>If a developing country like India and the number of >institutions can adopt ODF then why don’t microsoft adds >support the ODF format. This shows microsoft’s non-commitment >towards the normal people who can’t afford to buy office >2007.
>

Whether a programm is open/closed, for free/commercial has nothing to do with the file format used.

Customers should be able to choose between the difference in FUNCTIONALITY in the software. The result (your documents) could be used by different people in different software.

So every developer should be able to write software that is FULLY capable of reading and writing documents in that standard. This is not possible with OOXML. So OOXML can not be and may not be a standard.

Opponents of approval should at least consider the possibility that they would probably not have voted for it regardless of the quality of the standard, due to their dislike of the company that proposed it. Given that atmosphere, the consensus “requirement” seems impractical at best, and thus we’re left with a formal vote that has exposed a whole new set of flaws in the standardization process.

Taking about 3 steps back from the ISO situation, readers need to recognize that where we are now is a direct consequence of the Massachusetts debacle. A large majority of the business community quietly viewed the MA ODF manifesto as a triumph of theory over reason, and was not sorry to see everyone who promoted it canned. Massachusetts may have in turn been influenced by companies promoting their own implementations of ODF architectures, most of whom are visibly involved (as opponents) in the ISO process.

Reasonable people seek reasonable solutions to problems. Unfortunately, there seem to be few reasonable parties involved in the ODF vs. OOXML debate.

If a developing country like India and the number of institutions can adopt ODF then why don’t microsoft adds support the ODF format. This shows microsoft’s non-commitment towards the normal people who can’t afford to buy office 2007.

I wish and pray this second round of voting also favours ODF and not OOXML..

If OOXML fails to receive status as an ISO standard, then MS would surely like to see that status rendered meaningless. Destroying the credibility of the ISO would serve that purpose nicely, especially since ODF’s approval is relatively young.

Given this, it’s not hard to see how Microsoft’s strategy here will be to force an approval of OOXML by ISO, or, failing that, destroy ISO in the attempt.

What’s repeatedly frustrating is that people are so willing to forgive MS’ clear abuses. Everyone should be up in arms about the very attempts MS is making to shipwreck the process, when all they’re doing is waiting to see if the sabotage is successful. It baffles me.

What we need to do is point out the damage being done to the ISO, shine the spotlight on the parts of the process that are vulnerable to abuse, then demand that they are fixed. We need to get behind the ISO and insist that it serve the industry, not abandon it.

“Four voted to disapprove, and 20 either abstained or refused to register and vote at all.”

should say “… refused to register ANY vote at all.”

“The ISO process for IT standards was designed to promote interoperability, portability, and cultural and linguistic adaptability,1 using a consensus process.”

the digit “1″ near the end of the sentence seems to be extraneous

“The ISO process for IT standards was designed to promote interoperability, portability, and cultural and linguistic adaptability,1 using a consensus process. We believe strongly in these goals, but the current process is not designed to achieve them.”

It seems to me like it says the process is designed to promote certain goals, but then turns around and says it is not designed to achieve them. I guess there’s a fine distinction between designing to promote and designing to achieve, but it might be a bit too fine; I had trouble making it anyway. If the distinction between promote and achieve isn’t what is intended, perhaps it should be reworded—something like “intended to promote”? I’m not exactly sure since I’m not entirely clear on what is being said right here.

ISO must be revamped no matter what with regard to technical standards. There’s nothing in place that would prevent this from happening again unless the structure of the process is either changed or scrapped.

It should be noted that the Gnome people, in addition to apparently pushing .NET (as mono) and c#, are in favor of OOXML. Given that NOVL owns Ximian and is very friendly with MSFT, this is not surprising. Me, I’m switching over to KDE (kde4 is much cooler than anything gnome has anyway).