In August 2007, the [[Linux Foundation]] published a blog post calling upon ISO National Bodies to vote "No, with comments" during the International Standardization of OOXML. It said, "OOXML is a direct port of a single vendor's binary document formats. It avoids the re-use of relevant existing international standards (e.g. several cryptographic algorithms, VML, etc.). There are literally hundreds of technical flaws that should be addressed before standardizing OOXML including continued use of binary code tied to platform specific features, propagating bugs in MS-Office into the standard, proprietary units, references to proprietary/confidential tags, unclear [[Intellectual property|IP]] and patent rights, and much more".<ref>{{ cite web | url=http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/cherry/2007/08/29/ooxml-vote-no-with-comments/ | title=OOXML — vote "No, with comments" | author=John Cherry | date=14 March 2008}}</ref>
The version of the standard submitted to [[ISO/IEC JTC1|JTC 1]] was 6546 pages long. The need and appropriateness of such length has been questioned.<ref name="GooglesPositiononOOXML">{{ cite web | url = http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf | title = Google's Position on OOXML as a Proposed ISO Standard | date = 2008-02 | publisher = [[Google]]}}</ref>
The version of the standard submitted to [[ISO/IEC JTC1|JTC 1]] was 6546 pages long. The need and appropriateness of such length has been questioned.<ref name="GooglesPositiononOOXML">{{ cite web | url = http://www.odfalliance.org/resources/Google%20OOXML%20Q%20%20A.pdf | title = Google's Position on OOXML as a Proposed ISO Standard | date = 2008-02 | publisher = [[Google]]}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-ooxmlstandard.html | title = OOXML: What's the big deal? | date = 2008-02-19 | publisher = [[IBM]]}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://blogs.sun.com/bnitz/entry/whoah_microsoft_s_6000_page | title = Whoah! Microsoft's 6000 page OOXML standard ECMA fast-tracked by Feb 5? | date = 2007-01-23 | author = bnitz | publisher = [[Sun Microsystems]]}}</ref><ref name="The Contradictory Nature of OOXML"/><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1634 | title = In case you were wondering how big 6000 pages is: OpenXML/OOXML/whatever | date = 2007-05-24 | author = [[Bob Sutor]] (IBM)}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_Fasttrack_adoption_of_Microsoft_OOXML_format_as_ISO_standard | title = FFII opposes Fasttrack adoption of Microsoft OOXML format as ISO standard | date = 2007-01-29 | publisher = [[Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure]]}}</ref><ref name=RB_FFF>{{ cite web | url = http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html | title = The Formula for Failure | date = 2009-01-29 | author = [[Rob Weir]]}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2008/04/microsofts-office-open-xml-now-an-official-iso-standard.ars | title = Microsoft's Office Open XML now an official ISO standard | date = 2008-04-01 | publisher = [[arstechnica]]}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/31/0039238 | title = OOXML Will Pass Amid Massive Irregularities | date = 2008-03-31 | publisher = [[slashdot]]}}</ref><ref>{{ cite web | url = http://my.opera.com/ThePast/blog/2007/09/15/fight-the-broken-microsoft-proprietary-ooxml-format-from-becoming-an-iso-standar | title = Stop the broken Microsoft proprietary OOXML format from becoming an ISO standard. | publisher = [[Opera Software]] | date = 2007-09-15}}</ref> [[Google]] stated that "the ODF standard,
which achieves the same goal, is only 867 pages" and that{{cquote|If ISO were to give OOXML with its 6546 pages the same level of review that other standards have seen, it would take 18 years (6576 days for 6546 pages) to achieve comparable levels of review to the existing ODF standard (871 days for 867 pages) which achieves the same purpose and is thus a good comparison.
Considering that OOXML has only received about 5.5% of the review that comparable standards have undergone, reports about inconsistencies, contradictions and missing information are hardly surprising.<ref name="GooglesPositiononOOXML"/>}}
