XML Support In Office 2003 Isn't For Everyone 213
0x0d0a writes "Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft's recent campaign to promote Office 2003 based on its XML support may be a bit misleading. Only the Enterprise and Professional releases will have this support -- not Standard. Microsoft will still be leveraging file format compatibility for at least another Office release."
Not to snipe here... (Score:3, Insightful)
For the love of B0B how hard is it to deploythe feature across the entire suite. What can we conclude here?
1) Its not really ready and the high end versions will ship later.
OR
2) its a cheap ploy to rake in more money later on.
*sigh*
Re:Chant the mantra, brethren (Score:5, Insightful)
I've given up on Office completely. I even try to reject
"Compatability" is still a bitches game.
Schools? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one reason I use openoffice (openoffice.org [openoffice.org] at home as it supports most word versions flawlessly, without promting me to "insert office cd 2" to install the feature.
On file formats (Score:5, Insightful)
I always said during the DOJ trial all I wanted was to have the Office file formats opened. That would have really lead to some change.
Btw in case your new here, try OpenOffice you might like it.
www.openoffice.org
And when... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they ever do make it general they'll encumber the components with so many patents and copyrights that it will be a proprietary format in spite of being XML based.
The people running Microsoft might not be "nice", but they certainly aren't stupid. Moving to an open file format would immediately saw one of the legs out from under their monopoly. Expect them instead to vaporize the file format issue and drag it out as long as possible, so that people and companies tempted to switch to a WP with an open format will think they can get the open formats without switching, if only they wait a little longer and pay for a few more upgrades.
Re:Office 2003 Beta (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to remember that this is Microsoft we are talking about here. Any time they say "we are going to switch to an open format", there's always a catch to it.
Is Microsoft ever going to switch to an open format? No, why would they? They will only lose money. As for the people complaining about competition, why should a company with 90 - 95% of the desktop Office suite market care?
People with little or no knowledge about what Microsoft has done in the past might think that Microsoft is taking a great step forward. But remember, this isn't going to be complete XML, it is "Microsoft XML"
All this about Microsoft doing a great thing by switching to an "Open XML base" is all hype, nothing more.
Re:XML Support In Office 2003 Isn't For Everyone.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Additionally Office 2003 will consume true XML, but will not produce it. Yet another example of them attempting to destroy standards.
Re:Chant the mantra, brethren (Score:5, Insightful)
Text in Office 2003 files stored in XML format might be viewable in other desktop programs, but all document formatting would be lost
Actually, this is entirely the point of XML. XML is not Yet Another Word Processor Format. It's intended to store "content" as opposed to "presentation", leaving "presentation" up to the app, much as was the original intent of HTML. Rather than an evil Microsoft plot, they are in fact conforming to the spec when they produce such a file.
The semi-trailer truck sized hole in the notion is, of course, that "presentation" isn't really entirely separable from "content", especially in a modern document. All that graphic-artist stuff like layout and font choice and formatting actually affects the value and usefulness of the document. That's why we put it in in the first place. And that's why everyone always whines when Word strips out all the "presentation" they've spent all that effort putting into the document and just leaving them with the raw XML "content" -- a bunch of text.
The flaw here is in the attempt to erect too high of a wall between presentation and content, not in Word.
By the time you get fine-grained enough control over the presentation to create documents that actually look the way you want, the "content" usually becomes illegible. Alternatively, you have only coarse control over the presentation, in which case the content most often looks like crap. This problem is easily seen in any number of web pages that feel obliged to include some little rant at the top about bloated HTML and how they concentrate on "pure content", which usually means a sea of unreadable and undiffentiated Times Roman.
The flip side is if you actually do break up the content enough to get control over the presentation. The last time sometimes tried to create a human-readable ASCII-text format for documents, they wound up with Postscript. A typical document actually looks something like:
[556 0 24 -19 541 703 ]
AddEuroGlyph
} if
F
F4S53 Ji
688 1320 M ( )S
F2S53 Ji
800 1518 M (802.3z Gigabit Eth)[42 42 42 21 42 36 21 60 23 41 37 42 23 23 21 51 23 0]xS
1431 1518 M (ernet local)[37 28 41 37 23 21 23 42 37 37 0]xS
1781 1518 M (-)S
1809 1518 M (side interface)[32 23 42 37 21 23 41 23 37 29 27 37 37 0]xS
2255 1518 M ( )S
F3S53 Ji
650 1620 M S
F4S53 Ji
688 1620 M ( )S
F2S53 Ji
800 1620 M (Supports f)[46 41 42 42 42 28 23 32 21 0]xS
1145 1620 M (ull Gigabit line rate)[41 23 23 21 60 24 41 37 42 23 23 21 23 24 41 37 21 28 37 23 0]xS
1795 1620 M ( )S
F3S53 Ji
650 1722 M S
F4S53 Ji
688 1722 M ( )S
F2S53 Ji
800 1722 M (Operates in either media convert)[60 42 37 28 37 23 37 32 21 23 41 21 37 23 24 41 37 28 22 63 37 42 23 37 21 37 42 42 42 37 28 0]xS
1888 1722 M (er)[37 0]xS
1953 1722 M ( or line)[21 42 28 21 23 23 41 0]xS
2189 1722 M (-)S
2216 1722 M (card )[37 37 28 42 0]xS
800 1817 M (mode)[63 42 42 0]xS
Here's a hint. The "content" is clearly delimited by parentheses (instead of, oh, "") Easily readable by humans, right? A cinch to import into other applications, right? Guess what: a real XML word processing document that kept the presentation information isn't going to be any more readable. You're not just going to whip out vi and fix it up any more than you can do that to your Postscript documents now.
XML is not magic application pixie dust that makes all features transparently interoperable when you sprinkle it on.
I'm cringing again: XML != anyone can read it (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft will still be leveraging file format compatibility for at least another Office release.
Here we go again. "If Microsoft would just use an open format like XML then anyone could read the documents with any program and the world would be a better place."
XML is a format for creating data formats. It is not a data format. The fact that a particular format is XML compliant says nothing for its readability, it simply means that it can be parsed into a document tree by an XML parser. That doesn't mean that anybody can determine what the tree represents, only that it can be created. My favorite analogy: "If Microsoft would just start using 8-bit bytes, then anybody could read their file formats."
Microsoft has made it clear that the dollar value of secret file formats isn't lost on them. They will continue to use secret file formats, even if they're XML-based, until someone makes them stop. At the same time, they'll be able to harvest the stupidity of PHB's who will claim that Microsoft file formats are open because they're XML. It's surprising how many people on Slashdot foolishly believe the same.
Michael
Re:XML Support In Office 2003 Isn't For Everyone.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you xlink to another XML document or some binary data, then you need the "other document". If you need the dtd, or stylesheet information, you need the other document as well.
Zipping one XML document only has space saving as its only advantage. But for many, ensuring they are in the same place ensures you dont' get errors interpretting them and their required children/siblings/parents.
What does that mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if XML was supported in all versions of Office, would that mean that Office would suddenly have an open file format? I don't think so. It's perfectly possible for me to write anything in XML in a way that you will not be able to read it.
Which is normal. XML is a way to describe data. If you have the DocType Definition (DTD) of an XML file, the only thing you know is whether that XML file is structured correctly, and how you would create another XML file that would look like the same thing for an XML parser. Nothing more.
In the long run, XML is nothing more than a standard you can use to base other standards on. XML can be put in the same row as ASCII, bytes, the file concept, or even SGML: it's a standard intended for the creation of other standards.
Nothing more, nothing less
Therefore, I think the argument that Microsoft Office will 'support XML' is just a marketing joke. It won't do anything out of the ordinary...
Re:I think it would be better (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. About once a week, Windows 2000 Server randomly reassigns my default printer. About once every three weeks, Windows XP suddenly fails to see my USB printer unless I reboot -- no explanation, no change in configuration.
If Microsoft products -- which, as everyone likes to point out, run almost all machines -- is so wonderful, and if their software is so easy and useful for the ordinary joe, then why oh why after ten years of outright dominance do people still hate and fear computers?
The only "innovation" Microsoft has developed is its ability to convince regular users that (a) the complexities and difficulties of, say, Linux, result from the innate design (and a flawed one at that), but (b) any complications or errors encountered using Windows must be the fault of the user.
XML just a feature, not a change in file format (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll do this as long as they have a monopoly (or near-monopoly). The XML support isn't about making file formats compatible with competitors, or even about pretending to. It's just one more feature that MS has added to Office, in an attempt to persuade existing users to upgrade. It means that Office can be used to edit XML documents. It doesn't mean that Office's proprietary file formats are disappearing.
XML editing is a useful feature for some people, and from what I've heard it works better than the horrible HTML support in previous versions of Office, but it's still a niche. (True, it can be used to help with cross-platform compatability, but so can RTF and other existing "save as" options.) Most users just want to write a letter or design a presentation, and aren't concerned with markup languages.
XML isn't necessarily helpful (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's not surprising that they haven't made their XML format completely transparent and uniform, but rather it is surprising that they haven't made it completely opaque.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh Come On (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that MS could put the XML in the home version at no cost is irrelevent. The important thing is that there exist people who will pay more money to get the functionality offered in the Professional version of office over the Home version.
Therefore the Professional version costs more.
Rubbish! (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just the sort of disinfo that MS themselves love to seed. Classic post, nice try.
It's just not true. XML is *NOT* 'just' a presentation format, a la HTML (nice smear), nor is it 'inevitable' that the fileformat ends up like Postscript.
XML is a text-based system for data storage and retrieval, intended to be *self documenting*. In other words, the details on what fonts are used, what settings The User has set for individual parts of the documents, the parameters for those setting, etc. ARE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE STORED IN READABLE FORMAT WITHIN XML TAGS, CONFORMING TO A KNOWN, PUBLISHED DOCUMENT DESCRIBING THE CONTENT.
You're trying to swing the definition, and it's not working here, buddy.
XML *IS* a solution to the problem of data longevity.
Microsofts' perversion of it, is a solution to theirs.
but on the good side... (Score:2, Insightful)
No DRM in the Standard version means no DRM'd documents for the Office version that 99% of people use(and the version that comes with most OEM PCs). So at least Rights Restriction won't become widespread except for businesses.
WordML's copyright, or patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chant the mantra, brethren (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has used XML knows perfectly well that it's entirely possible to describe the complete dataset for content, layout, and presentation, within an XML document, in a form which can be easily parsed by humans and software alike. Completely. Using open standards, even.
Consequently, it's also possible to wrap it all up in 'parseable', yet 'unhandleable-unless-you're-on-the-inside' data blobs which mean nothing to no-one, yet still use 'XML' as a wrapper.
It's a liability of having such an open design, and Microsoft are exploiting this fact, in the context of *CLEAR* market-division tactics.
*They* created the artificial 'Professional/Enterprise/Standard' labels. Not the Users.
MS' use of XML here is perverted. It serves no purpose other than to give MS an opportunity to blag press release points about how their software uses 'the latest open standards' to people who have *NO CLUE* what they're talking about
Re:Rubbish! (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait a second - the original post stated that XML is ALL about the content and specifically NOT the presentation. Now you are saying that XML is apparently *self documenting* and the USER decides how the content should be displayed.
So, according to your post, Microsoft is correct when their XML file output includes the *content* and the *user* can display it however they want.
Re:Rubbish! (Score:3, Insightful)
These other posts are out of field. XML can be used to store content, as well as all significant details about how that content should be displayed/portrayed to the user in various scenarios, in a way in which the details can be easily parsed - both by software and by human.
XML is an attempt to prolong the longevity of data, forever. The thinking goes that if the data is described in a meta-language (which can also be described), it's easier to - many, many years into the future - parse the details from those documents and render them appropriately.
Microsoft aren't doing it. They're just wrapping up the users data in incomprehensible data formats, within XML, and then 'playing the Open Standards' card...
There's no justification for not including presentation details - content and layout - within the context of XML. It's perfectly applicable in this regard, parent posts notwithstanding...
Re:Rubbish! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure where these people who thought Office being XML would instantly make it compatible with other word processors are coming from -- if the other word processors don't implement support for Microsoft's XML format, it won't happen. For compatibility, the only thing XML gives over the .doc format is it is harder for Microsoft to hide undocumented features in it since it is primarily text based. That's it!
Why not write yourself a plug-in? (Score:1, Insightful)
now c'mon (Score:2, Insightful)
in other news: garvity keeps you on the ground! more at eleven!
Re:True, true... (Score:3, Insightful)
How about opening say, a Word 97/2000/XP doc in Office 95
The way I read the post in question the poster referred to the difficulty of opening in say Office 97 a document saved in the format of a later version say XP. As far as I know apart from one stupid upgrade a while back which they fixed, any MS office prog can save in the format appropriate to an earlier version. Please let me know where I'm wrong. (International version differences excepted)
Your examples are not on this point at all. As for Works, I can't remember the last time I got one of their documents to open in anything other than Works.
And Standardizing everyone (teachers, parents, students) on OpenOffice.org was the smartest thing we've ever done. Document compatibility was major factor in that decision. I mean seriously. Substitiute anything for OpenOffice.org and the thing still makes sense and is just as valid.
Re:Oh Come On (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You seem to be missing the point: (Score:3, Insightful)
As an accountant I'm interested in the XML tags that tell me a number is an asset or a liability. I don't care if you want it printed in Tahoma or Wingdings A.
The only real problem will be if MS doesn't allow users to save in non-ms schema.
That would be truly anti-XML.
And as an Accountant I get pissed off when I get told by Quicken that their new versions will use XML extensively but in the next breath am told that "No, you won't be able to export transcaction data from your database except through smart tags." And I bet that will be limited.
Re:Plaintext (Score:2, Insightful)
plaintext == greppable usefully
plaintext == mungable inline easily
plaintext + stream encryption = very good and space-efficient thing.
plaintext + CPU and disk subsystem from the last 3 years = 2-5% more load when gening/parsing XML.. boo hoo hoo!!
welcome to the 21st century, where we can afford convenient 'waste' like XML!!
If I hear one more person whinge about XML's 'bloat' I think someone's gettin a slappin... Spoken as someone who's had to emacs binary files to 'relink' a hardcoded shared lib reference.. Netscape Enterprise server admin junk..
Re:Rubbish! - Yes total rubbish (Score:2, Insightful)
Certainly if one WANTED to erect a high wall between content and formatting one could use XML and XSLT to do so. But to argue that this is the only acceptable use for XML is just rubbish.
Re:Chant the mantra, brethren (Score:3, Insightful)
They surprised me - I expected:
The DTD would be the ms_word_doc tag defined as a CDATA field. Perfectly valid XML.
Re:Rubbish! (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. XML is not supposed to store information such as 'font' and other presentational features. This is the job of the XSL stylesheets or CSS etc.
Um. XML is for storing any kind of information -- including font styles. It's just a better idea to seperate those two concerns into seperate schemas.
PS. XSL uses XML!