“This paper examines whether OOXML can be fully implemented by vendors other than Microsoft and concludes that a number of application specific and undisclosed behaviours (as well as a number of other technical flaws) in the proposed standard make this impossible. Also while Microsoft has waived patent claims for the explicit and required parts of the specification it is clearly stated that this does not extend to the undisclosed behaviours or ambiguous definitions, providing a legal as well as technical barrier to OOXML’s implementation.”
The only thing “Open” about OOXML is the title. MS never wanted to release full control of their format, OOXML was just a move to placate government clients who were demanding it. Granted, it is a move in the right direction, and simple documents will be easy to parse by third partys. But for full access, it will still require substantial reverse engineering, or to go to MS for help like Novell did.
Edited 2007-08-20 17:27 UTC
You are correct; it’s mostly PR. MS never give up their document spec. They will always have a leg up because they fully implement their standard but no one can.
If they truly wanted to be open, they would have gone with ODF but would mean $$$ to them.
Hey, lets keep it straight. Several inconsistence between the standard and Office 2007 have already been found. No one, not even Microsoft, can implement the OOXML standard.
I would even give MS the benefit of the doubt: There are errors in the implementation of the most simple standards, how much erroneous usage must there be for tags of such a complicated and inconsistent format like OOXML.
However, OOo and Abiword and KOffice make their own errors when implementing the ISO26300 standard.
What one has to watch is the response of the implementors whenever such an error is detected. Do they do it the Microsoft way (demand a change of the standard, by declaring the error as the right way), or do they do it the right way (correct the error).
Indeed – this article comes as no real suprise.
I’m sure, with time, some of the issues described here would be cracked / worked around in 3rd party software wishing to support OOXML. It’s just a shame that it’s up to the same old cat and mouse game.
It’s not a matter of cat-and-mouse. OOXML documents can contain a variety of embedded data formats that are patent encumbered. So even if you can figure out how to handle the data, you would still need to license the appropriate patents. Clean-room reverse engineering is a legal workaround for copyright, but not for patents.
Sun might license the patents for OpenOffice, but what about other free software office suites like KOffice? Furthermore, Sun’s patent licenses would only apply to their upstream OpenOffice binaries. Distributors wouldn’t be able to patch OpenOffice for functionality or integration without removing the patent encumbered filters.
The most basic argument against OOXML is that any format that embeds closed formats is a closed format. This shouldn’t be a big deal for Microsoft. They have the patent licenses and filter code. They can make their OOXML import filters transcode embedded data from existing MS Office documents to open formats. What is Microsoft’s strategic advantage in supporting these third-party encumbered formats?
The most basic argument against OOXML is that any format that embeds closed formats is a closed format.
Except, of course, for the fact that the format it is open.
The embedded info could be anything.
(Me, I’m against OOXML for the reason that XML is an insecure, oversized, unwieldy way to replace already extant more efficient technologies; because changing from a secure binary format to a format based on XML is an example of completely unnecessary change that continues the trend of bloating software/document file size; and because it’s an example of changes made because they’re trendy and critic-pleasing, not because they’re tested, reliable, superior solutions. But I digress.)
Except of course where it isn’t open …
Backup: http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179
The embedded info could be anything.
No, it can’t. The point of a specification is to exhaustively describe the way something operates. OOXML doesn’t allow for just any embedded data. It only allows certain kinds, and some of them are proprietary.
XML is an example of completely unnecessary change that continues the trend of bloating software/document file size
You do realize that the XML is compressed, right? So the tag and attribute substrings map to the shortest codes in the VLC table?
XML is the continuation of a “trend” that started in 1960s to describe data using markup languages. There are many advantages to XML-based formats. One of them is that XML is so simple and efficient to process. In fact, there are hardware accelerators for high-end servers that offload XML processing. Think of XML as a standard parser that can be used with any lexical grammar. Every binary format has elements to describe tokenization and parsing. XML is the same thing, but more flexible.
So, if they’re proprietary, how do you know what’s in there? Who’s to say for sure they contain only what the spec says?
And what kind of silly standard is that which doesn’t fully describe all types of content? I can make one up myself: “a file with stuff in it”. There. Oh, and the stuff is proprietary, so I won’t describe it.
Wait, insecure? How did you come to that conclusion?
Insecure, because there are some new hash functions for encryption in the OOXML definition which are NOT tested by the security community.
As all other hash functions (MD5SUM, SHA256, …) or at least the implementations thereof had weaknesses at the beginnig, it is highly unlikely that Microsofts untested and unreviewed hash functions are flawless.
Reread the post I replied to.
that XML is an insecure
XML, not ODF XML. XML itself is not insecure. It’s just a text format. Only an implementation can be insecure.
not me ;|
If they’d done some Googling, they would have found this:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
If they’d done some Googling, they would have found this
Obviously they did. Note the acknowledgment at the start of the article:
This is not intended as a flame post. Some people may take it that way but it’s not meant in that way.
I just have one question to everybody who is a proponent of OOXML. Now that it has put down in black and white, do you still stand behind your believes that this is a truly open format? Are you still going to backup your claims with the same tired answers?
The only time I have ever heard someone actually make a good point about OOXML is when MollyC pointed out that if MS joined the OASIS group in developing ODF, they would be doing nothing more than help develop a format based on and intended for a competitor.
Although I agree that just dropping years of format development in favor of bolstering the opposition does not make good business sense, developing a rival format, which turns out to be closed on many fronts, and then calling it open is not only amoral but also false advertising.
Just another dirty move by a company with too much power. MS has not changed, no matter what spin we are told.
MollyC’s point is not that great thought is it. The whole point of standards are that they enable anyone to join in, i.e. they are intended for ‘competitors’.
The point that ODF is was based on OOo file format is either here nor there, Microsoft had 2.5 years to catch up and write their own implementation between the first meeting in December 2002 and ratification in May 2005. Of course as usual MS would rather continue their vendor lock and fight dirty rather than compete on level ground.
I find hard to believe someone (ref. MollyC’s point) states that above quote without bothering to do some researches.
Microsoft is actually OASIS member[1] since 1999 who chose to remain silent for the whole development of Open Document Format. It did not complain nor object about issues and has not objected once until the format is completed.
The whole mess in this case can be blamed to Microsoft themselves.
[1]http://news.com.com/Microsoft+joins+XML+industry+group/2100-1001_3-…
“I find hard to believe someone (ref. MollyC’s point) states that above quote without bothering to do some researches.”
LOL
Are you saying that I haven’t done research on this?
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18185&comment_id=252669
“Microsoft is actually OASIS member[1] since 1999 who chose to remain silent for the whole development of Open Document Format. It did not complain nor object about issues and has not objected once until the format is completed.”
Microsoft is member of OASIS but did not participate in or object to ODF’s development, so what? (It’s not like MS was the only OASIS member to not participate in ODF.) MS didn’t participate in or raise questions about it because they had no intention of using it. They recognized it as OO.o’s format, so why waste time participating in or even thinking about its development? Now, when IBM started going around lobbying governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF, MS had no choice but to raise questions at that point, but even so, Microsoft is not lobbying governments to ban use of ODF, they voted YES for ISO’s ODF cerfitication, and voted YES for ODF ANSI certification. Microsoft is not playing the “one format to rule them all” game, nor are they even pretending to. IBM are playing that game, much to their discredit.
Edited 2007-08-20 19:33
I think that is exactly what he said.
“They recognized it as OO.o’s format”
Please cite your source.
“Now, when IBM started going around lobbying governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF”
Please cite your source.
MS didn’t participate in or raise questions about it because they had no intention of using it.
So why were they there then?
They recognized it as OO.o’s format, so why waste time participating in or even thinking about its development?
Sorry, but this tactic of saying ‘Open Office is Microsoft Office’s big bad competitor’ just isn’t going to fly. A good few other applications, including office suites, are now adequately using ODF as their format.
I can quite easily come back and say to you that no one should use OOXML because it is Microsoft Office’s format. Same difference. Tit-for-tat. Except there are solid technical reasons why OOXML is tied to Microsoft Office.
Microsoft, and their supporters, have come up with all these arguments several hundred times over. They don’t get better with age you know? 😉
Now, when IBM started going around lobbying governments to mandate exclusive use of ODF
And poor little Microsoft has done no lobbying whatsoever? The lobbying for ODF has been nothing in comparison.
Microsoft is not lobbying governments to ban use of ODF
They are lobbying to maintain the status quo though, which leaves us with exactly the same problems that open document formats were meant to solve. That’s just a play on words.
they voted YES for ISO’s ODF cerfitication, and voted YES for ODF ANSI certification.
Because they have nothing to lose. It makes them look slightly better, and we still have the problem of a dominant closed document format that open formats are supposed to try and solve.
Microsoft is not playing the “one format to rule them all” game
Errrrrr, that’s because they already have the one format to rule them all – hence the talk amongst governments and elsewhere about open document formats!
For you to claim that they don’t play that game is laughable. Why do you think we’re talking about this in the first place?!
IBM are playing that game, much to their discredit.
IBM are such dogs, and Microsoft are above this. Yep, whatever.
Can you give a list of examples where IBM have lobbied hard, with specific examples? We all know that Microsoft were permanently camped outside the CIO’s office in MA, and he confirms this himself. Were IBM there, do you know?
That above quote is revealing as it implies the arrogance attitude of a big company like Microsoft through its representative. It is disappointing but this is just a reminder the whole EOOXML saga has nothing to do with inter polarity as repeated. It is about control.
And there I thought, ISO voting members had to be governmental bodies of nations.
Hmm, or are you implying that all those governmental bodies which Microsoft has bought control over did vote YES?
That’s actually a great point. You can’t say “Microsoft voted yes for ODF as an ISO standard”, it makes no sense. Unless you mention the context. If you can prove that Microsoft voted yes as a member of ISO commitees in all the countries out there that have voted on ODF… you may have a point. But not otherwise.
The only time I have ever heard someone actually make a good point about OOXML is when MollyC pointed out that if MS joined the OASIS group in developing ODF, they would be doing nothing more than help develop a format based on and intended for a competitor.
Considering that OASIS is an open standards group that Microsoft could have quite legitimately joined as part of many other companies, who are sometimes competitors with each other, that was seeking to create a new document format that anyone, including Microsoft could freely implement, I find that interesting. It is not based on and intended for a competitor, because about half a dozen office suites use it.
I’m afraid that’s just confirmation that Microsoft sees ODF as a threat to Microsoft Office, and that they have no interest in an open standard whatsoever. If they create an open standard that competitors can use, then it invalidates the logic of that statement, doesn’t it?
Should no one else use OOXML based (no one can contribute to it, because it’s really up to Microsoft) on the same premise – namely that it is based on and intended for a competitor in Microsoft Office?
I love Microsoft’s, and their supporters’, logic regarding ODF and OOXML because we just come right back round in a big circle every time.
I dunno, I would disagree with that. OOXML is alot “open-er” then their previous formats, if you look at the article, the parts which reference closed formats are basically images, backwards compatibility, and security related. Competition can still parse out most of a document relatively easily from OOXML. Open it isnt, but at the same time it’s not the same old thing we see every year or so either.
And what use it that? I mean, real use, when you come right down to it and compare it for end-user benefit.
A truly open office document format would eliminate the need to use (and buy!) a certain office suite just because it’s the only choice. You could have your pick from dozens, based on competitive criteria, like price and features.
On the other hand, it would destroy the Microsoft Office de facto monopoly in this area. And deal a grave hit to MS Office, which is MS’s biggest (only?) cash cow nowadays. Of course they will do anything to stop adoption of ODF, even if it means pretending they are offering an alternative.
But it’s just smoke. I repeat, they will not stand for a truly open format. It would seriously injure MS Office and Microsoft.
The use is that there is now an open spec that is complete for the vast majority of documents. We are talking clip art, security, and backwards compatibility stuff that is undocumented, not fonts, text, and tables.
I agree. As I have said multiple times in these comments, it would definitely be the best case scenario.
OOXML has nothing to do with ODF. Whatever MS does will be the standard, as everyone else in the world put together only make up a small fraction of marketshare. OOXML exists because of government requests for a more transparent file format. ODF exists so that opensource projects can work together better. OOXML did not motivate ODF, and ODF did not motivate OOXML.
And Office is where it is today because people are very happy with it. I have yet to work in a business that is not completely reliant on Outlook and Exchange. Word and Excel are so far beyond the competition in both features and performance that the only people to make any sort of a splash since Corel through in the towel only do so because they are giving away their product for free. The only complaints I have ever heard about office is the price, and even though it hurts, I know many people who still go out and buy the latest version when it comes out. Office is kind of like the Adobe Creative Suite in this area, they have been so far ahead of everyone else for so long that there is very little chance of anyone even wanting it to change.
That’s not how I see it. There was absolutely no need for OOXML to exist. ODF was already an accepted standard. They could simply add an “export-import ODF” feature to MS Office and leave it at that. Nobody could argue anything against it, as long as they did it properly and really supported the ODF format 100%.
Yet for some reason they decided to take on ODF head to head, promote OOXML as a complete replacement. Why is that? Why do something like this? Unless ODF is seen as such a big threat that its very existence cannot be accepted.
Are they? You show conjunctural bias right there. Just because you’ve only been exposed to certain environments doesn’t mean you can talk for the world. Are all office software users completely happy with MS Office? How could they? There are countries where MS Office is too expensive. A lot of users do not use enough of its features to justify the cost. It doesn’t work on anything but Windows. It has bugs. It has closed and proprietary formats. It allows foreign governments to become dependant on an American company.
You cannot seriously argue that MS Office is perfect, a one-size-fits-all product. It’s more likely that it’s present all over the place only because people fear not being able to exchange documents unless they use MS Office formats, and since those are closed they turn to MS Office. It’s a parasitic condition, not free choice.
All the commercial and free software world backing ODF is a strong enough power to counter MS Office. That is what they fear. If I had to choose I wouldn’t get MS Office. There are plenty of other products that I find great. If nobody cared about files having to be .doc and .xls anymore you’d be surprised how many would stop using MS Office.
I think you left out a word. There should be a “not” in the phrase “this is a truly open format” so it should read “this is not a truly open format”.
Backup? You want backup? OK, lets get the backup from Microsoft themselves, shall we?
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Microsoft themselves state that “enabling technologies” that are “merely referenced” by the OOXML specification are not covered by the “Open promise”.
That is to say, anything which is “merely referenced” by OOXML, and not fully defined in OOXML specification itself, is not covered by the promise … in other words, such an “enabling technology” is not open.
Does OOXML “merely reference” anything that is Windows-only and Microsoft-proprietary? Why yes, as it happens, so it does. ActiveX, WMV, WMA, VBA, WMF and a longish list of “behaves like such-and-such version of Word” references.
These technologies are not explained in the OOXML specifrication … they are “merely referenced” by it.
Because they are “merely referenced” by OOXML, they are not covered by the Open Specification Promise. They are Microsoft-only, proprietary technologies, available only on Windows, available only from Microsoft.
Any even-moderately complex document saved in .docx format by Office 2007 will contain references to one or other of these lock-in technologies. The document will forever after be constrained to be processable only on Windows platforms.
Ergo, the the “merely referenced” technologies are normative for the specification from the point of view of document interoperability cross-platform and cross-vendor.
Ergo, the OOXML specification is not open.
The cliff’s notes for this report:
“Bwah, we can’t figure it out.”
Here’ evidence of non-Micrsoft apps implementing OOXML.
Here’s Apple advertising its support of OOMXL in iWork 08:
http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/#compatible
http://www.apple.com/iwork/keynote/#share
http://www.apple.com/iwork/numbers/#compatibility
Here’s a simple example of iWork 08 Numbers and Gnumeric handling OOXML spreadsheet files:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/default.aspx
Here’s a list of many apps that are implementing OOXML support:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/07/iwork-08-suppo…
Here’s a site with lots of info and sample code on how to manipulate OOXML files:
http://openxmldeveloper.org
Now, I’ll turn to ODF.
ODF apologists constantly attack OOXML for “technical flaws”, as if ODF is perfect itself. It’s anything but. Now, while you guys imply that ODF is perfect, you don’t come right out and say it, so I’ll ask you straight up: Do you guys think that ODF is perfect, yes or no? If yes, then you’re delusional, but if no, then how about addressing ODF’s flaws as well as that of OOXML. Seems that the only format that gets rectal exam-like analysis is OOXML, while ODF gets nary analysis at all. ISO rubberstamped OASIS’s spec, despate *major* flaws and shortcomings. (And even Microsoft voted YES for that rubberstamping.) Yet OOXML gets every inch of it scoured to find any “flaw” no matter how small. I mean, you have entities like the DoD weighing in on OOXML’s ISO ratification, while saying nothing regarding ISO’s ratifications of other file formats. (Though I came to realize that the reason for the different treatment is that nobody really cared about ODF outside of its apologists. Entities like the DoD want OOXML to be “perfect” because they intend to use it. They really couldn’t care less about ODF.)
Also, note that apps that support ODF aren’t 100% compatible with each other, and even OO.o adds info to its own files that are not in the ODF spec. So a question arises, can an app implement ODF in a manner that is faithful to OO.o’s files by following the ODF spec? The question can be raised for any format.
As for demands that MS simply adopt ODF (glossing over the fact that ODF doesn’t support all of MS Office’s features), I’ve previously shown (by citing OO.o’s own site) that ODF is really OO.o XML 2.0, not a from-the-ground-up app-neutral format, and I still maintain that it’s absurd to demand that the app with 95% share adopt the format of a suite with 2% share rather than just publicy spec its own format. But rather than just repost what I have previously posted, try this on for size:
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/07/can_a_file_be_odf_and_op…
“The recent bomb in the ODF world from Gary Edward’s claims that Sun successfully blocked the addition of features to ODF that would be needed for full interchange with Office are explosive not only because they demonstrate how ODF was (properly, in my view) developed to cope with the particular features of the participants, not really as a universal format, but also because the prop up Microsoft’s position that Open XML is required because it exposes particular features that ISO ODF is not capable of exposing. Both because ODF is still in progress and because sometimes the features are simply incompatible in the details.”
Edited 2007-08-20 19:15
You’re funny.
I think I might as well fill in my reason for the above.
Your post is completely off-topic, this is an OOXML story, not an ODF-trashing story.
Each link you have shared is owned by Microsoft. Funny, that.
We all know you’re a Microsoft apologist, but we’re not stupid.
“I think I might as well fill in my reason for the above.
Your post is completely off-topic, this is an OOXML story, not an ODF-trashing story.”
It was not me that first brought up ODF in this thread. Why didn’t you complain when your cohort brought up the virtues of ODF?
“Each link you have shared is owned by Microsoft. Funny, that.
We all know you’re a Microsoft apologist, but we’re not stupid.”
I wouldn’t call you “stupid”, but if you think that Microsoft owns the three http://www.apple.com links I provided, then I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.
As for the other links, they are quite relevant, as two of the links were blog entries by MS’s OOXML lead, and http://openxlmdeveloper.org contains a wealth of info on OOXML, including tons of sample code (in Java, et al). Those links are used to put the lie to the FUD thatonly Microsoft can implement OOXML. I note that you didn’t refute anything I said, yet somehow your three vacuous sentences were modded up to a 7. I guess the anti-OOXML side doesn’t want to here any opposing argument, and go out of their way NOT to read info that is contrary to their preconceived notions.
“It was not me that first brought up ODF in this thread. Why didn’t you complain when your cohort brought up the virtues of ODF?”
I am allowed to aim my posts at whom I wish, thank you. My “cohort” asked a simple question, why didn’t Microsoft help OASIS. Seems reasonable. But I am confused, since your post was the first in the thread, I think you brought up ODF.
“I wouldn’t call you “stupid”, but if you think that Microsoft owns the three http://www.apple.com links I provided, then I’ll let the readers decide for themselves.”
They don’t own Apple shares? But thank you for not calling me stupid.
I do not refute any word you say, because dear, it would be a waste of my time to correct everything you said in that post.
The observation that only Microsoft can fully implement OOXML is neither a lie, nor is it FUD.
Microsoft themselves will tell you as much:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
… or, in simpler words … only Microsoft are allowed to implement the “enabling technologies” that are referenced by OOXML.
Investigating this further leads anyone with half a brain to the observation that the OOXML specification is absolutely rife with “mere references” to Microsft-proprietary, Windows-only “enabling technologies”.
It will not be possible to use Office 2007 to create any even moderately complex document such that the document will be able to be correctly and fully opened on another platform.
Any users who use Office 2007 and save their documents in .docx format will quickly find that their documents (other than the very simplest ones) are not portable to other platforms, and cannot be fully opened by any non-Microsoft application, even applications running on Windows.
Those links are used to put the lie to the FUD thatonly Microsoft can implement OOXML.
It’s not a lie, and it doesn’t matter how many times you say it – it doesn’t make you right.
I note that you didn’t refute anything I said
But I did – and you’ve been strangely silent. It simply isn’t possible for anyone to have a 100% implementation of OOXML, and the examples you gave of it supposedly being implemented are woefully simple.
None of the links you provided address the specific issues in the article as to why OOXML cannot be implemented outside of Microsoft Office. If you want somewhere to start, start there.
I guess the anti-OOXML side doesn’t want to here any opposing argument, and go out of their way NOT to read info that is contrary to their preconceived notions.
Blah, blah, blah. It’s a well worked formula this one. When all else fails, bring out the anti-OOXML card and claim that everyone is being religious. That just gets us off the beaten track.
Don’t you think the whole issues could be addressed should Microsoft, as OASIS member since 1999, actively participated to the Open Document Format development? All along they were asking about the problem but they didn’t complain one iota.
Here’ evidence of non-Micrsoft apps implementing OOXML.
I’m afraid that OOXML will have to be proven to be interoperable in many ways over a significant period of time.
Your references cited there do not invalidate the article, nor do they invalidate Groklaw’s objections page. Yes, I’m sure many office suites will have some level of compatibility, as they do with Microsoft’s binary formats today, but unless it can be 100% fully implemented and those issues discussed and highlighted then it isn’t of any use to anyone.
Fact is, the only office suite that has OOXML implemented today is Office 2007 – and that was before any debate or changes could be made to the OOXML format submission. In other words, take it or leave it.
Now, while you guys imply that ODF is perfect, you don’t come right out and say it, so I’ll ask you straight up: Do you guys think that ODF is perfect, yes or no?
Ahhhhhhhhh. The old ‘ODF isn’t perfect!’ comeback that people like Rick Jellife use when they’re stumped. It’s a very poor one.
Look, no one claims that ODF is perfect, and indeed, it is still going through iterative development. OOXML is set in stone, and Microsoft has no plan of action whatsoever to implement any change regarding any objections. I don’t know where people get this from.
ISO rubberstamped OASIS’s spec, despate *major* flaws and shortcomings. (And even Microsoft voted YES for that rubberstamping.)
Oh look, Microsoft voted for ODF to try and make themselves look not so bad! Please….. The transparency insults everyone’s intelligence.
Though I came to realize that the reason for the different treatment is that nobody really cared about ODF outside of its apologists.
When OOXML can be 100% implemented, and no one sees any problems with implementing it, in a half a dozen office suites, give us all a call – OK? 😉
Also, note that apps that support ODF aren’t 100% compatible with each other, and even OO.o adds info to its own files that are not in the ODF spec.
That’s because the ability to add extra info is a part of the ODF spec! That doesn’t mean that the info added is meaningful, or necessary, to anything other than Open Office.
Microsoft could have adopted ODF and done the same thing – but they didn’t.
As for demands that MS simply adopt ODF (glossing over the fact that ODF doesn’t support all of MS Office’s features)
See above. There are tons of provisions in ODF for creating your own extensions. Whether other suites can do anything with them is another matter, but Microsoft could well have used them.
I’ve previously shown (by citing OO.o’s own site) that ODF is really OO.o XML 2.0, not a from-the-ground-up app-neutral format
So what? Open Office is an open source application, people can see what goes on in it and an awful lot of ideas for ODF have come from an awful lot of different places.
This is Microsoft’s feeble attempt at portraying Open Office as some sort of competitor to be feared.
I still maintain that it’s absurd to demand that the app with 95% share adopt the format of a suite with 2%
Why? It isn’t going to affect Microsoft Office, and it means a truly open format could occur – which is supposed to be the point of OOXML isn’t it? Or is it?
rather than just publicy spec its own format.
Can you prove that OOXML is an open format and is 100% implementable?
But rather than just repost what I have previously posted, try this on for size:
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/07/can_a_file_be_odf_and_op…..
Ahhhhh. Quoting from Rick Jellife, whose credibility is now practically zero to be honest. I have had these arguments with him before – and we come right back to square one every time.
Gary Edward’s claims that Sun successfully blocked the addition of features to ODF that would be needed for full interchange with Office are explosive
I’d hardly call it explosive. How are you supposed to follow something that is neither not open and proprietary? That’s not in Sun’s interests, or anyone else part of a group promoting and implementing an open format. But of course, only Microsoft can have interests, can’t they? 😉
but also because the prop up Microsoft’s position that Open XML is required because it exposes particular features that ISO ODF is not capable of exposing.
Errrrrrr, of course ODF can’t do that because Microsoft Office formats are closed – as is Microsoft Office. It just ain’t possible to do that reliably in another open format lots of different apps expect to use. Duh…….
There are also a lot of daft things in that Gary Edwards article as well, such as ODF being tied to Open Office and Open Office ‘going away’ that I can’t respond to here.
However, none of this invalidates what’s at issue – OOXML cannot be fully implemented outside of Microsoft Office.
While I agree with alot of what you say, I disagree with that. Not having clip art, access to old formats, and unable to support the new DRM features hardly means its completely useless. It will be far easier to get basic compatibility with OOXML then any previous office format of the past. I would even go so far as to say that the vast majority of docs out there do not implement the closed parts of the spec, and will be completely transparent to anyone who wants to do a partial implementation.
I agree that while ODF isnt all that, MS could have easily pushed for the features it requires to make it usable for office.
Not having clip art, access to old formats, and unable to support the new DRM features hardly means its completely useless.
If people are using Microsoft Office then people will be, probably inadvertently, using those features and they need to be supported. That’s why we have such a problem with the binary formats today, even though apps like Open Office do a decent job.
It really is an all or nothing thing, otherwise you can never get ahead.
It will be far easier to get basic compatibility with OOXML then any previous office format of the past.
It’s not. Much of OOXML is simply the features of the old binary format, and the features and unknown functionality of Microsoft Office, mapped on to a XML schema – not to mention any binary blobs that can be inserted in there. It really doesn’t mean that much.
…and will be completely transparent to anyone who wants to do a partial implementation.
A partial implementation really isn’t good enough for it to be useful to anyone but Microsoft.
“I agree that while ODF isnt all that, MS could have easily pushed for the features it requires to make it usable for office.”
I’ve yet to see a credible refutation of this (quoted from my earlier post):
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/07/can_a_file_be_odf_and_op…..
“The recent bomb in the ODF world from Gary Edward’s claims that Sun successfully blocked the addition of features to ODF that would be needed for full interchange with Office are explosive not only because they demonstrate how ODF was (properly, in my view) developed to cope with the particular features of the participants, not really as a universal format, but also because the[y] prop up Microsoft’s position that Open XML is required because it exposes particular features that ISO ODF is not capable of exposing.”
And, even if Microsoft could have pushed the ODF committee to force-feed MS Office’s features into ODF (over Sun’s objections), the question remains, why should they waste time trying to do so? It’s not like ODF is the be-all end-all format (despite IBM’s claims to the contrary), and it’s not like it was designed from the ground up to be such a thing. Given that ODF isn’t app-nuetral to begin with, that it’s based on OO.o XML 1.0, why should Microsoft go through the political wrangling to force features into it?
I find myself repeating myself because I’m not eloquent enough to get across what I’m trying to convey on this point. But let me put it this way: What moral high ground does ODF stand on to deserve the effort required to force Microsoft features into it?
As I’ve said before, ODF is simply a public standard derived from OO.o XML 1.0, just as OOXML is simply a public standard derived from MSO’s previous XML and binary formats. Neither is app-neutral. Neither is perfect. Neither is morally superior to the other. As such, there is no compelling reason for Microsoft to go thru the political wrangling to try to inject features into OO.o’s format when they can instead make a public standard of their own format, which is not a morally inferior format.
Edited 2007-08-20 22:43
Pardon – because Microsoft can’t properly articulate the additional features without making them Microsoft Office exclusive doesn’t mean that they rejected the features outright.
Maybe Microsoft could offer WMA/WMV/ActiveX/WMF support in a patent free licence which allows people to implement those features without threat of a law suite.
But hey! that might actually involve *CO-OPERATION* something which is a foreign term to Microsoft – given they way they try to scuttle any attempt to establish a standard.
ODF has a moral high ground by virtue of the fact that its not one company controlling it; Microsoft was part of that group. Instead of working with the group they went against it. Rather than being open and honest, and even donating the work they had done with OOXML – the fact is they never wanted it to succeed; for ODF to succeed, it would undermine their whole business model.
Nether is vendor neutral? pardon, but what I notice is this; OOXML is controlled by Microsoft and ODF is controlled by a committee. The only downside as far as I see is the potential for lag in features in ODF but at least when something is added, all agree and all support it.
Again, Microsoft made absolutely no effort to work with the group. They deliberately undermined the whole process by declaring in flawed without even attempting to correct the flaw. They’re like the politician who is willing to point out the flaws without actually coming up and contributing to the debate.
“Nether is vendor neutral? pardon, but what I notice is this; OOXML is controlled by Microsoft and ODF is controlled by a committee. The only downside as far as I see is the potential for lag in features in ODF but at least when something is added, all agree and all support it.”
Are you really claiming that ODF is app-nuetral when I posted a link to OO.o’s site saying that ODF is based on OO.o XML 1.0? It just goes to show what I previously said, that ODF advocates not only are ignorant of the history of the format they advocate but don’t *want* to be educated on it. It’s like the simian tribunes in Planet of the Apes that cover their eyes and ears so as to ignore testimony they don’t like.
BTW, OOXML is owned by ECMA now, not Microsoft.
Again, Microsoft made absolutely no effort to work with the group. They deliberately undermined the whole process by declaring in flawed without even attempting to correct the flaw. They’re like the politician who is willing to point out the flaws without actually coming up and contributing to the debate.
You just don’t get it, do you? Microsoft made no effort to work with the group because they never intended to use ODF, a format based on OO.o XML 1.0, as their format. Is it really so hard to understand? Good grief. And the reason Microsoft never intended to use it is that there is no reason for them to do so. It’s not a widely used format, nor is it app-neutral. So why adopt it rather than publicly spec their own format?
BTW, Microsoft never declared ODF “flawed”, as ODF accomplishes what it set out to do: create a public standard for OO.o’s format that others can use if they so wish to. (Well, ODF 1.0 doesn’t accomplish that completetly, as OO.o files contain info outside the ODF spec (e.g. spreadsheet formulae), but whatever.) And Microsoft voted YES for ODF’s ISO and ANSI certification, and they are not lobbying governments to ban use of ODF. It is your side is declaring oppositng formats to be flawed, blocking standardization of opposing format, and lobbying governments to ban use of opposing formats.
BTW, I can turn your very lame argument back at you: Your side had every opportinity to work with the ECMA committee that developed OOXML, yet you didn’t. Instead, you simply declared it flawed, undermined it, blah blah blah. See how that works? Of course, the reason your side didn’t do that is that you never intended to use OOXML. But many that are using it did work on developing it in the ECMA committee, including Apple and Novell. Your side could’ve done the same, but didn’t, because you never intended to use it. Yet you demand that Microsoft work on a format that they never intended to use? Give me a break.
(This entire thread is a waste of time, given that Groklaw is the ultimate source of this “study”, who are not capable of objective analysis by any stretch of the imagination.)
Edited 2007-08-21 06:09
Yes you are right they never intended to use the odf format because frankly they never intended for office to inter operate with other office suites. They don’t want to compete without the lock-in cushion. The whole thing about the format being based on the open office format and that is why they decided not to go with it is kind of lame seeing as a lot of the open formats nowadays started as proprietary formats that were opened later. Opengl is an example of one. Your argument just makes MS look like hey won’t touch anything they can’t control and that pretty much makes your argument moot. The point is they had a chance to participate in an open format that all can use, just like they had a chance to have a graphics api that was open to all (Farhrenheit) and just like then they dropped that and went with their own proprietary format (directx) just to be able to control it, and lock-in users.
Edited 2007-08-21 06:40
Are you really claiming that ODF is app-nuetral when I posted a link to OO.o’s site saying that ODF is based on OO.o XML 1.0?
Yes. Why? Because ODF has been implemented in a half a dozen applications, and continues to be so.
You also didn’t understand the link that you posted. See above.
You just don’t get it, do you? Microsoft made no effort to work with the group because they never intended to use ODF, a format based on OO.o XML 1.0, as their format.
So Microsoft didn’t work with the group because they’re not interested in interoperability or open formats. So what?
It’s not a widely used format
Neither is OOXML.
nor is it app-neutral
Yes it is.
and they are not lobbying governments to ban use of ODF.
They are lobbying to have the status quo maintained – heavily.
It is your side is declaring oppositng formats to be flawed, blocking standardization of opposing format, and lobbying governments to ban use of opposing formats.
Whatever. Did your Microsoft control officer tell you that if you repeat this often enough it will make it true?
Your side had every opportinity to work with the ECMA committee that developed OOXML, yet you didn’t.
Many did – including Novell and a few others. However, OOXML was set in stone as soon as Office 2007 was released. There is no going back.
Instead, you simply declared it flawed, undermined it, blah blah blah. See how that works?
Because it is flawed – for the very reasons you are avoiding.
Yet you demand that Microsoft work on a format that they never intended to use?
No one is demanding anything. Yet another format was pointless, but what people want is to be able to implement OOXML. Fully.
(This entire thread is a waste of time, given that Groklaw is the ultimate source of this “study”, who are not capable of objective analysis by any stretch of the imagination.)
And yet, Microsoft have never come up with an explanation of the objections. Go figure…….
No.
The Open format argument is to block any “pretend-open” aspirant to the status of being a standard if it contains anything: patent-encumbered, not royalty-free, or not able to be implemented by any party on any platform. Of the two XML document formats submitted so far to ISO for consideration, one fits the “vendor-neutral, platform neutral, able to be implemented by anyone royalty-free” criteria, and one does not.
Not so. The Open side has tried to submit copious and oft-repeated advice to ECMA and to Microsoft on how to make their standard open. Just remove the patent encumbrances on “merely referenced enabling technologies” and make the whole thing able to be implemented on any platform by any vendor without any requirement to get permission or pay royalties to Microsoft.
There has been no listening on the ECMA/Microsoft side. OOXML remains a closed, single-vendor, single-platform format (when considered as a whole), despite the name.
Look, it is very easy. Convince Microsoft to actually open the OOXML format (it would help if Microsoft got rid of legacy cruft while they were at it), so that it (along with all of its dependencies) was able to be FULLY implemented by any party on any platform, and the “Open format” crowd would embrace it with enthusiasm.
As long as Microsoft is not prepared to open the format and to allow full document interchange in a vendor-neutral, platform neutral and royalty-free way, then the world is not prepared to accept OOXML as an international standard.
You see, the whole purpose of having a standard is to permit interoperability.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_standard
The very purpose of having an International Standard is quite clear. The purpose is to allow everything and everybody to work together, it is NOT to entrench a monopoly position for a greedy company.
ODF stands on the moral high ground of vendor and platform independence. Anyone is allowed to implement it, royalty-free, unencumbered by any threat of lawsuit … even Microsoft may implement it. The same simply cannot be said of OOXML.
Where ODF calls up external formats and protocols, those formats and protocols are in turn vendor-neutral, platform-neutral, royalty-free and unencumbered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
There is only Microsofts claim that ODF is lacking some feature or another … there is no actual direct proof of that. There is support for extensibility in ODF, so if Microsoft would just explain what bits of functionality the ODF format did not support then it could be easily added in a platform-neutral and vendor-neutral way (as opposed to a Microsoft-specific way as Gary Edwards would have it).
This in fact could have been done years ago when ODF was being designed if Microsoft had bothered to speak up at the time.
Can you name an instance in which Microsoft sued someone using a software patent (NB: they haven’t sued anyone over the Linux deal, and have said publicly that they won’t)? There is such a thing as estoppel: if they say it’s open and implementable, they can’t later go and sue someone because their claims of openess estops them from making claims to the contrary.
You people are grasping at straws here. I’ve something is not impossible with OOXML in practice, you invent a legalistic reason why it might not be possible.
When MSWord was the unheard-of product in the early ’90s, Microsoft engineers included excellent support for importing the dominant WordPerfect’s file format. And at that time, WordPerfect was not making it easy for them to decode their files. They competed on features and ultimately the better product and strategy won the marketplace. What the ODF partisans want to do is pursue marketplace dominance through government fiat rather than through an actually better product. Someone asked Rob Weir why IBM, the friend of openness has not open-sourced SmartSuite; answer: it’s too old and internally crappy to make it as an open source product (and, I suppose patent encumbered). But this is what they wish to hook governments on using ODF-only mandates. Why do you want to be a part of this? Open-source doesn’t win… IBM and others win for a short time.
And then Microsoft will come in and produce technically valid, but otherwise un-interoperable, ODF documents in their next revision. It will be like the original POSIX support in NT: just there to fulfill a government mandate. This is a lose-lose situation, because there will be a mishmash of incompatible ODFs (or people will end up just biting the bullet and implementing MS-ODF). This is because ODF does not specify many things which are important to formatting a document. These are instead left to app-specific config tags.
If you want to take over the position of the dominant player in the market, you have to do something better than they do. Having a different format and being deliberately incompatible is not going to be a winning strategy in the end, because the products on the ODF side are simply not yet done well enough to compete on anything (otherwise why would the ODF-only mandates be necessary?).
Can you name an instance in which Microsoft sued someone using a software patent
Not the issue. Implementing something not in a standard that is encumbered by patents should not be necessary in implementing said format.
if they say it’s open and implementable, they can’t later go and sue someone because their claims of openess estops them from making claims to the contrary.
Where do you get that stupid idea? The patent encumbered, and Windows and Office closed stuff, are not part of the OOXML specification – for obvious reasons.
When MSWord was the unheard-of product in the early ’90s, Microsoft engineers included excellent support for importing the dominant WordPerfect’s file format.
Importing yes? However, could I export perfectly to WordPerfect’s format over the years? No.
However, we’re getting off the beaten track here because you’re coming up with the usual feeble claim that Microsoft have a track record of openness. If they did, no one would be talking about ODF and governments would not be talking about open document formats.
What the ODF partisans want to do is pursue marketplace dominance through government fiat rather than through an actually better product.
The government fiat has really been forced upon people simply because Microsoft has resolutely refused to implement a fully implementable, open format within Microsoft Office as a first class citizen.
What Microsoft wants to do is maintain the current situation where the monopoly of Microsoft Office creates the lion’s share of office documents, and where no one else and no other piece of software can accurately do anything with them. Thus, Microsoft does not want to compete at all.
Someone asked Rob Weir why IBM, the friend of openness has not open-sourced SmartSuite; answer: it’s too old and internally crappy to make it as an open source product
Yep, probably true. However, since it implements ODF that hardly matters, does it, because people can exchange documents?
But this is what they wish to hook governments on using ODF-only mandates.
I’m sure IBM hopes governments will use SmartSuite, as I’m sure Corel will want them to use their office suite, and I’m sure they still have a choice of Open Office, Star Office or KOffice.
I’m more than amused that Microsoft seems to want to get it into everyone’s heads that ODF-only means one application only – which is what we have with Microsoft Office now! How ironic is that?
Why do you want to be a part of this? Open-source doesn’t win… IBM and others win for a short time.
Ahhhh, nice try. You’re trying to make out that we’ll be replacing big, bad Microsoft for big, bad IBM. Not true. See above.
And then Microsoft will come in and produce technically valid, but otherwise un-interoperable, ODF documents in their next revision.
If Microsoft Office produces ODF documents that are not interoperable then that’s Microsoft’s fault, because no one else is having too much trouble so far.
It will be like the original POSIX support in NT: just there to fulfill a government mandate.
Just about every other OS has supported POSIX absolutely fine. The substandard support in Windows is entirely Microsoft’s fault.
This is a lose-lose situation, because there will be a mishmash of incompatible ODFs
Everyone else is not having too much trouble, thank you very much.
This is because ODF does not specify many things which are important to formatting a document. These are instead left to app-specific config tags.
Can you give a specific example, because Lotus Workplace, Open Office, KOffice, GNumeric and others all have working formula implementations?
If you want to take over the position of the dominant player in the market, you have to do something better than they do.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. So you think IBM or someone is trying to take over, and we should all just throw the towel in and live with the status quo – i.e. Microsoft?
Nice logic there.
I’ve yet to see a credible refutation of this (quoted from my earlier post):
http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2007/07/can_a_file_be_odf_and_op…….
“The recent bomb in the ODF world from Gary Edward’s claims that Sun successfully blocked the addition of features to ODF that would be needed for full interchange with Office…
It means nothing, because Rick Jelliffe doesn’t have a clue what this is about, and Gary Edwards is simply coming up with the wrong knee-jerk reaction.
The problem, amusingly, is because ODF is far more complete than MOOXML. They can get MOOXML to ODF quite easily, but he’s talking about ODF to MOOXML:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=200701172052169…
What Gary Edwards is talking about is peoples’ unwillingness to intentionally deprecate and/or cripple certain aspects of ODF in order to be more compatible with MOOXML – which Sun rejected.
While Gary is trying to come up with a solution for interoperability here, it is no solution at all, because this is really up to Microsoft. There’s nothing explosive going on here because Sun and members of OASIS do not want to cripple features within ODF in order to maintain better compatibility with a closed format.
The patents stuff Gary goes on to describe is just wild speculation at best.
And, even if Microsoft could have pushed the ODF committee to force-feed MS Office’s features into ODF (over Sun’s objections), the question remains, why should they waste time trying to do so?
Sun have had no objections of the kind, because you and Rick Jelliffe have no idea what he’s talking about. Microsoft could still have taken ODF and fitted it perfectly adequately into Microsoft Office.
I mean, OOXML is actually about having an open format, isn’t it?
I find myself repeating myself because I’m not eloquent enough to get across what I’m trying to convey on this point.
I find myself repeating myself, because you people just keep coming up with the same stuff over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
It doesn’t get better or more believable each time.
As I’ve said before, ODF is simply a public standard derived from OO.o XML 1.0
It was at least partially derived from an open format, implemented in an open source application, that many other people have since added to since ODF was developed. So what?
just as OOXML is simply a public standard derived from MSO’s previous XML and binary formats.
Yep. It’s derived from a closed format. Well done.
Neither is app-neutral.
ODF is, because it’s implemented in Open Office, KOffice, Lotus and a few others. You’ve admitted OOXML isn’t application neutral though, which is good.
Honestly, I really don’t know where this tac of “ODF is really a format for Open Office!” is taking you.
As such, there is no compelling reason for Microsoft to go thru the political wrangling to try to inject features into OO.o’s format
Well, it can be done, and that’s the way the world works. Open formats happen as a result of discussion, not a Not Invented Here syndrome.
We’d also have less trouble with interoperability, wouldn’t we?
instead make a public standard of their own format,
They haven’t made a public standard, because large parts of it cannot be implemented away from Windows and Office.
which is not a morally inferior format.
What do you mean by ‘not morally inferior’?
Microsoft actually had the opportunity to stand up and say:
“Hey, we really have a problem with ODF, it doesn’t support these features [list of features] in Microsoft Office. Lets sit down, extend the time for development, and add those features so that we can ship ODF support out of the box with Microsoft Office”.
The fact is Microsoft was in a committee, it had the opportunity to stand up and actually question the completeness of the standard and promote featuers – heck, there was nothing stopping them from bringing in technologies/donating technology from their OOXML development.
Their right to develop to OOXML? yes, but don’t call it open and don’t call it a standard; they had the opportunity to work within a committee to establish a standard, by them developing their OOXML independetly off a standards group tells me its the same old Microsoft. Microsoft using complexity and licencing to block compatibility with their products – vendor lock-in version 2 if you will.
Atleast there is actually an attempt to address these issues than just throwing hands up in the air and giving up! I mean, compare ODF to the complexity of OOXML – atleast there is actually a chance for it to succeed.
Bravo! Kudos!
I modded you up for this. It is well worth repeating.
did you guys notice how Microsoft is playing with the words to confuse users between Office Open XML and Open Office XML.
they just reversed the order of the words Open and Office.
I bet there are many managers out there who will think Office Open XML format is same as OpenOffice XML format.
Open Office XML? You mean Open Document Format? How are they going to confuse ODF with OOXML?
the average consumer has no clue about ODF. They see the name of the product which is Open Office and the format is in XML.
so, by that measure, it seems like MS Office Open XML, is the same thing,but from Microsoft.
Yes, I noticed that OpenXML is a general standard, not identically equal to MS Office document format. MS Office formats are OpenXML compliant, with some extensions. Developer is free to implement those extensions as he/she see fit, but it might or might not be compatible with MS Office.
In other words, developer can create applications that could read and extract data from the majority of MS Office documents and create documents that could be read by MS Office. Developer can not create open source version of MS Office, for example.
Well, that sounds fair enough for me.
Yes! That very clearly captures the problem that caused the headaches we had when Office 2000 came out (back when I used Windows).
Many of us were still using the previous version of Word with no desire to upgrade, but some coworkers would email us Word documents created with the new version. The documents looked like gibberish to us. We demanded that they save the document as an older version and resend it, but they would say they indeed had saved it as such.
Of course they said it didn’t make sense for them to go back to the oldI version, so the only solution was for everyone in the company to drop what they were doing and buy an upgrade.
Yep, that’s an ideal standard all right.
“Ha, Fooled you!”
Right after they drag that commissioner into the bathroom and threaten to cut off his balls in the movie Fight Club.
Except this time, they are slicing and dicing your cash and prizes.
They start by thanking GrokDoc for their input. Then they repeat the oft-repeated and ultimately uninteresting objections about “autospacelikeww95.” (Hint: this attribute is not important for interpreting the document and doesn’t really make a difference anyway because other features of a different editor will change the paragraph spacing and pagination. Word documents are not meant to be fixed-layout like PDF). They bring up the old canards about the ability to embed proprietary formats (if MSFT adopted ODF, they could do it as well).
If you really examine ODF, you’ll find that the exact same tags that they are lambasting OOXML over are left to app-specific settings annexes of ODF. This is not even part of the spec, so no one has a hope of interoperating with them without examining the code for OOo and KOffice and SmartSuite, because they’ll surely all implement it a different way!
When you get to the end of the article, you find that it was published by a person who has a ODF-centric business, a free software advocate, and a random library guy. I can’t ascribe any motives to the third author, but the first two would have clear axes to grind. And frankly, most of the stuff on GrokDoc which they accept at face value is more or less nitpicky tripe published by people who don’t understand anything except for a hatred of Microsoft.
No one has any original objections, and the current batch of them from Rob Weir and his partisans are more about heat than about light.
Then they repeat the oft-repeated and ultimately uninteresting objections about “autospacelikeww95.” (Hint: this attribute is not important for interpreting the document and doesn’t really make a difference anyway
You haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
Those additional tags that don’t describe any behaviour whatsoever are for conversion of older Microsoft Office documents – for legacy documents. Lots of older Microsoft Office documents using the older binary format will be converted using tags like these (many of them old government documents ;-)), and it is simply up to the application to work out what it means – which only Microsoft Office can do because this behaviour is not defined anywhere.
That means that if you get a Microsoft Office document converted to OOXML, one if the billions Microsoft claims that there are, then the odds are it will have one of these tags in it. Result? Nothing but Microsoft Office can accurately read it.
Great eh? It’s a way of keeping the lock-in going when moving from the binary formats to the new OOXML one. It simply isn’t a new format at all.
If you really examine ODF, you’ll find that the exact same tags that they are lambasting OOXML over are left to app-specific settings annexes of ODF.
No such tags exist in ODF, because these are supposedly for backwards compatibility in OOXML. However, if you’re referring to app specific extensions, then yes, ODF allows it. However, it hasn’t impeded any of the applications using ODF from getting formulas and functions in their spreadsheets from working.
This is not even part of the spec, so no one has a hope of interoperating with them without examining the code for OOo and KOffice and SmartSuite
Sorry, but they have done. Implementations of formulas, which many people seem to go on about, exist Open Office, KSpread, Gnumeric, Google Spreadsheets, Lotus Workplace etc. They haven’t encountered too many problems, and where they have, there has been a forum for discussion.
When you get to the end of the article, you find that it was published by a person who has a ODF-centric business, a free software advocate, and a random library guy.
And I’m sure that any pro-OOXML or anti-ODF articles you see will be written by paid Microsoft advocates, or those with vested interests.
I prefer to look at what’s being written.
And frankly, most of the stuff on GrokDoc which they accept at face value is more or less nitpicky tripe
If it’s nitpicky tripe then it should be easily dismissed by evidence backed up with facts, and I look forward to such a document or article being produced by Microsoft.
No one has any original objections, and the current batch of them from Rob Weir and his partisans are more about heat than about light.
And yet, no one has created a complete rebuttal to all the stuff and Groklaw, and those that have, their arguments amount to “Bitmasks are really OK in XML you know?!”
Formulas in ODF have converged … it is no longer application-specific.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula
This will be the common formula definition from ODF 1.2 onwards.
“Note that many implementors are implementing the specification while it is being written, modifying their applications where necessary to comply with the draft standard.”
That hs already been done. Just about all of the ODF spreadsheet applications support this now.
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/About_OpenFormula
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office-f…
Note how IBM, Novell and Sun are all on the technical committee. That makes it multiple-vendor. See how it works? Open. Consensus. Not single-vendor. That is how you get a “standard” … no other way.
Formulas in ODF have converged … it is no longer application-specific.
Good to hear, and what I thought would happen. Going out, implementing stuff, finding out what works and then converging their efforts together.
No one denies that ODF needs work and fleshing out still further, but for its detractors to say that it is insufficient and throw their arms up in the air is just daft.
“Note that many implementors are implementing the specification while it is being written, modifying their applications where necessary to comply with the draft standard.”
Testing the draft out and providing feedback seems pretty sensible to me.
Note how IBM, Novell and Sun are all on the technical committee. That makes it multiple-vendor. See how it works?
Yep, and we’ve got other open source applications like KOffice and Gnumeric implementing the same stuff. What was that about an IBM or Sun takeover?
In my mind, I can see only one outcome in the long term. ODF, or something like it, will become the standard as it makes interoperability and data longevity so much more sane and easy to achieve. Let’s face it, MS can drag they’re feet all they like but in the end, they will have to comply.
Not every government, business or NGA wants to pay the MS tax and many of these entities are considering moving over to competing, alternative products. As more and more ship jumping goes on, and people start to realize that they’re data is being locked in to proprietary data formats, they will start to convert they’re data to standard open formats.
Already, we see archives dealing with data that has been stored in formats that are no longer accessible without running obsolete operating systems in virtualized environments. These situations are a forrunner to what is to come as more and more data is found to be inaccessible. The wish to not repeat the pain of having to convert masses of old documents into newer formats every ten years or so will make these entities seek out more permanent solutions, i.e. open, none proprietary, non patent encumbered formats.
The more people start to use these formats, the more pressure on MS to support these formats. As time goes on, MS will have to compete on a level playing field as they’re lock-in looses all value.
OOXML, to me, looks like a delay tactic by a panic stricken monopoly that can see which way the wind is blowing. It’s just a minor delay though as it has proven to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Not everybody is so stupid that they can’t see through the illusion of openness.