OOXML backwards compatibility led Microsoft to ODF

OOXML backwards compatibility led Microsoft to ODF

Summary: Microsoft blames backwards compatibility issues and changes made during the ISO ratification process for its decision to support ODF instead of OOXML in Office 2007


...not to implement Vista due to interoperability issues. According to Taylor, pressure from the Commission and other policy makers has forced Microsoft's hand.

"Microsoft only does things when it has absolutely no choice, and here it has no choice," said Taylor. "Becta officially recommended that UK education doesn't upgrade to Office 2007, and referred Microsoft to the Office of Fair Trading over OOXML last October. The European Commission has confirmed its investigation into OOXML. We've known for a long time the direction the Commission is going, and it's getting more and more vocal."

According to Taylor, Microsoft supporting ODF is a sign both of economic and political pressure.

"If Microsoft doesn't support ODF it will lose more," said Taylor. "There's also political pressure — in the UK central government and various government departments are looking into open source. It's a sign of the times."

Microsoft's not supporting OOXML until Office 14 was "very strange", Taylor added. "It really is leftfield. It does look like a tacit acknowledgement that the OOXML issue is too hot to handle. After all, the British Standards Institution is in the high court at the moment over it. Maybe this is a calming gesture."

ZDNet UK blogs

AT&T: Dell to release smartphone

Dell is set to launch a smartphone, AT&T chief executive Ralph de la Vega has revealed at Mobile World Congress...

Read blog +

Other members of the open-source community are also sceptical about Microsoft's move. Pamela Jones, founder of Groklaw, said she would believe Microsoft was moving towards open source only when it provided more proof it was becoming genuinely interoperable.

"I wish I could wholeheartedly applaud the Microsoft announcement about native support for ODF, but I can't," wrote Jones. "Of course, it's better to have native support for ODF, no matter what motives may have influenced Microsoft's announcement, and I'm glad about that for the sake of end users. But it hasn't happened yet. Was the word 'vapourware' not coined for Microsoft? In any case, I'm in the 'I will believe it when I see it' category."

Topic: Apps

Tom Espiner

About Tom Espiner

Tom is a technology reporter for ZDNet.com. He covers the security beat, writing about everything from hacking and cybercrime to threats and mitigation. He also focuses on open source and emerging technologies, all the while trying to cut through greenwash.

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
  • Interesting Turn of Events

    Looks like Microsoft has realised that a poorly written standard is complex if not impossible to use so are now trying to backtrack and use ODF instead. After spending all that time and effort pushing OOXML through the standards selection process they have obviously sat down and realised that not only can no one else implement OOXML but they can't either. Hopefully they will start to play the game and concentrate on making ODF a better standard rather than trying to mess everything up by producing their own train crash of a standard.
  • Egg of their faces!

    Vintage Microsoft, pushing through their own standard because the existing (ODF) was inadequate and customers supposedly wanted choice, now they realise they want to be involved in ODF, why waste resources on OOXML in the first place?

    "This is not about any one document format 'winning'
  • A promise for the future...

    Ah well, better than nothing (maybe). Should this "act of goodwill" mitigate what's going on now? Becta, the EC rulings etc. I rather think not. If Microsoft "play nice" in the future that's where their rewards should lie, not in the present.
  • Possible reasons

    1. They can state that they will implement ODF and in the meantime will push OOXML (even current version). "You said that you would implement ODF where is it?" - "yeah, we have work-in-progress" - "but when?" - "soon, use ooxml for a while", "you're implementation is incorrect!" - "we'll fix it very soon - use ooxml for a while".

    2. There are a lot of people who 're worried about format monopoly and backward compatibility issues. May be MS just realized that they can get the client who want ODF to buy MSO for it. Or some big corporates (may be governmental) of MS wanted ODF. It's better to support ODF and sell MSO+Vista than to look at that OOo+Linux migration. And that doesn't mean that MS is going to stop pushing OOXML.
  • OOXML is partially supported in the current version of Microsoft's office .

    The standard that isn't. Typical of M$, changing horses in midstream.
  • Oh please...

    Almost everything about this comment bothers me, so I'll deal with it piece by piece:

    "poorly written standard"

    Says who? Possibly a MINORITY of the standards approval body, since the standard was approved by the MAJORITY.

    "complex if not impossible to use so are now trying to backtrack and use ODF instead"

    If you call backtracking implementing both standards, but on a different timetable. They already substantially support the standard through their current version. I totally understand not wanting to revisit and retrofit the current code as that would likely introduce bugs. The handling of rolling the standard into the product is no different from the late 90's when many companies were implementing versions of web technologies in advance of them being approved for inclusion in the HTML standard.

    "they have obviously sat down and realised that not only can no one else implement OOXML"

    You are insulting a lot of smart people to say that NO ONE else can implement it. Given that the OOXML standard is probably 5 times the size of the ODF standard (since it includes standards for spreadsheet formulas and all kinds of other things that ODF doesn't), it may be justifiable to say that no one else could afford to implement it, but I've seen the open source community do some pretty amazing things. Not to mention the fact that several companies have already implemented the standard.

    "they can't either"

    Huh? They already said they're going to implement it in Office 14. Yes, I realize that saying and doing are two different things, but they have already substantially supported the standard through the pre-standardization version in the current version of Office.

    "Hopefully they will start to play the game and concentrate on making ODF a better standard"

    For what purpose, since it is obvious the only way to extend ODF to support the full range of Office features would be to throw it out and write a new, more comprehensive standard? Oh wait, they did...

    "trying to mess everything up"

    So somehow you look at the implementation of a new standard as somehow personally injurious or detrimental to some pet project (maybe the ODF standard)? I think you are ascribing way too much malice and ill intent to a company that has a hard time trying to get anything at all done, let alone go on some crusade to destroy some standard.

    "producing their own train crash of a standard"

    In your opinion. I don't have a great deal of love for Microsoft, but neither do I interpret their actions as ill will to their customers. That would require them to remember who their customers are - something they long ago forgot.
  • Too nieve

    You have an issue with the comment poorly written standard. I have to say that if you had tried to read this thing you soon see the problems. The whole thing has obviously been put together hastily and needs a lot of work to make it half readable. Even many of the supporters of OOXML have admitted that it is poorly written. Most of its complexity revolves around having to reinvent a lot of work already covered by other standards, this being the main reason why ODF is pretty light weight in comparison because it leverages other standards.
    Fully implementing OOXML will be a nightmare due to all the stuff like formatAsWord6 attributes, binary format stuff etc. It's true that OOXML is currently partially supported within current office versions but my main point is that there are still so many issues with the spec, that require changes, that neither Microsoft or any one else will want to do anything with it for some time until the spec becomes more stable. This I suspect is why Microsoft have delayed implementation until version 14. This is the problem with railroading the spec through the selection process with all the dodgy tactics employed in that. Microsoft seemed to loose the plot with this whole fast tracking thing and have ended up in a mess. I suppose this was to be expected, after all the only reason for OOXML was a marketing tactic and a fear of loosing market to standards based software.