Microsoft to Support ODF via Plug-In 269
Apache4857 writes "It appears that Microsoft has finally caved. BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft is sponsoring an open source project to enable conversion between Open XML in Office 2007 and OpenDocument formats. The project, hosted on Sourceforge.net, made its initial release today. The Word 2007 conversion utility is expected to ship ship by the end of 2006, and similarly conversion utilities for Excel and PowerPoint are expected early next year." See the announcement in Brian Jones' blog (Jones is the Microsoft program manager responsible for Office file formats).
Embrace and Extend (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2, Informative)
Yes. [msdn.com]
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly the same.
I for once have faith in what they are gonna do.
They might just hear people and governments saying 'we don't take it anymore'.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Insightful)
Same can happen here - want to save ODF? Here's the microsoft way:
Pick "plugins" menu.
Open "plugin manager".
Open "active plugins tab".
Check checkbox by "ODF exporter plugin".
Click OK.
pick "export" menu.
click "export to plugin".
Are you sure you want to export the document to a plugin? Some document properties may be lost in the process." Click yes.
"Plugin export wizard".
"List of available plugins". Click ODF exporter.
Click next.
"What would you like to do with the file after export? Save to file, Send by Mail, Copy to Clipboard, Paste as new document" Pick "Save to file". Click Next.
"Where would you like to have the file saved?" - file selector. Pick file destination.
"Warning! Plugins contain 3rd party software which may append viruses and malware to your documents! Are you sure to proceed?" Click yes.
"The chosen plugin is covered by the following license:" (textarea - GNU). Do you agree? Pick "yes", click Next.
"MS Office is ready to export your document to a plugin. Click Finish to begin the export process." Click Finish.
A progressbar appears while the open source plugin actually processes the file. A moment later a requester "You have successfuly exported the document to a plugin. Click OK to return to MS Office."
Loading ODF document could look very similar.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Informative)
Double click the MSI file to install the Add-in for Word 2007.
If installation is successful, you should see a new "ODF" entry in the "File" menu in Word 2007. It allows you to either import an ODF text file or export your current working document as an ODF text file (note that during development process, those functionalities might be temporary unavailable).
Important note: The ODF file opened by the add-in is converted into Office OpenXML (Office 2007 new file format) and imported into Word as a read-only file. If you want to save it as ODF, you have to use the "Export as ODF" button and provide a new file name (that can be the same as the current file name).
Re:Why the crazy UI? (Score:4, Insightful)
People are lazy, and Microsoft knows that; 90% of people will just request that documents be sent in
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole ODF pressure that MS is experiencing is coming from Government level initiatives to avoid proprietary formats. Your average Government worker will be trained in this and follow the procedure in a totally mindless fashion.
However,
(1) Public bodies will think nothing of spending millions to test the ODF plug-ins and if Microsoft's offering doesn't match precisely the requirements it will get the boot - Microsoft money or n
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:5, Interesting)
Your average Government worker will be trained in this and follow the procedure in a totally mindless fashion.
Or it will be like the POSIX fiasco. At a certain point in history, government purchased opererating systems were required to support POSIX, which is an actual independent standard that various Unixes created after Unix fragmented. The theory was, you could write to POSIX, and your stuff would compile on any Unix, which generally works in practice. So MS tacked some POSIX support onto Windows NT.
Of course, no one actually wrote any programs that used POSIX. The government would purchase NT boxes and write Win32 programs, not POSIX ones. They were just required to purchase POSIX operating systems, not actually use POSIX.
Likewise, I'm imagine the government require programs that support ODF, but everyone uses the Word format to save and transport files, thus completely defeating the purpose.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a workaround for the fact that IE does *not* fully support PNG. Not to be confused with fully supporting PNG...
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
And Microsoft is claiming that they are doning this to make sure of an accurate conversion to ODF. Yeah, right. But rest assured, those who maintain u
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
OpenOffice saves as ODF just fine.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:3, Interesting)
Equations in MS Word: Click 'basic' tab. Click "=". Click box left from "=". Type "y". Click fraction icon. Click box above fraction line. Click root tab. Click root symbol. Click below the inserted root symbol. Click "basic" tab. Click "+". Click left to "+". Click "upper index". In respective boxes type "x" and "2". Click right to "+". Repeat with "y" and "2". Click below the fraction bar. Type "2".
Same
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:4, Insightful)
As much fun as comparing chalk to cheese is, some people prefer an equation editor where one does not have to learn a text syntax to use it, and some people prefer the efficiency of writing out in that text format. Parading one as "superior" to the other is an exercise in futility.
If you can do both in OOo (although I have OOo, I've never used the equation editor, preferring LaTeX, so I've no idea), that's a pretty neat feature. It's not a particularly huge one though, and not one which is particularly good for comparing the packages in general.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Well, yes, but I'm not sure it's something you should use to judge the whole system, especially since for most users it's a pretty minor feature.
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that while they both have the functionality, the keyboard interface is better in OOo and the GUI interface is better in MS Office. Given the choice between the two, OOo is better if you're writing a paper with a lot of equations, and MS Office is better if you need the occasional math formatting.
Of course, LaTeX is better for any real writing that has to be done, but everyone forgets about that
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Neat. I'll check that out when I get home possibly maybe perhaps (we use Office here at my work).
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Re:Embrace and Extend (Score:2)
Use the Source (Score:4, Informative)
Embrace and Extend. Exactly, and co-opt! (Score:2)
Don't expect Microsoft to ever, not ever, cooperate. Expect them to corrupt the 'specification'.
What a Contrast (Score:2)
Coke: Uh. Ok.
The Press: So, Pepsi, why did you feel the need to do the right thing?
Pepsi: Because competition should be fair.
Microsoft: Idiots!
...but who is actually extending this time? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not capable to judge whether this is true or just FUD, but it is interesting nevertheless.
Corrected URL (Score:5, Informative)
Excellent news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:2, Insightful)
Everyone here needs understand: everything Microsoft does is about making more money. That's their responsibility to their stockholders. They have no reason whatsoever to expend above and beyond the baseline compatibility requirements.
I can a
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Bad news for Open Office (Score:2)
Re:Bad news for Open Office (Score:2)
I couldn't decide if you were trolling or not, but I'll assume not in deference to your relatively low userid.
No reason? How about price? How about working on older platforms? How about wanting stuff in ODF now? I actually see it just the opposite. Now there's no reason to store a document in any format OTHER than ODF -- regardless of your editor. Which is awesome. You want to use MS Office? Party On Wayne! You want to use Open Of
Re:Bad news for Open Office (Score:2)
Same goes for OO.o (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:5, Interesting)
Give them a break. (Score:5, Insightful)
If your needs have changed it's only ok that you get a new version.
Of course, you could use OpenOffice 2.0, that works great indeed with MSOffice97 documents, and writes ODF natively.
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:2)
Re:Excellent news (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft is providing OpenXML plugins for older versions of Office.
The OSS community, via the MS-sponsered project, will provide ODFOpenXML converters, for any version of Office that supports OpenXML, be that OpenXML support native or via the MS OpenXML plugin. Therefore the OSS community will be able to, if it wishes, make ODFOpenXML plugins for older versions of Office, which will work in those versions as long as they have MS's OpenXML plugin installed.
Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the responsibility of the file format.
That's the responsibility of the app used to read/write that file format.
And with an Open standard for file formats, there's no reason that anyone could not write an app that did direct file-to-speech with no need for a visual display (as is currently the case).
Re:Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:2)
Re:Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:5, Insightful)
DISCLAIMER: This is general obvious facts. I don't recommend the current or future MS Office XML formats as any example of how things should be done.
Re:Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:3, Insightful)
This comment makes a good point about how data formats and editors manage semantics, presentation, and accessibility. As an earlier comment said, accessibility functions don't belong in the file format itself. However, the "openness" of a format has nothing to do with how easy it is to write accessible applications based on it. File formats (and editing techniques) that concentrate more on structure and semantics rather than only presentation are better suited to accessibility. But even if the format is wel
Re:Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:2)
Re:Doing pretty good until the end. (Score:2)
Or so they SAY it'll do that... some day. (Score:5, Insightful)
"With the first release (0.1 - prototype), you can only convert documents from ODF to OpenXML. This can be done either with the Word Add-in (which requires both
( http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=
Re:Or so they SAY it'll do that... some day. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or so they SAY it'll do that... some day. (Score:2)
It was out love that did it! (Score:5, Funny)
-Eric
Just one day after... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Just one day after... (Score:2)
Re:Just one day after... (Score:2)
Meh, so what? If this plugin truly enables us alternative-office-suite-users to have better compatibility with those who cling to MS Office, so be it. At least they'll be able to view/edit our documents with less headaches.
I'm more concerned about the file format (ODF) than the suite itself (OO.o, Abiword, etc.)
Re:Just one day after... (Score:2)
Sure it's on Sourceforge.net and we could 'fix' these issues but then again, we really don't think there'll be anything there which handles the 'patented' and 'proprietary' parts of the MS Office file formats( old or new ) do we? I hope not.
LoB
When the cat's away ... (Score:2)
Not sure if this is him realizing just how difficult a lack of interoperability was making things in the real world, or his way of saying "Folks, I'm really (honestly) hands off now, see?"
So
What about existing versions of Office? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about existing versions of Office? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about existing versions of Office? (Score:2)
Re:What about existing versions of Office? (Score:2)
Please read the article.
They say that an Open XML plugin will be available for older versions of Word, and that ODF export will work with it.
Re:What about existing versions of Office? (Score:2)
Re:What about existing versions of Office? (Score:2)
Not as convenient as native support (Score:5, Interesting)
This add-in is certainly a step in the right direction. But opening and saving files with this add-in is not as convenient as if the format was supported natively.
Here is an example of the problems that the users will face when using it (from the project home page [sourceforge.net]):
Basically, this add-in will encourage you to convert your ODF documents to OpenXML, but if you really insist and if you really want to save (sorry, export) as ODF, then it will let you do that as well. You will just have to re-type or re-select the file name.
Re:Not as convenient as native support (Score:2)
Caved? Hardly! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Caved? Hardly! (Score:2)
Re:Caved? Hardly! (Score:2)
I've had it with Microsoft (Score:2, Funny)
Obligatory Russian Reverse (Score:4, Funny)
Taking bets... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anybody?
Re:Taking bets... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taking bets... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what would be the purpose of doing that? You know darn well that ODF format/structures will not be translated to the same proprietary format/structures of MSopen XML.
This 'plug-in' is only going go convert from ODF to MSopen XML initially and supposedly, it'll eventually go the other way. If you'd like to convert your existing proprietary formatted MS-word document formats then you'll have to move them to MSopen XML first
Re:Taking bets... (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you never heard of a fork?
You could call it "The One True ODF Converter" if you wanted to distinguish it.
Why is this important? (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all, this is very good news for Open Source, and a chink in the mighty Microsoft FUD machine...
Top Execs Leave? (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarifications (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a plugin for Word, it's not a separate conversion utility as the article implies.
It can't handle manual page breaks it seems. Once I get OpenOffice.org on here to verify, I'm submitting their first bug report. :)
The default install directory seems to indicate this is a third-party tool, not an MS tool.
It doesn't add file types to the default Open/Save dialogs (the ideal solution). Instead, you import and export the files with their own dialogs. This also means hitting File/Save when you have an ODF file open will open up a save as dialog fro DOCX only.
Re:Clarifications (Score:2)
I remain a bit more optimistic (Score:2)
For one, it has received a lot of attention in the mainstream press about delays in delivery of Vista and the next release of Office. Further, there has been a lot of significant changes in the heirarchy of Microsoft. Couple that with their loosing streak against political and business pressures, suggests that they should change and adapt or face catastrophy.
They C
Too late! Support for older Office suites? (Score:3, Insightful)
Everybody thinks it's so great.. (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: their current conversion tool doesn't work for certain features (manual page break) which is NOT a compatibility issue. It's obviously broken by design.
I for one am not impressed and do NOT welcome our ODF-importing overlords.
Re:Everybody thinks it's so great.. (Score:2)
To say "they are going to create an broken implmentation" is silly. They don't control sourceforge, and the tool is released under the BSD license. So essentally they don't control any element of it.
This is a 'duh' story - essentally Microsoft put some money into a project that converts from one OPEN standard to another OPEN standard. It's not like they gave up any secret sauce.
If you want to make sure that the "page break" problem is solved, get your
BSD license = good! (Score:3, Interesting)
This is significant, because it means developers are free to take the code and do what they want with it. For instance, how many people actually have Word 2007? With the BSD license someone could back-port it to previous versions...
It also implies that MS can't get away with "embrace and extend", because whatever they choose to do, someone will come along and create a custom version with the cruft removed. Consequently, I expect they just won't bother to put any in the first place. (Well, maybe that's wishful thinking.)
Additionally, if this plugin integrates badly with Word, making it difficult or non-obvious for people to use, or doesn't adequately convert certain features that it could probably handle better, someone is free to come along and improve it!
Even if the MS project doesn't accept people's suggestions and changes, the BSD license ensures that anyone is free to fork it and release their own version.
So: The fact that they chose the BSD license is a really important detail here.. very interesting move.
Re:BSD license = good! (Score:2)
Rampant speculation is nothing compared to some reading comprehension...
Another cool piece of this is that it will also work in older versions of Office. This is because the tools leverage the Open XML support, and we're providing free updates to previous versions of Office that allow them to read and write Open XML. It's another gre
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the reason was ... (Score:4, Funny)
Since when did Massachusetts join the EU?
PR Stunt (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting comments in the blog:
While we still aren't seeing a strong demand for ODF support from our corporate or consumer customers, it's now a bit different with governments. We've had some governments request that we help build solutions so that can use ODF for certain situations...
From my understanding this is more along the lines of "certain governments in all situations." But, hell, MS can probably win those markets back with an Open Office that supports ODF in some way, but as a plugin MS can blame the standard or the plugin writers (who are working on an Open project, remember, not a MS one!). Which brings us to:
Nobody wants a format that's constantly changing, so if you do decide to extend the format like OpenOffice did, what happens when ODF 2.0 comes out and it specifies that feature differently from how OpenOffice did it?
A little late to ask these questions isn't it? Why not just go to the OASIS site (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php
If Microsoft had gone to OASIS and said "Look we really love this ODF stuff, but to interoperate properly with Office, it would have to support feature X, Y and Z, at least in theory" it would have happened for SURE. However, they were betting that once MS said "hey we won't support ODF" then the "turncoat" governmental offices that had demanded ODF would say "oh... well... poo" and go back to Office.
OK, but how about..... (Score:2)
I, for one... (Score:2, Funny)
Well, I would if I wasn't already using OpenOffice.
"caved in"? yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
MS has probably realized that the usual embrace, extend, extinguish will work better than flat out refusal. Let's see:
Scenario A: MS refuses to do ODF
Since ODF is making inroads in many places, and is being written into laws in others, flat out refusal will mean either someone else writes a plugin (oops, already happened) or people switch to OpenOffice. Also, it'll mean that Office XML is dead, dead, dead because everyone interested in XML office documents will use ODF while those interested in MS Office will stay with legacy formats.
Scenario B: MS does an Office plugin
If MS "supports" ODF, then everyone used to Word will stay with Word instead of switching to OpenOffice. Also, lots and lots of these people will use Office XML as their document format and only convert to ODF when necessary, a process MS can greatly enhance by making sure that their ODF implementation is just slightly less convenient than their Office XML implementation.
Then, a couple years down the road, they'll add some killer feature that they only implement into Office XML and not their ODF version. Or they extend ODF the way they tried with Kerberos.
"caved in". Pfft.
Covenant Not to Sue (Score:3, Funny)
We hope and expect that millions of third-party developers around the world will build solutions using the Open XML file formats. Already, hundreds of thousands of developers are working with the XML capabilities of Microsoft Office. Any developer may use or join the OpenXMLDeveloper.org community to receive the latest information and participate in active code-sharing and experience-sharing opportunities.
Come join the covenant, Be one with the covenant. Or we Will Sue your ass.
Strategic move to prevent users from installing... (Score:3, Interesting)
If someone gives you an Open doc format, Microsoft doesnt want you installing the free competition to read it.
They want to keep you in their Office suite. (which is very nice btw)
A token (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What good is it... (Score:3, Insightful)
A better way (Score:3, Interesting)
Better still would be to ask after it downloads the plug-in "Do you want to make ODF the default format for saving Office documents?". Fat chance of that happening though.
Re:Isn't their XML format open anyway? (Score:2)
There, say it with me now...
ODF is XML. [openoffice.org] ODF is XML. [eweek.com]
And when I want to use Open Source Software that reads Office files and saves them as ODF [openoffice.org], well, I already do sue that.
Re:Microsoft at it again - (Score:2)
You made one small mistake though
Should be 5-7-5
Re:Let Me Be The First To Say (Score:2)
Re:its going to ship ship? (Score:2)
Re:MS will never learn or change... (Score:2)
Re:Again, I don't see what all the fuss is about (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, but that's the point, see? This isn't about migrating to a single format or the like - it's about knowing that whatever changes happen to the software that you use, the format and rules for reading and writing data are *well known* - open, in fact.
The commercial interoperation you speak of is something that has been painfully bought by those who worked for it. Even now, OpenOffice.org has problems opening Word documents because parts of the format are unknown. It had to be reverse engineered - there was no guide or manual about how to read or write it. Or (getting old now) Lotus Notes and Excel - they certainly didn't convert easily to each other. Both closed formats. I have clients who wanted to review some old financial spreadsheets. They were very old password protected Lotus 1-2-3 files. The client only had Excel. Guess the outcome there...
But most of all, by relying on a closed format, by being tied to a single program to reliably read and write your data, you are effectively putting your work in a lockbox and handing someone else the key. You have to trust them not to lose that key, or decide that your model of lockbox is no longer supported. You also have to hope that the person who has your key never vanishes.
Maybe a bad analogy, and certainly it's an argument with strong moralistic aspects, but there are sound, practical reasons for me to have my data in a format I can access easily and look up the specs for.
On a more pragmatic level, an open format makes it extremely easy to write software that can use that format. I could write a web order system that update an ODF spreadsheet with data on each new order. Or create a custom mail merge program using a template ODF document to automate mail shots from a mailing list. Not the best examples but valid ones - *I know how to edit the contents of the document myself if I need to*.
And just one final note - OfficeXML is NOT OPEN. The spec doesn't explain the parts that contain binary data - data that could include vital formating information for example.
Personally, I feel the more open formats the better. The best will always win through. But if just one part of a file format spec is held back, it's not "Open". And that's where we stand with ODF vs DOC/DOCX. And since it *is* a battle, maybe falling in line behind one certain format is better than pushing several at the same time.
Re:Less fear on this one (Score:2)
Are you positive it can be forked? Doesn't Microsoft have patents on their XML format, which they've licensed under terms that are incompatible with open source projects? From what I recall, you aren't allowed to re-distrubute without explicit permission from Microsoft. So, you can't fork unless you get their permission first.