be held as the one true standard? Why not sit down with MS included and build one from scratch with a mediator that looks out for common sense issues like the existing amount of older office formats? <br><br>Why do you think something that was already in place, already had lots of code written to it and had a substantial lead in terms of system choice around the world? <br><br>
            At the minimum it should be fair to the people and that's what get lost in all of this. MS looks for their profits and the linux community looks for marketshare w/o any consideration of the 1 billion windows users...the attitude is more than amply express here. You are in the minority. The largest organizations and contributors and so forth want closed source dead and buried. Nothing less. <br><br>
            Closed source is clearly the best play for a majority of players who can't afford a high ongoing IT budget in terms of payroll and service and consulting.
          • Linux has not advantage, OS-X has no advantage...

            ODF is an open standard, freely implementable by ANYONE. MSD, Windows, Sun, Novel, whoever. If that isn't a level playing field, what is?

            [B]What about the multi billions of documents already in use or in place? [/B]

            I don't know what that has to do with the price of fish, however, for anyone with Windows 1997 or older, thank goodness of OpenOffice. 20% of documents my company has archived fail to open with Office 2003. I have converted from .doc to .doc for hundreds upon hundreds of people, so much so that I have OO installed on my Sun Workstation so they can do it themselves. For those documents, seriously, use OO to get them out of a format that just won't be readable at all by the Windows app in 3-10 more years.

            [B]That wasn't what I said anyway. Linux has the advantage all the way, only a moron would say differently. [/B]

            What does Linux, OS-X, Windows, BSD, VIC-20 have to do with this discussion?

            [B]Should a format that IBM and SUN pushed through with their combined monopoly powers be held as the one true standard?[/B]

            You can't rewrite history. ODF when through the LONG process of ISO certification, with NO INTIMIDATION, Microsoft was ENCOURAGED to join in. Again, it doesn't matter who submits the standard, so long as it is open, free of proprietary crap, and complete in and of itself.

            It has nothing to do with Operating Systems, which companies do what, it's about the standard, and OOXML is defective as a standard. If it was Redhat that invented OOXML and pushed/bribed/coerced it into existence, I would be slamming them.

            You absolutely know OOXML is defective, and the crux of the argument.

            Can you, without access to all the proprietary garbage still in OOXML, create an OOXML based word processing suite. The answer is no.