The industry of denial of the importance of the W3C's Compound Document Format ("CDF") is going to be a sysiphean ordeal for the blindered ODF & OOXML choruses ...
"CDF: the common format you've never heard of" | O'Reilly XML.com | Kurt Cagle | 29 Nov 2007
Already, the number of HTML documents that exist dwarf (by a few orders of magnitude) the total number of Microsoft Word documents. As editing increasingly moves onto the web, its safe to say that the document of choice will be neither ODF nor OOXML, both of which gain their power on the basis of supporting legacy word processing systems. Instead, what seems to be emerging from the W3C is something that is not an office suite because it didn’t evolve from one, but that nonetheless is capable of most if not all of the same functions that office suite documents pose.
Note also this -- dated Sept 2007 -- W3C editor's draft of CDF's CDI WICD profile for "conforming document-authoring tools".
In plain English, this means CDF is in fact designed for the desktop as well as devices and the web. Let me repeat that: CDF is a format for office suites.
Andy Updegrove was either lying or revealing a willingness to believe anything IBM tells him; and IBM got poor W3C CDF working group members to deny CDF's applicability to the office suite tools to keep the sinking ODF ship afloat (see statements attributed to W3C's Chris Lilley).
How can you blame the W3C for wanting to stay clear of the politicized & unproductive ODF v OOXML stalemate?
Just because something as powerful as CDF is unfamiliar doesn't mean it's going to hurt you.