Microsoft Standing Firm On OOXML ISO Vote 181
christian.einfeldt writes "Microsoft has responded via the industry trade group ECMA to some of the thousands of criticisms of its submission of Office Open XML as an ISO standard. Open standards advocate Russell Ossendryver takes a look at those responses to see if Microsoft has made significant changes in either the substance of OOXML or the manner in which the OOXML specification will be maintained going forward. Ossendryver concludes that Microsoft's position has not significantly changed, but only hardened in place in advance of the Ballot Resolution Meeting which is to occur from February 25 through 29 in Geneva. While no one can say for certain whether Microsoft will succeed in having OOXML win the nod from the international community, Ossendryer thinks that Microsoft's firm stance is likely to backfire."
How 'Firm' Would You Stand For 20 Billion A Year? (Score:5, Insightful)
The vendor lockin from Office makes up almost half the company's yearly revenue.
Microsoft would cease to exist as we know it if the office document lockin revenue went away to an open format.
Fight? LOL! This is the type of shit Microsoft execs live for.
Fake grassroots efforts.
Standards body subversion.
Paid for media shills.
Shame studies.
Mysterious compatibility problems with the competition.
All in a days work.
Microsoft's Latest Trick (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is completely disingenuous of them to go on and on about Sun controlling ODF and make no mention at all of Microsoft's control of OOXML. The ECMA TC45 committee charter explicitly stated (and the scope still does) that the OOXML standard had to be fully compatible with the file formats used in Microsoft Office. If that's not total control, then what is?
The OASIS TC for ODF had no such provision
Re:How 'Firm' Would You Stand For 20 Billion A Yea (Score:2)
Shame studies.
I think you meant "sham" studies but I sorta like your way better. It's a sham that's also a shame. ;)
Re:How 'Firm' Would You Stand For 20 Billion A Yea (Score:2)
I think you meant "business as usual"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Point taken; however ...
Yeah Apple is so open and this is the reason i can run OS X on my beige bo- OH WAIT I CANNOT !
Actually you can [wired.com]. There are a bunch of sites explaining how; that is much more useful than running XP on the new Intel Macs, which you can also do.
But that's not such an issue at least songs i downloaded with Itunes can be played on my noname mp3 play- OH NOES IT FAILS !
You have to convert them first [askbobrankin.com]; you can do that in Itunes.
Well at least Itunes runs on Linux, to- SHIT IT DOESN'T !
It w
Re:Apple isn't proprieta- NO WAIT ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The iTunes DRM is roughly equivalant to a false positive for piracy in Windows Genuine Advantage. They've purchased the product, but now there are these digital hand-cuffs keeping them from using it. I doubt anyone saying that "false positives in WGA aren't too bad - there are work arounds. [link]" would get modded up too far, though.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there are work-arounds for all of these things doesn't negate the fact that they were locked down in the first place.
I don't know where you ever got the idea that Apple was an "open" company. It's stuff is locked up at least as tight as Microsoft's. The Darwin core's openness was a PR stunt at best (just try compiling the current version).
*However*, and that makes all the difference, Apple does *not* have a monopoly on the desktop. So they are free to do as they please. And apparently whatever it is they are doing, it doesn't bother their customers (yet).
So comparing Apple to Microsoft is just plain meaningless. In the c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AAC format is also a standard, it's not a proprietary Apple format, only the DRM is proprietary.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Yeah Apple is so open and this is the reason i can run OS X on my beige bo- OH WAIT I CANNOT !
Actually you can. There are a bunch of sites explaining how; that is much more useful than running XP on the new Intel Macs, which you can also do.
Yeah, you can get it running. If you don't care about security updates. If you take full responsibility for driver problems. If you don't mind dickering with your computer for a day or two. I never could get it to work under either VMWare Player or VMWare Workstation.
> But that's not such an issue at least songs i downloaded with Itunes can be played on my noname mp3 play- OH NOES IT FAILS !
You have to convert them first; you can do that in Itunes.
Great. Another hack. Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to download software of questionable legality? Feeling that Apple love, yet?
Neither am I.
> Well at least Itunes runs on Linux, to- SHIT IT DOESN'T !
It works with wine apparently, or Crossover Office.
I'm noticing a pattern, here... Wine is a barely acceptable hackaround of the proprietary Wi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't disagree that Apple locked these things down in the first place. I just wanted to point out that there are unofficial workarounds to fix the problems. Apple has never locked anything down well enough to prevent clever people from actually doing cool things with the system. That's because a lot of the drive behind locking things down in the first place was to protect the user-friendly experience, not necessarily to stop people from using their computers in an unorthodox fashion.
As far as that go
Re: (Score:2)
"open" does not mean "does what i want". to get more specific:
OS openness: one could actually make a reasonable point here, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah Apple is so open and this is the reason i can run OS X on my beige bo- OH WAIT I CANNOT !
You're confusing "open" with "free" (as in freedom). Actually OS X is open enough that you can run it on a beige box. It is, however, not free, so the license prohibits you from doing this legally. If you want to complain about Apple not being open enough, you should have picked something else, like not being able to easily customize the native GUI.
But that's not such an issue at least songs i downloaded with Itunes can be played on my noname mp3 play- OH NOES IT FAILS !
Again, this used to be a valid, complaint, excepting the fact that this was a requirement from the RIAA cartel and Apple was actually the company that press
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't change overnight, Apple are moving in the right direc
This is really quite the stupid move (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the plan could just be to say "We would have got away with ISO approval, if it wasn't for that pesky IBM". It's a bit odd, but there we are. MS is losing the EU to open standards.
"...would make Office better" (Score:2)
Why bother with that when you can lock up everybody's valuable data then take your time adding just enough new features to get people to upgrade?
Here's for holding onto hope (Score:5, Interesting)
directly because of MSFT the ISO has done nothing but stumble around they can't get the majorities that they need in oder to pass standards. Everything is stagnate. Here's to hope that MSFT gamed the system so hard that it blows up in MSFT's face.
the file format is too important (Score:4, Insightful)
truly open file formats are the only resolution for ALL office documents used in business & government. for audio/video multimedia file formats too but office communications it is just simply too important to be left to a private corporation...
Have your say (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.noooxml.org/petition [noooxml.org]
Mental Image (Score:3, Informative)
Dear Microsoft, (Score:5, Insightful)
Sincerely,
ODF supporter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Issues related to the "leap year bug", VML, compatibility settings such as "AutoSpaceLikeWord95" and others will be extracted from the main specification and relocated to an independent annex in DIS 29500 for deprecated functionality. The intent of this Annex is to enable a transitional period during which existing binary documents being migrated to DIS 29500 can make use of those deprecated features, while noting that new documents should not use them.
Almost as funny as that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm? But there is some truth in it... (Score:2)
If an individual vendor ceases to support the standard, you have a good chance of finding another who will do so. In that case, you may have some expenses for switching applications but you can still can use your document format.
With Microsoft, your chances of getting either are slim:
-they often change their document formats, which leads to users of later Of
"Win the nod"? (Score:3)
I'm hoping that the non-bought votes that voted "yes" last time figure out what's going on and vote "no" this time. We'll see.
Re: (Score:2)
However, ISO has the same idiotic notion as the UN that all countries are equal, so there are probably a hundred more bullshit dictatorships that Microsoft can pay off to join the vote. I just hope that the bullshit dictatorships Microsoft paid off before make such outrageous demands for a new payoff that Microsoft refuses to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"However, ISO has the same idiotic notion as the UN that all countries are equal"
Got any better ideas? Population? Oh yeah, letting China and India take 1/3 of the votes is a great idea. Democracy? Well, first, you have to define democracy.
This depends on whether you are talking about the ISO or the UN. But with respect to the UN I do think that it would make sense to create a parallel organization that only admits democracies and gives votes based on population. Maybe certain measures would require a gi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For ISO, I would say that a formula that combines GDP with per-capita GDP would give a good measure of who the real industrial innovators and players are. China has a high GDP but a low per-capita GDP. It has massive internal corruption, but it is still a global player. Per-capita GDP provides a good measure of corruption, since corruptions syphons it off.
Re: (Score:2)
Horse running, cart rolling out of gate (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML is not a standard. It cannot be used to shield any entity from MS's product changes. Also, OOXML extends into nebulous areas where other implementors or translators will be unable to replicate the viewers or editors like Office. Governments or corporations must take it or leave it.
PS
I recently received a DOCX from an MS rep and wrote back asking for a DOC format (we've not upgraded). They sent me a PDF. Moral: OOXML isn't a standard. There's no turning back - its a conversion world, not an interoperable one.
Re:Horse running, cart rolling out of gate (Score:5, Informative)
It's worse than that -- the MS-OOXML that Office saves documents in is not the same as the OOXML that MS spec'ed out to ECMA and got submitted to ISO. (This should be no surprise to anyone -- when has Microsoft ever produced software that matched the spec?) It's close, but different. Even if you could write software to the ECMA spec (doubtful since it is incomplete and ambiguous in places), it wouldn't interoperate well with MS Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. How utterly stupid. Thx for the info
Re: (Score:2)
Office 2007 .docx seems to use (deprecated) VML (Score:2, Informative)
The OOXML standard states that use of (proprietary) VML is deprecated, but if you search the web for "VML"+"office 2007" you get lots of info on how most
This may or may not be OK with the standard, the big point is that there is no mode for Office 2007 which warns you when you save
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Office does no such thing. Office 2007 .docx files are not ECMA 376 OOXML. Do not conflate the two as Microsoft obviously intends you to do.
If we take this as given, then let us be absolutely clear here: the result i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they want to save face. This is a proud and stubborn family, you see. You cannot release Office, start saving a whole bunch of new files for it, then start changing for format too soon. Too much trouble, pklus people's backup have to still work. You have to slowly migrate the features in. Those features are polled and polled from feedback, security, and corporate wallets. Some never make it.
Really, your best best is to write an Office plugin/addon thingy that makes ODF the defau
ECMA an RIAA-like organization? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We have discussed this. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm curious. What makes you think that DOCX files bear more than a passing resemblence to what ECMA's proposing?
Re:We have discussed this. (Score:5, Insightful)
As more and more organizations, and in particular various government agencies around the world start mandating that all documents be saved in an open format, this is where Microsoft's viability in the long term comes into question. If OOXML fails at the ISO (as it appears that it has a good chance of doing) then Microsoft has got a real long-term problem. Adopting ODF means opening up Office to meaningful competition. It means OO.org, KOffice, Google Docs and who the hell knows what else is coming down the pike over the next decade are going to start to eat into Office's huge market share.
Now I think it's safe to say that in the medium term, Microsoft will continue with OOXML no matter what the ISO does, and it will, even if it adopts to some degree ODF try to mutilate by the "adopt, extend, extinguish" doctrine, and a good many government agencies, regardless of the mandate by politicians and senior bureaucrats, will roll over, but not all, and as long as a few major government agencies in North America and/or Europe refuse to recognize OOXML or whatever Microsoft comes up with next as an open format, the long-term viability of Office is in question.
We're not talking about next year, or even in the next five years, but I think over the next decade or so, if Microsoft can't fool ISO into accepting its worthless, unimplementable format, then it's going to have a real problem. The whole structure of company is built on the operating system and Office divisions keeping the money rolling in. Everything else doesn't matter, and probably loses money, existing solely in the interests of brand name placement.
The long-term solution I suspect Microsoft will move towards is some sort of rubber stamp standards commitee to compete with ISO, just like ECMA. The ultimate question is how long governments are going to let it get away with all of this. The EU seems to have a distinct hard-on against Microsoft at the moment, but the US doesn't currently give a damn one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Of course, it will be good for consumers (more choice) and if spun right, good for MS as well: they will have to dig up the binder "Compete on merits, not on lock-in! (for dummies)", blow off the dust, and start making quality products again. I'm positive they can do it. This will make them look that much better, not only to customers but to us techies as well.
Simple workaround (Score:2)
You're forgetting governments (Score:2)
Now Microsoft has three options:
1) Give the standards board the middle finger and lose the government business. Financial ouch, and more importantly companies who work with the government a lot mig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Czech Republic's expert disagrees wholeheartedly (Score:4, Informative)
Quoting from zmotula's post [slashdot.org]:
"...see the post [xmlguru.cz] by the guy who evaluated the OOXML specification for the Czech Normalization Institute. This means that Czech Republic is most probably going to vote for OOXML when the time comes."
Read that post and you see that nearly every one of the Czech Republic's objections has been addressed (the only one not satisfactorily addressed was the Czech Republic's complaint that part of the spec has redundant info). Let me quote:
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, man, oh, man. (Score:2)
KEEP PEELED EYES! Mmmm. Peeled eyes.
They still don't get it - or don't want to (Score:2)
I call bullshit.
Keeping the old defects in a new standard for reasons of "compatibility" is not a good idea, because it means missing a good opportunity for improvement.
Keeping the
Can they at least change the #!@$ name? (Score:2)
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
It's a scam, pure and simple.
Re:well... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a scam, pure and simple.
So what do we do?
That's right: whenever you receive a .docx, .xlsx and other .*x documents, send them back, asking that they be converted into a readable format.
Include a link for Sun's ODF plugin for MS Office, if need be.
Fight fire with fire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about the other, about a million different, formats?
I would not consider "things to work" if there is several random file formats for word documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am saying you really should have "official" allowed document formats list. And "what people happen to find in mail" is not the way to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
So any of our staff who have newer versions of office get shown how to save their documents as Office 2000 compatible files. They only need showing once, and it means I don't need to install compatibility packs on a hundred or so computers, nor do I have to worry about sub-contrac
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. Not at all.
.docx format created by Office 2007 exactly matched the original 6000 page specification that Microsoft originally submitted to ISO (which is very dubious), since that was rejected with 3500 comments, Microsoft have had to significantly change it since then in order to try to get it accepted.
Even if it were the case that the
So
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A standard is open for everyone to implement. ISO doesn't discriminate on who it provides copies to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE, it being based around how they designed MS Word...
I make a point of nat being a grammar nazi, but there does come a time where the meaning you are trying to express is obscured by grammatical errors. IE in terms of Microsoft usually refers to Internet Explorer. IE in terms of ISO means Ireland's TLD. In future you might want to try using "i.e." which the most accepted abbreviation for the latin "id est," meaning "that is; in other words" and is the least confusing way to express your meaning.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No kidding
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, no kidding. A grammar Nazi is a person who strictly and dogmatically points out grammatical nuances that are fairly immaterial to the readability or understandability of the text presented. This is not such a case. In this case, the error was misleading and made it very difficult for both myself and others to even understand what the writer was trying to express.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Picky picky picky. You got the meaning, didn't you?
Sure, the third time I read it trying to figure out what internet explorer had to do with it.
Not punctuating that is hardly the most atrocious of grammatical errors I've seen here.
There are entire books I've read that eschew punctuation and were still understandable. The problem isn't lack of punctuation. The problem is lack of punctuation and improper capitalization used in a context where it makes the phrase you're trying to express not the first thing people associate with your text, nor even the second thing. I generally don't care if people use incorrect grammar. This is a casual fo
Re: (Score:2)
3) They say they have implemented, and sure enough you can save to OOXML. Other programs that try to read it end up with junk. Everyone thinks their own implementation of OOXML filters are broke. Then 3 years down the road, it is discovered that when Microsoft saves to OOXML, it is not the same specification as they publicly stated it was.
Seriously, how many years do you think it will take to catch Microsoft if they do a bait and switch?
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Many reasons:
1. There is already an ISO standard for this same purpose.
2. There are exclusions in Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, meaning Microsoft can sue over other parties writing implementations of some of the things that the OOXML standard references (ActiveX and VBA are examples).
3. OOXML is designed so that fully-compliant applications can only be written by Microsoft, and mostly-complaint applications can be written by other parties but only to run on a Windows platform. Therefore OOXML is not inter-operable with other applications and especially not with non-Windows platforms, and the whole purpose of making something a standard is to facilitate such inter-operation.
4. OOXML is technically very inferior to the existing standard, ISO 26300. For example, OOXML specifies three different implementations of "a table", instead of just one common to different Office applications. This means that you cannot write a "table handling class" as a library, but instead you have to duplicate equivalent functionality several times over.
5. OOXML includes deliberately mandating bugs (such as dates before 1900) just to pander to errors in Microsoft software.
6. OOXML is controlled by just one corporation
7. ISO 26300 already has many implementations by many vendors on multiple platform. OTOH even Office 2007 running on Windows Vista does not implement OOXML
8. ISO 26300 even works with Microsoft Office (up to Office 2003) using a free plugin written by Sun. Microsoft deliberately broke Office 2007 file filters so that this plugin (or any other plugin not written by Microsoft) would not work in Office 2007.
9. ISO 26300 has a compliance test suite. You can use this test suite to make sure a given application works properly with ISO 26300. No such thing exists with OOXML.
10. It makes no sense to have "choice in standards"
OOXML, ODF, and FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
1. There is already an ISO standard for this same purpose.
Since, clearly, different competing standards are bad. Which is why there is only one standard type of screw drive head, Flathead. I once heard someone claim that there were other standards, such as Philips (better for automated assembly) and Pozidriv (allows latge torque without gouging the screw); but I reckon they were lying. I mean, how could competition possibly be better than one standard having a monopoly? Everyone knows how good monopolies are
Re:OOXML, ODF, and FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they are. There is, for example, only one ISO standard for paper sizes, ISO 216. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#The_international_standard:_ISO_216 [wikipedia.org]
This standard is used in all countries bar two. Becase there are two countries that use a competing non-ISO standard (they use an ANSI standard instead), it causes all sorts of un-necessary costs all around the world.
Actually, it is you who is misleading here, and your anti-ODF FUD is from brian Jones in 2005 (when OOXML also lacked any definition of formula syntax). ODF version 1.2, which is currently going through the approval process, has a far more detailed definition of formula syntax, known as OpenFormula, defined by an independent body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula [wikipedia.org] This is what will be formally agreed in the upcoming version of ODF, but it is backward compatible with the (admittedly vauge) syntax definition in earlier versions of ODF, and it is also what all of the ODF applications actually now use.
OpenFormula is indeed technically superior to the formula syntax of OOXML, for the following reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenFormula#OpenFormula_Attributes [wikipedia.org]
No, it is not. Before it was an ISO standard, it was an OASIS standard, and Microsoft were part of OASIS. Microsoft were invited to join the development process of ODF, which began in 2002, but Microsoft refused. Apart from the solitary exception of Microsoft, however, ODF otherwise has full industry consensus. In fact, after a long review period where comments from a broad array of interested parties were invited and incorporated, the ODF specification was put to a formal vote for OASIS approval, and it was passed unanimously. Yes, as an OASIS member, Microsoft approved ODF. Further, after that vote, ODF was submitted to ISO for approval as an International standard, via the long-winded PAS process (not fast-track), and after world-wide solicitation of comment and incorporation of recommendations, it was again approved unanimously. Yes, Microsoft approved it a second time ... then refused to implement it.
It wasn't wrong for the original release of Ofice 2007. Full plugins were borked in that release. I'm pleased to see that Microsoft fixed it (now that Office 2007 has a foothold) in SP1. As for Microsoft-sponsored ODF convertors ... they are convertors, not plugins. You cannot use Microsoft's convertors to open & save as ODF ... you must have an OOXML version of your document first, and then you can import & export it as ODF. Microsoft convertors do a terrible job compared to the Sun plugin, and of course you cannot set Office 2007 as the default for .odx file extensions because Office 2007 can't open them directly (without Sun's plugin).
... all the more reason to use ODF (ISO 26300) format and not OOXML.
Anyway, now that Sun's plugin works for Office 2007
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but only by stubbornly ignoring all of the facts could you even try to pretend to "flip OOXML and ODF".
- Only ODF is an agreed, consensus standard, approved as an ISO standard via unanimous vote.
- Only ODF has multiple implementations by multiple vendors working on multiple platforms.
- Only OOXML has no implementations at all.
- Only ODF can be validated against a test suite.
- Only ODF
Re: (Score:2)
- The table thing is fixed in the latest ODF draft and in current applications.
- Even if OOXML is somehow approved by ISO, MS has said it will retain control of the standard. This is quite different from ODF, which is not controlled by one company.
ODF is a community, and therefore the format keeps improving. OOXML is developed and maintained by one company to work with their own product, so they're likely to take the "won't fix" attitude to the
Re: (Score:2)
So as far as I undestand it, spreadsheets are using the "do it like OpenOffice.org" approach in this area, until 1.2 is final. Though this is certainly not ideal (MS will spin it to be the same as "do it like Word 97"), at least the code to Op
Re: (Score:2)
That is, to be honest, Microsoft FUD - for the simple reason that, at the time they said it, the published versions of the OOXML standard didn't specify formulas either. (In fact, the OASIS draft of their formula spec was released several months before Microsoft's formula spec for OOXML,
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Informative)
Can we get some *new* anti-ODF FUD too? (Score:4, Informative)
OOXML may be (or pretend to be), but what application products were you thinking of for ODF? Were you aware that KOffice (no relation at all to OpenOffice.org) also uses ODF as its native document format? The old StarOffice/OpenOffice.org formats (.sxw,
The "thin veneer" argument against ODF is just Microsoft FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest you read http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] and see for yourself if OOXML can be considered broken from an objective POV.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not, but there are certainly gratuitous hacks like that in plenty of IETF specs. FTP has an enormous amount of crud devoted to ASCII/EBSDIC issues, to the point that the default mode for FTP MUST be character mode and image mode is an explicit switch. Its completely unnecessary and broken of course but it goes on all the time.
That is exactly the sort of thing I would WANT to see in a
Re:Can we get some *new* FUD, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
AutoSpaceLikeWord95? You do need some new FUD... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No you are not, you have not got the slightest interest in implementing this specification regardless of whether it is fully documented or not. This is simply a game that the Slashdot community is playing.
The real issue is that people think they can force government IT depts to stop using word by preventing OOXML being declared an ISO standard.
I oppose this because I don't like the idea of top down dictators deciding what tools people use.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about giving people the freedom to choose whatever program they want based on their individual benefits, rather than on compatibility with proprietary microsoft formats where other vendors will always be at a disadvantage.
Firefox is gaining ground because the web is based on standards, with only a relatively small (and decreasing) level of corruption by microsoft. By comparison, their office document formats are entirely controlled and dictated
Re: (Score:2)
Thats not true at all.
The Massachusetts dictat that all departments had to change to open office forthwith was not a matter of choice, it was an order from the IT dept that was widely praised on Slashdot and elsewhere.
I
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do a hypothetical situation, and see how you'd do it in ODF and OOXML. You've got a program that reads WordPerfect 5 files. Your job is to add ODF and OOXML support to it. While writing your WP5 to ODF and OOXML importers, you notice that WP 5 has some line spacing modes that you can't really capture in ODF or OOXML. You'd like to record somehow in the translated file that these modes were
Re: (Score:2)
If WP5 has some line spacing modes which can't be specified in a new format, then it's worth modifying the new format to handle it. The new format should be flexible enough that line spacing can be specified fairly arbitrarily. Instead of saying "line space like wordperfect 5", it should be possible to do something like "use 1cm line spacing", and specify the spacing in a standard unit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something like a "WP5 line formatting" tag isn't restricted to old documents. If you were writing a new word processor, you could add it. In ODF, you'd make up a tag, and in OOXML, you might be able to use the one they provided. But in neither case, ODF nor OOXML, would anyone else's word processor be required to support WP5 line formatting. For whatever reason, both ODF and OOXML decided not to cover all possible things from legacy documents, and so for both of them, people WILL be going beyond the standard. The difference is in OOXML, they've guessed at a dozen or so places they think this will happen, and tried to make it so different implementations extending the standard for those cases will do it in the same way.
Which is what's bad, if such formatting is necessary then it should be implemented in a generic way. If someone would explain exactly what "wp5 line formatting" and the other similarly vague quotes actually meant, it wouldn't be so hard to implement for future versions. Assuming it's really not possible with the current format (we don't know since we don't have full details of what exactly these tags mean).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OOXML and ODF are both thin veneers on particular application products.
I call bullshit on this one. I actually did look at both specs. OOXML is indeed a quick and dirty XML-like version of Office formats and doesn't even pretend to try to make functionality generic enough to make it easy for any application to implement. Even for functionality that is designed to interoperate with other types of applications OOXML is written just for the most popular add-on. ODF, on the other hand, makes a reasonable attempt at implementing functionality in a generic way so that it can be ea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Australia has been entirely corrupted by Micros (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also came accross this
Disclosure: In January 2007, Rick became embroiled in a controversy after mentioning in his XML.COM blog an approach from Microsoft for a several-day contract job to correct some Wikipedia entries from a neutral point of view, as an experienced technical writer with credible first-hand knowledge of standards and procedures. This was incorrectly reported as being a secret plot to subvert Wikipedia. With the support of many editors on Wikipedia, with complete transparency, and with care to respect the Wikipedia rules, Rick has started participating on the Wikipedia entries.
The company that is the co-owner of Topologi has a long-standing training business and will be providing some presenters for some Microsoft sponsored-events in 2007 in Australasia. It is highly likely that Rick will be one of the presenters on standards matters at some of these.
link [oreillynet.com]
Seems he has lots of involvement with MS.
Re: Ozymandias, properly formatted (Score:2, Insightful)
by Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert... Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look