Keynote Really is XML

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by pudge on Saturday January 11, 2003 @01:46AM from the well-yeah dept.

jonknee writes "During the latest MacWorld keynote, Steve Jobs announced new presentation software dubbed Keynote. It looked pretty sweet, but what caught my ear was Jobs' remark that it was XML based. As soon as I got my hands on Keynote, I investigated the .key file and found its XML portion (which is quite excellent XML at that). For those not lucky enough to have the software, I posted the blank presentation I took a peek at." I just want to know when someone is going to write up a Keynote module for Perl ...

23 of 45 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Could be a nice thing, if ... by Void · 2003-01-11 02:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
This could be a very nice thing, on two conditions:
- The DTD is public and uses "real", decent method/objects names and not some criptic stuff
- Apple won't sue anyone that makes a "compatible" package!
1. Re:Could be a nice thing, if ... by srinner · 2003-01-11 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  During the presentation Jobs mentioned, that you could for instance create presentations with scripts connected to your acounting-system to reflect your current numbers - so I assume Apple won't prosecute others for creating the files
2. Re:Could be a nice thing, if ... by Void · 2003-01-11 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  nice, nice, very nice. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the powerpoint-era?
3. Re:Could be a nice thing, if ... by skinfitz · 2003-01-11 04:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I assume Apple won't prosecute others for creating the files
  
  He also said that the file format was open and that they want people to create their own files or apps that read and write to Keynote files.
4. Re:Could be a nice thing, if ... by sean23007 · 2003-01-11 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yup, that would make a lot of sense. Apple sues someone for making a "compatible" file format to their new XML-based format that is created by the program that reads and saves to Microsoft's proprietary file format. They did it, and if they have any sense of justice, they will let us do it too...
  
  I'm not saying that we are guaranteed to be able to, just that Apple probably won't make much of a stink, considering that one of the major draws of their program is that they were able to do that to another format.
  
  --
  
  Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
5. Re:Could be a nice thing, if ... by dhovis · 2003-01-11 09:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Steve Jobs said in his presentation that he envisions people writing programs to auto-generate Keynote files. That is why they chose XML. Apple intends it to be open and easy to use.
  The thing about Keynote that sets it apart (in my mind), is that it is a presentation program that is geared towards computer presentations, rather than slides or overheads. I doubt Apple considers Keynote a "core" application, but rather a showpiece for what you can do with Quartz, Quartz Extreme (for the Open GL effects), and the Cocoa API. They throw in the professionally designed slide templates as a bonus.
  
  --
  --
  The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.
XML is not a panecea by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-11 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Look. When is it going to get through people's heads that just because data has an XML representation it means you can instantly decipher the contents of the data? XML is a data format, that's all. Without a well-defined semantics it is no easier reverse-engineer XML than it is to reverse engineer a binary format. Sure, it may *look* human readable, and it may make it only marginally easier to achieve 99% compatability, but it's the last 1% that will always stifle the ability to write filters for KeyNote, Word, or (pick you favorite "We do XML therefore we are open" software).

That said, I would not be at all surprised if Apple published a Keynote XML schema and semantic specification, once the product has stablized. They'd better, if they want to see their vision come to light.
1. Re:XML is not a panecea by MrAndrews · 2003-01-11 04:04 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I wish this were better understood by the world at large.
  
  The second the keynote ended, I got calls from any of the Mac-user clients I've ever had asking me if I could write them tools to connect their various systems to their Keynote presentations. "Ummm, yeah..." is all I can say, though that answer can also apply to "can you make a full scale model of a porcupine out of toothpicks?"
  
  The first tools that take advantage of the XML will be written by the most dedicated programmers, or those who don't know how to say no.
  
  --
  The world's only surviving livewriter.
2. Re:XML is not a panecea by Ivan+Raikov · 2003-01-11 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Without a well-defined semantics it is no easier reverse-engineer XML than it is to reverse engineer a binary format.
  
  True, but what sane programmer will use XML as a mere wrapper for Base64-encoded binary data? Outside of Microsoft, anybody with reasonable programming experience will indeed use XML as it's meant to be used, and adhere to strict, well-documented (and hopefully published) semantic specifications. While Apple software certainly has its issues, I think we should give them a little more credit this time.
  
  --
  Bush Lies Watch
3. Re:XML is not a panecea by smallpaul · 2003-01-13 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  Look. When is it going to get through people's heads that just because data has an XML representation it means you can instantly decipher the contents of the data? XML is a data format, that's all. Without a well-defined semantics it is no easier reverse-engineer XML than it is to reverse engineer a binary format.
  
  I'm sorry, that's pure bullshit. There are two parts to reverse-engineering a file format. Reverse-engineering the syntax and reverse-engineering the semantics. Well-designed XML allows you to outsource the syntax part of the problem. Depending on the file format that could be most of the problem, a tiny fraction of the problem or close to half of the problem. I know this based on my personal experience but also based on the fact that I am friends with a guy who spends most days reverse engineering file formats and doing conversions for big companies.
4. Re:XML is not a panecea by smallpaul · 2003-01-13 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The second the keynote ended, I got calls from any of the Mac-user clients I've ever had asking me if I could write them tools to connect their various systems to their Keynote presentations. "Ummm, yeah..." is all I can say, though that answer can also apply to "can you make a full scale model of a porcupine out of toothpicks?"
  
  Dude. Take a look at the file format. It is simple. Plus it borrows heavily from SVG (for paths and transforms). SVG is an openly documented standards. (too bad Keynote didn't use SVG rather than borrowing from it!) If you really don't see that that's easier to reverse engineer than the PowerPoint file format then you don't have much experience in reverse engineering.
  
  I mean look at. It has an element called "master-slides." I wonder what that means. It has elements called shadow-style. dash-style. fill. I wonder what those mean? Just use your common sense and you can figure out 90% of it without even stretching your brain.
5. Re:XML is not a panecea by MrAndrews · 2003-01-13 08:13 · Score: 2
  
  Let me modify my previous analogy, then. It's the difference between making a full scale model of a porcupine out of toothpicks WITH and set of instructions (and possibly glue), and making it up yourself.
  
  Now while it's not the end of the world to have to do a bit of creative thinking to make that porcupine from scratch, if you as a company are trying to push the idea of toothpick creatures, you're gonna want to publish a set of instructions. What we've got right now is a product that says "hey, it's easy to make and it uses toothpicks, which everyone can get!", but they're marketing a small piece of the puzzle.
  
  On the flip side, though, I've made great progress deconstructing the files and have got a decently-workable tool for one client already. But it'd be much nicer if something were written out. Thinking is hard work.
  
  --
  The world's only surviving livewriter.
6. Re:XML is not a panecea by smallpaul · 2003-01-13 11:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  On the flip side, though, I've made great progress deconstructing the files and have got a decently-workable tool for one client already. But it'd be much nicer if something were written out. Thinking is hard work.
  
  Of course: documentation is good. The lack of documentation sucks. But your admitted progress refutes the idea that "XML doesn't make any difference." I defy you to make as much progress starting from the PowerPoint binary file format. You say that they're marketing a small piece of the puzzle but I think that it is demonstrably a pretty large part of it and YOU'RE the proof!
7. Re:XML is not a panecea by MrAndrews · 2003-01-13 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  >You say that they're marketing a small piece of the puzzle but I think that it is demonstrably a pretty large part of it and YOU'RE the proof!
  
  Yes, but like I said before, the only people that will make the tools for Keynote at this stage are the really adventurous people or those who can't say no.
  
  I would reverse-engineer a PowerPoint system that does much the same thing, but no one has asked for that (aside from you, but you're not a paying customer, no offence), and I already inflict enough pain on myself.
  
  Keynote using XML does not make it a brilliantly-simple system. It just makes it a brilliantly-easier system. The presence of XML in a product does not automatically make it great. But you're right, it does make a difference. Just not as much as some would like to believe.
  
  --
  The world's only surviving livewriter.
8. Re:XML is not a panecea by gig · 2003-01-14 13:28 · Score: 2
  
  This is what the industry has been waiting for. Somebody built a better PowerPoint, and not only is it miles better even in just production values (slides and images fade in and out, OpenGL transforms automatically, etc), but it has a very open (XML) file format, AND it imports and exports PowerPoint. It is also cheaper and easier to use than PowerPoint, and running Apple software on Mac OS X you can actually EXPECT the app not to crash. Not ever. I say this from experience.
  
  A word processor and spreadsheet are EASY compared to Web browser, presentations, and database software, which Apple already has released (Safari, Keynote, Filemaker). Filemaker is already the desktop database for Mac MS Office users.
  
  You have to actually try this new generation of software from Apple to get what the fuss is about. The interfaces are amazing, and the programs are very, very smart. They do all kinds of stuff for you that you don't notice except that the work comes out better and you enjoy yourself while you're doing it and the stuff is RELIABLE.
Steve Jobs invited others to extend Keynote by MyNameIsFred · 2003-01-11 03:00 · Score: 5, Informative

For those worried about extending Keynote, Steve explicitly invited others to extend Keynote's capabilities. It's why he mentioned the XML format.
As a side note, Apple does sue, but there is a pattern. They don't sue when someone adds modules or other capabilities to their applications. For example, its easy to find new transition effects for iMovie on the web. Apple sues when someone "steals" their designs. For example, trying to replicate the look of Aqua, a trademarked design. Or designing a PC with a case virtually identical to the original iMac. (Particularly when the company states it's intended purpose is to steal iMac sales.)
wow by Anonymous Coward · 2003-01-11 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny

4894 lines in a blank presentation?

That's what I call bloat
1. Re:wow by capmilk · 2003-01-11 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It is PowerPoint-compatible - what did you expect? ;-)
2. Re:wow by laurensv · 2003-01-11 12:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Probably it was just 240 lines before Marketing got it's hands on it ;)
3. Re:wow by jcr · 2003-01-11 12:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  A "blank" presentation in Keynote is still going to have a bunch of master slides in it.
  
  -jcr
  
  --
  The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
4. Re:wow by Llywelyn · 2003-01-12 09:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here is what you aren't getting though:
  
  I'm building a presentation with keynote right now, it has 14 slides, a theme, transitional effects between those slides, lots of information, &c. (Think grad presentation on a topic).
  
  It has 5201 lines.
  
  That isn't a huge increase from the original file size, considering what I added. This would seem to indicate that these files take a lot of setting up, but once set up are really easy to add to.
  
  --
  Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
'strings' easier than disassembly by OldMiner · 2003-01-11 04:43 · Score: 2

Though I realize there's still a bit of work involved, once you decompress an executable (many intelligent people still do to their EXEs what PKLite did in the DOS days -- not sure about Apple), I imagine one could probably find a lot of the key information about an XML file format by simply running the strings on it.

Having had to reverse engineer a couple of bits of data formats by reading the disassembly of the executable, I can easily see how this would be of benefit. But, as someone already stated, this would still be the act of the most dedicated individual. Although idiosyncrasies about how individual settings interact is still certainly the realm of trial and error.

--
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
1. Re:'strings' easier than disassembly by gig · 2003-01-14 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  Your Microsoft-trained brain is looking for complexity where there is none. It really is an XML file. It is not an XML file with a single tag called full of encoded data. Apple's software is not hostile to third-party developers or to geeks or to users. Microsoft's software is by definition hostile to other software and so must also be hostile to the user and to geeks. That's the price you pay for saving $200 on a Gateway vs. an Apple: you get to be Microsoft's little sister and you start to think like Microsoft's little sister.