In 2009, Norway
decided that ODF was to be used, rather than OOXML, but
called for further study and input from the IT industry, and I gather Microsoft put its shoulder to the wheel, and guess what? Now there is
a new report (in Norwegian) that compared the two and concludes that neither is suitable, and both should be kept "under observation". So, what should the government use as their standard if the report's conclusions are accepted? What's left? Previous legacy binary formats, one assumes?
Wait. No, it didn't. It didn't compare OOXML, the ISO standard, with ODF. It compared *ECMA-376*, which is not an ISO standard, with ODF 1.1, which is, but which no one much uses any more, practically speaking, last I heard, since everyone has moved to 1.2. What's the logic there?
Yes. That's what happened. I kid you not. ECMA-376. Whose idea was that? I mean, if you are going to compare standards, why not compare the two ISO standards? And if it doesn't have to be an ISO or other international standard for the comparison, why not use ODF 1.2? The study acknowledges it solves problems he found in 1.1.
Lars Marius Garshol, working for Bouvet ASA,
explains his assignment on his blog:
Now, I was asked to consider two specifications only: ECMA-376:2006, which is the very first OOXML standard (not the one later published by ISO), and ODF 1.1.
For what possible purpose? In order to end up concluding that Norway shouldn't use either one, perchance? Would that not give Microsoft time to get its useless OOXML "standard" into shape, matching up with what its proprietary products actually do? If you read the credits in the report, you might form an opinion.
More...
