Community standards

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are no doubt aware of the heated debate that the ratification of Microsoft's OOXML standard for document exchange is causing. While there has been a lot of controversy and intrigue  over the approval process, the positive outcome has been to give extensive media coverage to the critically important issue of the future of computer and applications interoperability.

The first is that more people are aware of the importance of file formats being open - something that few cared about a year ago. Since Microsoft has been unable to counter the line that openness here is good, it has taken the position that its own 6000-page file format is also open. Although there is the danger that by doing so it will dilute the value of openness, it is clear that openness as a strategy is hard to beat.

The second point is that Microsoft's apparent willingness to use all and every means to get OOXML adopted as an ISO standard (and reports in the international media alleges it did) conveniently proves that there is no real grassroots desire for this. If there were, it wouldn't need to expend so much time and money on such methods.
These recent moves confirm that those boring old file formats really are interesting, at least in the case of documents (and probably elsewhere). There are various reasons for this, all of them bad news for Microsoft. One, obviously, is the continuing rise of ODF as a viable alternative. Another is the relative indifference of users to OOXML. One of the key ingredients for this is its interoperability.

ODF, for example, has been implemented by multiple vendors in a variety of products, including Open Office, KOffice, GoogleDocs, IBM Lotus Symphony, and Macintosh TextEdit. While each vendor has its own format, that format complies with a single agreed-upon standard. This gives the user the greatest amount of flexibility and freedom to exchange his creations with other users or to port his own data into other applications, as well as ample choice of vendors that offer the best product to meet his needs. Establishing two competing standards for the same applications (editable documents, spreadsheets, and presentations) serves no purpose in the marketplace and will limit users in the exchange and ownership of their data.

OOXML, on the other hand in its current format, cannot be completely implemented by anyone without access to inside information. Although it is more than 6,000 pages long, it contains various references to things that are defined only in Microsoft's software, not in the specification itself. For instance, many National Bodies requested more complete documentation for some legacy application compatibility settings in DIS 29500. Although both European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA, an international standards organization) and Microsoft claim that they will provide the information necessary for outside implementation, they have not yet fully done so.

Finally - and perhaps most importantly - the sudden interest in file formats is an indication that cloud computing is beginning to make its presence felt. There can be no lock-in to particular desktop programs here, because there are no desktop programs (other than the browser, and fortunately Firefox has pretty much won the fight to keep Web standards open). Ultimately, file formats are not just important, they are the only thing that counts.
Of course, I could be biased, but it has been shown time and time again that open source has proved to be one of the best ways to develop and maintain open standards because it is all about progress through meritocracy and consensus. No one vendor is strong-arming others to adopt a position that gives them a commercial edge. It’s a good thing.