[LINK] re: Australian consultation on proposed OOXML standard

[Christopher Vance]

I understand the problem to be that there are only two possible outcomes:

OOXML becomes an ISO standard, substantially as it is now

OOXML remains an ECMA standard, as it is, but fails to become an ISO standard

The question is merely yes/no, with no ability on ISO's part to adopt
stuff significantly different to the existing ECMA standard, beyond
minor editorial changes.

It is quite common for ECMA and other standards to be adopted as ISO
standards, but the process only allows certain kinds of changes. The
underlying assumption of the mechanism is that substantive weaknesses
are resolved before the other organization finalises its version of
the standard.

I leave it to you decide whether ECMA failed to do this, or whether it
can be excused on the grounds that ECMA have different purposes and
methods compared to ISO. (Before you whinge at ECMA, I will say that
you can get ECMA standards for free, while ISO charges like a wounded
bull.)

To do it "right" would require an ISO SC and WG doing significantly
more. But why would JTC1 bother allowing this, when there's already
the other standard?

-- Christopher