The answer to the first question may be yes or no, but my guess is the second answer is an unequivocal "yes".

Documents contain the bulk of data generated by information workers in today's businesses. It's also no secret that the majority of the documents that have been created over the past several years were created using Microsoft Office products in one version or another and have taken advantage of the suite of features encapsulated therein. The result is billions of Office documents globally.

In recent years, we have heard our customers loud and clear in their request for opening up the document file format. These requests had 4 critical caveats:

  1. Office file formats should embrace XML, allowing them to be created and manipulated with standard development tools
  2. The format MUST be 100% compatible with existing documents – fidelity can NOT be sacrificed to achieve the goal of an open format
  3. The evolution of the format should be under the control of an international standards body and not Microsoft
  4. Microsoft must provide licensing/usage terms that allow for broad implementation of the format without fear of future Microsoft patent assertion

Brian Jones has a great post that outlines the evolution of the file formats and the standardization process. [INSERT video montage with cheesy saxophone music here]

That brings us to today. As of today, we have achieved each of the aforementioned customer requests:

  1. Created an XML based format that is 100% compatible and documented it in its entirety
  2. Handed the specification over to Ecma International and achieved Ecma standardization as Ecma 376. Ecma has submitted the standard to ISO/JTC1 for formal ISO certification
  3. Placed Open XML under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP) allowing for broad implementation of the format.

The result is an international standardized XML based format that anyone can implement and use if they wish.

Fidelity & Choice

There are two primary open-standard xml-based document formats available to customers today: ODF and Ecma Open XML. The great news is that the existence of both of these formats provides customers with choice as they were both derived with different goals. Depending on the goals of the user, they can leverage the format that achieves them most effectively. For those who have a lot of existing Office documents they would like to bring forward into the new and open formats without a loss of fidelity, Open XML is most appropriate as this was a core design goal of the format. ODF may suit those who need a lighter weight solution and don't require backward compatibility. Choice is good.

As Open XML has moved through the standardization process at Ecma and now through the ISO process, I am seeing some concerning trends. There is a group of folks led by those who have a vested interest who are attempting to limit customer choice by blocking adoption of Ecma Open XML as an ISO standard. There is a coordinated campaign underway to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt (aka "FUD") into the market and the influencer community. These attempts include obfuscation of the ISO process contradiction period (see "Deadline looms…" vs. "What is Contradiction"), a push for government mandates for ODF (see the interview with Rosalyn Docktor from last Summer where she uses "choice" as one of the reasons why governments should mandate the use of ODF), and attacking technical decisions that were made to achieve the design goal of backward compatibility (see "Chernobyl Design Pattern"…and note the classic FUD "doom and gloom" title, then read the facts).

In classic political style, they are spending more time with unfounded attacks than promoting the benefits their own products and services or even the benefit of open xml-based formats.

Customers want choice, not politics.    

To see what is actually happening in the real world with Open XML, see www.openxmldeveloper.org.