XML Support In Office 2003 Isn't For Everyone

0x0d0a writes "Unfortunately, it seems that Microsoft's recent campaign to promote Office 2003 based on its XML support may be a bit misleading. Only the Enterprise and Professional releases will have this support -- not Standard. Microsoft will still be leveraging file format compatibility for at least another Office release."

Comments

Chant the mantra, brethren

[numbski]

"But analysts contend that WordML's compliance with industry standards is a misnomer. Because the schema isn't fully documented, people who want to edit files created in Office 2003 will only be able to do that with Office itself, as before. Text in Office 2003 files stored in XML format might be viewable in other desktop programs, but all document formatting would be lost and most other files would be unreadable."

Love thy neighbor. Embrace and extend my brothers.

Amen.

Re:Chant the mantra, brethren

[JebusIsLord]

Actually, this is entirely the point of XML. XML is not Yet Another Word Processor Format. It's intended to store "content" as opposed to "presentation", leaving "presentation" up to the app, much as was the original intent of HTML. Rather than an evil Microsoft plot, they are in fact conforming to the spec when they produce such a file.

Bullshit, XML is designed to describe absolutely anything and everything.

Sure, in the case of XHTML there is a desire to eliminate presentation aspects through the use of XSL for instance, but even XSL (a stylesheet, content language) is XML.

There is no reason why a custom Word XML format can't contain both. XML does not restrict you like that.

importing

[Snuffub]

But doesnt this mean that the standard will at least be able to import the office XML files? Otherwise who would use it? and if that's the case it means that at the very least the standard edition would be able to import files flawlessly from any office app that supports the format.

Microsoft Business Model

[stj]

I just wonder what kind of model exactly they have with this? If someone wants portability, they would prefer being able to import/export data to as many users as possible. So, let's look at the big picture: your company buys pro edition, you get PC at home and get home edition. In short, you're grounded at work... So, either you buy pro for home (which will be yet another license in addition to your OEM home version) or you end up doing acrobatic conversions five times a day. I'm really hoping to see some OSS office package working nicely some day.
On a side, Microsoft's idea about using XML wasn't great as yet, either. Sure you can see the stuff on the web as it looks in the MSWord's window, but the good point would be to be able to read those documents with tables and pictures as XML objects. I'm guessing that's exactly what MS would like to avoid in the first place. As with any language like that, it can be used better or worse. As yet, it's worse and doesn't seem to get better.
As I read their Office 2003 Overview, it doesn't seem like it's gonna actually save anything in XML. You can link to XML, you can import XML, but it doesn't say anywhere that you can write to XML. Am I right, or did they miss it in the ad?

Re:XML just a feature, not a change in file format

[stj]

Well, if you look at MS Office format, MS has been amazingly consistent in keeping it for 6 years now. Ah, those format and version number wars between MS Word and WordPerfect. Anybody again? OpenOffice?

Has anyone actually seen MSXML?

[overshoot]

I ask because of persistent rumors that "MSXML" is effectively an XML wrapper around a binary blob that only MSOffice components can read.

Before someone corks off that that wouldn't be legal XML, please note that XML can carry encrypted content. As an existence proof, please note that MS could encrypt parts of the file such that decryption requires an MS key. The result would be perfectly legal XML, and perfectly useless without the MS key.

Re:Rubbish!

[MrWa]

That makes more sense.

From a layman's perspective it appears that the biggest problem is that people just don't understand XML and what it is used for (I admit that I don't.) So, while a document may be XML-compliant, from what have seen, it isn't necessarily readable by any other program.

If the data it not readable by any other program then, yes, that is pretty useless as far as data lifetime is concerned. Does this data, though, differentiate from content and presentation? Is it important to know exactly how the data is to be presented or important only to have the content?

From a *user* viewpoint I would have to say that, if someone else can not view the data exactly as I want them to, then it is useless. This doesn't mean that the other person has to look at the content this way, just that it should be possible. If the XML document can specify this - the content, the fonts, the headings, the layout, etc. - and this data can interpreted by other programs then, yes, that would be useful. Just getting the content is not that useful (you can open a Word document in a text editor and pull out the content; oddly enough, saving a document in OpenOffice.org format can't be read in a text editor...hhmmm)

Re:I'm cringing again: XML != anyone can read it

[jkarlin]

Excellent points. I'm using the Beta of Office 2003 Pro and I just saved 'Hello World' as an Office XML file. Thought it would be nice to actually see what we're talking about.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<?mso-application progid="Word.Document"?>
<w:wordDocument xmlns:w="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/ 2003/2/wordml" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:SL="http://schemas.microsoft.com/schemaLibra ry/2003/2/core" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/c ore" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word /2003/2/auxHint" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C1488 2" xml:space="preserve"><o:DocumentProperties><o:Titl e>Hello World</o:Title><o:Author>Jason Karlin</o:Author><o:LastAuthor>Jason Karlin</o:LastAuthor><o:Revision>1</o:Revision><o: TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime><o:Created>2003-04-13T23: 29:00Z</o:Created><o:LastSaved>2003-04-13T23:29:00 Z</o:LastSaved><o:Pages>1</o:Pages><o:Words>1</o:W ords><o:Characters>11</o:Characters><o:Lines>1</o: Lines><o:Paragraphs>1</o:Paragraphs><o:CharactersW ithSpaces>11</o:CharactersWithSpaces><o:Version>11 .4920</o:Version></o:DocumentProperties><w:fonts>< w:defaultFonts w:ascii="Times New Roman" w:fareast="Times New Roman" w:h-ansi="Times New Roman" w:cs="Times New Roman"/><w:font w:name="Tahoma"><w:panose-1 w:val="020B0604030504040204"/><w:charset w:val="00"/><w:family w:val="Swiss"/><w:pitch w:val="variable"/><w:sig w:usb-0="21007A87" w:usb-1="80000000" w:usb-2="00000008" w:usb-3="00000000" w:csb-0="000101FF" w:csb-1="00000000"/></w:font></w:fonts><w:styles>< w:versionOfBuiltInStylenames w:val="3"/><w:latentStyles w:defLockedState="off" w:latentStyleCount="156"/><w:style w:type="paragraph" w:default="on" w:styleId="Normal"><w:name w:val="Normal"/><w:rPr><wx:font wx:val="Times New Roman"/><w:sz w:val="24"/><w:sz-cs w:val="24"/><w:lang w:val="EN-US" w:fareast="EN-US" w:bidi="AR-SA"/></w:rPr></w:style><w:styl e w:type="character" w:default="on" w:styleId="DefaultParagraphFont"><w:name w:val="Default Paragraph Font"/><w:semiHidden/></w:style><w:sty le w:type="table" w:default="on" w:styleId="TableNormal"><w:name w:val="Normal Table"/><wx:uiName wx:val="Table Normal"/><w:semiHidden/><w:rPr><wx:fon t wx:val="Times New Roman"/></w:rPr><w:tblPr><w:tblI nd w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:tblCellMar><w:top w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:left w:w="108" w:type="dxa"/><w:bottom w:w="0" w:type="dxa"/><w:right w:w="108" w:type="dxa"/></w:tblCellMar></w:tblPr></w:style>< w:style w:type="list" w:default="on" w:styleId="NoList"><w:name w:val="No List"/><w:semiHidden/></w:style><w:sty le w:type="paragraph" w:styleId="BalloonText"><w:name w:val="Balloon Text"/><w:basedOn w:val="Normal"/><w:semiHidden/><w:rsid w:val="4E5A63"/><w:pPr><w:pStyle w:val="BalloonText"/></w:pPr><w:rPr><w:rFont s w:ascii="Tahoma" w:h-ansi="Tahoma" w:cs="Tahoma"/><wx:font wx:val="Tahoma"/><w:sz w:val="16"/><w:sz-cs w:val="16"/></w:rPr></w:style></w:styles><w:docPr> <w:view w:val="print"/><w:zoom w:percent="100"/><w:doNotEm

Maybe next year...

[b3h]

This is what happens when you have complete market control. Why innovate when you can duplicate and still rake in hundreds of dollars per copy of the same suite you released last year?
OpenOffice, the world needs you!

Re:I'm cringing again: XML != anyone can read it

[Fabio Dias]

...<w:validateAgainstSchema/><w: saveInvalidXM L w:val="off"/><w:ignoreMixedContent w:val="off"/>...

Hmmm... I wonder what will happen when MS Office 2003 goes gold.

Do YOU agree?

[Chordonblue]

Yes, I'm very familiar with the converters, but my ultimate point here is this: Why go through this crap when you don't have to? Standardizing on an open format eliminates the need for a converter AND it solves the international issues.

Look, we're a secondary school. Some of the younger students are completely clueless about this stuff and get frustrated easily. Can they be taught? Sure. Will they retain it? Dunno. Most of the students here aren't Slashdot readers. Most just want to do their assignments and move on. More often than not, staff resources get stretched even further to deal with issues like this.

Hey, it's too bad those conversion programs won't actually convert their documents to something more useful (as in open), eh? Can you say, 'Lock-in'?" And now we hear the the much-vaunted XML format will be for those 'preferred' customers only? Color me shocked. Yeah, the companies that get XML ability are those MS are terrified to lose contracts with to software like StarOffice. I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.

Just because some of you out there are willing to be led around by MS and their licensing tactics doesn't mean we have to be. We studied our needs and made the appropriate decision. EVERY organization should be considering open source when appropriate to do so. To do otherwise makes you a 'good little' Microserf. You do a disservice to your company/org/edu, when you take the easy way out and simply sign on the dotted line everytime MS has a new license 'agreement' to bend you over with. Unless you're some huge corporation which demands things like XML, there's no 'agreement' other than you 'agree' to be their bitch. No two ways about it. How much control does your org want over the software they use and how they use it? Shouldn't that be as much of a factor as 'Ooooohh.. Office 2003. NEW TEMPLATES!'

And just for the record, three years ago I was a trainer on MS networking product. I've worked with MS and Citrix for years before that. I'm more than familiar with the advantages of using MS in an enterprise (we're certainly not all Linux at my .org!) but I'm no longer in a corporate situation. .Org's rely on donations to stay alive. Looking for alternatives is something I do all the time. My interest in Linux happened because it offers an alternative - something I'm not frightened to explore. I'm not a zealot as your 'good little' comment suggests, but I'm certainly open to what does the job with the least amount of hassle / cost.

Re:Plaintext

[trouser]

I've just created a new doc using Word on a Mac running OSX.

I typed "Hello." and saved. Six chars. Assuming unicode encoding that'd be 12 bytes. Plus a header and some style information to specify the font, colour, size, etc. Maybe 100 bytes total.

So why is the file 24kb ? You think XML is inefficient. Have a look at Microsoft's proprietary formats.

Not that I'm saying XML is good. XML is stupid. I was just saying Microsoft suck rocks. Big fat hairy rocks.

OO output

[IamTheRealMike]

For comparison, here is the equivalent (empty) document in OpenOffice.

content.xml:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-content PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd">
<office:document-content xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:style="http://openoffice.org/2000/style" xmlns:text="http://openoffice.org/2000/text" xmlns:table="http://openoffice.org/2000/table" xmlns:draw="http://openoffice.org/2000/drawing" xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:number="http://openoffice.org/2000/datastyle " xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:chart="http://openoffice.org/2000/chart" xmlns:dr3d="http://openoffice.org/2000/dr3d" xmlns:math="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:form="http://openoffice.org/2000/form" xmlns:script="http://openoffice.org/2000/script" office:class="text" office:version="1.0">
<office:script/>
<office:font-decls>
<style:font-decl style:name="Arial Unicode MS" fo:font-family="'Arial Unicode MS'" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
<style:font-decl style:name="HG Mincho Light J" fo:font-family="'HG Mincho Light J'" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
<style:font-decl style:name="Nimbus Roman No9 L" fo:font-family="'Nimbus Roman No9 L'" style:font-family-generic="roman" style:font-pitch="variable"/>
</office:font-decls>
<office:automatic-styles/>
<office:body>
<text:sequence-decls>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Illustration"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Table"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Text"/>
<text:sequence-decl text:display-outline-level="0" text:name="Drawing"/>
</text:sequence-decls>
<text:p text:style-name="Standard"/>
</office:body>
</office:document-content>

meta.xml:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE office:document-meta PUBLIC "-//OpenOffice.org//DTD OfficeDocument 1.0//EN" "office.dtd"><office:document-meta xmlns:office="http://openoffice.org/2000/office" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:meta="http://openoffice.org/2000/meta" office:version="1.0"><office:meta><meta:generator> OpenOffice.org 1.0.1 (Linux)</meta:generator><!--SRC641_[7663]_LINUX_IN TEL__stripples.devel.redhat.com_at_9/10/02_8:50:05 --><meta:creation-date>2003-04-14T09:09:00</meta:c reation-date><dc:language>en-GB</dc:language><meta :editing-cycles>1</meta:editing-cycles><meta:editi ng-duration>PT0S</meta:editing-duration><meta:user -defined meta:name="Info 1"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 2"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 3"/><meta:user-defined meta:name="Info 4"/><meta:document-statistic meta:table-count="0" meta:image-count="0" meta:object-count="0" meta:page-count="1" meta:paragraph-count="1" meta:word-count="0" meta:character-count="0"/></office:meta></office:d ocument-meta>

That is only 2 out of the 4 or 5 files openoffice saves. Oh, and for all those who made sucky Base64 jokes about MS WordML, take a look at this:

<config:config-item config:name="PrinterSetup" config:type="base64Binary">ugL+/0dlbmVyaWMgUHJpbnR lcgAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAU0 dFTlBSVAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAMAAAIAAAAA