Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office Formats Not Really Being Opened
Contradicting this earlier article claiming otherwise, smith_barney writes "Contrary to reports, Microsoft is not opening up its proprietary Office XML schemas. Essentially, the state of Massachusetts is simply repositioning what it considers an 'open format.' According to a report in BetaNews, Microsoft told the state it would ease licensing restrictions, but only for 'end users who merely open and read government documents.' This hasn't stopped Microsoft from tooting its horn, but Jupiter Research senior analyst Joe Wilcox says, 'Buzz about so-called open formats is little more than PR FUD.'"
Bush not really a Muslim.
Babies not really delivered by storks.
Bears do not actually have modern sanitation.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Looks like an 'open and shut' case to me...
Almost everyone uses Microsoft Office as opposed to the various flavors of OpenOffice, StarOffice, etc. Not speaking of its fairness, this is a very effective strategy from Microsoft and not at all surprising.
It's a blatant abuse of their virtual monopoly, but there hasn't really been an effective incentive for them to stop taking such actions in the past. Why would they refrain from continuing such behavior?
I'm a big tall mofo.
"open" is a four letter word, and to Mr. Gates, it is an obscene four letter word.
www.eFax.com are spammers
If this is their understanding of an open format, then what would a closed format be in Microsoft's book? A write-only one?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
"..it is our expectation that the next iteration of the Open Format standard will include some Microsoft proprietary formats."
**TILT**
I guess Proprietary is Open and War is Peace?
Let us all hope that Massachusetts doesn't accept Microsoft's formats if they aren't completely open when it undertakes its review of the decision. If Microsoft are seen to have open office formats in the eye of the public when they are not really open, it can only be a bad thing for OpenDocument and other truly open efforts.
Everyone who lives in MA, go and write to your appropriate representative now!
One good turn - gets all the covers.
Could we all endeavor to remember that "FUD" is an acronym for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" and not simply a synonym for "lying". There is little of the usual Microsoft "end of the world" blather here; it's just deceptive marketing.
In other words, business as usual.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
<office>??????????????</office>
</xml>
The MS Office open XML file format consists of an XML branch, followed by an Office branch.
Unfortunately, due to the complexities of parsing this branch, it should be passed directly as a parameter into our improved Office ActiveX object.
We are currently developing an addin for firefox as well.
Thank you for looking at this documentation, that will be all.
liqbase
The last version of Microsoft Word I used was in Office 2000. I got tired of it because it is so quirky with layout.
Open Office is a bit quirky, too, and they are different quirks. Many times people forget the many, many hours they spent learning to avoid the Office 2000 quirks. They want Open Office to be perfect, and they have forgotten how imperfect Microsoft Word is.
If you test Open Office, be sure you test the latest version, 1.1.4. Version 2.0 will be available in April or May of this year.
It's understandable that people who have invested hours in learning Microsoft Word don't want to invest hours again. They just want to get the job done. On the other hand, it would be crazy for the Open Office developers to implement the hundreds of ways Microsoft Office is quirky.
Generally, when you send documents outside your company, you should send PDF files. That guards against accidental changes. To do this in Open Office, just click the PDF icon in the toolbar. To do this in Microsoft Word, install an extra-cost package.
Essentially, the state of Massachusetts is simply repositioning what it considers an 'open format.'
How does Bill Gates screw in a lightbulb?
He doesn't. He declares darkness the industry standard.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
It's clear that too many important people have had their heads up their arses for too long.
..... Mandate open data formats first, then guarantees of performance, then source code escrow to back up the performance guarantees and protect against vendor , then slowly tighten the screws on the escrow agencies and software companies till it's no longer economically viable to sell closed-source software.}
We need to have it made law that file formats are not secrets and not patentable, but form as much a part of the specification for interacting with the software as, say, the key bindings. {I personally would like to see it become law that software vendors must supply full annotated source code with their products, but let's take it one step at a time
It wouldn't surprise me if some software vendor had tried at some stage seriously to claim in an EULA that all the rights in any document created with their software belonged to them. I know that it used to be a breach of EULA to use a certain software company's programming languages to develop applications that competed directly with that company's offerings.
The good news is that EULAs aren't legally enforceable in any sane jurisdiction anyway, so you can go ahead and exercise your inalienable statutory right to reverse-engineer documents -- for the purposes of study, creation of interoperable software or just morbid curiosity -- to your heart's content. In fact, you can even refuse to accept the EULA at all. You can still quite legally use the software under your inalienable statutory right of Fair Dealing -- you just don't get any benefits that were only promised to you in the EULA.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
We probably were all wishing for the same, but that said, "opening" the format is probably harder than it sounds.
My understanding of the Office document formats -- which comes entirely from reading rants by OO.org and other projects to write office suites so take it with a big grain of salt -- is that the format itself is made up of serializations of stuff like activex control states. In other words, non-trivial.
I don't know if you or anybody here ever wrote a BeOS "replicant", but it was sort of like ActiveX in that they were serializable classes which could be instantiated by any program, by dlopening the replicant's source executable and running the exported code with the serialized state as initialization parameters. It was really cool -- an app could send a replicant to another app and whammo, you had stuff like a web-browser embedded on the desktop running in the desktop process, or a tray-item using your app's code, but running in the deskbar's process.
Anyway, given that Office uses this kind of approach, it would be near 100% *impossible* to get the state out without the source activex component. Unless the state itself is described in a 100% abstract manner. Which I doubt. The data is almost certainly just a serialization of the internal state of the activex control which created/modified/rendered it.
Now, I know that this kind of stuff only applies to Office when Word or Excel is embedding charts or whatnot from other parts of the office suite, but the fact is this is a useful ( and good ) way to get interoperability, even if it means that it's completely non-portable. Given MS's history, I doubt they've taken a simple approach.
I'm sure there could be better ways, and I imagine OO.org is taking a maximum-interoperability approach...
Anyway, I'm just saying. I don't think MS *could* open the format -- at least not as regards document embedding.
Rant over.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
From NPR...
y Id=4471963
"Morning Edition, January 31, 2005 The government of Brazil says it will switch 300,000 government computers from Microsoft's Windows operating system to open source software like Linux. Microsoft founder Bill Gates wants to meet with Brazil's president to discuss the change. Brazil is dropping all proprietary software."
Listen here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
The Brazilians are just saying no!