Leif Jodahl from Denmark was invited to a talk with Chris Capossela, corporate vice president of Microsoft Business Division Product Management Group. The meeting he had with him and few other Microsoft guys didn't move any chairs. According to Leif, Chris spent a lot of effort criticizing Andrew Updegrove for his blog articles. "Well, in another audience that might work.", comments Leif. But Leif got a new understanding of the problem. The company simply interprets the word 'open' to suit their own business. Leif writes:
I am beginning to understand why Microsoft is still claiming to be open. Basically it's a matter of how we interpret the one word open. Microsoft think that XML alone makes the standard open. I use another definition. The process has to be open and transparent and the organization must be protected from being hijacked by a singe vendor. I don't think he [Chris Capossela] agreed or even commented on that.
You guys in Denmark have a legal definition of open standard, so every single player is forced to fit to it, right?
Motion B103: http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/index.htm
Open standards means that the standard is
- well documented with its full specification publically available,
- freely implementable without economically, politically or legal limitations on implementation and use, and
- standardized and maintained in an open forum (a so-called standards organisation) through an open process.
Leif Jodahl comments below his blog post:
According to Chris Capossela [Microsoft] they are very well aware that OOXML doesn't live up to the definition of open standards that is a part of the Danish decision.