Yesterday I asserted that at the core of our disaffection with ODF is its supporters' fundamental view that interoperability is an application thing and not a format thing.
If you parse [Sun's] actions in the development of ODF at OASIS, you would actually understand Sun's position is that full high-fidelity interoperability is "outside the scope" of the ODF [format] specification.
Sun shares this view with Microsoft -- who are the pioneers of the ideology of application supremacy.
Our view is that if there is to be a Universal Document Format, the format must be the nexus of interoperability.
Sun's Doug Johnson reiterated the Sun position (Katherine Noyes|ECT) here again more recently ...
"[CDF] doesn't seem like a good fit," he explained. "It's not designed for this, so I'm perplexed at their desire to go in that direction."
Interoperability is a burden that should be placed on applications, not formats, Johnson said. "I don't understand why it would be incumbent on anybody's format to incorporate interoperability -- that's the application's responsibility. They're trying to put the onus in the wrong place." [my emphasis...Ed.]
What was once considered an embarrassment has somehow emerged into the light of day.
Accordingly, ODF is writing itself into history as a meetoo proprietary, application-tied specification with no intention to provide the market requirement of universal interop. ODF is therefore a sideline drama, only useful insofar as it has provided a foil for OOXML.
OOXML is so fundamentally bad as a standards proposal that its chances for success at ISO in February cannot be improved or weakened by any exogenous forces. Only quirks of process and bribery can help it.