The not so open debate

There has never been a more intense global industry debate over open standards. On the one hand is Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) file format backed by Apple, Novell, Wipro, Infosys, TCS, and Nasscom. On the other is the Open Document Format (ODF), supported by the likes of IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, Google, the Department of Information Technology (DIT), National Informatics Centre (NIC), CDAC, IIT-Mumbai and IIM-Ahmedabad. India recently maintained its earlier stance of "No" to the software major's OOXML. Represented by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), India had said no to OOXML last September too. Microsoft had been given time till now to address issues in a manner that would satisfy representatives from the government, academia and companies. The software major now awaits the final verdict from the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) when the standards organisation re-compiles the votes from all countries by end-March. If the final vote goes against Microsoft, it will have to give up hope of ISO certification, or re-submit the specification under the normal submission process ""which can take years.

ODF proponents oppose OOXML on the grounds that "multiple standards" are not good, while Microsoft argues that OOXML "" a recognised standard by ECMA International already "" is a response to evolving technology formats in line with continual evolving technology systems. The debate appears to be a proxy for product competition in the marketplace. It is significant in part because it will influence the future success of Microsoft Office "" one of Microsoft's largest and most profitable product families.

Not getting ISO approval means a loss of government business for Microsoft since governments worldwide, including India, prefer standards that are ratified by bodies such as the ISO. Governments are wary of holding digital data in proprietary formats, which could make them hostage to a software vendor. States such as Delhi, Kerala and others from the North-East are heavy adopters of ODF file formats which are open and free (excluding maintenance and support). Non-governmental and legacy Microsoft Office users, on the other hand, are unlikely to bother about which file formats their office applications use, given that Microsoft Office still has a 90 per cent market share in most countries.

An independent study by Burton Group, the research and consulting firm, indicated two months ago that although moving to OOXML file formats involves some administrative challenges, the opportunities for improved content management and productivity outweigh the short-term inconvenience of migrating from binary file formats. Office 2007 enables people to choose from many formats, and now the Open XML Translator has enabled read and write capabilities for ODF as well. However, the angst is more about the older Office formats and OOXML, for which Microsoft maintains that it has developed a compatibility pack. For many organisations, the most significant value of ODF-based alternatives to Microsoft Office may be in establishing a viable option that provides opportunities to negotiate more favourable pricing/licensing agreements with Microsoft. Meanwhile, the Burton study suggests that the OOXML Vs ODF battle may be superseded by new standards emerging from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).