Slashdot Mirror
Is the New Microsoft Office Really Open?
joesklein asks: "From CNET, there is an article about the new Microsoft Office 11. In summary 'Microsoft says it's opening its Office desktop software by adding support for XML--a move that should help companies free up access to shared information. But there's a catch: It has yet to disclose the underlying XML dialect.' Could this be grounds for another anti-trust suit against Microsoft?"
RTF has been in office for years and it is an open, portable standard readable on many platforms and with many programs. The problem is that Microsoft chooses to retain their obfuscated binary format as the default save type for documents.
If the XML files office produce are not made the default save types or if the XML merely encapsulates large portions of binary code, it will not matter one lick that office can save these xml documents because the majority of people will be stuck on the default, unreadable formats.
The big question (to me) is whether Microsoft can put a legal encumbrance on the XML schema they use for a new file format. Could you publish a schema but have it so wrapped in legalese that (for example) open source projects could not be allowed to use it ?
I've always said the XML Emperor has no clothes: all XML is is a meta-framework for markup languages. No more, no less. And pointless if schemas are never disclosed.
No matter what microsoft does, all they will get is a slap on the wrist. Microsoft will just point to staroffice and openoffice and say, hey, there's compitition, its not a monopoly.
Big deal if they don't open it up anyway (I don't really expect them to), staroffice/openoffice will crack it to a certain extent anyway. For most people's file conversions, its not that much of a difference to convert documents. Doesn't always look pretty, but it works fairly well.
Wake me up when something Microsoft does is suprising...
But there's a catch: It has yet to disclose the underlying XML dialect
Remember, you can also save a Word document as an HTML file, however the HTML is so digusting, so non-standard that the only things that could possibly read it are more Microsoft products. The same, I would presume, will be happening to their XML feature.
Additionally, its not too far fetched that Microsoft would make their own DTD (Document Type Definition).
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
I suppose they could put some weird binary or encrypted data in the files, but that would defeat the purpose of XML.
The purpose of XML is to have buzzword compliance, and this doesn't defeat that.
(Of course that's not the purpose most other people use XML for, but we're talking about Microsoft.)
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
1) XML, SOAP and all these new technologies were pioneered by Microsoft
2) They killed all the standards they didn't pioneer (CORBA anyone ?).
3) There is NOTHING in the XML spec that _requires_ people to open up their schema definitions. Its purely a structure definition in the same way as Microsoft's old Word documents were stored, its just that now the markers are in Text format and any standard XML parser will be able to read the file.
4) Open Office can already read word documents even though they aren't in XML.
5) So can Word Perfect.
6) Using XML doesn't stop you embedding binary into the document, often people do this to store data (images for instance), thus an OLE reference might still be binary.
7) Pure XML and XSLT are great ways to use up all the power on your processor. Binary has previously been used here because its inefficient, if MS had opened the format up everyone would just complain that its too inefficient and its quicker to save using an older format. So MS are either trying to burn cycles or are customising the XML or their application for speed, is that wrong ? Would it be wrong if KDE did it ?
8) People won't switch to or from Word because of XML, Open Office and other tools will be able to read the Word files because other tools (Google for instance) need the format and MS can see real business need to allow them to see it.
9) XML is a meta-language as such anything can be written. Hell they could have a bitch of an external format and then a simple parser that makes it useful, but not tell anyone about the simple parser so everyone elses documents take years to load.
10) XML is the buzzword of today, OLE to be replaced by SOAP as the buzzword for Office next ?
Get off the high horse guys, whether its binary or XML is irrelevant, making something XML doesn't make it open. Thats like saying that everything you do makes sense, but just because people don't understand the Mayan Calendar and Ancient Greek they complain.
MS will always use Mayan and Ancient Greek, and we _can_ understand them, its just easier for them as its their native language and calendar.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Microsoft (and Netscape) essentially tried the same thing with HTML. Sure, we're using HTML, but to actually view our HTML, you have to use our browser.
Adoption of a "standard" is no guarantee of interoperability. Understanding the conceptual underpinnings of the standard is just as important. The question is, when Microsoft says they are using XML as a document format, are they doing it because they believe in the principles underlying it, or solely for the cynical "this is what is selling now" aspect?
The body of HTML out there is an paresable, babble of a mess, largely because the two dominant browser makers did not respect many of the underlying notions of markup and hypertext to begin with. The state of the art progressed, but not in the way a lot of people wanted it to go.
This could bode poorly if the meme survives somehow that the Office format is now equivalent to XML. When it "doesn't work," who knows where the blame will fall?
Y'know, before posting I thought I'd check to see if anyone else had put what I was going to put. Tadaa, problem solved.
After years of work, hundreds of thousands of lawyer man-hours, what do we have to show for it? "Expose your API's unless they are to do with security, and don't be bad again". Honestly, this should have been a bitch slapping of biblical proportions. Not only should the company have been broken up, but a tier 1 deity should have rained down the wrath of the ancients in order to make it happen.
Another anti-trust suit? I don't think anyone's going to be going down *that* road in a hurry.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
The Office file formats will be open if M$ decides to:
- Document them, and
- Not change them with every update.
I doubt they will do either of those things.The same point that most technical decisions are based on. Buzzword compliance.
Dancing MonkeyBoy doesn't hop across a stage for his health. He "loves this company" because it makes money as only a monopoly can.
Silly rabbit. Open is for kids.
First, you don't have to reference a DTD to produce valid XML. SAX/DOM parsers will work just fine on a document without a DTD.
Second, you can have "binary" data in an XML document. Just base64 encode it.
Third: the point of going to XML if you're just going to produce a mess? Simple. You get to claim openness. Most PHBs probably don't know the difference between turly structured, stable, "open" XML, and syntactically-correct but semantically-useless XML.
I'm a bloodsucking fiend! Look at my outfit!
The registry in Windows NT/2000/XP is sort of like that. It makes a lot more sense from a Microsoft-centric viewpoint than it does from a non-Microsoft-centric viewpoint. Now that it's been around so long, there are lots of ways to get at registry data (for instance, using Perl modules), but when the registry was new the only way to do it was through the Microsoft API, but until many people went through the pain of encapsulating the MS API, the pain of accessing the registry from a non-MS-centric toolset was high.
So maybe the XML format will be like that. If you're Linux-centric, for instance, the threshold of pain for accessing Word XML docs will be fairly high, but if you're Microsoft-centric, with all of their tools, code-snippets, documents, etc., then it won't be nearly as painful.
This way MS gets to claim interoperability, make Word data easily accessible to MS-centric solutions, but put a damper on non-MS-centric solutions.
No because the dtd and/or namespace will have to be referenced in plain text in the xml document. so, even if they use absurdly complex element names, they have to use a valid dtd or namespace uri which can be easily referenced
I think an analogy to Frontpage is appropriate here. Sure, it produces HTML, but the result just doesn't look right unless it's viewed in IE. Maybe the dtd is referenced, but encrypted or otherwise proprietary. Maybe MSXMLVIEWER (whatever it may be called) doesn't need the reference to be in plain text.
There are any number of things MS could do to ensure that the document just doesn't look right in other viewers. Since formatting is the whole point of XML, people will use MSXMLVIEWER and whatever it reads will be the de facto XML standard, just like whatever IE renders is the de facto HTML standard.
or it just ain't xml at all.
While technically correct, the point is sadly irrelevant. As long as MS is effectively a monopoly XML will be whatever they say it is, for the majority of people.
Also you aren't allowed to put binary data in an xml document
Not true. It's recomended that you don't put binary in an XML document, but nothing prevents you from doing so. This is exactly what will give MS the ability to hijack the standard.
In conclusion they would have to break xml pretty hard-core in order to make their doc types proprietary.
Only in spirit, I'm afraid, but that will likely be enough.
Besides, then what would be the point of going xml in the first place?
To make documents searchable. This is an ability which is extremely valuable to anyone who has a large amount of information they need to access. The upshot is that the actual content will likely be plain text, though important markups may not be. Sadly, format is more important than content for a lot of people.
Of course, most people won't use the XML format at all, since it won't be the default.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
XML, as a language spec, is most certainly open. It's what you do with the spec that makes it closed. C is also an open spec, but if I write a program in C, I'm by no means obligated to give everyone the source code to it (despite what some people here insist is the "right thing to do" in all cases.)
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
How does this misinformed crap get moderated up?
/. make sure you know what you are talking about.
As some others have pointed out:
1) You don't need a DTD or Schema to have XML
2) The url used in a namespace declaration doesn't need to correspond to a real document
3) Even in case the document used a DTD or Schema, that DTD or Scheme where available, and the document actually validated against it, you still don't know what the hell the tags mean, the DTD or Scheme are just syntactical(and grammatical?) rules, and don't tell you how to interpret the tags or attributes.
4) You can always include binary data in an XML document(ie., base64 encoded)
5) The point of using XML is Buzzword compliance and *perceived* openness
There are more reasons why XML not necessarily = openness. But this ones are more than enough.
XML means nothing, it's just a way to define languages, is like an charset, just because I have a document that is ASCII doesn't mean that I understand what is written on it if I don't know the meaning of the words that are on it(eg., just because you know the name of each letter doesn't mean that you know the meaning of "lkasdertunxsjd", right?)
Even if a language is in XML, you still need to *document it* to be able to *understand* it.
Sorry if I was a bit rough, but I'm sick of people that assume that because something is in XML it's automatically open. That is one of the biggest myths the XML buzz-wagon is based on, and is spreaded by people
that don't really understand what XML is.
Please, before you post to
Best wishes
\\Uriel
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
Just because a file format is XML, it does not mean it's open. Even if it's "real" XML and not a wrapped binary dump (Vvjfio1@1/515...). All XML does for you is to make the *syntax* of the file format clear, not the underlying meaning. Analogously, in German, every noun begins with a capital letter, and root verb forms generally end with "-en"; this tells you a bit about the phrase "Mit grossem Bedauern haben wir vom Ableben Ihres Gatten erfahren", but it's certainly not enough to understand it.
Even an XML schema is not enough - that just tells you which elements can appear where and what they can contain. That's like knowing that a normal German sentence has the main verb in the second position in the sentence. This still doesn't tell you the meaning of the above sentence, though you can see that "haben" is the verb and "Mit grossem Bedauern" is the first part of the sentence.
For an XML language to be open, you need a full description of what each possible construct in that language means.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'