MS Announces Open XML Formats Developer Group 84
Andy Updegrove writes to tell us that Microsoft has responded to the recently formed ODF Alliance with a group of their own, the Open XML Formats Developer Group. From the article: "At launch, the new forum has either 39 or 40 members (the site is internally inconsistent on this point), the most prominent of which are Apple, Intel and Toshiba. [...] Despite the long list of founding members, it appears that the forum is purely informational in nature. A review of the site indicates that no specific initiatives are planned to be undertaken by the forum. Instead, it will provide information and provide a place for developers to pose questions, post content, and engage in discussion."
fence-straddlers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:1)
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:2)
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:1)
Maybe a group's having members that have no apparent vested interest (i.e. no financial stake or political agenda) adds credibility to the group.
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:1)
I can't tell you how many folks said this was going to happen when they heard the tax credit issue raised.
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:1)
That would definitely matter to those types of companies.
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:3, Insightful)
what they care more about - than someone running on their chips, is making money. and if there is a financial incentive for them to care about software, they will be involved.
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:1)
Re:fence-straddlers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Intel has a lot to gain by a particular file format.
Any company with plans to enforce "trusted computing" hardware has a great deal of interest in file formats, and how to keep them as closed as possible.
XML documents can be parsed using a so called "open" (i.e. Open to Trusted Computing Members if you pay a HUGE fee.) so that documents can become encrypted XML objects that can only run on a particular machine.
If a file format is known, a BIOS modification can be made to intercept calls that the OS
The new forum has either 39 or 40 members (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm ambivalent (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could stop pretending and implying that the average slashdotter derives their opinions on file format standardisation issues from 'emotions' based on bias and ideology, and rather derive a stance based on a well-thought out, rational analysis on the pros and cons of truly open file formats vs proprietary patent-protected formats.
Re:I'm ambivalent (Score:2)
Re:I'm ambivalent (Score:2)
Bad link? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/newsblog [consortiuminfo.org].
Soo, it will not be informational (Score:2)
Nice one, Bill. (Score:5, Funny)
So when exactly can we expect MicroOpenSoft to release OpenWindows?
Re:Nice one, Bill. (Score:1)
Re:Nice one, Bill. (Score:1)
Re:Nice one, Bill. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You know what they say (Score:2)
That's MS Open (TM), I take it? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet people in Redmond spend a lot of time walking into doors these days
Re:That's MS Open (TM), I take it? (Score:2, Funny)
I bet people in Redmond spend a lot of time walking into doors these days
Which statement begs the question: Are these doors open or closed?
Re:That's MS Open (TM), I take it? (Score:2)
Spend 500 million in advertising telling people that you have moved mount fuji and they will believe it.
This is the most important fight for MS right now. Take away proprietary file formats and you have taken out two of the legs of the office monopoly stool. If they lose this fight their office monopoply w
Re:That's MS Open (TM), I take it? (Score:1)
Heh heh. You said stool.
huh? (Score:1)
Real purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Real purpose (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
Re:Real purpose (Score:1, Insightful)
Maybe even develop a certification that a program complies with ODF standards and put the seal on the splash screen.
Hey, Corel! (Score:2)
Hey, Corel! This means you! No, really. Get it to it!
Re:Hey, Corel! (Score:2)
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
Re:No... (Score:2)
You think Microsoft would run something on PHP?
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
Re:Real purpose (Score:1)
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
What XML is called doesn't matter; what matters is what the effect of Microsoft adding proprietary extensions to Office XML would be, and the effect wouldn't be good.
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
And if said content is a schema for some undocumented bit of a MS file format, hello DMCA!
Re:Real purpose (Score:2)
Just having the possibility of a competing "Open XML" format backed by the largest software vendor in the world will delay adoption of any competing ODF.
Not only will the Open version of XML be laden with proprietary extensions, but it will have gaping holes in its interface, its description, the k
Alliance? (Score:2)
They're going to do what? (Score:1, Insightful)
So, essentially, they're going to sit around and chat, but not actually do anything.
Now you know why Microsoft products are the way they are.
And as long as I'm here, I might as well tell a joke. So Gates comes back from his honeymoon, and his wife says, "Now I know why yo
Disclaimer (Score:2)
This is just hot air (Score:2)
There are no technical articles that have been published
no specific initiatives are planned to be undertaken by the forum
we're making it up as we go
So in other words, a bunch of groups were hoping the worlds' documents don't go proprietary and decided to join so they'd
Hmm, Open eh... (Score:1)
From the web site (Score:2, Insightful)
So, we have no complete schemas (even draft), no technical articles, and no stated direction. We do have blog posts that are great (from a Microsoft technical evangelist).
And yet, we have the following.
MS + Open anything = Oxymoron (Score:2)
Kinda sums up the article.
Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't say i'm too worried about Intel and Toshiba supporting the format.
That is unless intel or toshiba make "Open-DRM" hardware chips to stop "secure" MS Office files from being read by non-trusted programs like OpenOffice.
Sorry, but this thread is still short on anti-microsoft conspiracy stories!
Re:Apple? (Score:1)
No, Microsoft already has an agreement to produce new versions of Microsoft Office for Mac until at least 2011. Apple is involved because of applications like Pages and Keynote that use an XML-based format and provide interoperability with many other 3rd party formats, including Microsoft Word.
Re:Apple? (Score:1)
There are organizations, like OOo, that provide interoperability with MS Offices formats, without kissing MS asses in "Open" group.
Valid XHTML? (Score:1)
Re:Valid XHTML? (Score:1)
"51. Error Line 405 column 16: end tag for element "CS:MPRegion" which is not open."
ODF isn't Open (Score:1)
Re:ODF isn't Open (Score:2)
As open as... (Score:1)
Mission Statements, Best Practices & White Pap (Score:1)
Sun, Microsoft strategy: redefine terms (Score:3, Insightful)
It's important not to let these companies get away with such sleazy tactics and to make sure that both customers and users understand that if they agree to terms of companies like Sun and Microsoft, they accept similar risks to when they buy proprietary, closed source software.
Re:Sun, Microsoft strategy: redefine terms (Score:2)
For example, it was common to say "UNIX is an Open System" -- even though it cost millions of dollars to license UNIX and the license fell miles short of any sort of free software-ish standards. Microsoft's and Sun's use of the term are very much in line with the historical usage, and the "Open Source" peoples' are not.
Plus, it seems that the latest conclusion is that Microsoft's "OpenXML" licence really is "ope
wiki? (Score:2)
MS have put up a wiki?