Computerworld has a blog roundup called “Microsoft tripped en route to world domination (and dev doom)”. There is a long way to go between now and when the final vote is due on September 2, but it’s also clear that anything seems to go for those trying to get OOXML approved, one way or another.
The story in Portugal is particularly noteworthy and do take a look. Those who want to dig deeper are encouraged to explore recent membership surges and changes to voting rules that seem customized to get OOXML approval. Why did people join recently, did they pay their own way, what is their primary commercial partnership arrangement, and do they plan to have continued active participation in their national standards activities? This should be asked country by country.
If this is really a transparent, open process, the public has the right to know what is happening in all these national standards bodies. I’ve said this before, but this is going to have repercussions for years to come, and not positive ones.
Also See: An “OOXML is a bad idea” blog entry compendium
Following some links from there brings you to this wiki set up by the BSI in the UK:
http://www.xmlopen.org/ooxml-wiki/index.php/DIS_29500_Comments
I’m fairly impressed with this this summary, prepared for a Parlimentary group:
http://www.xmlopen.org/ooxml-wiki/resources/ooxml-in-ten-points-for-apig.pdf
Though the in-depth list of problems they’ve found speaks louder to anyone with any technical background. It just looks shoddy, and I’m surprised that Microsoft, ECMA, and any implementors of OOXML have between them, managed to miss so many major problems.
One of the guys from Portugal posted an update on this here ( http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/18/italy-vote-ooxml/#comment-1286 ), among other places. This story is just nasty.