Microsoft Votes to Add ODF to ANSI Standards List

RzUpAnmsCwrds writes "In a puzzling move, Microsoft today voted to support the addition of the OpenDocument file formats to the American National Standards List. OpenDocument is used by many free-software office suites, including OpenOffice.org. Microsoft is still pushing its own Office Open XML format, which it hopes will also become an ANSI standard. Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF, or is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?"

My Name Is Bill

In an epiphany, Bill Gates realized that the lackluster sales of Vista were due to all the bad things he's done in his life. So now he's got a list of them on a sheet of yellow paper and he's going around making up for them. Having Microsoft back ODF is helping him make up for #38 on his list: "Screwed over consumers with proprietary formats."

Come on, couldn't you see Ballmer playing Randy? :-)

--Greg

Re:My Name Is Bill

rtf is not an open format. From a popular commentary [goldmark.org]:

In earlier versions of this document, I listed RTF (Rich Text Format) as a more standards based way of exchanging word-processor documents. I have been corrected on that point innumerable times. RTF is little better than MS-Word format itself. It is a little better, but it shares all of the problems as MS-Word. Although RTF was advertised as a document exchange format, it never lived up to that. It appears to have varying features, and the various version of RTF that Microsoft products create have elements which only Microsoft Products can read. Note that this is not because MS-Word is a better product, but because Microsoft keeps elements of what it considers to be RTF secret.

Consumers may not care what format their stuff is in, but when they get a replay saying "sorry, I can't seem to open that .doc, could you save it as .odt?" they'll care whether their word-processor can do it.

Re:My Name Is Bill

RTF is simply a version of .doc that's largely ASCII text. It's main purpose was to be a format that was easier for tools to parse. Windows Help files used to be based off it. You can still drop whatever random objects into it.

Its Obvious

Somebody spike the coolaid in the Redmond cafeteria? :-)

Publicity?

I don't see how this looks like a PR stunt. Making ODF an ANSI standard isn't exactly making Office Open XML more popular is it?

Re:Publicity?

No, I think it has to do with the fact that more and more governments are requiring ODF to be adopted.
MS was scared by this, as Office wasn't designed around it, so they're trying to put themselves in a position where they can supply what the governments want AND fulfill legislative requirements. They've learned that from the ongoing EU dispute, imo.
The fact that they're still pushing for their own format just shows that they want to retain dominance in the office world, and perhaps regain complete monopoly of the office programs suite. However, it's going to be harder and harder, as OpenOffice will implement a way to read and write MS's XML format, since it HAS to be documented if MS intends to satisfy government customers.
It's a business move, nothing less! I just hope that OpenOffice will catch up on the feature list quickly (there's some basic stuff that OO's still missing) so that the decision really does come down to TCO for the IT managers, and then OO will truly shine, as there is no license fee, only support cost, and I'm guessing it'll be cheaper than MS Office support.
Just my $0.02 of opinion on this matter.

*I* will trash OpenOffice.org; no need for MS Word

Just as the situation is today. Look at the "reviews" of OpenOffice.org by various "journalists". You'll see them complaining that the formating on a document was "messed up" when they went
from MS Word
to OpenOffice.org
back to MS Word.

Okay, if you think it's due to MS Word that OOo looks bad, try this one on for size: a document saved as ".odt" with OpenOffice.org v2 for Linux (Kubuntu) is mangled when opened in OpenOffice.org v2 for Windows (Win2k). There was no MS Word involved anywhere.

This was a document for which formatting was important: I had designed a greeting card to be printed onto thick paper and folded into quarters, so positioning was critical. I did this on my Linux box, but the printer was hooked up to the wife's box, and she only wants Windows on it. I saved the file on Kubuntu, FISh'd it over to the Win2k box and opened it, and the text formatting had screwed up, spilling over onto the next page.

If OpenOffice.org can't standardize their own document formatting, what's the point having a standard like ODF in the first place? (I finally exported to PDF in order to get it onto the Win2k box without messing it up.)

I'm grateful to Sun for all the contributions they've made to Open Source, but I have to say, OOo is a steaming pile of crap.

Okay, that was a bit too blunt, and I'm glad they have an integrated office suite with spreadsheet, presentation application, I appreciate the work they've put into this, grateful that they distribute OOo under an Open Source license, etc. etc., so let me do my best to be more subtle.

Erm, er, OpenOffice is ... a steaming pile of crap.

Sorry. I tried.

Probably wouldn't have happended if it was close

Not that strange, when you think about Microsofts "it's good to have more standards" argument. Knowing that the standard would be added anyway, they probably voted for it, to make that argument more credible, when OOXML is up for the ISO vote, besides ANSI is more or less irrelevant when ODF is already ISO certified. I would be very surprised if Microsoft doesn't later use this as part of an argument for accepting OOXML, directly or as a response to critics.

PR stunt.

I am more likely to think of it as a PR stunt. If anyone votes against OOXML, they would issue press releases saying, "We voted for their standard, and they are voting against our standard". Lost in the argument would be the basic need to have just one standard.

But still, as long as customers dont know the difference between interoperability and "microsoft compatibility" they win these games. Sad.

Peaceful Co-existence? Gimmeabreak!

It's like the "peaceful co-existance" the Soviets were all in favor of. They want to then be able to say they support is even as they choke the life out of it.

Listen, Kreskin

They did a good thing. It is fruitless to speculate why. 'Nuff said.

MS Open XML is NOT a standard....

If you can't read the "standard" documentation and develop a program that properly works for that standard, then it is not a standard. The "standard" still has things like "will support rendering of Office97 table format", and never define what the "Office97 table format" exactly is and how it works.

Until each and every thing in the standard is properly defined and explained, it is not a standard.

Does it really matter?

The end result is that ODF becomes a standard. MS maybe gets a few brownie points in the public eye for supporting it, so good for them, but is this really an issue?

Sheesh

Apparently M$ can do no right. It reminds me of a quote from Jesse Jackson. He once said that if he walked across one of the Great Lakes, the next day the newspapers would report that "Jesse Jackson can't swim". Methinks some of you take your evil empire conspiracy too seriously.

This is news?

Please. If the majority is clear they really have nothing to loose by going along with it. With the bonus of free future spin control.

What? Legitimate?

How does supporting a format that probably goes against the company's welfare supposed to make its own format legitimate? That's like saying a hypocrite's arguments are void and null despite the fact that they're logically sound.

The Twilight Speculation Zone!

Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF, or is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?

This is complete amateurs who wrote this. Here's how it's done:

---------

Did Microsoft just voted this way since they have no reason or gain of they voted otherwise and this is not even news worth reading...

OR

Microsoft has a very sinister plan in the works, the ultimate outcome of which is victory of OOXML over ODF. It involves vampires, politics, space ships, weapons, monsters, time machines, tornados, zombies, death stars, extra dimensional ports, robots, dinosaurs, seductive girls, perfect storms, fast cars... And all of this starts with ODF becoming an ANSI standard. And this is why Microsoft voted positive.

Interesting indeed!

Are MS doing this to trick their customers and partners in to adoption, then 1 year down the line spring suprise lawsuits [cnn.com] or license fees on them?

This vote is good for Microsoft

This vote is good for Microsoft. It can work this way. With ODF on the list, and later with others like PDF on the list, plus their own OOXML added to the list, it can make the list itself look legitimate. Then they will argue that governments can meet their obligations for open documents by choosing any one format from the list, making it seem that OOXML will be at least as good a choice as ODF.

ANSI

Now, im not american, so maybe i dont get this, but what is the point of a standerds institute if it starts to list standerds after they have become standerd. the artical talks about, some old, formats already in use for years as standerds, HTML, RTf. With the exception of ODf, which is still up and coming, this would seem to be a waste of a log time, and proberbly, money

semantic retardation ..

Can two or more standards be, by definitation, standard? Why not just publish a RFC and allow everyone write applications to that. What could be more standard than that.

What is a "Standard [case.edu]

"Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF", NO

"is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?", YES

Here we go again ...

Embrace, extend and extinguish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_e xtinguish [wikipedia.org]

Judge the actions, not the words

The same I keep preaching when it comes to politicians. Don't judge them by their words, judge them by their actions.

It's easy to vote for something when you know that the vote is for /dev/null anyway. What would be interesting to see is whether that vote actually makes a difference. If it's already accepted or rejected by a magnitude, it's easy to cast a vote for the side which promises better PR.

Something about...

embrace, extend... oh never mind. We'll never learn will we?

This is a delaying tactic

It takes TIME for an ANSI or ISO standard to be created. If ODF were to undergo this process it would create the impression that it was a rough or draft standard that had yet to have all the edges polished and kinks worked out.

It is interesting that they are doing this though since it is a clear indication that they see ODF as a real threat and something that they can really only hold at bay temporarily. Has Microsoft gone into hemorrhage control mode?

Red herring

The problem isn't whether M$ supports a standard's adoption. They supported HTML but...

1. IE renders differntly than many other browsers, which all look more similar to each other than IE (thinking FF, Opera and Safari here).
2. IE supported non-standard tags (like, say ActiveX)
3. Because of IE's automatic market penetration, their extensions (no doubt patented) and misrepresntations of the standard (maybe patented) became standard on the web.

Remember: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Plus, then they will "comply to open standards" removing a EU/Mass./Whoever-else objection to using their software.

back peddling

they're back peddling.

after the all the talk over the past week about M$ and "their" patents, people are starting to remember M$ is a convicted monopolist and why.

they have to put back on their friendly face for the press and make a good show.
atleast until they know they have the next group in the white house bought off.

Mysterious flying chair homicide in Seattle

And in possibly related news Police in Seattle are reporting that Tom Robertson, general manager for Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft, was hit by a flying chair whilst out walking his dog. Police don't yet have any firm leads but are seeking to question a bald, red-faced caucasian man who was seen fleeing the scene.

Why is everyone so paranoid?

Microsoft does something right for a change and everyone is discussing conspiracy theories. Could it be that they see the writting on the wall, that ODF is the way of the future and are willing to accept that and move on, no hard feelings? After all, that's how they got where they are now, by taking someone elses ideas.

Seriously Folks...

Seriously folks, how else could they have voted?

A Standard Is ...

A Standard is the whole world deciding to use your product instead of the competition. What, you thought this was all about the consumer? Since when?

New Patent Revealed

And earlier today Microsoft released their list of patents, including one claiming ownership of all ANSI standards...Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "we'll adopt ODF and extend and embrace it by issuing OOXML as the new universal format for documents". When asked if this maneuver was undertaken to undermine open source, Ballmer replied by throwing a chair and grunting before storming off stage.

Bullet point - Office does ODF

Just like WinNT did Posix ...

Oh, the irony...

Why not Sun?

It was a mistake.

They got confused my the similar names of the two formats.

Quite devious actually

Have you ever tried to purcha$e a copy of an AN$I $tandard?

patents

Why? Isn't it obvious? Microsoft probably has a patent on using XML for representing word processing documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.

Confusion

Somebody at MS saw the word "open," got confused about which format was which, and voted wrong.

"Wait, that's not our proprietary-blob format? But I thought -- aren't we pushing the one called Open .. uh something? Yeah, that one's ours, right? What?! Where am I?"

People, do we really want Old Man Microsoft with his finger on the button?

Not talking Akbar...

...so No, it's not a trap. Microsoft wants to become Linux. Microsoft management finally saw the light and saw that the one thing they lacked was being Linux. They will now soon announce that the partnership with Novell was not about patents, but actually about secretly starting the union with the Open Source movement.

In three months time, Bill Gates himself will be announcing his presence on the next HOPE [2600.com] conference, with a special speech called "Open source and I, how do I fit in, even though I know shit ?".

In other news, scientists have concluded air is water and water is air, yay.

Microsoft did the same wrt ISO ratification

Microsoft was on the ISO committee that ratified ODF as an ISO standard, and Microsoft voted "YES". Microsoft isn't the one that's advocating one format to rule them all and is blocking usage of certain formats, that's IBM's thing wrt OOXML (IBM was the sole "NO" vote for OOXML ECMA ratification and is the one that's most trying to block OOXML ISO ratification).

This subject is boring

ODF is unnecessarily complex and not very useful at all as it currently stands. Most of the people here are willing to accept a MS conspiracy theory. If anything, MS should want ODF to become a frozen standard so that they could

a) develop compatibility to the standard.
b) develop MS-only standard enhancements/extensions.
c) Argue against ODF adoption in government because of deficiencies frozen into the standard.
d) Release an upgrade to office that contains document formatting features not available within the ODF standard.

Yet another move to screw up things?

Smells like base64-encoded binary sh!t appears in ODF, when this format will be officially supported by MS.

It's PR. Microsoft does NOT support ODF

It's PR. Microsoft does NOT support ODF!

From TFA Microsoft supports choice. Notice "choice" meaning that Microsoft want people to say that they want choice; i.g. OOXML too becomes a standard.

In other words; Microsoft sees taht they are very likely not to get OOXML an ISO standard, so by saying they want ODF *AND* OOXML they might still be able to squizze OOXML into ISO =(

It's a trap (like foreign policy)

Of course it's a trap. Don't need tinfoil, just look at history. They never have and never will do good regarding standards.

But these troglodytes are connected by money and favors to the government you know. They have experience doing modeling, demos, etc. IIRC the U.S. government models foreign policy using a tree of responses to potential situations, all precalculated for maximum results. At least that's how it used to be before the neocons. You know, the military had a plan for everything.

So it stands to reason MS does things similarly. It is all a precalculated decision tree and when something occurs that they didn't guess, they just update the thing. The scary thing is they learn from their mistakes. But MS has a lot of cash, a lot of lawyers, and very few ethics. So they're golden.

Then it is pretty easy to see the sarcasm and smirking going on as they reach this decision point.

Step 2345: ODF is getting popular (40% probability)
Step 2346: "Cave in" (lol) and recommend to ANSI or some such. (PR: "We mean business", etc.)
Step 2347: Start embrace/extend thread, Start "ODF in everything" team, Buy startups if any. Contribute some dumb thing to ODF and let wind out of their sails. (ha!)
Step 2348: Did we win yet?
Step 2351: If not start getting mean. Threaten patents (doh). Get Novell's ass moving. Get clients to complain about how glacially changing ODF can't save their important ActiveX apps, etc. Launch "Better ODF than ODF" product. Launch attack PR thread ("Would you leave your future in the hands of these guys", etc. lol!)

Anyway more of the same. Basically nobody would win a Hugo award for writing this story, it's too predictable and the aliens are the good guys.

Nothing to lose

This is a no brainer. The standard was going to be approved anyway.

The only thing voting against would do would be to confirm what we already know, and everyone else shoud... that ODF is a long term threat to the dominance of MS Office.

By voting for its acceptance, they're playing that it isn't a threat.

This also let's them play the partial support game ("broken" ODF documents that don't work in word) with supposed good intentions.

If ODF gets even more traction and they do have to support it credibly to avoid losing big bucks, the supposed good intentions give them opportunity to play the embrace extend extinguish game a little longer before it becomes obvious what they're doing (to those that haven't paid attention to Microsoft business practices before).

Heard on the grapevine...

I was at a Novell technology preview yesterday and heard something interesting. Don't shoot the messenger btw... Part of the much-criticised MS/NOVL agreement was interoperability. Part of this interoperability will mean that both OpenOffice and MSoffice will at some point in the future not only both support ODF, but will save their docs as ODF by DEFAULT. I have to say it sounded unlikely to me, but it was announced at a public event, so who knows? Either way, don't shoot the messenger.

Funny how MS gets an instant bad wrap

Isn't it funny how, when Microsoft does something puzzlingly in support of what we've all been asking for all this time, rather than being congratulated, the Slashdot crowd immediately starts trying to guess what their devious secret strategy is here to achieve world domination?

Possible reason for this: They have been around for thirty years, and in all that time, they have ALWAYS had a devious secret strategy to achieve world domination!

On with the speculation!

Obviously they're just doing this to make themselves look better when it comes time to vote for OOXML!

Re:Is this a serious question?

Or is it merely a rhetorical question designed to encourage flaming and thus more page hits?

YES!

Wait, this is Slashdot.

YES!

Do I even need to ask this question, or do I just like to watch myself type?

YES! ... and likewise.

So, I'm just gonna post now, and I suppose you'll see it as you refresh every 10 seconds awaiting responce. Please post back, as I'm refreshing every 10 seconds awaiting for responce too!

THANKS!

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

Sort of runs contrary to the point of a standard doesn't it? The purpose of standards is to put out an open method that everyone uses and interoperates with. If you have two, which is then the standard standard?

Re:Don't we have 2 http standards? 5 TCP/IP standa

'Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?'

Because those distros and GUI's adopt standards that allow them to all interoperate and exchange information. A document format is a means of storing and conveying information. All means of storing and conveying information should be standardized. It makes sense to have different document creation applications but they should all store the results in the same format so that your preferred application is interoperable with mine.

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

The purpose of standards is to put out an open method that everyone uses and interoperates with.

I disagree. The purpose of standards is not to create something that everybody uses. Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it. A diverse collection of competing standards is nothing new [wikipedia.org]. If one standard becomes dominance, there are nice efficiencies that you get, but it's not the purpose of standards -- it's just the gravy.

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

Um, you've completely misunderstood the network effect. Deliberately? None of the things you have mentioned are specifically meant to be used as a communication medium to transport information.

Instead examples should be networking protocols, spoken/written language, mobile phone protocols, DVD formats etc. Things which are designed to convey information. These are all highly standardised.

 

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

You're missing the point of a standard. There can be multiple implementations of a single standard. There is a standard for a webserver (which, funnily enough, MS also break). It should speak the standard HTTP, and mostly likely that's layered on the standard TCP, and so on.

Same with the OS. The OS should follow the standard POSIX calls (which Windows sorta manages to do), and so on.

As for programming languages.. well that's too broad. For particular languages, there are standards. There is a standard for C, there is a standard for C++, and so on.

If Bill gave *me* all his money ...

Therefore, nothing they do is to be taken as positive - even if Bill gave me all his money, I'd be suspicious.

If Bill gave me all his money, I'd write him a nice thank-you note. Hell, I might even invite him to my next party.

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

Microsoft hasn't stood in the way of ODF at all. They just think there's room for more than one standard.

Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard. I can see some good reasons from a PR standpoint to go this route. With Microsoft, you have to be very careful with the word "standard." MS is all in favor of standardization. They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards. When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications; something anyone can make standardized for the purpose of allowing interoperability. Everyone can see the benefit of such a standard for the construction industries, manufacturers, and end users.

When MS talks about standards, however, they are more commonly referring to something where they are the sole gatekeeper, and often the sole creator of items that follow said "standard." OpenXML, for example, is not a "standard" in the same way ODF is and it sure doesn't bring end users the lion's share of the benefits normally associated with what we call an open standard. This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries. You could call ISO 898, industry members believing there is room for more than one bolt standard, because that is what ISO 898 is, another standard equivalent to SAE. Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.

Re:Why would it be puzzling?

I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.

ODF is not supported by MS in Word natively. Thus, ODF adoption usually means MS is losing a sale. Further, it means it is easier for their customers to migrate away from MS Office. You really don't think MS is doing anything to stop people from moving to ODF. You don't think they're offering price cuts to stop migrations away from MSOffice to say Openffice and ODF?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.

Open standards traditionally bring certain benefits including:

• competative vendor bids
• wider selection of tools
• no need to maintain compatibility with other tools/versions of tools
• no vendor lock-in

All of these things are benefits MS would prefer their customers did not have, because MS is overwhelmingly the leader in the market, possibly (probably) to the extent of weilding monopoly influence in the word processor market.

Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several.

Umm, what is the point of your comment? You're just repeating exactly what I present an example of. The point is, when you talk about ISO and SAE standards for bolts, you're comparing similar items from the perspective of the industry and of the end user. When you're talking about ODF and and OpenXML you're talking about items that are very, very different in the benefits they bring to the industry and end user. Now it would probably be better for the industry and end user if either SAE or ISO won the war and was the only remaining standard for that type of bolt size, but it doesn't much matter which one from an objective perspective. Both would and currently do provide similar benefits. This is absolutely positively not the case when comparing ODF and OpenXML.

ODF is no more "open" than OXML is.

Yes, it is.

It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML).

The restrictions needed to get patent protection from Sun are the same as PDF from Adobe, you just have to follow the spec. That is not the case with MS. Technically, there is nothing stopping MS from releasing a new version of OpenXML and telling all current software vendors implementing it that they are no longer in compliance with the license since they implement the "old" version and shutting down each and every competitor. That is not the case with ODF.

It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved.

No, ODF is currently implemented by software from dozens of companies and no one company can stop another from implementing the spec. So long as they are following the spec there is nothing Sun can do, including releasing a new version of the spec, to stop someone like the WrodPerfect team from implementing it.

BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.

Those were separate list items. Note the comma. OpenXML is encumbered by patents that can still be brought to bear. Additionally, OpenXML is tied by trade secrets. Parts of the spec refer to trade secrets and copyrighted implementations of other works. For example, in some instances it refers to behavior "like Word version X" but since only MS has the source to Word version X and it is both copyrighted and a trade secret, no one else can fully implement that part of the spec.

Ok, then you should

Since when?

MS has never supported pushing a standard unless it is theirs or it is a modification to a current standard. Even in HTML, they were late to that game and push for a number of mods (a number of which were insane but designed to give them an edge). In java, while the did not push for standards, one it was, they tried to control it.

This is totally out of character for MS, though the only issue that I can see, is that now MS will be allowed to push through a number of mods that will allow their proprietary EEE ©.