Microsoft's Open XML Project A Short-Term Fix 94
TechPro writes "In an interview with eWeek the managing director of the ODF Alliance (Marino Marcich) was pretty dismissive of Microsoft's Open XML Translator project. While the move was a recognition of the ODF Format's acceptance by government's around the world, the installable software plug-ins that would be created under the project were really 'only a bridge, a stopgap measure that will probably not be acceptable to government's around the world over the long term. Plug-ins simply don't give the benefits of open file formats and standards,' he said."
No Technical Support For The Plugin (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting the blog entry:
Re:wHAAAAA? (Score:4, Informative)
In short, OO.o natively supports ODF and has technical support, MS Office has an ODF plugin in development, but MS won't offer tech support for it.
Re:wHAAAAA? (Score:2)
I don't understand how it is different. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand the problem. If it's a plug-in, and it reads and writes to the ODF standard, where is the problem?
The only thing I can think of is if people worry about a Microsoft "upgrade" breaking this plug-in. And then having to wait for the patch to the plug-in.
Excuse me, but, fuck "translating". This isn't about "translating". This is about being able to read ODF files and save your work to the ODF format.
"Translating" only comes into play when you're talking about:
a. Converting all your previous work to a new format.
b. When some people you are communicating with are restricted to the
c. And Microsoft's "Open" XML format will only be available in their NEXT release so it won't affect anyone who is still using their current or a previous release.
Am I missing something, somewhere?
Microsoft's claims seem to center around an organization upgrading to the next release of MS Office and then migrating to the ODF format.
While I see most situations as an organization migrating to the ODF format from an existing installation of MS Office 2000 or previous.
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
I think the GP was referring to an upgrade of MS Office with new features in the document format that the plugin doesn't know about. So yes, an upgrade can certainly break a conversion plugin. While the plugin may load without issues in the next version of MS Office (because of the API), the plugin may still puke when it tries to convert some new feature in the next MS Office version that it does not know about.
Micr
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
JimDaGeek wrote as part of a post:
The first question is a very good one, and I can think of two simple ways to handle unsupported features:
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
Well duh. What if they build a feature ODF doesn't support at all? Should they not add the feature? No, they should, and if you choose to use a document format that doesn't support, tough shit. You want to make everyone equal by handicapping everyone to the lowest common denominator.
Why can't MS just work with a stinkin open document format?
Because it could hinder their abi
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a genuine interest in ODF then the Microsoft news should be wellcomed. It will mean that there is a way for Office users to generate documents in a format that can be easily read by applications that comply with the ODF standard. I will probably get the plug in so that I can send editable documents to Linux users.
The ODF standard is far too new to be considered as a government mandate. UNIX was around for a decade before POSIX was mooted and then there was another decade before there was a requirement to support POSIX.
If there is a government mandate for a particular format then one would expect that Microsoft would provide a supported version of the plug in. At this point though there is no proven market for ODF and one can hardly expect Microsoft to commit to building the ODF market.
A much better way to deal with the news would have been to have hailed the step as an endorsement of ODF and glossed over the limited nature of the support on offer. As it is the article does more to highlight the contentious nature of ODF, the belief that Microsoft continues to be hostile to it and the beleif that the whole point of ODF is simply to attack Microsoft.
That might be an accurate description of the actual situation but that is hardly one that I would want to spend company time encouraging journalists to publicize.
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
And it is. But like the original poster said, is a source-less, unsupported plugin something that the corporate world is going to use? Probably not.
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
I don't agree... (Score:2)
Why? It is a standard. A real standard that is open for all to understand and use. No reason that government shouldn't mandate its use if they feel it is in the best intrest of the public.
There is a mistrust of Microsoft but that is to be expected. Microsoft has already been convicted multiple times for its anti competitive behavior. It would be foolish to ignore this fact.
"A much better way to deal with the news would have been
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
You're wrong about the term translation, although it'd probably be more clear if everyone used conversion instead.
The program, Word for example, has an internal representation of the document that maps (perhaps 1 to 1, but one certainly hopes perfectly) to the native format Microsoft calls Open XML. When you use the plugin to create an ODF document, you will be converting from that native format to ODF. Since the internal representation of the document in Word will not map perfectly to ODF, the docum
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a neutral representation of a document.
Every document representation depends on what you are focused on when you create the markup, whether it's for on screen display (like HTML) or for rapid search and retrieval (like TEI). Open XML and ODF are no different. The problem comes when you need to convert from one format to the other. If you design the two document structures differently, you'll have a very hard time converting between them. A great example is converting between
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
The proprietary binary Microsoft format will still be the default for the application. In the future, when it's impossible to get a legal copy of any application that reads the proprietary format, the plug-in is useless. The government (and everyone, ideally) needs to store documents in a format this is always accessible indefinitely. Open standards like ODF allow for implementation by anyone in the future. Microsoft's
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
Though in Microsoft's defense, the backwards compatibility is pretty good. Forwards always screws people up, but that's almost to be expected. In fact, an open standard th
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
"Fair point. But as long as you start emailing people .odt files instead of the latest .doc, your files are safe."
Untrue. If people are using the proposed MS plug-in, it would read the ODF file, translate it into MS' proprietary[*] XML format, allow changes, then translate back into ODF. This means that there are two signficant points of failure where translation errors - whether deliberate or accidental - can occur.
That's ad hoc design, and not worthy of consideration as anything more than a stop-gap m
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:2)
The fact that the "OpenXML" format has legal encumberments means that GPL software IS blocked from implementing it. There is a fundamental licensing incompatibility that prevents OpenXML from being implemented in GPL software. You need to understand the GPL before you speak so that you don't make such blatant factual errors.
Re:I don't understand how it is different. (Score:1)
and a swing from the Laurencemartin.com Clue-By-Four !(R)
GPL = water @ 2 quarts
+
patents = Sodium metal @ half ounce
+
Microsoft= Rust and Aluminum filings @ 7 pounds (3 to 1 mix)
=
?????
Kids DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME EXTREME FIRE HAZARD (note this would be a thermite reaction)
Re:I am a mortal enemy of grammar nazis normally b (Score:2)
Dammit, learn to use semicolons! Two complete sentences separated by a comma make a run-on sentence.
Re:I am a mortal enemy of grammar nazis normally b (Score:2)
And if someone declares "Grammar Nazi!", just remember two things, equally important:
1. They're invoking Godwin's Law [wikipedia.org]. Conceding an argument on their second post?
2. Declarations of "Grammar Nazi!" against those who point out glaring spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are generally made by Grammar Idiots.
I love the Grocer's Apostrophe (add 's to anything to make it plural). I passed a pool hall the other day (Chalkies). It's smokeless! It's where the Black Widow hangs out when she's at home
Re:I am a mortal enemy of grammar nazis normally b (Score:1)
short term - but does it matter? (Score:2)
Re:short term - but does it matter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:short term - but does it matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
More money. Microsoft's driving force. Change gets folks to upgrade that Office Suite cash cow.
People bought Office95 and ran it for 3 years on one machine, and then put it on the replacment for that computer for another 3 years. Same with Office '97 and Office 2000 lasting for six years ... and $149 for Small Office Edition works out to be less than fifty cents a week for Microsoft.
Time to change document creation -- to a
Re:short term - but does it matter? (Score:2)
Microsoft's penchant for proprietary systems have changed...partially. They received a patent for Microsoft Office Documents' XML format(s).
As I've pointed [here] out before (many times):
that permits everyone to use it, but permits Microsoft to panic and decide to enforce it - *poof*!
That also means they could permit everyone to read it, but only those who are licensed to write that format. If a business is running multiple document formats, they'd be able to read MS Office, but not write it. This
Java Redux (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Java Redux (Score:2)
Right? That's supposed to be the whole point of open source - if the software is crap, you can always fix it.
Re:Java Redux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Java Redux (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. Care to elaborate/give a link?
I'm not aware of that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Java Redux (Score:2)
Re:Java Redux (Score:2)
Re:Java Redux (Score:3, Informative)
However, MS did exactly this, introducing Windows-specific classes into the
Re:Java Redux (Score:2)
And wasn't there a second lawsuit that forced MS to resume distributing their JVM?
Re:Java Redux (Score:1)
Surprised? (Score:1)
But given our current systems, no one can really "stick it to the man" and force Microsoft to do anything. It's their software, their format.. and really whose to force them to do otherwise? So to speak, we are a slave to the machines we use.
We can't expect a self serving corporate body to really care for us unless it of course, benefit
Re:Surprised? This is exactly what they do alread (Score:1, Troll)
That's exactly what Apple and Linux users do. They talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk
Re:Surprised? This is exactly what they do alread (Score:3, Interesting)
Or explain how Windows is better than Linux.
Or you can go with the third option, which is "faster." You are free to use any interpretation of "faster." (Suggestions: operating speeds, release times, patch times.)
Or you can admit that good rules of thumb rarely apply in Computerland.
Re:Surprised? This is exactly what they do alread (Score:2)
Now you're going to have to explain to me how Windows is cheaper than Linux.
Linux is only cheaper than Windows if your time is worth nothing.
Or explain how Windows is better than Linux.
Windows is better than Linux in a lot of ways, but especially in the way most people care about. People use applications, not operating systems. Applications under Windows are far more numerous and generally far better.
Or you can go with the third option, which is "faster." You are free to use any interpretation
Re:Surprised? (Score:2)
Oh Come On Now... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Oh come on now. You didn't really think Microsoft was going to give ODF equal billing with their own preferred (and proprietary) Doc and Xml did you? And about this only being the start of creating an open source converter plug-in, you don't really accept that the reason we don't have a plug-in now is because Microsoft has done no work at all on integrating ODF into MSO right up until the minute of this announcement,
MODF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MODF - Regular, and Enhanced flavors (Score:2)
I'm sure there would be MSEODF (Microsoft Enhanced Open Document Format) files. They'd have to have them because there will be some FNOU (Feature No One Uses) that can't be saved in ODF. Then you'll have the option to save in either Standard ODF, or MSEODF if you want to preserve your usage of the FNOU. After that, the ODF spec will be on a constant treadmill to keep up
Embrace and extend is overrated (Score:1)
Re:MODF (Score:2)
In answer, I have but 7 characters for you:
C++/CLI
Re:MODF (Score:2)
ODF great for freedom, but needs better tech info (Score:5, Interesting)
There really needs to be a reference renderer for ODF. Something independent from OpenOffice, with examples of all of the grammar and semantics in the spec.
ODF testsuite (Score:1)
This site http://netmoc.cpe.ucf.edu/Projects/OpenDocument/Te stSuite.html [ucf.edu] has Sample ODF documents intended as references. From the site:
We are working towards developing a comprehensive set of sample documents for the OpenDocument specifications developed by the Oasis consortium.
Every document has associated rendering samples created with:
* OpenOffice v2.0.1 on Windows XP SP2
* KOffice v1.5beta on Gentoo Linux
The set of sample documents was developed at the Networking and Mobile
Emphasis on 'Short Term' (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft takes considerable heat from many sources that it's development process is dragged out far beyond need or reason. Look at the long development cycle with consideration of anti-trust verdicts, agreements, etc. and you begin to see some logic.
Microsoft is under some legal obligation to de-bundle or make removable certain components of their preferred distro. These obligations have an expiration date in the not very distant future. That expiration date is also not rediculously far beyond the historic release cycle for MS product upgrades.
Given the choice of re-engineering my product so a specific component MS wants to become ubiquitous may be removed, or delaying release a few months and using the time to tie it in so tightly that the notion of removal becomes irrelevant, guess what Microsoft will choose to do.
With delayed release they allow themselves to present that they are in compliance with all orders in effect at time of release, without having to de-couple anything. As a result, your filesystem browser is also your internet browser, is also your front end for all GUI desktop apps... Nevermind that this is in complete opposition to the expectation that the kernel is the interface between hardware and all other software, and that the command shell, filesystem browser, web browser, GUI windowing system, etc. all fall into the category of 'all other software.'
Re:Emphasis on 'Short Term' (Score:2, Insightful)
Windows has a kernel, and IE, GUI, command shell, filesystem browser, etc aren't part of it. Infact the Win32 API isn't even part of it. If you weren't aware, the windows kernel even has 2 other subsystems shipped for it (Posix, OS/2 1.1). Feel free to google to learn more.
Re:What if... (Score:2)
Have you had your eyes closed or what? MS pulled out from the ODF group. They can rejoin at any time.
And The MS format is just evil. The license agreements are un
MOX = "Soon" (Score:2)
And MOX is Latin for "soon". Coincidence?!
yeah, prolly
BUT: a cute synchronicity, nonetheless.
Re:MOX = "Soon" (Score:2)
Ok.... (Score:1)
Those ticks (Score:1)
So what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So what? (Score:2)
Oh dear Lord.
Can you please find me all these supports of ODF that think that ODF is the most used format please?
This post is a troll.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
It's hillarious that posting something in support of Microsoft on slashdot gets labelled as troll.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
You are a troll.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Microsoft will submit OpenXML to ISO, and I am pretty sure it will end up becoming an ISO standard as well. Then what? If I were to guess, then I would say that ~90% of all Office documents today are in the 97-2003 formats. Maybe i
Re:So what? (Score:1)
I don't think that choosing one over the other is necessarily a good business decision, but not supporting the only current office file standard while governments are moving to it is a silly move for anyone but Microsoft, who wants to continue to control 90+% of the market. Oddly enough, I'm not a real big fan of OpenOffice.org, but I live in a country where Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on office su
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Re:So what? (Score:1)
Well, that's because everyone wants to forget that reality
and demand people to move away from this depressing, and quite frankly, just wrong situation.
Re:So what? (Score:1)
In my
Re:So what? (Score:1)
I seriously doubt that. Processing a few more bytes on today's computers isn't exactly a problem - if it is, I seriously recommend purchasing a replacement for your MicroVAX.
The reason OpenXML is "faster" is that it is a memory dump format, in a way. It's not meant to be human-friendly. If it were human-friendly, it
All Products of US are short term fixes (Score:1)
This actually shows a lack of understanding (Score:2, Informative)
eXtensible Markup Language is meant for a base specification to ensure portability. Anyone can add to an xml based specfication for their product / needs. that is the idea.
if Microsoft's openxml format for office 2007 is an xml format, then they will have a dtd and reference url for the dtd that will enable any xml based application to use the format. If this is not possible, then it is another case of Microsoft lying to their customers about Microsoft products.
The above is the c