Slashdot Mirror

Currently, Microsoft office can't read or write either of these formats[1]. So which is Microsoft going to add?

Both? PDF is making steady inroads as an interchange format and from what I understand of Avalon it should make generating PDF on Vista pretty much as easy as on OS X. It would make sense to support it.

As for OpenOffice.org - they're using the OASIS format and Microsoft is a sponsor of that so you'd think they'd get around to it eventually. I think Microsoft is realising that locking up Office document formats isn't going to work for much longer (see their various efforts to create more "open" XML based formats for MS Office) and are trying to work out what to do instead.

Jedidiah.

Oh yeah, meant to cite my source:

OASIS Open Doc FAQ

Yes. Yes, there is.

XHTML has its place: web.
If you were looking for something witty (and Slashdot-approven) to say, you meant Oasis.

OpenDocument from OASIS

Do you plan to publicly document the existing Word and Excel binary formats so anyone can read / write to them? (Without having to pay royalties, that is). And more important, why don't you people commit yourselves to adopt the OASIS OpenDocument format instead of your proprietary (even if open) ones? A clear, straight answer (not "because my boss said so") would be appreciated.

Thanks.

A major part of Trusted Computing is indeed about establishing an "open DRM system". In fact the entire system can be open source, or even GPL. Trusted Computing defeats the GPL. Trusted Computing makes the source code useless. If you attempt to modify the software then (1) the chip broadcasts that fact to anyone you connect to, and (2) the chip then prohibits you from reading the data files.

If you want more details or have any questions, just ask. I'm a programmer, I've read the Trusted Computing technical specifications (several hundred pages), and I have been researching and following the subject in depth.

The primary development work on an open DRM system is being done by OASIS. I've read some of their technical specification documents as well. In particular they are developing an open XML DRM Rights Language standard.

An interesting point is that OASIS never mentions Trusted Computing. It seems to me that they are deliberately careful about the language they use. They just so happen to use the exact same terms as the Trusted Computing documentation, and their system and features and requirements just so happens to exactly match up with the those of Trusted Computing, and they explicitly state that their standard can only function on top of a hardware security support system. So they are creating an open DRM system that will work with "any" open hardware security support system that happens to be exactly identical to the Trusted Computing Group's system.

Oh, and just a reminder... Microsoft's own website documents that the Security Support Component (SSC) of Longhorn (the operating system formerly known as Palladium)... that the chip *IS* the Trusted Computing Group's TPM security chip.

Oh, and anpther thing... Intel's LaGrande CPU security system... and AMD's Presidio CPU security system... and Transmeta's TSX CPU security system... well those all just so happen to be the Trusted Computing Group's TPM chip embedded into the CPU itself. And Intel's and AMD's Memory Virtualization systems... they just so happen to be Palladium's memory compartmentalization system to secure DRM software and DRM data against other software and to even protect them against the operating system itself.

You're right that open DRM systems are not possible with current computer systems. That is what they want CPUs themselves to be DRM enforcers, and why they want to ship DRM enforcement standard inside every single new computer sold, and why these chips will be boobytrapped and self destructing if you attempt to open them or read them or alter them.

Oh, and HP and IBM and Dell and pretty much every other major computer seller... they are already selling systems with this security chip embedded. In fact Samsung has announced that they will no longer manufacture ANY computers that are not Trusted equipped. The entire industry is gearing up for full-out Trusted Computing hardware deployment for the Microsoft Longhorn release in summer 2006. No one will realistic buy or sell a PC that is not Certified Windows Compatible. Any PC not so equipped will not fully function, and when you complain to Microsoft they will answer that it's because you have INCOMPATIBLE hardware and that it is your hardware manufacturer's fault.

Oh, and even more fun... the Tursted Computing group has announced a Trusted Network Connect project that would deny you an internet connection unless you are running a Trusted Compliant machine. In fact Microsoft has already announced that they are implementing that system under their own name... Network Access Protection.

-

No, that would be something like what OASIS proposes, i.e. open document file format,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?w g_abbrev=office

This would eliminate the 'what/who's/free/proprietary ... application dialog, and focus on the data.

..., but until OO.o 2.0 is out, there's no final standard...

You mean like this?

Does anyone know how MS's "original" and patented format is any different than the OASIS open document format that has been out for a while now?

What does everyone think of the ability to call prior-art if MS litigates a project like OOo for making full compatibility to MS XML doc format?

I cant actually get to TFA to read as the site seems to have melted. But I assume you are correct. If MS are serious, why do they not go for something like this . There is a distinct lack of Mircosoft employees on the comittee member list

I cant actually get to TFA to read as the site seems to have melted. But I assume you are correct. If MS are serious, why do they not go for something like this . There is a distinct lack of Mircosoft employees on the comittee member list

Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think?

That's exactly what I was thinking. If Microsoft was really opening up Office, why didn't they go for the OASIS Spec? Me thinks that this is an attempt by Microsoft to lead the industry around by the nose, thus solidifying their place as "Industry Leader". And with a proprietary document format, they can make minor, but frustrating, changes every version just to keep the competition on its toes.

God knows why, but they are listed.

Microsoft is NOT a supporter of the OpenDocument format and it is very hard to believe they could sponsor its development. Only IBM and Sun are listed as "Sponsor-level members" on the OpenDocument TC Page so you would better check your sources before posting.

The article links to the pdf format of the spec. As far as I know, pdf |= sxw.

If you're not want to use PDF: It's also available in OpenOffice SXW format: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/ 12028/office-spec-1.0-cd-3.sxw

OpenOffice.org XML format is also available, although you wouldn't expect to see that in a slashdot article, of course.

I agree, I sertainly don't trust microsoft with this. I place my bets on the ODF

Plus there are many different standalone PDF readers out there for MS-Windows, Linux, OS X, and so on. MS-Word doesn't have a standalone reader except on ... MS-Windows. And if you already have MS-Windows, MS-Office is probably already on the machine.

PDF's can even embed metadata, which is a great bonus for locally searching your collection. e.g. Finding all documents of a particular author, or in a particular project, or about a particular topic.

The big drawback to PDFs is that it is not practical to re-edit them. But then that's not what they're for. They're essentially paper that hasn't come out of the printer yet.

For editable documents, the industry looks to be moving towards OpenDocument, which is a vendor-neutral, open, royalty-free, XML-based file format being shaped up by OASIS. All the big (and many of the small) international names in electronic publishing are members in OASIS. OpenDocument is being supported and encouraged by the EU as well and will be the main format for OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, AbiWord, Kword, and others. Google already indexes it.

Interestingly enough Microsoft sponsors OASIS... could this mean that Office will incorperate these standards as well? Or is it just for PR so they can say, "we also sponsor them but don't really support their format."

Not ISO, but OASIS Open Document Format.

I agree that open office, star office, and all the rest are an eventual threat MSOffice's market dominance and that they need to do something about it (like make office better value for money), but this patent is not going to help one whit.

Look at this: Sun pushes open office standard, specifically talking about an open document standard using XML - basically the OASIS format format.

I never disagreed that it's a crap patent. It is. But it's unenforceable without MS opening itself up to yet more legal challenges over its anti-interoperability tactics.

1. Is the fact that it is free the only innovation?

This is the main innovation of version 2.0 of OpenOffice.org. Everything else is flavor.

The OpenDocument formats are the rough equivelent of HTML for documentation and covers;

1. Text Documents
2. Drawing Documents
3. Presentation Documents
4. Spreadsheet Documents
5. Chart Documents
6. Image Documents

Each document format is XML compressed in a zip file. Simple. Elegent. Easy to recover data from or to export/import/write using external tools of your choice. No propriatory libraries are required.

This means that no matter what happens to OpenOffice.org itself, you can always get your data. You can even switch to any application that also supports OpenDocument formats.

There is already a truly open office format developed by OASIS.

Microsoft can read the writing on the wall and is trying to combat a truly open standard with their patent encumbered version.

What we need is OASIS support everywhere, including M$ Office. We need to develop plug-ins with easy/friendly install and stick them on a website so that even a novice user will be able to get it on their system and be able to share OASIS docs.

There is already a truly open office format developed by OASIS.

Microsoft can read the writing on the wall and is trying to combat a truly open standard with their patent encumbered version.

What we need is OASIS support everywhere, including M$ Office. We need to develop plug-ins with easy/friendly install and stick them on a website so that even a novice user will be able to get it on their system and be able to share OASIS docs.

Ohh a standardised open document format. wonder why no-one has ever thought of that one before.

Like HTML, which surprised people in the 1990's, the OASIS OpenOffice.org file format is indeed vendor independent, though, it is now called Open Document. Anyone can use it or develop tools for it without restriction. Even Microsoft is part of the team at OASIS, at least on paper. And, even if MS doesn't get out of the way, interesting things will happen with Open Doument.

So far OASIS Open Document being used by at least the following:

• StarOffice
• OpenOffice.org
• AbiWord
• kWord

... the adoption of an OASIS Open Office Standard should be welcomed, and industry actors not currently involved with the OASIS Open Document Format should consider participating in the standardisation process in order to encourage a wider consensus around the format.

--EU Telematics between Administrations Committee, May 24, 2004

Currently, there are many governments moving up to StarOffice or OpenOffice.org for the sake of these formats. Singapore comes to mind first, but there are many, many others that don't necessarily make the mainstream press like Sarpsborg. Likewise, there are many small, medium and large businesses moving along. Some with an axe to grind (with good reason ) speak up. However, most are silent until the move is being implemented to keep the goon squad from Redmond from getting in the way.

The current choice:

• OASIS Open Document --
  1. be able to access your own data indefinitely as XML
  2. and change productivity tools, operating systems and hardware only if and when it suites you
• MS-WordML --
  1. pay that Redmond tithe indefinitely
  2. and buy new productivity tools, operating systems and hardware when Chairman Bill tells you to

XML maybe?

There's the Liberty Alliance, which seems to be picking up some speed recently.

There's also the SAML initiative from the OASIS group.

Chip H.

I'm afraid you don't really know what you're talking about here. At the start of every OpenOffice.org content.xml file there's a namespace declaration for SVG and SVG properties are used to store meta-data about images in the document. Even though you don't store the image itself using SVG, you are still using the SVG schema. There's more to SVG than just defining how a vector image looks like, you know.

Now the comparison with GIF is just making yourself look silly as GIF is not defined in XML, there's thus no XML schema for it, let alone that would HTML use it to specify metadata about images.

If you're not convinced, go read the OpenDocument specification and do a search for SVG.

I wonder how feasible it would be for other word processors, such as AbiWord, to use this format natively. Or, at least appear to use the format natively.

The OpenOffice format is being standardised by OASIS and the KOffice developers have decided to use it as the native format in future.

Valid I-Name formats

I-names are designed to be as simple and human-friendly as possible. Global personal i-names start with an "=" sign followed by a string of characters (no spaces.) You can use letters, digits, dots ("."), and dashes ("-"), but you can't start or end with punctuation. I-names are not case-sensitive, i.e., "a" and "A" are equivalent.

See these special instructions about internationalized (Unicode) i-names.

Examples:

• =Mary
• =Jones
• =Mary.Jones
• =Mary.W.Jones
• =Mary.Wellington.Jones
• =Mary.Martha.Wellington.Jones
• =Mary.Jones.Phd
• =Mary.Jones-Smith
• =Mary.Jones.2000
• =Pickles
• =Pickle.Sandwich
• =Foo-Foo

Note that although dots are not required (i.e., you could register "=MarySmith"), the standard practice will be to separate real names with dots, just as it has become with email addresses.

For further information on i-names please visit XDI.ORG or the OASIS XRI (Extensible Resource Identifier) home page.

There have been small steps in this direction, most notably the World Wide Web Consortium's Platform for Privacy Preferences Project. Unfortunately P3P, as it's known, is limited to relatively simple matters of online privacy, ignoring other kinds of online contracts like software license agreements, ISP policies, and terms of service contracts.

That's true, and it's because it took P3P about five years to figure out the appropriate terminology and concepts relating to online privacy. The technology is pretty simple; its the range of possibilities (the ontology, if you will) that's so hard.

This is just like coming up with a universal scheme for addresses and other common business structures; it's possible, but getting enough people to agree on the details to get momentum takes a lot of time and effort (see UBL).

Which is very suspiciously similar to WS-Management, 'cept for the shorter name and the completely different set of signatories. Both try and provide a distributed "resources" view of SOAP endpoints, because if they were called "Distributed Objects" we'd all realise that the "Distributed Objects bad, Service Oriented Architecture" was so much bollocks.

Now, the fact that they are fairly similar means there is scope for convergence. I'd guess MS were the main author here (like DELL and AMD care about software), so if MS and IBM can be friend, and MS join the oasis working group, then we can see progress.

But I wouldn't hold my breath.

But this OOo format does include a way to store metadata, in office:document-meta. See section 2.2 (and section 2.1) of the OOo 1.0 committee draft specification. You can even include arbitrary metadata (say from another metadata format specification, like the W3C's RDF). There's some info in there about storing author names; nothing built-in for abstracts.

If you think they should predefine something, or recommend something as a starting point, please research what you think they should do, and then submit your recommendation and rationale to the OASIS office group. A well-reasoned proposal is going to get a serious look by this group, and if there's no serious challenge (or the challenges are well-rebuffed), you're likely to get it in.

There exists a technical committee at OASIS to make the OpenOffice format a standard (OASIS OpenOffice). How does this differ if it's a ISO standard as well?

There exists a technical committee at OASIS to make the OpenOffice format a standard (OASIS OpenOffice). How does this differ if it's a ISO standard as well?

Look into the Liberty spec. One of its optional provisions is forced reauthentication.

Liberty, and its competing standards like WS-Federation and SAML, are good because the partners can run whatever vendor's software they like. You just have to verify your vendor is compliant.

Liberty Specifications
SAML Spec
WS Fed Spec Any number of vendors in the access control realm are jumping on the Liberty bandwagon. My company makes a product competing with Netegrity. Of course ours is superior in every way imaginable :)

Any one can download the specs and do a client/server implementation just using apache projects. (Xerces, XML-SEC) and some DOM/servlets knowled to implement their
protocol.

Any how you can do it in c++/java/.NET or whatever languege you like.

Oasis-open seems to be the latest standard, IIRC it's based on the OOo format, and I think KOffice may be adopting it in the next major version.

take a look at simplified docbook. Here are some good DocBook editors

The only versions of WP I've used were version 3 (on DOS) and versions 7 and 8 on Solaris (and never used any of them extensively). But I think WP now supports the OASIS Open Office XML Format. If so, what's to prevent me from moving seamlessly between OO.org and WP, depending on the job?

I think there's a market.

ISO 639 - Code for the representation of the names of languages

You might want to check out the Open Office Specification 1.0 Draft 12.

How exactly is OOo's XML format lock-in any different to MS's?

Uhm... it's well-documented, and tracks an emerging standard (the first of its kind). That is, it's agreed-upon by many other companies, not just Microsoft.

Also, Microsoft does not publish its XML schema.

MS-Office 2003 is a nightmare to use in an heterogenous environment. Its export to third-party schemas is hardly more than a check-box on a PR sheet somewhere; it doesn't work quite right, so the published document isn't a very good XSLT translation of the original document.

Microsoft, by obfuscating their XML schema and making it no more readable than their original binary format, is the one paying lip-service. But as long as people are willing to accept intentionally-broken garbage, they will continue to sell intentionally-broken garbage.

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. (See Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas Licensing Legal Notice)

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

In case the point was not obvious enough, the schemas are packed into an .EXE which can only be used on a MS-Windows encumbered computer. As average people are figuring out that Linux and OS X beats MS-Windows for security (among other things, immune to 99% of viruses and worms), price and ease of use these are now decreasing.

To top it off, MS-Office 2003 locks you not only into their DRM, but also into one of either MS-Passport or MS-Server 2003. That not only introduces single point of failure twice (network and authentication), but also has economic, privacy and long term preservation and access ramifications.

I think you may be confusing the schema with the OASIS project which creates an XML schema for productivity software. Although, it is called Open Office XML Format, it is free (both free as in liberty and as in cost) to any and all who wish to use it. Less headache with the OASIS.

Of the OASIS members, M$ is the only one adopting a "wait and see" aproach to the OO.o schema. Everyone else is moving forward.

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. (See Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas Licensing Legal Notice)

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

In case the point was not obvious enough, the schemas are packed into an .EXE which can only be used on a MS-Windows encumbered computer. As average people are figuring out that Linux and OS X beats MS-Windows for security (among other things, immune to 99% of viruses and worms), price and ease of use these are now decreasing.

To top it off, MS-Office 2003 locks you not only into their DRM, but also into one of either MS-Passport or MS-Server 2003. That not only introduces single point of failure twice (network and authentication), but also has economic, privacy and long term preservation and access ramifications.

I think you may be confusing the schema with the OASIS project which creates an XML schema for productivity software. Although, it is called Open Office XML Format, it is free (both free as in liberty and as in cost) to any and all who wish to use it. Less headache with the OASIS.

Of the OASIS members, M$ is the only one adopting a "wait and see" aproach to the OO.o schema. Everyone else is moving forward.

There is a separate patent license available to parties interested in implementing software programs that can read and write files that conform to the Specification. (See Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas Licensing Legal Notice)

You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.

In case the point was not obvious enough, the schemas are packed into an .EXE which can only be used on a MS-Windows encumbered computer. As average people are figuring out that Linux and OS X beats MS-Windows for security (among other things, immune to 99% of viruses and worms), price and ease of use these are now decreasing.

To top it off, MS-Office 2003 locks you not only into their DRM, but also into one of either MS-Passport or MS-Server 2003. That not only introduces single point of failure twice (network and authentication), but also has economic, privacy and long term preservation and access ramifications.

I think you may be confusing the schema with the OASIS project which creates an XML schema for productivity software. Although, it is called Open Office XML Format, it is free (both free as in liberty and as in cost) to any and all who wish to use it. Less headache with the OASIS.

Of the OASIS members, M$ is the only one adopting a "wait and see" aproach to the OO.o schema. Everyone else is moving forward.

I think /you/ are completely confused.

It stands for Document Type Definition, and includes all the human-readable specification that describes what all the elements mean as well as the formal, machine-readable part of the specification

Hmm. You mean it has comments? Because a DTD is nothing more than a machine-readable specification, which often (but not always) comes with comments.

If you somehow came to the conclusion that xml schemas (in general) are not meant to be human readable, take a look at the compact syntax for RNG.

Norm Walsh (ie Mr DocBook) is already making progress replacing the DTD infrastructure of DocBook with RNG. And guess what, he uses an editor (nXML-mode for GNU Emacs) that supports RNG!

I guess he must wear a blindfold? Or maybe you should take a read of James Clark's paper on the design of Relax NG?

I agree DocBook XML docbook seems to support XML just fine.