I have just come across this article in this morning’s news from Australia:

How open is “open” when Microsoft say it?

To quote one bit:

“Microsoft put forth the argument that OOXML is sufficiently different: ODF is constrained because it needs enhancements to support the detris accumulated over the differing versions of Microsoft Office’s evolution – yet OOXML will also need to cater for this. It seems a hollow argument to say an entirely new open specification is required. Given ODF exists, and that PDF is already a de-facto standard for electronic document exchange, one really must question the significance of Ecma-approval and the genuineness of the word “open” in Microsoft’s parlance.”

Here’s the URL:
http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13391&Itemid=1054

Based on patents, DRM, and past stories about lobbying, Australia is still subjected to a lot of pressure from Microsoft.

Aside: Office XML is, of course, closed because the spec is so obfuscated, that it may as well have been written in ogham notation. It should be rejected out of common sense. However, the EU wing of Microsoft’s marketing engine is revving as indicated by this polarised article from the BBC…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6265976.stm