Multiple standards = ISO neutral point of view

Is there a need for another standard for an office document format? This was one of the major arguments of OOXML's chief commercial opponents, Google and IBM.

They believe that Microsoft failed to provide adequate technical reasons for the addition of a second standardised document format, stating that OOXML's relationship to ODF is the most important of all the many comments that were raised by the national bodies.

Van den Beld has said in the past that while multiple, similar standards are "not a good result, they are because of patent wars often an inevitable result," pointing to the example of the many standardised DVD formats that were first approved by ECMA and then ISO, such as DVD-R, DVD+R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW and DVD RAM.

"Sony and Phillips are one group for +RW, while Panasonic and Toshiba are for -RW. These factions have different portfolios of patents and it's a patent war, nothing else," Van den Beld said.

While it may seem strange for ISO to have no less than five different but technically similar standardised formats for DVDs, van den Beld says the role of international standards organisations like ISO, IEC and ITU is to provide a neutral point of view and a level playing field, not judge what is suitable for the market or users.

"A standards body cannot take a position, it must be a level playing field giving a chance to every stakeholder. If we were to say yes to +RW and no to -RW, I wonder what the WTO would say because that would surely not be a neutral attitude.

"Now, whether the same is true for ODF and OOXML, I think for ISO it would be very difficult to say no (to OOXML) unless there are enough technical reasons."

And in ECMA's eyes, there aren't enough technical reasons. An ongoing study by the German SC-34 committee is currently listing all the differences between the two formats, and van den Beld said ECMA already had that discussion in 2006.

"We think the two animals are completely different, and the only way to have them both in the world is to have translation and interoperability - that is the normal way we see competing standards."

"There is also a non-technical argument that people want choice, and that is certainly an aspect".