Expert: Fast-track ISO bid for OOXML is fair

By Lee Min Keong, ZDNet Asia
Monday, March 24, 2008 08:23 PM

KUALA LUMPUR--A European standards expert has defended the move to fast-track the ISO approval process for Microsoft's Open XML (OOXML) document standard, dismissing criticisms that the decision to do so is flawed and unfair.

Jan van den Beld, the former secretary general of European standards organization Ecma International, said the fast-track process was necessary to ensure proposed standards are not technologically outdated by the time they are approved years later.

The Dutchman was instrumental in getting the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to adopt the fast-track process for standardization in 1987. Ecma's secretary general from 1991 to 2007, he was involved in over 200 fast-track proposals to the ISO.

"There is nothing unusual for Ecma to opt for the fast-track option. It's the only lean process that the ISO has."
-- Jan van den Beld,
former Ecma official

According to van den Beld, who was in the Malaysian capital last week for a standards forum, it takes an average of 32 months for ISO to adopt a standard via the conventional approval process. In some cases, it may take up to four years, he added. A fast-track route can shorten this process to between six and 18 months.

The ISO had created the fast-track process as a way to allow standards organizations, such as Ecma, to submit their existing standards for approval as an ISO standard. OOXML was approved by Ecma in December 2006.

Van den Beld said there was nothing questionable about placing Open XML on the fast-track process for adoption.

"In the past 20 years, Ecma had brought some 250 proposed standards through the fast-track process at ISO, of which only three were unsuccessful," he said. "In total, some 325 standards have been adopted through the fast-track process at the ISO."

"So, there is nothing unusual for Ecma to opt for the fast-track option. It's the only lean process that the ISO has," he added. "People who are against OOXML will say the messenger is bad, the process is bad... At the moment, this is still the best [method] that ISO has."

OOXML is the rival document standard to the OpenDocument Format (ODF), which is already ISO-certified and has been championed by open source vendors and IT giants such as IBM and Sun Microsystems.

Ecma failed in a ballot last September to gain ISO approval for OOXML. Malaysia voted to abstain while other Asian countries including India, Iran, Japan and Korea, voted "no". Singapore gave its support for Open XML.

Malaysia's Department of Standards (Standards Malaysia) issued a statement earlier this month, noting that the majority of technical issues it raised regarding Open XML had not been addressed satisfactorily during ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva last month.

However, van den Beld argued that national bodies had more than enough time, spanning September 2007 to last month's ballot meeting, to resolve issues pertaining to the OOXML specification.

Provide a "level playing field"
Further defending Ecma's bid to fast-track the ISO approval process, he said the alternative scenario would require national standards bodies to attend monthly ISO meetings. "This will end up like the United Nations," said van den Beld, and challenged critics to come up with a better process.

He added that in the run-up to the ballot resolution meeting, Ecma had organized weekly teleconferences and e-mail interaction with delegates to discuss critical issues relating to the specification.

"So you must not reproach the organization or the process and say there was not enough time. Ecma was not doing it in secret," said van den Beld. "The ISO must provide a level playing field for all sorts of technologies. They cannot say 'no' to A and 'yes' to B [or] they will lose their neutrality."

He also advised governments against mandating just one document standard as it may run foul of polices set by the World Trade Organization (WTO), opening themselves to possible legal challenges. "One of the big concerns of the WTO is that you should not use standards as a barrier to trade," he said.

"If a government enforces [the use of one standard], that would mean the whole country is not allowed to use OOXML. They could get into a very difficult legal situation as this could be challenged legally," noted van den Beld.

In addition, he said, governments that mandate the exclusive use of one standard may end up using outdated technologies that will be overtaken by more innovative technologies.

Notwithstanding the outcome of the final ISO vote on Open XML, expected out at the end of March, van den Beld said the battle between the Microsoft standard and ODF will continue. "The commercial war will go on independent of standards," he said.

He added that it was "naive" for anyone to expect Microsoft's commercial activities to be adversely affected by attempts to block the OOXML specification from obtaining ISO certification.

Van den Beld said some 300 companies worldwide are already developing technology and products based on Open XML, based on the fact that it is an Ecma-approved standard.

Lee Min Keong is a freelance IT writer based in Malaysia.


WORTHWHILE?

-2

2 votes
Blog

Talkback 12 comments

One Standard Only
With all due respect, Jan van den Beld is hiding behing an invalid argument. If a government does not "mandate" the use of a standard then a "WTO problem" does not exist. Furthermore, the proposal to allow "more than one standard" makes the adoption of such standards meaningless. One standard should exist or disband the ISO as a waste of time.
Posted by Ray Cefola on Tuesday, March 25 2008 09:45 PM

Agree, and then some
I agree with one standard. More than one for the same thing means there is no standard. As to the big scary warning about the WTO? How is setting a standard that anyone is free to implement a barrier to trade. Mandating a proprietary, only available from one supplier (like OOXML) would be a barrier to trade.
Posted by cabreh on Tuesday, March 25 2008 09:57 PM

Be that as it may...
Jan van den Beld is interested in one thing and one thing only having the Ecma International "standard" passed by ISO. To have it otherwise would mean failture and quite possibly end a far too lucrative relationship between vendors and Ecma., His comments that NB's had enough time to digest 6000+ pages between September and February nor was much settled at the joke of a BRM. In short, he's full of it. He is as well with the threat of some kind of WTO retaliation with respect to ODF and OpenXML. Most importanly being that not even Microsoft has implemented it in full nor has anyone else, much FUD to the contrary. Comments regarding more than one standard are red herrings in that they indicate that ODF and OpenXML should they be adopted are somehow carved in stone and never to change from their 2008 forms. This is simply not true. Also, should OpenXML lose the fast track vote nothing is stopping Ecma and/or Microsoft from allowing it to go on in the normal way where there's a good chance a significant number of the issues still outstanding can be reduced to a managable level. Of course, this means Ecma and Microsoft actually want it to succeed which I'm beginning to doubt. ttfn John
Posted by John Wilson on Wednesday, March 26 2008 08:45 AM

One Standard Only
God article. To me this discussion is getting too "religious". In the area of document architecture standards I have seen since 1972 - that was the time when I first used a document editor on a computer - several generations of de-facto and de-jure standards. It is still an area with high-speed innovation, and lot of development. This is reflected by the generations of document standards. The idea of a single "document standard" for eternity is therefore an unrealistic view which in my opinion will never happen. In 5-10 years time we should see how then the Document architecture landscape will look like, but it will be definitely different from today.
Posted by Istvan Sebestyen on Tuesday, March 25 2008 11:16 PM

agreed
And mr van den Beld is trying to hold his organization up as being equivalent to many other non-rubber stamping standards organizations, which it is not. Sorry, buying your way into being called a standards organization, by rubberstamping proposals from whoever sends them your way does not make you a standards organization.
Posted by dan trevino on Wednesday, March 26 2008 04:30 AM

Principal Software Engineer
It sounds like Jan van den Beld is more interested in serving Microsoft than serving the public through creation of quality standards. This is just gibberish. All very weak arguments. Misery loves company, so he wants ISO to follow Ecma's lead on OOXML. Doing so would make ISO as meaningless as ECMA. For far better logic, reasoning, and truth please refer to: www.groklaw.net
Posted by Ken Z on Tuesday, March 25 2008 11:11 PM

Principal Software Engineer
Reading your comment full of hate I think Jan van den Beld was right: "People who are against OOXML will say the messenger is bad, the process is bad... At the moment, this is still the best [method] that ISO has." Ecma is not meaningless (as ISO will not be meaningless if it takes ECMA-376). Actually the OOXML standard of Ecma is one of its best-sellers to day, and it is implemented by many-many millions of implementations, and not only in MS Office, but Apple, on Mobile phones etc...
Posted by istvan Sebestyen on Tuesday, March 25 2008 11:23 PM

Not true...
There is not one OOXML implementation at this moment. Even Microsoft doesn't suppport nor plans to use it. How you dare to tell people lies like you do is beyond me.
Posted by Jaap on Wednesday, March 26 2008 12:08 AM

Zillions!
Millions of implementations! Quadrillions! Hohoho! you do make me laugh! No, really!!
Posted by Max Stirner on Wednesday, March 26 2008 12:33 AM

Disclosure much?

Posted by SamW on Wednesday, March 26 2008 02:45 AM

OOXML is not being used in Microsoft products
You are wrong. No implementations exist and Microsoft does not use this hollow broken specification in any of its products. Microsoft has in fact stated that they will not be held to support it in any of their products. You are out of touch.
Posted by Ken Z on Wednesday, March 26 2008 06:46 AM

Principal Software Engineer
ECMA has declared itself meaningless by rubberstamping an incomplete and flawed "proposal" for a standard. That's a fact. Please explain how the OOXML standard can already be in use as it's not even clear to anyone what the OOXML standard is? The way MS and ECMA are pushing OOXML should be enough for every normal thinking person to vote NO to the fasttrack procedure.
Posted by S te Brake on Thursday, March 27 2008 12:26 AM


Tech Jobs Now!

Search for your ideal tech job:

Common ways IT wastes money on development

Web Development

Examples include using developers as support staff and failing to calculate a project's ROI before giving it the go-ahead.


Read more »



  • Enterprise 2.0

    Vince Casarez, vice president of product management at Oracle, explains how Web 2.0 technologies, such as tags, wikis, and mash-ups, can be applied within an organization.
    Play video


  • Nehalem Architecture

    What makes next-generation Intel® Microarchitecture (Nehalem) such a superior successor?
    Play video

 
Free the untapped potential of your IT infrastructure
Reduce bottlenecks to drive the efficiency and productivity of Business IT.
» Ultimate virtualization blade
» Scalable SAN solution
» Accelerate service delivery
On demand CRM goes strategic
CRM technology has come of age, and is now able to align with your customer strategy and grow in step with your business.

» Learn more about Oracle’s CRM Solutions




Could this be the most critical budget for India?

Blog thumbnail

For business journalists in India, budget time is excitement time. It's like sports journos covering the Olympics. As a newspaper correspondent, I too had my fill of budget-time excitement. But..... by Swati Prasad

Read more »

Tags

  1. antivirus
  2. apple ipod
  3. apple macintosh
  4. cnet networks inc.
  5. desktop
  6. e - mail
  7. hard drive
  8. intuit inc.
  9. microsoft corp.
  10. microsoft windows
  11. microsoft windows vista
  12. norton co.
  13. operating system
  14. pc
  15. performance
  16. security
  17. software
  18. tool
  19. web
  20. web site