Will the final vote even matter?

Andy Updegrove, a Boston-based lawyer working with industry standards bodies, believes it doesn't really matter which way the final vote on OOXML goes, as some European governments are likely to specify ODF for their office and archival systems.

That will ultimately lead to the merging of OOXML with ODF through what he calls "soft persuasion: a small percentage of the government market saying, 'this is something we think you should do. We aren't going to make you do it, but if you don't we're going to take our business elsewhere'. If OOXML is not adopted, it will simply ratchet the pressure to merge up a little as a few more governments specify ODF," Updegrove said.

Van den Beld agrees that the final vote will make little difference.

"After all we have said about the autonomy of national bodies it is very difficult to predict what will happen. On the technical level I would say OOXML is not perfect, but I see it as a pre-natal phase of a standard, the question is now do we take the opportunity to put it on the world and start its evolution so the child can start growing and becoming educated, or do we say 'no, we want another 3 months?' I don't see much difference.

"Even if governments specify ODF what does that mean? I think a government should not specify things that the majority of its people aren't using, or it will alienate itself from its own citizens. I don't know what that means when a government says 'we only want to have ODF'.

"I think the only viable path forward is interworking or interoperability. Interoperability is one of the most important things, if you don't have a standard you don't have a reference point and I don't have a reference point for what you have to do to work with me."

Is Microsoft changing its ways?

Van den Beld believes the most vocal opponents and proponents of OOXML should reconsider their approach of adopting one standard to the demise of another, and that Microsoft is changing its attitude towards standards and openness. He also refutes claims that Microsoft wants to 'kill' or replace ODF with OOXML.

"I don't think it's the intention of Microsoft and I still believe Microsoft has changed its attitude towards standards. 10 years ago it was impossible, when ECMA made a standard for Windows for instance in 1996 Microsoft was heavily against it.

"In 1996 the top Microsoft lawyer said to me 'OK I see the point of having a standard, but there is only one problem - Bill doesn't want it' and in those days if Bill didn't want it he had enough power to say no and in those days it was OK. But I don't think today he would do that.

Van den Beld said Microsoft's attitude began to change when ECMA began releasing standards for Microsoft's .Net languages, and that its whole attitude towards openness and standardisation is "really changing".

"But it takes a long time for an elephant or a massive tanker to make a small curve. And it's very difficult for them to try and sell that."

In the end, after all the criticisms and controversies, Van den Beld is adamant that the ISO standardisation process, while not perfect, is the only suitable process for standardisation.

"After all this, if someone said to me 'what would you recommend?' I would recommend the same process because it's the only lean process that ISO has, and OK, you could spend a little bit more time talking but it was not judged necessary by ISO."