This weekend SA voted against a Microsoft proposal to have a new document file format adopted as an international standard. Whatever the outcome of the vote, the process has provided a fascinating insight into the threats facing Microsoft.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019ve used Office 2007, the latest version of Microsoft\u2019s hegemonic productivity suite, you\u2019ll have noticed that it saves files in a new file format that is incompatible with previous versions of the software. Most users simply regard it as an inconvenience: to send documents to people using older versions of the software, Office 2007 users have to manually specify that documents be saved in Microsoft\u2019s previous file format.<\/p>\n
Microsoft has spent hundreds of thousands of rand in the SA media in recent weeks extolling the virtues of the new format, known as Ecma Open XML, a 6 000-page document which it urgently wants ratified as an international standard by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It turns out it was wasting its money. At the weekend, SA voted against fast-tracking the file format through the ISO. [Microsoft subsequently has lost its bid<\/a> to have Ecma Open XML fast-tracked to adoption as a standard by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)]<\/p>\n The US company clearly believes that if it is not successful in having Open XML made an ISO standard, Office will lose market share to OpenOffice.org and other open-source software rivals that have embraced a competing standard known as the OpenDocument format (ODF). Governments are increasingly insisting that their documents be stored in formats that comply with open standards. They don\u2019t want to keep their information in proprietary formats that are controlled by companies that may or may not be around in a decade or two.<\/p>\n But instead of embracing ODF, already an ISO standard, Microsoft has produced a rival in Open XML. Open-source advocates argue that Microsoft is trying to ram through a file format that contains proprietary components.<\/p>\n The war of words between the open-source community and Microsoft escalated dramatically in the run-up to the weekend vote. The company has been accused of using its financial muscle to influence voting. In Sweden, it has been accused of \u201cballot stuffing\u201d by the Free Software Foundation. And in other countries, the foundation has accused it of recruiting its business partners into national standards bodies.<\/p>\n SA Linux pioneer Mark Shuttleworth also recently weighed in on the subject, calling for Open XML to be rejected by the ISO. In a post to his blog, he said it was important to send a \u201cfirm message to Microsoft that the world wants a single, unified standard\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cImagine what would happen if there were multiple, incompatible Web document standards? You couldn\u2019t go to any website and just expect it to work. You would need to know which format they used. The fact that there is one Web document standard \u2014 HTML \u2014 is the key driver of the efficiency of the Web as a repository of information. The Web is a clear example of why ODF is the preferred structure for a public standard.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s little surprise that Open XML is being treated with suspicion. Microsoft has long attempted to \u201cembrace and extend\u201d open standards. Its Internet Explorer Web browser makes extensive use of proprietary extensions \u2014 websites that use these proprietary \u201chooks\u201d don\u2019t load properly in rival browsers. Thankfully, the company was not successful in its efforts to forge a proprietary Web where users would have been forced to use its software.<\/p>\n Ultimately, Microsoft\u2019s determination to see Open XML ratified as an ISO standard suggests something less sinister but much more fascinating: that the software giant, for all its financial resources, lacks confidence in its ability to compete effectively against open-source rivals. If it did, surely it would simply embrace ODF and let Office compete on its merits?<\/p>\n