I’ve mentioned before that whatever happens with the JTC1 ballot that closes on September 2, there will be a lengthy process that follows it before OOXML ever becomes an ISO/IEC standard, if that does come to pass.

As you will recall, the Executive Board (EB) of INCITS, the US voting body on OOXML in the ISO/IEC JTC1, posted two simultaneous, seven day written ballots - one to approve, with comments, and one to abstain, again with comments. The votes have now been received back. and are as follows:

"Even though the JTC1 ballot closes on September 2 on Microsoft’s product description for Microsoft Office, namely OOXML or DIS 29500, this will not become an ISO/IEC standard in 2007."

As the date for the February BRM (Ballot Resolution Meeting) on ISO/IEC JTC1 DIS 29500 (a/k/a Ecma 376, a/k/a Microsoft OOXML) approaches, more and more attention is being paid to how Ecma will propose the disposition of the comments submitted during the general voting period. This level of heightened interest is legitimately urgent, due to both the great number of the comments that need to be resolved

One little detail that many people do not know about the current voting rules on Microsoft’s Office product specification OOXML, now at the end of the Five Month Ballot for JTC1, is that there are two main classes of voters: “P” members and “O” members.

I’m hearing reports that people in national standards bodies are being told blatantly false information about what they can and cannot discuss during the current JTC1 Fast Track process for OOXML.

Alex Brown recently tweeted to Microsoft's Doug Mahugh the following about OOXML:OOXML=tought [sic] fights; revealed JTC 1 procedures were rubbish. The OOXML approval was marred by procedures that were rubbish, eh? How about the result, then? Wasn't that exactly what the four appeals against adoption of OOXML stated as one basis, that the process was essentially rubbish? Were they right?

The UK has submitted its comments on the adoption of the draft of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 OOXML (also known as ECMA 376) to JTC1, the joint technical committee of ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, and IEC, the International Electrotechnical Commission. The comments were collated after several months of technical review by industry experts.

In Part I of this OOXML update, my first post on the topic in over a year, I showed you how Microsoft maintains strong control over the OOXML standard.