Microsoft has moved to play down concerns from open-source supporters and the wider IT community about its Open XML document format and the potential for vendor lock-in.

A key argument used by supporters of the rival OpenDocument Format (ODF) is that electronic documents created using the Open XML format could be inaccessible in the future because of a lack of support for the original application – or that Microsoft could charge high premiums for ongoing support for older applications and the documents created using them.

However, Jason Matusow, senior director at Microsoft for IP and interoperability, argued that these fears were unfounded. “Archiving is an enormous concern for every organisation. But Open XML and ODF are both XML-based formats, and you don’t need the original application to read an electronic XML document over time,” he said.

Matusow added that promoting ODF as the answer to archival issues was misleading. “It leads people to believe their financial data, SAP data and other content will be available in future,” he said.

From a user point of view, Matusow argued that customers were more interested in whether a product works than which standards they supported. “They care about the ability to exchange data between Open XML and ODF. What matters the most is effective translation,” he said. “We didn’t hear from our customers that they wanted ODF support built into Office 2007. They did want built-in PDF support, but Adobe wouldn’t let us do this so we’ve had to use a plug-in, which isn’t ideal.

Matusow pointed to the availability of Open XML/ODF converter tools, which let users switch between the two formats in various office applications.

Matusow also highlighted Microsoft’s recent efforts in interoperability. “About a year ago, Microsoft started taking a deeper look at interoperability,” he explained. “As a software provider, Microsoft’s products have dealt with interoperability issues, but we were very siloed regarding our approach.”

The software vendor is now focusing on four key interoperability areas: building interoperable products, or developing kits for third-party vendors; working with the community, including competitors; opening up access to software through licensing programmes such as Shared Source and the Microsoft Open Specification Promise; and finally working on standards.

Matusow was keen to point out the differences between interoperability and standards, however. “We don’t agree with our competitors, especially IBM, when they say interoperability is about open standards,” he said. “IBM does all the four things we do anyway.”