Jump to content

Standardization of Office Open XML: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
HAl (talk | contribs)
3,031 edits
→Complaints about the national bodies process: Rick is a not a MS developer, B not a paid lobbyist.
Tobixen (talk | contribs)
230 edits
→Complaints about the national bodies process: - added complaints about Norways process
Line 165: Line 165:
| publisher=Rob Weir
| publisher=Rob Weir
| date=January 21, 2008}}</ref>
| date=January 21, 2008}}</ref>
* Norways vote was decided by administrative staff of Standard Norge, the viewpoints of the technical committee was ignored.<ref name="Open Letter to ISO by committee members">{{cite web
|url=http://people.opera.com/howcome/2008/ooxml/iso.html
|title= Open letter to ISO
| publisher=Members of the technical committee
| date=April 07, 2008}}</ref><ref name="Press release from Standard Norge">{{cite web
|url=http://www.standard.no/imaker.exe?id=18675
|title= Orientation on Standards Norway’s handling of the vote on OOXML in ISO.
| publisher=Standard Norge
| date=April 4, 2008}}</ref><ref name="OOXML Irregularities in Norway">{{cite web
|url=http://wiki.efn.no/2008-04_OOXML_irregularities_in_Norway
|title= OOXML irregularities in Norway
| publisher=Tobias Brox
| date=April 6, 2008}}</ref>


After the specification was officially accepted as an ISO standard, Microsoft competitors Red Hat, Ubuntu, and IBM and those with a vested interest in the competing [[OpenDocument]] format began to claim ISO is losing credibility. <ref>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2222</ref><ref>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080403-ooxml-critics-iso-approval-demonstrates-the-need-for-reform.html</ref>
After the specification was officially accepted as an ISO standard, Microsoft competitors Red Hat, Ubuntu, and IBM and those with a vested interest in the competing [[OpenDocument]] format began to claim ISO is losing credibility. <ref>http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2222</ref><ref>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080403-ooxml-critics-iso-approval-demonstrates-the-need-for-reform.html</ref>

Revision as of 21:40, 9 April 2008

Microsoft's Office Open XML is currently Ecma International standard 376, approved on 7 December 2006. Ecma International submitted the specification to ISO/IEC's Joint Technical Committee 1. Controversially, it is currently undergoing fast-track standardization as DIS 29500 (Draft International Standard 29500).[1]

In a round of voting by ISO/IEC national body members in September 2007, the draft text was not approved. A ballot resolution process has amended the text.[2] On 2 April 2008, ISO announced that the Office Open XML format has reached the necessary votes to be approved for acceptance as an ISO/SEC International Standard.[3] As a result, Office Open XML may become an ISO/IEC international standard (ISO/IEC 29500) later this year.

There have been allegations that the ISO ballot process for OOXML was marred with voting irregularities and heavy-handed tactics by some stakeholders.[4][5]

Standardization within Ecma International

More than a year after being asked by the European Union to standardize their Office 2003 XML formats[citation needed], Microsoft submitted the Office Open XML to the Ecma International standardization process to make it an open standard. Ecma formed a technical committee (TC45) in order to produce and maintain a "formal standard for office productivity applications that is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats, submitted by Microsoft".[6] The technical committee is chaired by Microsoft[7] and includes members from Apple, Canon, Intel, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil ASA, Toshiba, The United States Library of Congress, The British Library and the Gnome Foundation.[8]

Ecma International approved Office Open XML as an Ecma standard (Ecma-376) on 7 December 2006[9] and submitted the approved submission for fasttracking standardization to ISO/IEC JTC 1.

The Office Open XML File Formats standard, Ecma-376, can be freely downloaded from Ecma international.[10]

Submission to ISO and IEC

As an ISO/IEC JTC 1 external Category A liaison, Ecma has submitted Ecma 376 to the JTC 1 fast track standardization process. To meet the requirements of this process,[11] Ecma has submitted the documents "Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track"[12] and "Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML".[13] ISO and IEC classified the specification as DIS 29500 Information technology – Office Open XML file formats.[14]

The fast track process consists of a contradictions phase, a ballot phase, and a ballot resolution phase.

During the contradictions phase, ISO and IEC members submitted perceived contradictions to JTC 1. During the ballot phase the members voted on the specification as it was submitted by Ecma and submitted editorial and technical comments with their vote. In the ballot resolution phase the submitted comments were addressed and members invited to reconsider their vote.

Ballot result

Main article: Office Open XML Ballot Results

ISO announced in September 2007 that the submitted draft of Office Open XML had not achieved the required number of votes for approval during the ballot phase.[15] Eighty-seven ISO and IEC member countries responded to the ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions. "P-members", who were required to vote, had to approve by 66.67% for the text to be approved. The P-members voted 17 in favor out of 32, below the required threshold for approval. Also, no more than 25% of the total member votes may be negative for the text to be approved, and this requirement was also not met since 26% of the total votes were negative. The standardization process then entered its ballot resolution phase, described below.

Response to the ballot

Ecma produced a draft "Disposition of comments" that addresses the 1,027 distinct "NB comments" (that is, comments by national bodies,) submitted in the letter ballot phase, consisting of some 1,600 pages of commentary and proposed changes. The ISO/IEC members had 6 weeks to review this draft, and had an opportunity to participate in several informal conference call sessions with the Ecma TC to discuss it before the BRM.[16]

Ballot resolution process

A Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) is an integral part of the ballot resolution phase. The outcome of, and period following, this meeting decides whether DIS 29500 succeeds or fails in its bid to become an International Standard. The DIS 29500 BRM took place in late February 2008.

Final outcome

At the BRM, 873 proposed changes to the specification were submitted by Ecma (of their 1,027 responses, 154 proposed no change). Of these only 20% were discussed and modified in meeting sessions, given the 5 day time limit of the meeting. The remaining 80% were not discussed and were subject to a voting mechanism approved by the meeting (see Resolution 37 of the meeting resolutions cited below). Using this voting mechanism NBs could approve, disapprove or abstain on each and every one of these proposed changes. This allowed a set of approved changes to be decided upon without discussion.[17]

With the original submitted draft used as the base, all the agreed upon changes are applied by the Project Editor to create a new document incorporating the changes mandated by the BRM. In parallel with this, NBs have 30 days after the BRM in which to decide whether to amend their votes of 2 September 2007. At the end of march 2008 the ISO voting criteria had been met[18] and therefore the new text will be passed for publication as an ISO/IEC standard (JTC 1 Directives[11] clause 13.9).

After its approval the text goes into the publication process which takes several months. It may take additional time for ISO/IEC to make the standard a free publication, if it becomes one.

Maintenance regime

The precise details of a maintenance regime for Office Open XML (should it become an ISO/IEC Standard) are yet to be determined. Ecma have put forward a maintenance proposal, however JTC 1 has named SC 34 as the designated maintenance body for the Standard (should it be approved)[citation needed].

Whatever maintenance regime is decided, the JTC 1 Directives stipulate that:

  • Proposals to amend the text, and acceptance of any such amendments, are subject to normal JTC 1 voting processes (JTC 1 Directives[11] clause 15.5)
  • The standard cannot be "stabilised" (i.e. no longer subject to periodic maintenance) except through approval in a JTC 1 ballot (JTC 1 Directives[11] clause 15.6.2).
  • For the standard to be stabilised it must have passed through one review cycle (JTC 1 Directives[11] clause 15.6.1). In this review cycle the text would have to have been re-written to comply with ISO's formatting and verbal requirements (JTC 1 Directives[11] clause 13.4).

Complaints about the national bodies process

Complaints about the procedures in the national bodies have surfaced during the five-month ballot process.

  • An article on Ars Technica sources Groklaw stating that at Portugal's national body TC meeting, "representatives from Microsoft attempted to argue that Sun Microsystems, the creators and supporters of the competing ODF document standard, could not be given a seat at the conference table because there was a lack of chairs."[19].
  • According to IDABC's Open Source News, eleven companies (including OpenDocument Format supporter IBM) and open source advocacy groups requested that Portugal's ministry of Economy and Innovation investigate Portugal's vote on Office Open XML.[20]
  • In Sweden, Microsoft Sweden asked its partners to get involved in the standardization process. 22 Microsoft partners (four of which were IBM partners as well) and Google each paid a 17.000 SEK fee to join the committee shortly before the decision on Office Open XML.[21] Microsoft also notified SIS that an employee sent a memo to two of its partners, requesting them to join the SIS committee and vote in favor of Office Open XML in return for "marketing contributions."[22] Jason Matusow, a Director in the Corporate Standards Strategy Team at Microsoft, stated that the memo was the action of an individual employee acting outside company policy, and that the memo was retracted as soon as it was discovered.[23]
  • Sweden invalidated its vote (80% was for for approval) as one company cast more than one vote, which is against SIS policy.[24]
  • In Switzerland, SNV registered a vote of "approval with comments," and there was some criticism about a "conflict of interest" regarding the chairman of the UK 14 sub-committee, who did not allow discussion of licensing, economic and political arguments.[25][26] In addition, the chairman of the relevant SNV parent committee is also the secretary general of ECMA. Further complaints regarded "committee stuffing", which is however allowed by present SNV rules, and non-adherence to SNV rules by the UK14 chairman, which resulted in a re-vote with the same result.
  • In India a form letter reported to be supplied by Microsoft was used by several non-profit organizations to "to bombard the Indian IT Secretary and the Additional Director General of the Bureau of Indian Standards with letters supporting its OOXML proposal."[27]
  • In Italy, according to an Italian Open Source advocate, the 5 member committee deciding on Office Open XML grew to 83 before the July 8 enrollment deadline.[28] Both supporters of the new format as well as opponents resulted in a vote for approval being blocked by the opponents of Office Open XML.[citation needed]
  • According to IDABC's Open Source News, two opponents of Office Open XML in Germany - Deutsche Telekom and Google - were not allowed to vote[28] because they tried to join the committee last-minute.[29] Open Source News says, "Participants described the process as ludicrous."
  • According to IDABC's Open Source News, in Netherlands "the chair of the national standardization committee deciding on OOXML, protested that the almost unanimous conditional approval was blocked by Microsoft."[28]
  • According to IDABC's Open Source News, Poland's technical committee KT 171 rejected Office Open XML. [30] The vote was invalidated and assigned to KT 182. A member of Poland's Linux community believes this was due to "reorganisation in the Polish standardisation body." KT 182 voted to approve Office Open XML.[31]
  • According to IDABC's Open Source News, Microsoft submitted misinformation to the Spanish standardization committee suggesting that the autonomous region of Andalucía supported the company's Office Open XML-proposal.[32]
  • According to Rob Weir, an IBM employee, Microsoft is publishing misinformation attributing support for OOXML standardization to various companies (including IBM).[33]
  • Norways vote was decided by administrative staff of Standard Norge, the viewpoints of the technical committee was ignored.[34][35][36]

After the specification was officially accepted as an ISO standard, Microsoft competitors Red Hat, Ubuntu, and IBM and those with a vested interest in the competing OpenDocument format began to claim ISO is losing credibility. [37][38] Ubuntu even went so far as to claim that they it would not implement OOXML. IBM reiterated its support for ODF.

Investigation of Microsoft by the European Commission

The European Commission has started an antitrust investigation into the interoperability of the Office Open XML format on the request of European Committee for Interoperable Systems, "a coalition of Microsoft's largest competitors."[39][40][41] Anonymous source(s) of the Wall Street Journal claim that this investigation also includes an investigation into the ISO/SEC standardization process.[42] The Financial Times reports that several national organizations in Europe have confirmed receipt of a letter by the European Commission. The letters ask for views on these charges and any supporting details of "alleged irregularities in several countries over the OOXML standardization proposal, and accusations of attempts to influence voting."[43]

Microsoft complaints about competitors

In an open letter, Microsoft attacked IBM's opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process, saying

"On December 7th, Ecma approved the adoption of Open XML as an international open standard. The vote was nearly unanimous; of the 21 members, IBM’s was the sole dissenting vote. IBM again was the lone dissenter when Ecma also agreed to submit Open XML as a standard for ratification by ISO/IEC JTC1."[44]

Nicos Tsilas, Microsoft's senior director of interoperability and intellectual property policy, expressed concern that IBM and the Free Software Foundation have been lobbying governments to mandate the use of the rival OpenDocument format (ODF) to the exclusion of other formats. In his opinion, they are "using government intervention as a way to compete" as they "couldn't compete technically."[45]

"IBM led a global campaign urging national bodies to... not even consider Open XML, because ODF had made it through ISO/IEC JTC1 first."

"IBM have asked governments to have an open-source, exclusive purchasing policy."

But another ZDNet story quotes Tsilas questioning why these accusations are coming forth.[46] The slip of the tongue by Tsalis of open source instead of open standards. Office Open XML is not open source but open standards. "There are good arguments for and against mandating open source in government — protecting business models or profit streams should not be among them" and that Office Open XML is supposed to be an open standard like ODF, "How, then, can adopting the latter "harm Microsoft's profit stream"? And since when has an open standard been "a product"?"

Arguments in support and criticism of Office Open XML standard

Support

Microsoft has argued for standardization on the Open XML community web site.[47] The Microsoft arguments for Office Open XML include that it is designed to cover most kinds of document data, so that old documents can be converted to Office Open XML with little data loss; that the format is compact, since it is compressed; that it is easy to learn; and that it inherits a lot of benefits from XML, such as document data integration, Unicode, and easy integration of new formats.

To counter this argument, ODF Alliance India published an extensive technical report in 2007 containing concrete issues by members of the association, as well as replies from Microsoft.[48] In December 2007 ECMA announced that many of reported issues will be taken into account in next edition of the standardisation proposal to ISO.[49]

User base argument

The most widely used office productivity packages currently rely on various proprietary and reverse engineered binary file formats such as doc, ppt and xls. For users of the binary formats there could be an advantage to migrating to an open XML standard that maps the features of previous binary file formats. The Office Open XML standard explicitly states this as a goal, in order to preserve investments in existing files and applications.[50]

Microsoft key benefits arguments

Microsoft makes the following claims about the benefits of Office Open XML as compared to the format currently used with Microsoft software: integration of business information with documents, open and royalty-free specification, compact and robust file format, safer documents, easier integration, transparency and improved information security, and compatibility.[citation needed][51]

Policy arguments

With regards to the alleged overlap in scope with the OpenDocument format, Ecma has provided the following policy arguments in favor of standardization: overlap in scope of ISO/IEC standards is common and can serve a practical purpose; Office Open XML addresses distinct user requirements; The OpenDocument format and Office Open XML are structured to meet different user requirements; and Office Open XML and Opendocument can serve as duo-standards.[52]

Technical arguments

  • The use of the Open Packaging specification which allows for Indirection, Chunking and Relative indirection.[53]
  • Uses the ZIP format, making ZIP part of the standard. Due to compression, files are smaller than current binary formats.[53]
  • It supports custom data elements for integration of data specific to an application or an organisation that wants to use the format.[53]
  • It defines spreadsheet formulas.[54]
  • Office Open XML contains alternate representations for the XML schemas and extensibility mechanisms using RELAX NG (ISO/IEC 19757-2) and NVDL (ISO/IEC 19757-4.)[53]
  • No restriction on image, audio or video types, Book 1 §14.2.12.[53]
  • Embedded controls can be of any type, such as Java or ActiveX, Book 1 §15.2.8.[53]
  • WordprocessingML font specifications can include font metrics and PANOSE information to assist in finding a substitution font if the original is not available, Book 3 §2.10.5.[53]
  • In the situation where a consuming application might not be capable of interpreting what a producing application wrote, Office Open XML defines an Alternate Content Block which can represent said data in an alternate format, such as an image. Book 3 §2.18.4.[53]
  • Internationalization support. For example date representation: In WordprocessingML (Book 4 §2.18.7) and SpreadsheetML (Book 4 §3.18.5), calendar dates after 1900 CE can be written using Gregorian (three variants), Hebrew, Hijri, Japanese (Emperor Era), Korean (Tangun Era), Saka, Taiwanese, and Thai formats. Also, there are several internationalization related spreadsheet conversion functions.[55]
  • Custom XML schema extensibility allows the addition of features to the format. This can, for instance, facilitate conversion from other formats and future features that are not part of the official specification.[53]
  • The format has features that can be used to enhance performance. For instance, SpreadsheetML has an optional performance feature to track which cells have to be recalculated when spreadsheet data changes.[citation needed] In spreadsheet formats lacking this feature, all of the used cells in the entire spreadsheet must be verified at least once for recalculations of the spreadsheet.[citation needed]

Criticism

The standard has been the subject of debate within the software industry. Some of the participants[weasel words] in the approval process are generally supportive of eventual ISO standardization, but are unwilling to support the JTC 1 fast track process.[citation needed] At over 6,000 pages in length, the specification is difficult to evaluate.[56]Objectors also complain that there could be user confusion regarding the two standards because of the similarity of the "Office Open XML" name to both "OpenDocument" and "OpenOffice".[citation needed]

Sources of opposition

Opposition originates from organizations and individuals including the free software and open source communities, FFII, OpenDocument supporters[57] and technology companies that develop office software around the competing OpenDocument format, which was approved as an ISO standard in 2006, such as Novell[58] and IBM[59]. Office Open XML has been criticized by these organisations on technical and legal grounds.

In addition, the standardization process itself has been questioned, including claims of balloting irregularities by some technical committees, Microsoft representatives and Microsoft partners in trying to get Office Open XML approved.


See also

References

  1. ^ ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology -- Office Open XML file formats
  2. ^ "Ballot resolution meeting addresses comments on draft ISO/IEC 29500 standard". ISO News and Media. 2008-03-05.
  3. ^ "ISO/IEC DIS 29500 receives necessary votes for approval as an International Standard". ISO. 2008-04-02.
  4. ^ Fiveash, Kelly (2008-03-31). "OOXML approved as international standard?". The Register. Retrieved 2008-04-01. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  5. ^ Eric, Lai. "Microsoft admits Swedish employee promised incentives for Open XML support". computerworld.com. Retrieved 2008-04-06. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  6. ^ "The new open standard safeguards the continued use of billions of existing documents". Ecma International. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
  7. ^ "TC45 - Office Open XML Formats". Ecma International. Retrieved 2007-02-08.
  8. ^ "TC45 - Office Open XML Formats". Retrieved 2007-10-31. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publiher= ignored (help)
  9. ^ "Ecma International approves Office Open XML standard" (Press release). Ecma International. December 7 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-08. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Standard ECMA-376
  11. ^ a b c d e f "ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 2.0". iso. Retrieved 2007-01-28.
  12. ^ Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track
  13. ^ Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML
  14. ^ ISO/IEC DIS 29500, Information technology – Office Open XML file formats
  15. ^ "Vote closes on draft ISO/IEC DIS 29500 standard" (Press release). International Organization for Standardization. September 4 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-04. {{cite press release}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Tom Ngo (2008-01-14). "Proposed dispositions for National Body comments on DIS 29500 complete – New phase to begin". Ecma International. Retrieved 2008-01-14.
  17. ^ SC 34. "Resolutions of the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting" (PDF).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ "ISO/IEC DIS 29500 receives necessary votes for approval as an International Standard". ISO. 2008-04-02.
  19. ^ "Office Open XML ISO certification process grows even murkier for Microsoft". Ars Technica. July 26, 2007.
  20. ^ "PT: Opponents of OOXML file appeal". IDABC. 04 September 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ "Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML".
  22. ^ "Microsoft pressed partners in Sweden to vote for OOXML".
  23. ^ heise online - Swedish Standards Institute declares Open XML vote void
  24. ^ Sweden's OOXML vote declared invalid | InfoWorld | News | 2007-08-31 | By Martin Wallström
  25. ^ FSFE formal objection to the UK14 meeting. Free Software Foundation Europe. 2007-08-13.
  26. ^ Appeal to the decision by Swiss Internet User Group. 14 August 2007.
  27. ^ "Microsoft influencing partner NGOs to support OOXML in India". newsforge.net. March 04, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  28. ^ a b c "EU: Irregularities reported in OOXML ISO process". IDABC. August 28, 2007. Cite error: The named reference "EU: Irregularities" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  29. ^ heise online - Unstimmigkeiten bei DIN-Entscheid zu Microsofts OpenXML beklagt
  30. ^ "PL: 'Poland likely to vote against OOXML'". IDABC. August 21, 2007.
  31. ^ "EU: No fast track approval for OOXML". IDABC. September 6, 2007.
  32. ^ "ES: Andalucía protests distortion in OOXML standardisation committee". IDABC. August 6, 2007.
  33. ^ "The Standards Trolls". Rob Weir. January 21, 2008.
  34. ^ "Open letter to ISO". Members of the technical committee. April 07, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. ^ "Orientation on Standards Norway's handling of the vote on OOXML in ISO". Standard Norge. April 4, 2008.
  36. ^ "OOXML irregularities in Norway". Tobias Brox. April 6, 2008.
  37. ^ http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=2222
  38. ^ http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080403-ooxml-critics-iso-approval-demonstrates-the-need-for-reform.html
  39. ^ "Microsoft runs into EU Vista charges". 2007-01-28. Retrieved 2008-02-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  40. ^ "PRess release by EU on Microsoft's antitrust investigation". EU. 20080114. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  41. ^ "EU looks into Microsoft's influence on ISO standardization process". heise. 08.02.2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  42. ^ "Microsoft's Office Push Scrutinized by EU". February 8, 2008.
  43. ^ "Probe into votes on Microsoft standard". Financial Times. March 5 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  44. ^ Interoperability, Choice and Open XML
  45. ^ Brett Winterford (2008-01-30). "Microsoft: IBM masterminded OOXML failure". ZDNet Australia.
  46. ^ "Cruel truth surfaces in the OOXML war". ZDNet.co.uk. 30 Jan 2008.
  47. ^ Open XML community. "Hear what Ecma has to say about Open XML (paragraph: Key benefits of Open XML)". OpenXMLcommunity.org.
  48. ^ http://odfalliance.in/files/Response%20to%20Comments%20of%20June%2030th-1.pdf
  49. ^ ECMA. "New proposed dispositions extend progress in addressing all National Body comments, seek to document and resolve legacy issues – Nearly 2/3 of comments now reviewed". ECMA.
  50. ^ http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Office%20Open%20XML%20Part%201%20(DOCX).zip
  51. ^ "Ecma Office Open XML File Formats overview".
  52. ^ -Response Document- National Body Comments from 30-Day Review of the Fast Track Ballot for ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (ECMA-376) Office Open XML File Formats
  53. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cite error: The named reference ecma_tc45_white paper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  54. ^ "Miguel de Icaza blog post".
  55. ^ Tom Ngo (December 11 2006). "Office Open XML Overview" (PDF). Ecma International. p. 6. Retrieved 2007-01-23. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  56. ^ "Changes to OOXML draft standard waved through". IDG News Service. Retrieved February 29, 2008.
  57. ^ ODF Alliance. "Office Open XML factsheet" (PDF). Retrieved 2007. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  58. ^ ZDNet.co.uk (2007-09-26). "Killing Microsoft's Clippy with open source". Retrieved 2007-10-04.
  59. ^ "IBM Comments on INCITS LB 2212 - DIS 29500". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  • DIS29500.org , the website containing all technical comments submitted prior to the BRM
  • ISO-Vote.com - Try voting scenarios on OOXML
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML&oldid=204548006"