14 DAY TRIAL // The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is supported by the Shuttleworth Foundation in rejecting the Microsoft-conducted bid to make the OOXML document type as a second official standard.
Andrew Rens, Intellectual Property Fellow at Shuttleworth Foundation explained why the OOXML format should be rejected, mainly because of its proprietary form which would impact in a negative way the community, since there is already a recognized standard, the ODF (Open Document Format).
Andrew Rens said: "The use of two different document standards by governments, for example, would create a barrier to citizens being able to effectively access government information. It would also hinder the general sharing of information because it would create technical difficulties for people using different formats."
After the five-month ballot which ended on September 2, the decision was to reject the proposed standard, because it was based on proprietary software, it had some technical issues and it raised some concerns about possible property right claims against those who would implement OOXML. Prior to this, a technical sub-committee of the South African Bureau of Standards(SABS) had rejected the Microsoft standard by 13 to 4 votes.
Also, if the two opposing open document standards co-existed, the problem of incompatibility would reappear. The Shuttleworth Foundation considers the possibility of ISO considering that the ruling which made OOXML a part of a longer process would represent a danger for the access to information. Rens considers proprietary formats unnecessary barriers for accessing knowledge, and thinks it would be more productive for vendors to contribute to the existing standard. His view was supported by ISO's voting members. There are approximately 150 member countries which can vote on any proposal that's made, but usually about 40 countries really vote. Mark Shuttleworth, on his blog wrote that Microsoft had influenced some voting members to abstain from giving their vote. Shuttleworth considers that, because of Microsoft's position in some states, their representatives may be afraid that their vote would cost their countries big sums of money.