How open is Open?

It is hard at first sight to see what the fuss is all about over the rival next-generation office formats. The Office 12 and Open Document formats are both based on XML, which uses a simple (in principle) tagging system to describe the layout and content of office documents.

You can create your own set of tags and any XML-savvy application should be able to use a document based on them so long as the file includes a description of your tags or a pointer to one.

This seems so flawlessly open a framework that you may wonder why Microsoft, notoriously more interested in locking in users, is adopting it. The company says that XML is too useful to ignore; rivals say Microsoft did not have any option ­ if it did not make the move, the rest of the world would.

But if XML files are self-described, does it matter that Microsoft has created its own tag-set rather than agreeing a standard with the rest of the industry?

The problem is that self-description is not mandatory, according to an Oasis representative who did not wish to be named (showing the complexity of the industry politics involved).

He said Microsoft could ‘slip a little undocumented tag in here and there’ so a file would work properly only with Windows software ­ the XML equivalent of an undocumented programming interface. Or Microsoft could introduce a changed or new XML schema for which it had pre-prepared its own environment, forcing others into major re-engineering ­ entire business processes can hinge on the meaning of tags.

Microsoft insists that its XML schemas will be open; but as a convicted monopoly abuser whose programming interfaces were opened fully only after lengthy court actions, it can hardly blame people for doubting its word.

Curiously, it is a member of Oasis, the organisation that created Opendoc. It even had a representative at an Oasis adoption forum in London last month, who said Microsoft was contributing to the organisation’s web-services standards ­ and that it had gone its own way on Office 12 formats because they require functionality that is not supported by Opendoc.

Other Oasis members say the functionality is not supported because Microsoft did not take part in the committees drawing up the standard and that it could still be included if the company co-operated.

The fact remains that Office 12 formats are far more accessible than the old ones and promise many benefits to businesses and organisations ­ not to mention a lot of upgrade revenues for Microsoft.

But they also carry a risk to Microsoft. Businesses, realising that Office 12 will bring major changes to their way of operating, could take the opportunity to look at software from Microsoft rivals ­who will find the new formats easier to reverse-engineer than the old. Moreover, European officials are surely right in insisting on truly open standards for fundamental business applications.

Microsoft has for years been able to say that its Office formats are a standard by virtue of the fact that at least nine in 10 desktops use them; but this will not be the case with the Office 12 formats. In fact there could be considerable resistance among those business and private users, probably a majority, who need only basic office functionality and find themselves suddenly having to cope with two formats.

The world has become wary of becoming hooked on Microsoft and you can bet that Europe and Massachusetts, which has also declared for open formats, will not be the only ones to hold the company to account.

See also Standards would loosen Microsoft's hold