This article is definitely not about the real backers of ODF. There's no way that an actual industry body would support the idea of the W3C actually creating a new "standard" - not after the hundreds of "standards" that W3 has created without regard for their viability; e.g. Timed Text, XML Events, etc.

Look at some of the comments on the blogs referred to in Computerworld's story. These people are fringe cases with questionable motives - NOT the official backers of ODF.

"a better chance of working with Microsoft's format"

Meaning, of course, a better chance for Microsoft to undermine yet another "standard".

Well I'm quite disappointed, I must say. Microsoft undermines plenty of standards on its own already, without handing it to them on a golden platter.

... that Sun would actually *prefer* to work with Microsoft than against it. It's a refreshing change.

From what I've heard, this so-called ODF foundation is just a few (I heard 2 or 3) guys and isn't officially related to ODF.

Hi Nick,

The OpenDocument Foundation has almost nothing to do with ODF the format. This is Rob Weir's take on the "Foundation":
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/10/cracks-in-foundation.html

It seems that they chose the name deliberately to confuse the ODF format with their own company.

Who ever these "three guys and their garage" are, they almost certainly have nothing to do with ODF the documentation formation.

BTW, my newly formed Office Documentation Standards Foundation has just renounced support for all XML formats in favour of plain text.