Setting the standard

Microsoft's efforts to make its latest document format Office Open XML (Open XML) an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) standard is going to see a real result by the end of this month when industry representatives will have a finnal chance to decide whether or not to adopt it as an ISO standard.

Open XML, the default file-saving format in Microsoft Office 2007, was originally developed as a successor to the binary Microsoft Office file format. It became an ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers Association) standard in December 2006 but failed in September last year to be accepted as a more important ISO standard in a primary ballot, where opponents argued the product's 6,000 pages of specification and code, compared with the current ISO standard ODF's (Open Document Format) 860 pages, make it needlessly complicated and untranslatable.

In China, which supports the UOF (uniform Office Format) standard, Microsoft's Open XML was also controversial as opponents regarded the standard as Microsoft's latest efforts to maintain its monopoly in document formats - an issue which has raised barriers for other software makers trying to develop compatible products.

In response, Microsoft announced in February a set of strategic changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products.

On the eve of ISO's ballot, Zhang Yaqin, Microsoft's corporate vice president and chairman of Microsoft China, recently spoke with China Business Weekly reporter Wang Xing about Microsoft's latest moves and the controversial Open MXL standard.

Q: ODF has already been accepted as an ISO standard in the international market, why does Microsoft still want to take the burden of pushing its Open XML standard to be another ISO standard?

A: First I want to clarity that although Microsoft used to be a leader in the inception of Open XML, it is no longer Microsoft's standard, since it has been accepted by the ECMA and is, more precisely at the moment, an industry standard. The reason why we want to make Open XML an ISO standard is that we think consumers need more choices. For example, although we think Open XML has a lot of technological advantages over ODF, we also still support ODF becoming an ISO standard. Our support for China's UOF to become an ISO standard is also based on our belief in a user's right to choose. Any industry standard should represent the most advanced technology and stand for the needs of users and the future of the industry.

Q: Do you mean that for the healthy development of an industry, the more standards the better?

A: If you see the document format there are many different standards because it is impossible for any single format to fit the needs of everyone. In Microsoft's Office products we had different formats in our different version of products such as Office 95, 97, XP, 2000, 2003 and we will support ODF in the SP2 of our Office 2007 suit. The co-existence of multiple formats is a reality. An international standard should reflect the industry mainstream, which is the co-existence of multiple formats. Both ODF and UOF are based on XML technology, and so is Open XML. The Industry has already formed an XML-based framework. All the above formats are designed to fit the needs of different users and companies and you can't just throw them all away.

Q: But for many, the reality is more about Microsoft's monopoly, for which the European Union just announced an unprecedented $1.35 billion fine last month. What's your comment on that?

A: I don't think there is a monopoly issue in the area of document format because in reality there are multiple formats, including Adobe's PDF. Regarding the EU's fine, although I didn't examine the details of the ruling I think it is for what happened in the past. We have made great steps by announcing four principles last month to improve openness and interoperability, which reflects the needs of the industry and some of the principles even outpace the requirements of the European Union.

Q: Do you think it is appropriate to let a single company's standard become an international one?

A: I don't think so. In the ISO organization at the moment, we have the ODF standard only, which was backed by IBM and SUN Microsystems. I think the whole industry should welcome multiple standards and encourage new opportunities in which different standards could compete and cooperate. That is why we support China's UOF and as well as Open XML to become an international standard. If there is only one standard, it could not cover the needs of the whole industry.

Given that we have talked about standards, I think we could have a look at the 3G industry, in which there are also multiple standards backed by the United States, Europe and China respectively. If there could only be one standard, I don't think China's TD-SCDMA standard would have a chance. That is the same in the document format. If ODF is the only standard and the new technologies and standards are not able to have an opportunity, it is not fair for everyone.

Q: Do you support a combination or fusion among ODF, UOF and Open XML?

A: The current three standards have already a fusion under the XML framework. But we don't think there can be a complete fusion. We can make a translation or conversion between standards but it is impossible to make them completely merge. One is because the current standard must be compatible with the previous document format, such as formats of previous office products and PDF; otherwise the new standard is meaningless. Second is that there are a lot of de facto standards, for which an international standard should also be compatible. Every year, thousands of new format will be floated in the IT industry, but maybe only 1-percent of them are actually useful. Even if a format becomes an international standard, it is meaningless if the whole industry does not support it.

Editor's note: The IPR Special is sponsored by the State Intellectual Property Office and published by China Business Weekly. To contact the Intellectual Property Office, the IPR Special hotlines are 8610-64995421 or 8610-64995826, and the e-mail address is ipr@chinadaily.com.cn.

(China Daily 03/24/2008 page9)