The Office Open XML file formats, also known as OOXML, were standardised between December 2006 and November 2008, first by the Ecma International consortium (where they became ECMA-376), and subsequently, after a contentious standardization process, by the ISO/IEC's Joint Technical Committee 1 (where they became ISO/IEC 29500:2008).

Standardization within Ecma International

More than a year after being asked by the European Union to standardize their Office 2003 XML formats, Microsoft submitted 2,000 pages of documentation for a new file format to the Ecma International consortium for it to be made into an open standard. Ecma formed a technical committee (TC45) in December 2005, in order to produce and maintain a "formal standard for office productivity applications that is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats, submitted by Microsoft". The technical committee was chaired by two Microsoft employees and included members drawn from Apple, Canon, Intel, NextPage, Novell, Pioneer, Statoil ASA, Toshiba, The United States Library of Congress, The British Library and the Gnome Foundation.

During standardisation within Ecma the specification grew to approximately 6,000 pages. It was approved as an Ecma standard (ECMA-376) on December 7, 2006. The standard can be downloaded from Ecma free of charge.

International standardization Using their entitlement as an ISO/IEC JTC 1 external Category A liaison, Ecma International submitted ECMA-376 to the JTC 1 fast track standardization process. To meet the requirements of this process, they submitted the documents "Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track"Explanatory report on Office Open XML Standard (Ecma-376) submitted to JTC 1 for fast-track and "Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML".Licensing conditions that Microsoft offers for Office Open XML ISO and IEC classified the specification as DIS 29500 (Draft International Standard 29500) Information technology – Office Open XML file formats.ISO/IEC DIS 29500 , Information technology – Office Open XML file formats

The fast track process consists of a contradictions phase, a ballot phase, and a ballot resolution phase.

During the contradictions phase, ISO and IEC members submitted perceived contradictions to JTC 1. During the ballot phase the members voted on the specification as it was submitted by Ecma and submitted editorial and technical comments with their vote. In the ballot resolution phase the submitted comments were addressed and members were invited to reconsider their vote.

Interim ballot result

During the standardization of Office Open XML, Ecma International submitted its Office Open XML File Formats standard (ECMA-376) to the ISO Fast Track process. After a comment period, the ISO held a ballot that closed September 2007. This has been observed to be perhaps the most controversial and unusual ISO ballot ever convened, both in the number of comments in opposition, and in unusual actions during the voting process. Various factions have strongly supported and opposed this fast track process. On the supporting side were primarily Microsoft affiliated companies; on the opposing side were free- or open-source software organizations, IBM and affiliates, Sun Microsystems, and Google.

There have been reports of attempted vote buying, heated verbal confrontations, refusal to come to consensus and other very unusual behavior in national standards bodies.ISOC.nl regrets absence of Netherlands decision on OOXML . Internet Society Netherlands press release, 17 August 2007.FSFE formal objection to the UK14 meeting. Free Software Foundation Europe. 13 August 2007.Swiss Internet User Group. Letter to SNV Schweizerische Normen-Vereinigung . 14 August 2007. This is said to be unprecedented for standards bodies, which usually act together and have generally worked to resolve concerns amicably.

87 ISO member countries responded to the five-month ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions. For the measure to pass, of "P" members (participating, as opposed to "O" members: observing) must approve and less than of all voting national members (excluding members that abstain from voting) must disapprove. The ballot shows 53% approval by "P" members and 26% disapproval from the total votes.

The following table shows the results by member of the balloting that ended 2 September 2007:JTC 1/SC 34 download of ballots (ZIP)

Country Standards Body Membership Vote Argentina IRAM O Member Abstention Chile INN O Member Abstention Israel SII O Member Abstention Luxembourg SEE O Member Abstention Mexico DGN O Member Abstention Peru INDECOPI O Member Abstention Vietnam TCVN O Member Abstention Australia SA P Member Abstention Belgium NBN P Member Abstention Finland SFS P Member Abstention Italy UNI P Member Abstention Malaysia DSM P Member Abstention Netherlands NEN P Member Abstention Slovenia SIST P Member Abstention Spain AENOR P Member Abstention Trinidad and Tobago TTBS P Member Abstention Mauritius MSB

Abstention Zimbabwe SAZ

Abstention Armenia SARM O Member Approval Belarus BELST O Member Approval Costa Rica INTECO O Member Approval Croatia HZN O Member Approval Cuba NC O Member Approval Egypt EOS O Member Approval Morocco IMANOR O Member Approval Romania ASRO O Member Approval Russian Federation GOST R O Member Approval Serbia ISS O Member Approval Sri Lanka SLSI O Member Approval Ukraine DSSU O Member Approval Azerbaijan AZSTAND P Member Approval Côte-d'Ivoire CODINORM P Member Approval Cyprus CYS P Member Approval Jamaica JBS P Member Approval Kazakhstan KAZMEMST P Member Approval Lebanon LIBNOR P Member Approval Pakistan PSQCA P Member Approval Saudi Arabia SASO P Member Approval Bangladesh BSTI

Approval Barbados BNSI

Approval Bosnia and Herzegovina BAS

Approval Congo, The Democratic Republic of OCC

Approval Fiji FTSQCO

Approval Kuwait KOWSMD

Approval Nigeria SON

Approval Panama COPANIT

Approval Qatar QS

Approval Syrian Arab Republic SASMO

Approval Tanzania, United Rep. of TBS

Approval United Arab Emirates ESMA

Approval Uzbekistan UZSTANDARD

Approval Austria ON O Member Approval with comments Bulgaria BDS O Member Approval with comments Colombia ICONTEC O Member Approval with comments Greece ELOT O Member Approval with comments Poland PKN O Member Approval with comments Portugal IPQ O Member Approval with comments Tunisia INNORPI O Member Approval with comments Germany DIN P Member Approval with comments Kenya KEBS P Member Approval with comments Malta MSA P Member Approval with comments Singapore SPRING SG P Member Approval with comments Switzerland SNV P Member Approval with comments Turkey TSE P Member Approval with comments Uruguay UNIT P Member Approval with comments Venezuela FONDONORMA P Member Approval with comments USA ANSI Secretariat Approval with comments Ghana GSB

Approval with comments Jordan JISM

Approval with comments Brazil ABNT O Member Disapproval Philippines BPS O Member Disapproval Thailand TISI O Member Disapproval Canada SCC P Member Disapproval China SAC P Member Disapproval Czech Republic CNI P Member Disapproval Denmark DS P Member Disapproval Ecuador INEN P Member Disapproval France AFNOR P Member Disapproval India BIS P Member Disapproval Iran, Islamic Republic of ISIRI P Member Disapproval Ireland NSAI P Member Disapproval Japan JISC P Member Disapproval Korea, Republic of KATS P Member Disapproval New Zealand SNZ P Member Disapproval Norway SN P Member Disapproval South Africa SABS P Member Disapproval United Kingdom BSI P Member Disapproval

On 25–29 February 2008, a Ballot Resolution Meeting was held in Geneva, Switzerland, to consider revisions to the OOXML proposal. Under ISO rules, national standards bodies have thirty days following the Ballot Resolution Meeting to reconsider and possibly change their votes.

Belgium The Belgian Bureau de Normalisation considered the revisions, but failed to reach a consensus on the proposal. Belgium's initial abstention therefore stood. Czech Republic The Český Normalizační Institut considered the revisions and changed its initial vote against the proposal to a vote in favour. Germany The Normenausschuss Informationstechnik und Anwendungen considered the revisions and reaffirmed Germany's initial vote for the proposal. India The Bureau of Indian Standards considered the revisions and reaffirmed India's initial vote against the proposal. Netherlands The Netherlands Standardization Institute (NEN) considered the revisions and reaffirmed the Netherlands' initial abstention. Trinidad and Tobago The Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards announced that it will change its initial abstention to a vote for the revised proposal. United States The International Committee on Information Technology Standards (INCITS) considered the revisions and reaffirmed the U.S.'s initial vote for the proposal.

In September 2007 eighty-seven ISO and IEC member countries had responded to the ballot. There were 51 votes of "approval", 18 votes of "disapproval" and 18 abstentions. "P-members", who were required to vote, had to approve by 66.67% for the text to be approved. The P-members voted 17 in favour out of 32, below the required threshold for approval. Also, no more than 25% of the total member votes may be negative for the text to be approved, and this requirement was also not met since 26% of the total votes were negative. The standardization process then entered its ballot resolution phase, described below.

Response to ballot comments

Ecma produced a draft "Disposition of Comments" document that addresses the 1,027 distinct "NB comments" (that is, comments by national bodies) that had been submitted in the letter ballot phase. This document comprised 1,600 pages of commentary and proposed changes. The ISO and IEC members had 6 weeks to review this draft, and had an opportunity to participate in several informal conference call sessions with the Ecma TC45 to discuss it before the BRM.

Ballot resolution process

A Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) is an integral part of the ballot resolution phase. The outcome of, and period following, this meeting decided whether DIS 29500 succeeded or failed in its bid to become an International Standard. The DIS 29500 BRM took place in late February 2008.

At the BRM, 873 proposed changes to the specification were submitted by Ecma (of their 1,027 responses, 154 proposed no change). Of these only 20% were discussed and modified in meeting sessions, given the 5 day time limit of the meeting. The remaining 80% were not discussed and were subject to a voting mechanism approved by the meeting (see Resolution 37 of the meeting resolutions cited below). Using this voting mechanism NBs could approve, disapprove or abstain on each and every one of these proposed changes. This allowed a set of approved changes to be decided upon without discussion.

With the original submitted draft used as the base, all the agreed-upon changes were applied by the Project Editor to create a new set of documents incorporating the changes agreed during the BRM. In parallel with this, NBs had 30 days after the BRM in which to decide whether to amend their votes of September 2, 2007.

Ballot result