November 2nd, 2007
ODF and differences of opinion
When I read that the OpenDocument Foundation had decided to back away from work on ODF in favor of CDF (a W3C-backed standard) out of a belief that ODF wouldn’t achieve the real-world interoperability goals the OpenDocument Foundation was originally created to achieve, I wondered whether I should bother with a blog post. It’s hard to avoid the fact that I am “blogging as a Microsoft programmer,” which tends to spike the punch for some people. My technology preferences are as clear as my choice of employer (though many seem to get that backwards, as if my technology choices were somehow shaped by my relatively recent Microsoft employment).
One thing I will NOT do is dive into a battle over the technical differences between the various formats involved. That really isn’t the point.
My problem with the discussion of ODF vs. OOXML vs. “name your protocol here” (the Chinese UOF is one example, as is, apparently, CDF) is that some proponents, more commonly on the ODF side, seem to think it is possible at this juncture in technology history to create a single and all-encompassing XML document standard that will satisfy everyone. I would concede that possibility if, at the next presidential election, 100% of American voters chooses the same candidate, and shortly thereafter, all the world comes together to join hands as one globe-spanning nation state. Viva Planet Earth!
Not likely, is it? So why does anyone think that any one format is supposed to be the perfect universal office automation document standard?
That doesn’t mean I am declaring that everyone should rally around the immediate ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard. If there are serious objections to aspects of the standard (and that appears to be the case), then Microsoft should take the time to ensure those problems are ironed out. Standardization processes aren’t speedy processes, and though I know for a fact that Microsoft would prefer the standard to be ratified tomorrow, I also understand the need to ensure that it IS truly a usable international standard.
I don’t apply that reasoning to just OOXML. Microsoft, as a matter of course, should be in the business of regularly standardizing in-house technology. VC-1, HD Photo, and even their approach to C# should be a guide for future action. If it bothers you that Microsoft will be the source of that technology, remember: they are the largest software company in the world. Why shouldn’t we expect lots of technology to have its genesis with Microsoft programmers (not all, just lots)?
Differences of opinion within the ODF community aren’t unique to the ODF community. There are alternatives to HTML, HTTP, and even XML. They just aren’t as popular. POPULARITY and MARKET SHARE are what make a standard truly a standard. That’s why it’s a good thing to have multiple standards, so smart people can agree to disagree and get on with the business of convincing as many people as possible to use their proposed standard. Once it crosses a certain “de facto” usage threshold, it becomes a TRUE standard.
It sounds like the OpenDocument Foundation thinks another XML document standard would better achieve their goals. To my mind, more power to them. That’s how we as a mass of disagreeing human beings figure out what is truly the correct solution.
John Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.
| 11/02/07
da Vinci here
