Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters.See talk page guidelines.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Since this page does not even hint on how the standardization was done, and all the politics and corruption, it is preferable to put the neutrality tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually read the article? The "Standardization process" section clearly states that the process itself involved controversy, and even includes quotes and some details about the major players' feelings and concerns/reactions. However, the article here is about all aspects of OOXML (the format itself, the technical details, the support by various software, the approval process, etc.). You concern that there is more to say about the controversy is valid, but there is so much to say that it was all pushed into a separate article, with just a quick summary here. What's left here is a brief summary, as it should be (IMO) per WP:SUMMARY when there is a secondary detailed article about a specific aspect of a major-topic article. DMacks (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur. The article itself is neutral. Fleet Command (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I find the article is not neutral, and is slanted against Microsoft. e.g. "On July 2 the government declared that they hold the view that formats like Office Open XML which organizations such as Ecma International and ISO had also approved was, according to them, an open standard." The words "according to them" are unnecessary, evidently if "they hold the view" then it could only be "according to them". It seems that someone who feels that OOXML is not an open standard has felt it necessary to restate this so as to coerce the reader into believing the same. Just one example of a few. Fletchgqc (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this section should be moved out of this article, perhaps into a general article about open standards in government if such an article exists. The premise of its inclusion here is wrong: the introduction says that the following bodies are considering using open standard file formats in general, and then the references (though often not the text in this article) go on to reiterate this. In the references, OOXML is sometimes given as an example of such a standard, alongside ODF and PDF for example. Yet to the casual reader, we see the headings: Office Open XML -> Adoption, and then Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Germany etc. If you just scan the text and omit the references, you would think that you just read that all these governments have adopted OOXML over all other formats, which they have not. This is misleading, by intention or not, largely due to its placement here, and partly due to shoddy wording that does not thoroughly represent what the cited refs say.. --Nigelj (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The Sun/Oracle/Apache versions of OpenOffice.org could read OOXML from 3.0 on, but could not write it. Apache hopes to add support in the 4.x line, using LibreOffice patches to existing code that was never enabled. A lot of Linux users recall OOo 3.x writing .docx/.xlsx, but that would be because pretty much all Linux distros switched to the Go-oo fork as soon as it was available (which was still branded "OpenOffice.org"), and that did have OOXML writing support - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I come to this article knowing little about the topic... look at the headline and first sentence... and the first thing I see is "Open Office XML... Not to be confused with Open Office XML." Yeah, that's clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, you quoted it wrong. It's "Office Open XML" that needs to not be confused with "Open Office XML". Most theories about why this particular name was chosen would be indistinguishable from Microsoft-bashing, so I won't mention them. --Alvestrand (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. So, it appears someone did confuse them while he was being warned not to confuse them. Well, the lesson to be learned is: When you are being warning not to confuse something with something else, expect minute differences. Best regard, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)