Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats
RzUpAnmsCwrds writes "According to an MSDN Channel 9 interview with an Office file-format developer, the next version of Microsoft Office (Office 12) will default to newly-developed XML file formats in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. The new formats will apparently include XML files along with other files (images, etc) inside of a Zip file. Microsoft will also be providing extensive documentation of the new format to the public through MSDN. The developer likewise announced that Microsoft would be releasing updates for Office 2000, XP, and 2003 to read and write the new formats when the new version of Office is released. If this interview is correct, it could mean the beginning of the end of Microsoft's proprietary file formats." Coverage at Beta News, Information Week, and the Washington Post.
Would'nt this approach cause MS to loose its lock-in ability based on file format?
Of course this assumes that lock-in was one of their goals with a propietary format
They will use an "open" XML format, but some of the objects embeded in that XML file will be binary (read prorpietary).
AFAIK ZIP was evil because of some patent issues, and that's why gzip was developed. The patent has supposedly expired in the US, but not necessarily in all other countries (same as with GIF). Any info on that?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
...now that they've all but killed off all of the commercial, vendor-supported competition.
And whatever happened to Office Integrated Rights Management, essentially a DRM for Office documents (New Office locks down documents) that (of course) requires a Windows server to administer, and only works with Microsoft Office? You don't think that they're just going to let that go by the wayside, do you?
And what about patents?
Sure, OpenOffice is great, but commercial enterprises will stick with commercial solutions for which there is support. And yes, this could be built for something like OpenOffice (and indeed exists for StarOffice), just as it has been for Red Hat, but I can't see this as anything more than a much belated, empty gesture on Microsoft's part. This sums it up: "Microsoft is doing this as a way to protect its presence on the desktop." Microsoft even dug up Charles Goldfarb, "co-inventor of the concept of markup languages", for its press release to say, "Making XML the default Office file format is, for me, the culmination of a 35-year dream," Charles F. Goldfarb, the inventor of the markup language technology, said in a statement released by Microsoft. Nice touch.
Also, "Microsoft Ends Era Of Closed File Formats" is a little overreaching, don't you think? They're looking for the biggest lock-in of all with the proprietary Windows Media formats. Microsoft wants to be everywhere there is any kind of media, and it's NOT open. Boy, I can't wait to live in a world where Microsoft controls and meters content and has everyone from the end consumer to cable, satellite, and telecom operators, movie and TV production houses, and everyone in between by the balls, which is exactly what will happen if they get their way. (And submission to SMPTE *hardly* means anything. Standards are standards AFTER they've been vetted by standards bodies, have had the patent searches and pools completed, etc., and have been, you know, actually approved. Not when they've been "submitted for consideration". Further, that gesture is nothing more than an attempt to get pinhead PHB-type managers and executives on board with Microsoft when their technical underlings are pulling for open standards like H.264 - then Microsoft can shoot back to the management, Hey, we're just as open as the MPEG family of standards! Look, we even submitted our codec to SMPTE! It's not our fault they take so long to approve things! Do you really want all that H-dot-whatever-gobbledeygook that your oddball IT guys are talking about? After all, that's what *Apple* uses. You don't want an Apple technology, do you? Go with us; you know Microsoft is the right choice for your 18-million-customer cable service! Utter bullshit. And ignores the fact that all of the codec improvements and tools will NOT be open; the SMPTE submission is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put Windows Media everywhere as well by claiming to be "open" when they're anything but.)
I wonder if they'll do the same thing to XML as what FrontPage did to HTML...
Dark Reflection
It's interesting that they're doing this. I've been playing with OOo 2.0 beta lately, both under windows and *nix. I'm an Office user, but a home user, not a power user (I'm not a business dealing in several hundred page docs, I just do my homework). And I basically can't see any particular difference between the two packages. I have Office 2000, and so I'm using it, but I'd probably be perfectly comfortable using only OOo (2.0, I hate 1.1)
Anyway, my point is that MS is making it clear that they're not threatened by competing packages, and I'm not entirely sure why not. OOo could easily replace Office for many (I hesitate to say most) users, and if we switch to totally open formats, they'll be able to interoperate without any difficulties. I'm not trying to say that OOo is in a position to hurt Office...but I'm curious if it might be. MS doesn't seem to think so, and I'm really, really wondering what makes them so nonchalant.
Actually, I've got a feeling they will do the right thing if the document is created in the right way. I've had to look through the Word 2003 XML format (WordML or whatever it is called) in order to automatically produce reports from a bioinformatic application. The thinking was that the scientists want something more interactive than just a PDF, or an HTML file for editing and inclusion in other reports.
I mocked up a template using Word, doing things the "right" way - using Headings and styles instead of just assigning fonts to whatever random bit of text I was working on. Looking through the XML that was generated, it was surprisingly reasonable - and after plugging it into XML Tidy, I could have a good go at understanding the different sections of it. I agree with a comment above, that the code is just a mess of attributes and namespaces - but, it's very possible to write software to generate the current Word XML format. It's also quite well documented somewhere on the internet (don't have the URL handy).
Actually, that's not a bad point. What's to stop Microsoft from implanting things like VBScriptlets that are required for the document to render? That would put a real cramp in the competitors' ability to read the format, regardless of how "Open" it is.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Yes, but that's what they do anyway, claims of purported intent notwithstanding.
Going beyond specific applications and examining the operating system itself, use of Windows violates SOX and HIPAA Storing personal financial or patient data on a Windows machine and connecting it to the network puts you on the wrong side of the law. Common Criteria Certification is fine with Windows itself, but only as long as it is a standalone machine without network.
Finish reading, numnuts.
/ html/odcXMLRefLegalNotice.asp."
Stripped down to its essence, the license says:
Microsoft hereby grants you a royalty-free license under Microsoft's Necessary Claims to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise distribute Licensed Implementations solely for the purpose of reading and writing files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas.
If you distribute, license or sell a Licensed Implementation, this license is conditioned upon you requiring that the following notice be prominently displayed in all copies and derivative works of your source code and in copies of the documentation and licenses associated with your Licensed Implementation:
"This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/odcXMLRef
By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license.
You are not licensed to sublicense or transfer your rights.
Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation.
So basically, the license grants you perpetual rights to read or write 'their' schema so long as you don't sue them for patent infringement, and you do display their blurb in your source and docs. You can't sublicense 'their' schema, but no problem, other can get the same license you got, simply by attaching the blurb.
Looks a lot like the *more* free BSD license!
While VB.Net has its admirers, I think Mono was more a response to the need to interoperate and prevent MS from taking over Net apps development and locking it in to MS languages, more than it was any "admiration".
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
NT4 achieves a C2 rating with a network but only if you install a special C2 hotfix, not just SP6a.
That C2 rating introduces so many constraints that in the real world you're not ever going to implement it.
Similarly Windows 2000 is never going to be C2 compliant if you actually want to use the thing like you, me, and any other Joe Schmoe is going to want to use it. Want to have the network neighborhood work? Bzzzt, sorry, not C2 compliant.
That "hotfix" isn't a patch, it's effectively a bunch of registry keys and modified files that strip away functionality that can't be used in a C2 environment without violating C2.
Windows NT4 is as C2 networking compliant as Netware 4. Implement a whole ton of crap that nobody in their right mind is going to implement, then claim it's C2 compliant. The difference with Netware was you ended up needing 5 times the hardware to accomplish the same things, but you didn't lose a whole lot of functionality. NT4, on the other hand, didn't need faster hardware, you just lost so much functionality that nobody implemented C2 unless it was on a government contract.
But hey fanboy, yes, NT4 was C2 compliant, eventually, on a network. So you are correct. It's just too bad that you don't bother explaining the rest of the picture, assuming you knew it in the first place (but in all fairness, fanboys who get all their information from press releases rarely know many relevant details).
It's a shame Microsoft won't be using the recently-standardized OpenDocument format, which would mean exisiting products could read it. It also saves the XML file and all included data files (images, etc) within a ZIP file.
(Disclaimer: They might be using it, but TFA doesn't mention it and it wouldn't fit with their MO.)