Whither OOXML?
[...]
Strangely, however, Microsoft appears to be soft-pedaling its own standard. At GOSCON last week there was a panel on document formats, with reps from IBM, Sun, Adobe, and Microsoft present. Each of the company representatives got to speak for five minutes and present his company's perspective on document formats.
In his presentation, Matusow appeared to be backing away from OOXML as a key technology. If you look at the slide he presented ...
...you can see that the positioning now is that the tool is key, and the document format secondary, which, to my mind, is a bizarre assertion, although it's one that aligns with a positioning that, above all, must keep Microsoft's tools in a predominate position.
It appears to me that, having realized that the force-feeding of OOXML into an international standards body is problematic, Microsoft is now trying to present a soft TCO story which emphasizes sunk costs and pre-existing product versions as a reason to stay on the Microsoft path, along with an incomprehensible assertion that two document standards would be a good thing (this last is the most oddball position of all; how can anyone state with a straight face that the world would be well-served by having two incompatible editable file formats?).
