Understanding OOXML and PDF Standards Approval

Joe Wilcox In 2007, Microsoft and Adobe are both seeking standards approval for their major file formats. We offer a quick look at the processes.

The companies have chosen separate standards-approval processes ultimately designed to achieve the coveted approval by ISO (International Organization for Standardization). Microsoft first sought standards approval for OOXML (Office Open XML) formats through Ecma. Following December approval, Microsoft submitted OOXML to ISO.

Last week, Adobe submitted PDF (Portable Document Format) 1.7 to AIIM (Association for Information and Image Management), which will work on submission to ISO.

Standards approval is important for both OOXML and PDF. Some U.S. and European governmental agencies are demanding "open" or "standard" formats because of mandates to provide citizens with open and free access to information. Additionally, there is demand for greater interoperability among formats.

Both companies will freely offer their formats, control of which would come under the standards body.

"Licensing for a standard is often determined by the policies of that standards organization. ISO's licensing is a RAND [reasonable and non-discriminatory]." said Sarah Rosenbaum, Adobe's director of product management.

Microsoft's ISO process would appear to be farther along than Adobe's. OOXML is concluding the contradiction period, which seeks to uncover any invalidations with adopted standards.

However, Adobe long ago published the PDF specification and offered easy licensing terms. Adobe also has more experience with the standards approval process. Two PDF derivatives--PDF/X, for advertising, and PDF/A, for archival documens--are approved standards. Adobe expects standards approval for PDF/X (for engineering) and PDF/UA (for universal access) within 12 months.

Microsoft XML architect Jean Paoli said the company expects to receive ISO approval by the end of summer. PDF 1.7 approval would take longer, in part because AIIM is an intermediary.

Format Rivals Enter Debate
The near simultaneous standards approval process comes as competition heats up between Adobe and Microsoft formats. PDF's support on multiple platforms and popularity for governmental documents and forms makes it increasingly a rival to Microsoft Office file formats.

Like Microsoft, Adobe has enabled collaboration at the file level, but without the need for the full Acrobat product. Both companies also have extended XML capabilities to their file formats.

In a September 2006 news analysis, Gartner noted, "PDF files do not require a server or specific platform or operating system to support collaboration and sharing."

During the standards approval process, definitions of interoperability and "open" are sure to be debated by supporters of both formats and also by the ODF (OpenDocument Format) camp. IBM is taking a strong pro-ODF stance, while Microsoft has cried foul over OOXML Wikipedia entries.

Microsoft upped the interoperability ante last week, with an open-source partner release of an ODF-OOXML translator for Word. The translator would allow limited file compatibility, with formatting largely intact, between Office and OpenOffice. Translators for Excel and PowerPoint aren't expected to be available until around November, Paoli said.

"We hope we are enabling true interoperability," Paoli said, referring to the standards work and the translator. While not part of any standards process, the translators are important for assuring business and government customers that Microsoft wants to play nice with other desktop software developers.

"It was inevitable that they would support ODF, given the fuss about it," said Paul DeGroot, lead desktop strategies analyst for Directions on Microsoft.

Farm Out, or Do It Yourself
But DeGroot criticized Microsoft for farming out the translator development, rather than doing the work itself. "This is a group that ships converters for all kinds of arcane and obsolete document formats, but for some reason--none of the reasons they gave were convincing--ODF was an exception."

Convincing or not, Paoli stated reasons. Microsoft chose to develop ODF translators in an "open way" with "partners working with governments." By taking such an approach, the company also sought to diminish accusations that "there is a Microsoft conspiracy here."

Maybe it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for Microsoft, because there were conspiracy accusations anyway. Critics argued that Microsoft development would lend more credibility to the translators and reduce potential future support headaches.

"This [approach] could come back to haunt them and their customers, since the work isn't under their direct control," DeGroot said.

Create, Communicate, Collaborate with IT Professionals at Ziff Davis Enterprise IT Link.