In the lead-up to Document Freedom Day, a couple of interesting articles related to Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) format have surfaced.
OOXML is currently being proposed as a standard at the International Organisation for standardization (ISO), widely seen as push by Microsoft to dethrone the already-ISO-approved OpenDocument Format, and a decision on OOXML's status is expected from the ISO by the end of the month.
Tim Bray, the co-author of the XML specification has offered his thoughts on the pros and cons of Microsoft's proposed standard. As he is understandably anxious about being misrepresented or quoted out of context, i stongly recommend reading his piece in full, but here is my understanding (I stress my understanding) of what he's saying:
On it's own merits, OOXML is not a particularly good format, but neither is it as bad as it could be. The problem is that if it is approved by the ISO, Microsoft will use this as a propaganda weapon against the existing and technically superior standard. Microsoft has already made as many concessions to openness as they are likely to ever make just to get the format this close to standardisation, so there looks like is nothing to be gained from actually approving it, and no downside to rejecting it.
On a related note, one of the benefits said to have arisen from the standardisation process is the "Microsoft Open Specification Promise:", a covenant not to sue third parties for developing software that implements a number of Microsoft technologies, including OOXML, which may (or may not - software patent holders are notoriously cagey about specifics) be covered by patents held by Microsoft. The Software Freedom Law Centre has just published an analysis that suggests Microsoft's benevelolent gesture is indeed no more than a gesture, and third-party software developers who try to make software that interoperates with Microsoft's software are in practical terms not significantly safer from legal action than they ever were.