ntouk.com - Jerry Fishenden's technology policy blog

Who would have thought file formats could generate so much heat and noise? Far be it for me to rain on someone else's party, but I’d like to bring a little clarity and a little sanity to what is all too often an emotive and irrational debate.

Let's take a step back. What's the problem that people are trying to fix? It seems to me there're several key elements underpinning the debate on file formats:

· “openness” – by which I mean that anyone can have access to the specifications and use those file formats with any application they want

· “interoperability” – the idea that the files should be usable with a wide variety of applications

· “future access” – by which I mean the ability to know that the files can be accessed in the future (particularly relevant for historic records, national archives and the like)

These all seem reasonable expectations. But to claim that any one schema is the universal, prescriptive answer seems about as sensible as claiming that there will never be a demand for more than five computers in the world. There are at least 100 industry specific XML schema already in existence (think healthcare, taxation, government forms, insurance, etc). And this is still relatively early in the adoption curve of XML. Some of the more extreme supporters of ODF claim that it's the only answer, that only ODF can deliver against these requirements. Which is rather to turn reality on its head. In any case, even before XML became the Internet's lingua franca, for as long as I can remember different applications have been able to open different file formats: think WordStar, WordPerfect etc – all of which were accessible in other applications.

We've learnt a lot about what makes for successful file formats – in terms of issues like fidelity, interoperability, performance and extensibility. Bear in mind that XML is all about users being able to define and use their own custom schema as much as it is about whether a document should be in bold, blue and Verdana font.

So, at the risk of letting a few awkward facts get in the way of a good bushfire….:

· the Microsoft binary Office file formats and Open XML are already fully open, free in perpetuity – so openness is not the issue here

· the Open XML file format is currently going through an international standards process and will be ratified (firstly by ECMA International and then ISO) in the same way that the Open Office file format has been through OASIS and ISO

· only Open XML is mature and proven enough to take the millions of existing Microsoft Office documents and turn them into XML without any loss of fidelity. This is a key requirement for historic and national archive purposes. It would also be highly irresponsible for us to abandon over 400 million Microsoft Office users and not enable them to move forward into the new world of XML without knowing they can do so without any loss of content or fidelity

ODF is fine for doing what it was designed to do: encapsulate the file format of Open Office and Star Office. In the same way, Open XML is ideally suited for what it is designed to do: ensure the 400 million or so Microsoft Office users can encapsulate their file contents in XML.

I'm genuinely puzzled by Gartner's apparent comment that ISO are unlikely to ratify another XML schema. This would be a first. ISO and other standards bodies have previously approved multiple standards for topics as wide-ranging as MPEG 4 video (14446/10 vs. ISO/IEC 14446/2), wireless networking (802.11g vs. 802.11a vs. b), networks (Ethernet / Arcnet / Token Ring) and even TCP/IP versus IPX/SPX. It would be a strange, colourless world indeed where we had one prescriptive standard for everything: a monochrome world without innovation, diversity, plurality and choice.

And on performance, ZDNet have published the following, highlighting how a version 1.0 of a file format such as ODF is way behind the curve on the experiences we have baked in to a mature file format such as Open XML:

The news that an ODF convertor has been developed for Microsoft Word is also a positive development. We share ODF's commitment to XML: we've been promoting XML for years and have baked it into the core of our products. It's why from the next release of Microsoft Office, XML becomes the default file format rather than merely being an option. Having a variety of formats and schema based on XML is a natural part of ensuring the many needs of customers and organisations around the world.

To suggest that interoperability is somehow magically solved by forcing everyone to adopt a single file format and to insist there can only be a single, global “open standard” flies in the face of reality. Successful interoperability programmes work with existing systems, enabling those systems to participate in a wider information ecosystem. I believe the combination of open and proprietary technical standards and the wide range of other published interfaces, file formats and protocols, provides precisely this: practical interoperability, of high value to customers, partners and organisations.

For anyone who wants to dive deeper into my thoughts on interop, take a look at the paper I authored here.

So, remind me once again: just what is the problem we're trying to fix here?

Open XML Microsoft interoperability ODF technology policy