Microsoft Office Open XML and ISO fast-track adoption

So ISO will vote on September 2 for or against the Microsoft Office Open XML file format as a standard. What I expect the result of this vote to be? I think the quote bellow (followed by my own English translation) from the unofficial position of the president of the Romanian committee is telling:

Motivele mele pt. a favoriza OOXML sunt de natura practica si "ideologica", nu tehnica:

1. Sigur ca OOXML e un standard atipic. Cum zic si IBM-ii (in critica lor), nu e "aspirational". Dar are un scop "nobil", pe care-l salut: "decripteaza" binarul (mai multor generatii de) documente Office. Fiind eu in bransa patrimoniului, o sa ma intelegeti ca sunt sensibil la prezervarea documentelor "legacy" (si migrarea este - pina la noi ordine - metoda cea mai convenabila de prezervare). Dar "transparentizarea" formatului intern al tonelor de fisiere Office nu e utila doar "comunitatii arhivistilor". Ma gindesc si la programatorii multor aplicatii care vor sa consume documente Office: standardul asta le usureaza viata.

2. Obiectiile de detaliu ale IBM imi par (pe cit le pricep) notabile, dar imi vine greu sa cred ca un comitet tehnic ECMA (cu Apple, Novell etc., adica cu tehnicieni adevarati) sa le fi trecut usor cu vederea, daca sunt asa de serioase. In plus, mi se pare ca - cel putin o parte - sunt lamurite de raspunsurile ECMA. Si mai multe sunt lamurite de raspunsurile MS. In plus, vad ca MS e gata sa ajusteze in unele locuri unde obiectiile IBM au nimerit. Nimic neobisnuit in procesul de evolutie a unui standard.

And now my English translation:

My reasons to favor OOXML are practical and "ideological", not technical:

1. Of course OOXML is an atypical standard. As IBM says (in its critique), it is not an "aspirational" standard. But it has a "noble" goal and I salute it: it "decrypt" the binary of (several generations of) Office documents. As I work in the patrimony branch, you should understand my sensibility for legacy documents preserving (and migration is - until new orders - the most convenient preservation). But the "transparentization" of the internal format of tons of existing Office documents is useful not only for the "archiver community". I think also at the programmers of various applications wanting to consume Office documents: this standard will make their lives easier.

2. The detail objections from IBM seems (as fair as I can understand) notable, but I find hard to believe an ECMA technical committee ECMA (with Apple, Novell etc., so real technicians) could overlook them if they are so serious. Additionally, I believe - at least in part - those are clarified by the ECMA replies. And more are clarified by the replies from MS. Additionally, I see MS is ready to adjust in some places where IBM's objections have hit. Nothing unusual in the evolutionary process of a standard.

So what I can say more? With such blinded apologists who need paid supporters?