OOXML: Not A Standard By Any Definition of the Word
As I see it, there are two ways in which something can become a standard:
- By general consensus: people use it so other people use it and pretty soon it is a “standard,” even though it is not necessarily an “official” standard.
- It is declared to be a standard through some agreed upon process.
Although the ISO just approved OOXML as a standard, it is not a standard by either of these definitions.
By the first definition, OOXML would have to already be widely accepted and used. Although it is very difficult to scientifically prove that OOXML is not being used, but if it were truly a standard you would see most office documents in OOXML, which does not seem to be the case. I have only seen a very few of them in OOXML. So OOXML is not yet a standard by general consensus.
By the second definition, it would seem that OOXML is a standard, because the ISO says it is. Not so fast. I said it has to be a standard based on an agreed upon process. There is a process for ISO standardization (all the countries vote and if enough of them vote to approve the standard, it gets approved.) This process, however, was not followed. There have been many incidents of suspicious (to say the least) things going on during the process, including events that seem like 100% cheating. Unless it can be shown that the standardization process was fair, OOXML is not a standard by this definition either.
In conclusion, until OOXML is truly adopted by the majority of people (preferably not through Microsoft forcing it on them) or the ISO shows us the process was really fair, ISO standardization means nothing and OOXML is not a standard.
