Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), in it’s second definition, states: ” That which is established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, extent, value, or quality; esp., the original specimen weight or measure sanctioned by government, as the standard pound, gallon, or yard.” And in it’s third definition, states: “That which is established as a rule or model by authority, custom, or general consent; criterion; test.”
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard) defines a technical standard as: “A technical standard is an established norm or requirement. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices.”
Webopedia (http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/standard.htm) goes a little deeper into it’s definition, particularly as it pertains to Computers: “A definition or format that has been approved by a recognized standards organization or is accepted as a de facto standard by the industry. Standards exist for programming languages, operating systems, data formats, communications protocols, and electrical interfaces.
From a user’s standpoint, standards are extremely important in the computer industry because they allow the combination of products from different manufacturers to create a customized system. Without standards, only hardware and software from the same company could be used together. In addition, standard user interfaces can make it much easier to learn how to use new applications.”
My previous post talked about de facto standards. Standards that are NOT really standards. Briefly, de facto standards are those generally accepted practices that have not been subject to a rigorous testing and evaluation by an authority. The Microsoft Word .doc format is an example of a de facto standard, one in general use, but never subjected to a rigorous testing/evaluation by an authority. It’s difficult to subject something to testing and evaluation when it is a copyrighted or patented format, or when it’s methods and procedures are a trade secret. And that’s much the situation with the .doc format. Because it’s owned, it has been kept away from such tests, and therefore away from actually being shared by others in a complete form. Many of you, I’m sure, have had occasion to import a .doc file into a word processor that was NOT Microsoft Word, and found that the formatting wasn’t the same, or the font had changed, or that it wouldn’t print out in the same number of pages, etc. That lack of shared formatting is a prime example of a file format that has not gone through a rigorous testing and evaluation process. Some of you, like me, may have found that the above example is true even between different releases of Microsoft Word. Again, the .doc format never addressed these issues. It’s purpose wasn’t to share information, but to influence people and organizations to purchase Microsoft products – to keep up with the “latest and greatest”, as it were.
MSOOXML, on the other hand, doesn’t even manage to be a de facto standard. Even Microsoft has admitted that they may not use it. Techworld (http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=3685&pagtype=all) quoted Microsoft Manager Brian Jones as saying: “It’s hard for Microsoft to commit to what comes out of Ecma [the European standards group that has already OK’d OOXML] in the coming years, because we don’t know what direction they will take the formats. We’ll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. … Since it’s not guaranteed, it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement.” In other words, Microsoft will do what Microsoft wants, and everybody else will just have to keep up by buying more Microsoft products. Yet MSOOXML has been proposed as a standard for inclusion in ISO’s authoritative list of standards. Something that Microsoft may not even use – at least not use as an actual format.
Microsoft has a purpose in getting MSOOXML approved as an ISO standard. That purpose is not sharing. That purpose is to be able to tell governments and organizations that insiste on ONLY using approved standards that MSOOXML is one such – even though they, themselves, may not use it. It ammounts to a confidence game. Which shell is the pea under? How much of what Microsoft tells governments and organizations will be the whole truth, and how much will be a case of telling a lie by only telling part of the truth and allowing those listening to assume what they want them to believe? Used car salesmen are more honest than this.
The other side of the coin is much more dangerous to individuals. If MSOOXML is approved as a standard, despite noted deficiencies and technical problems, it will reflect poorly on the Standards Body that approves it. If MSOOXML is approved because of committee manipulation, bribery, or intimidation, then it casts into doubt ALL of the standards that Standards Body has approved. In other words, ISO could be looked upon as no longer an authoritative Standards Body. That there are technical issues with MSOOXML, and with it’s approval process at this point is documented in a number of places, including Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net). There are other web sites that have also covered this subject.
MSOOXML is NOT a standard. It is not something that is generally accepted, in fact there is NO vender that currently uses it as a format. It has met no rigorous testing and evaluation, despite the attempts by Microsoft to make it appear that it has. The standardization process is not meant to be a means of allowing one particular company to profit at the expense of all it’s competition. It is meant to allow the users of such standards to make their own choices of what individual product they wish to use – a means of promoting competition and reducing or eliminating monopolistic lock-in.
ODF IS a standard. It has gone through the process legitimately, and is continuing to go through the process of being updated, upgraded, and imporved. It also happens to be an OPEN standard, that anyone can use without tangling with patent issues. It has met general acceptance in the form of being incorporated into various word processor applications, some of them FLOSS applications. It has also been accepted by various governments and organizations as the format to use to ensure that what they write NOW will be able to be read in the future.
ISO now stands on the brink of a chasm. Their acceptance of MSOOXML as a standard could spell the end of their being considered an authoritative standards body. According to their statement (see http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSL3019918720080331), the results of the voting will be released April 2, 2008.
