Open XML Translator for Microsoft Word Available

narramissic writes "The first phase of a Microsoft-funded project to create software that can convert Microsoft Word documents between Open XML and Open Document Format (ODF) has been completed. As a result, the Open XML Translator is now available for download in version 1.0 from SourceForge.net. A ComputerWorld article details the history of the project, discussing the work of companies like CleverAge and AztecSoft, as well as community efforts to bring this project to realization."

Aw...

Please no clippy, please no clippy...

"It looks like you're trying to convert to a non-Microsoft proprietary format. I can't let you do that, Dave"

Relation to Linux?

And how's this related to Linux? It is just a ODF - OpenXML convertor for Windows.

Re:Relation to Linux?

Software Requirements

Before installing the add-in, make sure you have one of the followings...

        * Microsoft Word XP
        * Office Compatibility Pack
        * .NET framework 2.0

or

        * Microsoft Word 2003
        * Office Compatibility Pack
        * .NET framework 2.0*

or

        * Word 2007 with .NET Programmability Support activated
        * .NET framework 2.0*

Minimum Software Requirements

To compile the source distribution, you will need Microsoft Visual Studio 2005.

Re:Relation to Linux?

Michael Meeks made a version of this converter available which compiles using mono, see entry 2007-01-29 on http://www.gnome.org/~michael/ [gnome.org] .

Realistically, there's no reason it even needs to be in C# - the various bits of wrapper could be rewritten into other languages, and the main work is done by an XSLT. The OpenDocument Fellowship might include a similar tool in future tool sets, translated to be a bit more native.

Why is this such a big thing?

Why is this such a big thing considering that OpenOffice has the ability to import from and export to MS Word format? It even allows you to email the document in Word format without having to explicitly save it in that format.

Re:Why is this such a big thing?

The idea is that it would let Microsoft Word users do the conversion, and save their documents in ODF, rather than leaving them in DOC and requiring OpenOffice users to do the conversion.

The big difference is which format the documents get stored in. If they're being stored in DOC, then you're still mostly at the mercy of Microsoft; it's easy for someone to open the document in some new version of Word, save it, and silently move it into some new MS-created "binary blob" format, breaking backwards compatibility.

So basically, a converter would let states like Massachusetts start to move away from DOC as the de facto standard format for electronic documents. They'd probably still use it as an editing format, because I don't see them tossing Word for OO.org anytime soon, but it would help get rid of the huge "silos" of DOC stuff that's sitting around, getting silent migrated from one version of Microsoft's formats to the next.

Unfortunately

The first phase of a Microsoft-funded project to create software that can convert Microsoft Word documents between Open XML and Open Document Format (ODF) has been completed.

Unfortunately, when you run it, it starts off with, "Hi! It looks like you're trying to convert a Microsoft Word Document! Would you like some help?"

A Microsoft converter for a competing product?

Anyone else feel chills? Remember how good the Import/Export of .WPD files was in Word? I'm guessing that this will be of similar quality. At least it's OSS. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to bridge the gap between ODF and OpenXML. Best is to use OpenOffice and save as .DOC if you have to. Here's the Microsoft Press Release [microsoft.com] about it.

a question instead of a statement

Can I ask, since the article doesn't seem to really explain -- what good is this? I know converting to XML is supremely important _in theory_ so that your documents can be easily parsed and used among other software applications - but say for example:

I have a document
I convert it to XML

then what? Is this excellent news in theory, or is there a demand for this?

I honestly don't know, I'm not claiming there isn't. Please tell me.

---
this isn't xml [douginadress.com]

Re:a question instead of a statement

I have a document
I convert it to XML

then what?

The latest and greatest(?) versions of the MS Office programs save natively in XML. This converter lets you convert to ODF, which lets you read the files into OpenOffice on any operating system, or any other application that supports ODF. It basically lets you get out from under the MS proprietary format and into an open standard.

Seems the common files are written in C#

Surprised? Seems Microsoft just see this as another way to infect the better platforms with their CLR, an attempt to start the countdown on the patent timebomb.

If you're writing cross platform code at least have the decency to use C, C++ or Java, requiring a CLR is insulting.

Excel and Power Point promised by Nov. 07

From the Microsoft press release:

The second phase of the translator project, including translators for Spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel®) and Presentation (Microsoft Office PowerPoint®), will begin in February. Regular customer technology previews will be posted to SourceForge.net beginning in May 2007, and the final versions are scheduled to be available for customers in November 2007.

One thing I'm wondering is how to automatically keep the OpenXML translator up to date on windows. If you install it from the MS Office Downloads [microsoft.com] site, will WindowsUpdate just keep it updated for you?

WTF?!

I just tried to use it, and here's what I got:

      This is not a winning document. Better luck next time.
 

What's the point?

What's the point if the add-in doesn't allow ODF to be set as the default file type, or even used via the Save As menu [robweir.com]?

Hopefully the Word "interop" API actually allows for this sort of thing to be properly integrated.

MS was very much against this

A while back a state IT Department (I think Massachusetts) decided to only use open-source document formats and talked back and forth with Microsoft. The head of the IT Department (or something similar) privatly asked some of Word's programmers, who said an odf/xml feature would be trivial to add, but MS flatly refused to make a plugin for Office to convert to odf/xml, even though it meant losing the state's patronage.

Microsoft is really determined to strangle open formats.

Fugetaboutit

IT Admin = "Boss, we can move to Open Office now, we have an XML converter for MS Word!"

CIO = "What is this 'ribbon' thing I keep hearing about?"

IT Admin = "Boss, we dont need the ribbon, its just Microsoft hype."

CIO = "Have you seen the ribbon? Bring me the ribbon!"

IT Admin = "Khaaaaaaaannnnn!"

With love from Vista

I can't wait to see what Vista does with this. "Premium content detected, doc files are proprietary content I have notified Microsoft about your attempt to circumvent the DMCA. Please stay where you are and make no sudden moves".

It's XML, but...

Try reading Microsoft's documentation for OOXML. It's 6,000 pages long. Seriously. This is a great Microsoft PR stunt - yes, you've gotten your data in to XML format, but the XML format is so complicated that only the Microsoft programmers who wrote it can actually understand it. Part of the point about XML is interoperability. There's no way that sane people are going to read a 6,000 page Microsoft specification and write an XSLT to convert Microsoft OOXML in to a simpler and saner format. In short, this will not mean any competition with Microsoft. They buy PR in the geek community by saying "Office is going XML! Open data! Whee!" and making an XML format that's so complicated that nobody would ever use it. That's a pretty smart move. And it's a pretty dumb move on the part of ECMA. Congratulations on just giving your dignity away by signing off on a specification that's about nineteen times longer than War and Peace...

No document in living history is ever going to be so complicated that it needs to be in a format that's specification is 6,000 pages long. Part of the point about XML was that we should be setting up simple, domain-specific markup languages and extending already existing markup languages. OOXML is bad because it's needlessly complicated and obscure. Having visited the OOXML website, I'm missing a lot of things I expect. First, I'm missing schema. If these guys are serious about XML, where are the XSD/RNG schema? Secondly, where are the cross-platform translators - ie. XSLs? I'm missing some kind of high-level summary of how I'm supposed to parse the XML. If the only way of doing anything with OOXML is a closed, black-box Microsoft converter, then we still haven't really got anywhere.

Well, I'm breaking the cycle. All my documents are going to be either ASCII or a standard, non-obscure XML format like XHTML. Or something home-brewed and simple that can be easily transformed using XSL and XSL-FO. Screw Microsoft's phony attempt at interoperability. The Internet is interoperable by design. (X)HTML is interoperable by design. Let's prove to them that we mean interoperability by sticking to simple, sensible, semantically-based and scalable principles.

All the features?

Word suuports "art borders". Users can choose from a wide selection of images selected from 1980's western culture. Does this get exported properly?

If I can't get the candycorn borders, no deal!

Copied from OOo ?

I installed it and tried in in Word 2003 on a small, simple documents. I noticed that when the result file was loaded into Writer, it looked at first glance the same as if Writer had loaded a .doc file - e.g. white page background turns red, numbered section headers lost the numbering. I'll have a closer look and do the round-trip test, but it seems that the Windows team has exactly the same difficulties that OOo has in the conversion? Someone(TM) should perhaps compare some code here - not to point any blaming fingers, but to make the code better, in the best spirit of FOSS ... In the meantime, I'll just stick with OOo as it fills my needs completely. Well, almost, but there's also LyX/LaTeX.

We Can Put an End to Word Attachments

Noo! What will happen to the GNU Foundation's war on .doc [gnu.org]?!

Re:Why?

Please define your usage of the word "reasonable".

To the level at which I personally use MS Office as a (non-Windows/MS) computer professional of some 25 years, OO has all the features that I need from a word processor and spreadsheet program. I also do quite a lot of training slides in Powerpoint and find that OO's Impress imports those pretty well, albeit with some minor adjustments afterwards. I have some simple databases in Access but have not yet checked OO's ability to import those. I therefore find OO a "reasonable" alternative to MS Office.

Furthermore, evidence suggests to me that 90% of the people I know who use MS Office would find OO a good replacement for everything that they do - the exceptions are those people who use macros and VB in Office who would probably find OO not to be suitable. I believe those same people would find OO a "reasonable" alternative to MS Office.

Your argument makes it sound as though the entire MS Office user base has tried to convert to OO but somehow rejected it when, in reality, because most people find MS Office meets their needs and they don't themselves have to pay for it, they have no reason to look at OO as an alternative.

I know of **ABSOLUTELY NOBODY** who has paid for a legitimate copy of MS Office for their own use yet most people I know use it. But I would imagine that if they were faced with paying the going price of several hundred pounds/dollars/euros for it, they would no doubt seek out a free or cheaper alternative.

I would suggest that you "watch this space" closely over the next year or so. If the talk of Vista is anything to go by, MS are seriously planning on alienating home/private users in favour of corporate licenses - this can only mean that they'll tighten up on their product licenses, fewer people will be able to use MS Office for free and they'll start taking a serious look at OO.

And then we **REAL** OO users will be laughing at the people like you who have never tried it and base all their opinions purely on hearsay.

And in case I am wrong, and you have used it, then just how many times have you dropped the development team an email explaining just **WHY** OO doesn't meet your needs?