Office + OpenDocument, Never Say Never

barryfreed writes "There's a blog entry by Andy Updegrove at ConsortiumInfo.org that says Microsoft has officially stated to him that support of OpenDocument in MS Office could happen. Microsoft sent the statement in a response to an article Updegrove wrote called Massachusetts and OpenDocument: A Brave New World?"

Comments

Never happen

[SamSeaborn]

Microsoft will never fully support an open document format. Office is Microsoft's biggest cash cow, and Office's long term success depends on their ownership of the proprietory Office document formats.

Never happen. Ever.

Sam

Re:Never happen

[eln]

Most likely, Office will support OpenDocument format, both reading and writing, but will continue to aggressively develop new features for their own proprietary format that OpenDocument does not provide. In other words, they'll deal with it much like OpenOffice deals with Word format: They will read it (and write it), but not necessarily perfectly, and it won't be their preferred format.

Microsoft has to know by now that basic word processing functionality is far too common and easy to copy to make it a cornerstone of your product line. Word itself is an important part of Office, but most of the "innovation" in Office in recent years has not been in the Word component, but rather in the other pieces, and more importantly in how the different pieces interoperate.

Re:Never happen

[samjam]

Yet, Microsoft must change; this old stance has not been working.

We expect the change; and there has been change.

First, the MS true type core fonts (that some think they later regretted)
the the WTL (template library) on source forge and their command line tools.
There may be something else.

MS are finding a new strategy that ensures financial success; Bill Gates is a businessman first.

This may be the next change coming up; finding that locked in=>locked out; and freedom=friends.

Sure MS office is good, but if its that good, why are they trying to MAKE you use it.

I understand your point but I think they will change and are changing.

Re:Never happen

[giorgiofr]

Its success also depends on 1. how good it is in terms of functionality and performance, 2. how easy to deploy and administer it is, 3. how easy to script/automate it is, 4. how good the marketing for it is. So, even when they give up the fight for forceful vendor-lock in, they can still fight on... here it comes... quality! The same thing that everybody else fights on.
Note to the zealots: you win a cookie if you manage to find a way for my post to somehow imply that the quality of MS Office is superior to that of its alternatives.

Re:Never happen

[Iriel]

I think Microsoft could actually take OpenDocument support in one of two directions:

1. Basically, how you put it. They would only support it enough so that it would be that extra bullet point at the bottom of the feature list "(blah blah, marketing drivel)...now with OpenDocument support!"

2. (Please don't correct me with a torch, I'm not an expert on this topic) but I don't doubt that MS would find some tiny loophole to sneak their own proprietary crap into OpenDocument formatted Office files which would have an adverse effect upon openning in any non-office program. I just wouldn't be surprised when I've seen two identical machines with identical software on the same network transfer a Word file from one computer to come out garbled on the other end.

Re:Never happen

[jiushao]

Yet, Microsoft must change; this old stance has not been working.

Yeah, it is amazing how badly Microsoft Office is doing these days, they'd better start supporting the OpenOffice format so that they can get a chance at being mainstream too.

Re:Never happen

[txviking]

Sure it will happen. Otherwise they might not be able to sell their software to i.e. public services in the UK. The UK government requires that all data that is stored by software must be stored in an open format such that even in hundred years when the software does not exist anymore, the datafile can still be read.

Re:Never happen

[Solder Fumes]

What additional features, exactly?

Animated text? Inline URLs? Inserted images? Revision tracking?

I think they've pretty much hit the limit for "innovation" in a document format. All they can do now is change the format periodically to break compatibility with competing office suites.

Re:Never happen

[symbolic]

Microsoft can stammer about all it wants with respect to OpenDocument, but what's interesting is that new features WON'T MATTER, if they can't be translated from/to the open format. One thing I think Bill & Co. tend to forget, which is something that Massachusetts insightfully realized, is that a government record should be no LESS open than the openness provided by traditional media - typically paper. Once you start using proprietary formats, you've closed pretty much imposed restricted access.

Re:Never happen

[saider]

2. (Please don't correct me with a torch, I'm not an expert on this topic) but I don't doubt that MS would find some tiny loophole to sneak their own proprietary crap into OpenDocument formatted Office files which would have an adverse effect upon openning in any non-office program.

All they have to do is put the little balloon that says that "saving to OpenDocument may cause loss of formatting", which will cause 95% of the people out there to save to the proprietary file type.

Re:Never happen

[lokedhs]

Embedded (virus) scripts

Re:Never happen

[ltbarcly]

Microsoft will fully support OpenDocument. That is to say, it will open them and save them. The formatting will be completely messed up. Graphics and logos will mysteriously disapear or end up on the wrong side of page breaks. Tables will get eaten and the text will end up outside the table, and the table will follow, empty.

Microsoft will support OpenDocument to the extent that they have to to get whatever wonk working for the government to rubber stamp the official document certifying that it is supported. Expect it to be unusable for any document that has any sort of formatting at all beyond flat text.

In the end they will both support it and try to ruin it as a standard which permits cross platform collaboration of any kind, see Java.

Microsoft knows that the SECOND that you don't HAVE to use windows in an office environment, the migration will start. First a few offices will switch. Then a few more. Then things will settle down for awhile, a few major corporations will go "all X" where X!=Windows (linux or OS X or flavor-of-month) to save money. This will signal to the market that there is actually a demand for NON-MS office software, and people are willing to pay money for it. Next the market will be flooded with 10,000 software products, open-office ad-ons, etc, 99% will be crap. A few major competitors will emerge, with products which are competitive with MS's and which are cross-platform. About a year later MS will start supporting other OS's by creating a toolkit to port MS Windows software. This will be a ploy, as the much hyped toolkit will be intentionally impossible to use in the end to produce usable software. Many companies will waste a lot of time and resources attempting to port their windows code using MS's toolkit and API. The strategy by MS will be to delay as much software as possible from being ported for at least one development cycle, hoping to starve their competitors while they maneuver their Next Big Thing (TM) into position. In the end Microsoft would like to cause any company that switched huge costs when they can no longer get support (the stick), meanwhile reaching out to them to switch back with initial price cuts (the carrot). (see also "The Economic Theory of Crack Dealing")

Re:Never happen

[Urusai]

I imagine Microsoft support would be something like:

<?xml>
<opendoc>
  <proprietary vendor="ms">
    <blob>insert .doc here</blob>
  </proprietary>
</opendoc>

Yeah, I know little about XML and nothing about open document formats, but you get the picture.

Re:Never happen

[jackDuhRipper]

Sure MS office is good, but if its that good, why are they trying to MAKE you use it.

... because if there are other ~office apps that do 80% as well for 80% of the populace for 20% of the costs (and there are), the cash cow becomes skirt steak.

This will more than likely become another (quarter-heartedly) Embrace and Extend instance.

S

Re:Never happen

[penix1]

"3. how easy to script/automate it is"

This is what got them into trouble in the first place. Is there really anyone other than script kiddies who write macroviruses that use this "feature"? Give me a break. Hell, in one of their Office updates the default is OFF for macros...

B.

Re:Never happen

[slackmaster2000]

MS Office isn't slipping at all. Maybe a little bit here and a little bit there, but it's still the big dog by a long shot.

The reason they try to "make" you use it is not because it sucks (although that could be argued), it's because it costs over $400 a license and new, virtually featureless versions come out every two years or less. It's a major cash cow and they're going to milk it for all its worth.

Personally I don't feel that any "standard" software package should cost half of what you paid for your computer. Software just goes obsolete too quickly. I often wonder what would happen if some of the big application packages were priced so that individuals could easily buy them (e.g. sub $100). Certainly they would sell considerably more units at first, but would it make up the difference? This is why I'm not a businessman.

Re:Never happen

[Fareq]

you assert two things:

1: there are "good enough" alternatives
2: the existence of "good enough" alternatives destroys MS Office

I assert: MS Office is still the king of the hill. Unless you want to say that something like OpenOffice has even noticeable market-share, at least one of your premises are wrong.

MS Office has been making a bit less money than usual lately. Not because of competitors, but because fewer people see the need to upgrade to the newer version every 2 years.

Now, on the Mac side, yes, MS is losing marketshare... but not to OpenOffice...

Re:Never happen

[giorgiofr]

Are you implying that scripting/automating is bad? Last time I checked lots of good stuff could be done via scripts. Anyway, yes, there are lots of people other than script kiddies who write macros. You've probably used a macro-ed spreadsheet yourself, sooner or later, and ask anyone who works a lot with Word whether they automate any of their actions. I, for one, certainly do. It makes sense to do it in Photoshop, in Word, in CAD, in OO Writer and in lots of other programs. MOST server administration is done via scripts. Scripts take up your Linux box. And they take it down, too.

Re:Never happen

[budgenator]

most people who use Word, could easily replace it with wordpad. Personaly for most of what I do the MySQL-Perl-LaTeX chain works much better than any integrated office application.

Re:Never happen

[nine-times]

It doesn't need to be anything that should be in the format. They could have some feature in Word that only works if you're dealing with a Word .doc document. Of course, I can't think of any new features since Office 97 that I use anyway. If it let's me type, do some formatting, spell-check, and print, I'm good.

But, you know, they could claim that there's some obscure language setting embedded in the document, and without that, new versions of Word won't do spell-checking or word count, and fonts will randomly switch to other fonts. Like I said, it doesn't have to make any sense. They just have to do it, and absorb any lawsuit settlements as "cost of doing business".

Re:Never happen

[jimicus]

Next the market will be flooded with 10,000 software products, open-office ad-ons, etc, 99% will be crap. A few major competitors will emerge, with products which are competitive with MS's

Sounds rather like the computer world circa 1987-1992.

Re:Never happen

[SoSueMe]

They already do have "features" specific to their format.

Read "Microsoft's Approach to Disclosures of XML File Formats for Word 2003 and Excel 2003" available here (pdf warning) or you can view the Google "CCIA-XML" html version.

Re:Never happen

[Forge]

It doesn't have to be any "feature" or additional formatting option.

Office documents, even in XML derivatives are produced in a mostly WYSIWYG interface by people who dread interacting with the PC.

All MS has to do is "misread" the standard. So that when you select 8 point, bold and italic for a line of text it inserts a different set of formatting information to produce that result on MS products than is used on "standard" products.

The end result will be that MSOffice documents look strange in KOffice and vise versa.

People will complain bitterly about them not actually implementing the standard and they will respond by claiming 99.5% compliance etc...

It will go on for years and get nasty. maybe even in court.

Re:Never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have to do is put the little balloon that says that "saving to OpenDocument may cause loss of formatting", which will cause 95% of the people out there to save to the proprietary file type.

Just like OpenOffice. There MS goes, nicking features from others.
That dialog is really annoying, it really should have a "don't show this dialog again" checkbox.

Re:Never happen

[penix1]

In MS Office, yes I am implying that scripting is bad. Even Microsoft is implying that with the default being set to OFF now. As for using a spreadsheet with macros in it I can safaly say I have never used one with them. This goes for any of the Office crap. Why? Because I have it turned off and won't allow any to run.

Is all scripting bad? I never said it was. Scripting that you have no clue it is running is bad and that is what happens in Office scripting.

B.

bait and switch tactic

[dwgranth]

Come on... this is ridiculous, MS would never support something that destroys lockin. If "maybe someday" constitutes a promise in anyone's mind... they should be shot.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[mspohr]

If enough large groups such as Massachusetts, other cities and states, and corporations demand OpenDoc format, they will include it.

That said, they are likely to make it difficult to use and screw up the rendering and printing to make it less desirable than their proprietary formats.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Spy der Mann]

Come on... this is ridiculous, MS would never support something that destroys lockin.

Unless the lack of that feature would lock THEM out (this reminds me of the scooby-doo scene where Scooby and Shaggy lock the door to keep the monster out, but the monster was already behind them).

In other words: If Massachussets decides not to use Microsoft products, other states would follow. Microsoft CANNOT afford that, they could lose their entire govt market. So they have to adopt the OpenDocument format, and face the competition.

Now the stability, experience and ease-of-use of their software is what they'll begin promoting to stay ahead the competition.

From my point of view, Microsoft was cornered into giving up the crown. They tried to delay the unavoidable, but there's nothing they can do about it. We already won! :D

Re:bait and switch tactic

[jacksonj04]

Unless (And here's a new one) MS Office can prove to be a more useful application without reverting to proprietary document features. Integration with SharePoint/Outlook/Exchange, if done well whilst following OpenDoc format for the actual file saving, is still a big bonus which OSS can't come close to at the moment.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[uberfrank]

Personally, I think it's highly probable, economically speaking at least. MS Office is a mature product, all the major production cost have been sunk long ago. That means MS could charge 50$ for its office suite and still make 50:1 profit on the cost of producing the physical media. Also, the major "lock in" to Office is not the .doc format, it's the 10 bazillion users who don't know anything but Office and won't be bothered to try something else. For these type of users, it's also more profitable to let them keep using MS Office than to have them switch over to save a few lousy bucks. Word also had support for WordPerfect documents for years and it didn't seem to keep Microsoft from eating their lunch.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[diegocgteleline.es]

Wrong, Office new document format is OPEN. OPEN . Microsoft CAN'T "lock-in" nobody with their new document. They've opened it, anyone can write a office suite supporting them cleanly

So, if Office supports a open document format (new office format) why on earth wouldn't they add support to ANOTHER open format like opendocument? Why wouldn't they, in fact, add support for PDF (as they've say they will do)? They're all open, microsoft is trying to "lock-in" customer with other things, the time for closed formats has gone.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[penix1]

"Word also had support for WordPerfect documents for years and it didn't seem to keep Microsoft from eating their lunch."

And that is because like OpenDocument, support for != Default. I suspect that they will support it but prevent you from using it as the default. People are lazy when they make documents and as long as they can open them the rest be damned. So unless the default is mandated as OpenDocument expect it to die a silent death.
B.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[at_slashdot]

...and of course Microsoft will introduce different "features" in OpenDocument format that will end up breaking "slightly" the compatibility like they did with Internet Explorer and the web.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[giorgiofr]

Yes. I think we should regulate and mandate the user's behaviour in the name of the Greater Good (tm). Why even bother him with choices? Let's only give him *one* format. The ONE TRUE FORMAT that shall reign over all other... And of course you will be the one to choose it, right? Nice to meet you, Mr. Sauron.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[TuringTest]

But there's nothing ethically wrong in that. Integration within MS Office products does NOT prevent you from transferring the content to an aplication from a different vendor, if that is required. So if Office comes to be a better product that's not a bad thing.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Directrix1]

No more likely than not, they will declare an extra XML namespace to define their own embraced and extended version.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[peragrin]

Do remember some 30-50% of businesses out there find that Office 97 has all the features that they need. I have a copy of Office 2000 at home that goes uninstalled as I never used it. Open Office as provided me with everything I need as a home owner, and everything the business work for needs.

Why should I spend $400 On software that I don't need when less expensive alternatives work just as well?

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Tinidril]

I fear I'm feeding a troll, but there is an important point to be made here. It's not OpenDocument that first demanded "ONE TRUE FORMAT" for office documents, it was the consumer. Consumer's have demanded, justifiably, that they can read documents written by others, and that other can read documents that they create. The ephemeral "Microsoft Lock-in" exists because consumers want a single format; and for whatever reason they handed Microsoft the role to dictate it.

If there is going to be interoperability in office documents, someone is going to have to bless a standard. I would rather that standard come from a consortium of interested companies and individuals then from a single corperation with a clear conflict of interest.

Microsoft has a long history of forcing upgrades by breaking formats from one version of their software to another. Microsoft has the only Office suite that is not cabable of properly using old Microsoft formats. They have the resources to do it if they wished, but long term data retention is not a Microsoft priority.

The question isn't whether we want "ONE TRUE FORMAT". I think it is clear we do. The question is whether we want "ONE TRUE OFFICE SUITE". I'll never understand why some people claim to believe that Microsoft offers a freedom that open standards threaten to take away.

In the early days of the Internet, Microsoft resisted because they prefered the early vision of AOL where the owner of the network could charge a fee for every page that was hosted. One company could be the gatekeeper for all the content in the network. For those that recall, that was the early dream of MSN. It was only when the Internet became clearly inevitable that Microsoft began to support TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP, and all the other standards that make the Internet as free a place as it is. Now, with any luck the same thing can begin to happen with office documents as well.

Thank you Massachusetts and OpenDocument.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Directrix1]

Well, openness can be contested by the fact that they require you to license any software that you make, using their documentation, under their license, and state that the program includes patents from Microsoft, and forces you to provide a link to Microsoft's stance on the patents supposedly perpetually granted on their website. Which they could change at any time. Just reading through those overview documents, the spec provides space for custom XML, OLE objects, and such. Depending on how Microsoft makes their save routine these documents readability completely depends on Microsoft's whim. Have you read the specs yet? See any room for Microsoft to nudge in proprietary/non-portable features? XML is just a serialization method. Openness is based purely on cross-party talks and actual reference implementations, that can't change on a whim. Just my opinnion.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it when I see it, Mr. Pie in the Sky.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny story...went to a yardsale the other day, and found a bin full of CDs. Pristine OEM CDs of Office 97, 2000, and XP sitting out in the sun for a quarter each. Apparently the brand-new $25 "PC" from Wal-Mart could only handle Office 95.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Azarael]

Maybe, but just look at the Java fiasco. I don't know if anyone here would actually trust M$ to properly implement the spec. Before you know it they would be adding their own incompatible extensions, and I don't know if there is any way to stop them from doing so.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[yeremein]

Come on... this is ridiculous, MS would never support something that destroys lockin.

No, but they'll pretend to support OpenDocument so that they can continue to sell MS Office to Massachusetts. But they'll write a buggy implementation to try and lock out conformant word processors.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[quarkscat]

I predict that if MSFT should relent and offer OpenDoc compatability, it will be a clean conversion only importing into MS-Word format. The export capabilities of any OpenDoc support added to MS Office will be the absolute minimum required to meet specification (ala MSFT NT posix). Also, just because one version of MS Office may have support for OpenDoc does not mean that all subsequent versions will also support it.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[penix1]

Ok, you answer this...

What good is software for a customer (Mass.) that doesn't default to the output they want? How long do you think MS Office will last with the users constantly having to select OpenDocument to be complient with their own laws? It is MS hopes that they won't bother and it is saved in the proprietary format MS coses as the default. What is wrong with allowing the user to set that default?

B.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Decker-Mage]

If you spent $400 for your copy of Office, you screwed yourself. I'm not talking piracy, I'm talking economic reality here. Hell, I haven't spent $400 for the total sum of all the MS software (Windows Server 2003 Enterprise, Office, Exchange, SQL Server..., i.e. dang near everything MS makes!) total. I know for a fact that you won't pay anything near that as a business or enterprise under any of their licensing schemes either, which they are also changing again, especially in the light of multiple processing and virtual machines.

And that doesn't even count the fact that OpenDoc is nowhere to be found in Office97, so if you are facing a mandate from on high to have OpenDoc support, Office97 won't cut it. That mandate can also apply to businesses in certain circumstances as well, do remember, if you do any kind of federal, state, city, or municipal work and their contracting requires supporting such formats. [This wasn't something that I saw brought up in the Ma. OpenDoc thread, the unfunded mandate aspect of their requirement.]

BTW, I happen to agree with you about the Office97 feature set.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[peragrin]

You haven't ever had to buy just two or three copies of MS Office for a business have you? Licensing works great when you buy a lot but when you only need a couple of copies you get screwed hard.

I know Office 97 won't support OpenDoc but switching to Open Office or star office from Office 97 isn't that bad at all.

Re:bait and switch tactic

[Decker-Mage]

Actually I have both Office XP and OpenOffice installed on the same machines (I have four here and three at various remote sites) as I never know what I'm going to have to use at any given time. It's pretty much the same down the line with multiple OS's per machine, mixed open source and proprietary (MS, IBM, etc.), and so on. If anything I'm a little too hardware/OS/software agnostic although I have to be to give good advice to clients, engineer good systems, as well as troubleshoot/repair what I might find out there. However that doesn't get back to the basic point which is you really need to look at all the options out there. As a result of joining the partner program (at Microsoft's request oh so many moons ago) and obtaining one of their ActionPacks ($299 total), I have more licenses than I know what to do with and it ranges from Server 2003 on down through almost everything they make and for the client/application side, you get ten of them... each. IBM and the rest have similar programs for people that are willing to investigate their options, ya just gotta know that they exist! That can take some digging, especially on the IBM site.

Not for everyone, although it's not like they ask me to really do anything. It does put a lot of information at my fingertips and when someone wants to know their options, I have it right in front of my mind. Ditto F/OSS, IBM, Sun, Novell, etc. Hell, none of them even ask that I push their stuff, although I'm sure that is part of the idea that they have in their skulls . Again, I'm agnostic [and for this place downright weird!]. I listen to what the client wants to do, figure out how to do it in the budget they set or less, if at all possible, and then go do it once given the go ahead. Using whatever. I've been at this a long time, since before MS even came along. Started on punch-cards on an IBM/360 when they were new if that gives you any idea.

OpenDoc?

[generic-man]

Isn't "OpenDoc" a much older standard than OpenDocument that never quite caught on? I remember being so jazzed as an OS/2 user that OS/2 Warp 4 would support OpenDoc, then... well, we all know what happened to OS/2 after that.

In any case, blah blah open standards good blah blah down with proprietary crap.

Re:OpenDoc?

[bruce_the_moose]

OpenDoc is a compound document technology ala Micsoft's OLE (think embedding a spreadsheet in a word processor document that dynamically changes). OpenDocument is an XML based document format.

Re:OpenDoc?

[Professor_UNIX]

Did you actually read that entry? This is the second sentence:

Sometimes, people mistakenly refer to OpenDocument (short for the OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications) as OpenDoc.

Re:OpenDoc?

[generic-man]

One of those people was the submitter of this article, who handed a submission with a title of "Office + OpenDoc, Never Say Never" to an editor who approved it as-is. The editor corrected the headline at some point after I posted my original comment (and a few others did the same).

OpenDoc

[russellh]

Dont' call it OpenDoc...

sigh...

Re:OpenDoc

[shotfeel]

Seems the only place it ever gets called OpenDoc is on /. Everybody else (even the journalists) use Open Dcoument Format or OpneDocument Format or ODF.

It will happen!

[matr0x_x]

I honestly believe that over the next 10 years Microsoft will embrace the open standard. They will find way to still make money off it however :P

Re:It will happen!

[Ingolfke]

They will find way to still make money off it however

How dare they! Those evil corporations.

Re:It will happen!

[Lussarn]

They will find way to still make money off it however

Can't be hard with the new tools their lawyers have.

If they encrypt the resulting documents using some lame encryption like ROT13 it would be against the law to Open them in anything but MS Office.

Re:It will happen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, you say? Is that your authoritative opinion, or merely a regurgitation of some inaccurate anti-DMCA propaganda?

Just for fun, and because someone had the gall to moderate you as informative, let's run through the intellectual exercise. You are referring to Title 17, Chapter 12, section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the U.S. code. If one bothers to read more than these two sentences, which is generally a good idea when you're interpreting statutes, it becomes apparent that section 1201(a)(3) restricts the anti-circumvention provision's scope. Notably:

to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

Now what I would like to know is this: How did Microsoft obtain the copyright to the "resulting documents", such that they could deny authority to others to open the documents in anything but Microsoft Office? Encryption is not expressive content. The file format is an open standard that is not owned by Microsoft. The document content is owned by the user.

I'm dying to hear your answer, which I'm am certain will not be forthcoming. You are not doing yourself or this community any favors by mischaracterizing what the DMCA does and does not do. The people who have the power to alter the law to improve it are not going to be motivated to change it by the obviously misguided ranting of the under-informed.

Re:It will happen!

[Lussarn]

If what you're saying is correct than it's good news for everybody. But I haven't seen the DMCA practiced like that. That would make DVD decryption legal to distibute, wouldn't it? If one copyright holder think it's ok to distribute programs to break the encryption then it's ok to do so?

DVD decryption isn't legal, and my example is very similiar.

Re:It will happen!

[heson]

"The format you are about to save to does not support all features of Microsoft Office(TM). Would you like to save your document in the Open Document+ [1] format that is fully compatible with Microsoft Office(TM) instead?"

[1]Open Document+ is a E3 ceritfied procuct that works only in Microsoft Office (TM).

Embrace, extend & extinguish

Re:It will happen!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you have failed to answer the question that I specifically posed to you. The DVD example is meaningless because there is no dispute that the copyright owner is the entity that has encrypted the content on a DVD. In contrast, there is no dispute that Microsoft cannot claim copyright over an OpenDocument binary, whether you focus on the content or the file format, in the situation that you posed.

Nevertheless, DVD decryption is legal. The fact that you do not know of a situation where the copyright owner authorized the decryption of a DVD does not negate the proposition. Generic programs like DeCSS are "illegal" because they are used to decrypt a DVD without the authorization of the copyright owner. However, there is nothing that prevents me from coming to a contractual arrangement with Warner Bros. whereby they disclose the disk key or title key (the disk key may be problematic for technical reasons), which would allow me to decrypt the video for that particular video title, but not others. In practice, I'm sure that something entirely different would happen (a custom, non-encrypted source of video, and various penalties for letting large segments of unencrypted video leak), but there is nothing in the statute that prevents this from happening.

In summary, if you have the authorization of the copyright owner, you can do anything. Period. It's there in black and white in the statute.

Re:It will happen!

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't get it, do you? Who owns the copyright to the movie encoded on the DVD? The movie studio. Who owns the copyright to your OpenDocument document? You do. Please re-read the GP and see if you can wrap your mind around that this time.

Re:It will happen!

[arkanes]

See, this is what happens when people don't think things through. You are 100% correct in your reading of the DMCA. But what you are forgetting, and what has *already happened* is that regardless of whether an individual copyright holder authorizes it or not, the tools required to do so are illegal. The DMCA is incredibly well-crafted legislation, if you look at it from the point of view of a media cartel - your rights to free uses aren't (technically) being removed or violated. But your practical ability to exercise those rights is severly curtailed by the DMCA, both through outright banning of the tools needed to exercise those rights (DeCSS, for example), and through the chilling effect on the research needed to do it.

Re:It will happen!

[Lussarn]

I still don't understand. I can own copyright for DVD stuff if I make a DVD. I can own copyright on an OpenDocument if a write a piece. A movie studio can have a copyright on a DVD and they can have a copyright on an OpenDocument, so where is the difference?

If I break an encryption for my own document (legal in DMCA), can I now distribute that program which in turn can break the encryption on every other document using the same encryption just because I decrypted my own?

If I made a movie, got it distributed (and retained copyright), and later decrypted it using my own unlicenced DeCSS, is it now legal for me to distribute DeCSS, or what are you trying to tell me?

Can AbiWord ship a decrypter for for an Microsoft encrypter. There may be parties using the Microsoft encrypter who wouldn't aprove, because AbiWord just shipped an open source decrypter for their documents.

Re:It will happen!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can AbiWord ship a decrypter for for an Microsoft encrypter.

In short, yes. the DMCA has specific exemptions for interoperability, for these exact kinds of purposes.

Bringing DVDs into this just confuses the issue. In your original post, you said that Microsoft can just "encrypt the resulting documents using some lame encryption like ROT13 it would be against the law to Open them in anything but MS Office." This is simply not true. Other Office software could perfectly legally decrypt and open the documents for two reasons: One, it is only against the law to circumvent the encryption without the permission of the copyright holder. The other is that the DMCA has exemptions for interoperability.

I'm not trying to argue the the DMCA is a good thing (and neither is anyone else in this thread.) Just that what you are saying about it isn't true.

Re:It will happen!

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this is what happens when people don't think things through.... your rights to free uses aren't (technically) being removed or violated. But your practical ability to exercise those rights is severly curtailed by the DMCA, both through outright banning of the tools needed to exercise those rights (DeCSS, for example), and through the chilling effect on the research needed to do it.

Non-sequitur. This is not a free use(?)-fair use issue. Microsoft does not hold the copyright to anything in the Microsoft-encrypted OpenDocument user file example. The DMCA does not apply, period. The hypothetical scenario is implausible, and the conclusion is illogical.

I challenge anyone to show even one instance where the copyright owner was barred from circumventing an access control that was protecting their own content. In every case that I am aware of, the technology at issue was used solely to circumvent access controls without authorization, usually under the banner of fair use. I do not see utilities that have authorized uses, such as a .PDF file password remover, disappearing from existence because of claims under the DMCA.

If you don't believe me, then you must explain the outcome of the Lexmark DMCA case before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. That technology surely circumvented an access control according to your interpretation, yet the DMCA claim was struck down. You must also explain how your interpretation of the anti-circumvention provision trumps Judge Merritt's analysis, which addresses situations just like the Microsoft-encrypted OpenDocument user file example:

Lexmark would have us read this statute in such a way that any time a manufacturer intentionally circumvents any technological measure and accesses a protected work it necessarily violates the statute regardless of its "purpose." Such a reading would ignore the precise language "for the purpose of" as well as the main point of the DMCA -- to prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs. If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes.

In the Lexmark case, the user only owned the physical good, and not the printer's firmware code. In the Microsoft-encrypted OpenDocument userfile example, there is no question that the user is the only copyright owner in question. If there is implied authorization by virtue of purchase in the Lexmark case, there is explicit authorization by virtue of authorship/license in the user created word processing document case.

In short, do not imply that I have not thought things through because I neglected to address your irrelevant pet peeve. This discussion was not about DeCSS, I never used DeCSS as an example (and took great pains to explain why a title-specific decryption tool would be legal), and I certainly never relied upon fair use as a basis for my opinion.

Re:It will happen!

[rtb61]

Microsoft will embrace open standards just like they would embrace a porcupine. Kicking and screaming every inch of the way.

It would be far more accurate to say microsoft will be forced to used open standards or lose all of their market share rather than just most of it. Naturally they will do it far too late to be of any real significance in their future and not before many repeated efforts of foot in keyboard, attack ex-customer efforts.

Microsoft made money out of a monopoly accidentally provided by IBM and Intel other than that they seem to lose money in any market where they actually have to compete on an equal basis. So to be honest, if I had a cent for every dollar that microsoft will end up losing as a result of open standards and open documents I would be very rich indeed ;-).

Microsoft would sooner embrace google as a search engine and publicly acknowledge it's superiority to MSN search ;-).

Office + OpenDoc

[gregski]

=OpenOffice?

Re: Office + OpenDoc

[Anonymous Coward]

Or DocOffice

ac.

I'm sceptical

[nicholaides]

MS likes to embrace and extend, remember? I do believe that MS could make OpenDocument useless by over-supporting it.

Re:I'm sceptical

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh heh, you said "embrace and extend".

Sorry, 9am and I'm bored already.

Re:I'm sceptical

[Anonymous Coward]

...at which point Mass. will drop Microsoft again, as their extensions will no longer be 100% compatible with the OpenDocument specification. For a goverment agency, they are proving to be remarkably resistant to Microsoft's attempts to pull the wool over their eyes, and appear unwilling to compromise.

Re:I'm sceptical

[jbr439]

MS likes to embrace and extend, remember? I do believe that MS could make OpenDocument useless by over-supporting it.

Perhaps creating a business opportunity for an OpenDocument validifier?

What about browser standards?

[bogaboga]

Could the same paradigm be extended to the browser and browser standards? I mean, just like Massachusetts kind of stood its ground on document formats, it goes an extra mile and does something similar with the browser.

This would be very beneficial since every web page would look the *same* and act the same regardless of the browser use to view it.

What about that?

Re:What about browser standards?

[OneSeventeen]

With web based applications becoming more and more important to everyday life (buying movie tickets, checking the weather, news, even gas prices, online maps, etc.) Microsoft will still have to find some way to show the world that their web browser is different than the other alternatives. When new windows machines are made, it is much simpler to leave IE on them, rather than installing an alternative on every computer your manufacturer makes, which creates an incintive for developers to write for IE, which in turn creates a reason for end users not to switch from IE to something like Firefox, Opera, or something similar. By individuals relying more on IE, the web will hopefully (for Microsoft) swing to an IE only platform like it was a few years ago, and almost still is, preventing linux users from receiving the full benefit of the web. And if you cut something that large out, why not just switch to Windows and call it a day?

Simple tactics such as creating your own standards for html rendering and javascript interpreting can actually increase and protect your market share in the desktop environment. So if they loose money on Office, my prediction is Windows itself will go up in price, and IE will be even more integrated in the system.

After massachusetts shows the US that core functions such as MS Office were not as important to stick with as we thought they were, I'm sure developers and even end users will realize that the same goes for the web. I do not care if we all switch to linux, OSX, or stay with windows. What I do care about is being offered a choice, and if Microsoft adopts globally available standards, that is exactly what they will be offering. In which case, there will be a much smaller reason to jump from Windows to another OS, but at the same time it will be easier as well.

I think Microsoft has instilled FUD in their own decision making process, and that will probably prevent them from adopting more standards than they are forced to. These next few years will really determine what type of corporation Microsoft is, and will show us if they really are after converting everyone to their product with no hope of working with other applications, or if they are willing to loose on some fronts to provide a better, more useable product.

Here's hoping, but I wouldn't hold your breath for W3C compliance any time soon.

Re:What about browser standards?

[oliverthered]

WAP and text only browser are never going to look and act the same, and other browsers are all going to have their own special features. What you really need is for browsers to use the formula in the W3C standard to layout the page and interpret the HTML/XHTML/CSS etc... instead of making it up as they go along.

Re:What about browser standards?

[Bert64]

Ofcourse small or text-only browsers will have limited features, but the difference is...
If you follow standards, your site will be accessible (text content will be readable, site will be navigatable) in text based browsers, but graphical content and appearance will be lost (but you knew that already when you chose to use a text based browser)
However there are many sites which rely on things like flash, or don`t provide alt tags for links (which means screen readers for the blind cant read out the link text either) which don`t work atall in lynx.. There are many reasons to use minimalist or text-based browsers, mobile phones are one example, i often use a gsm dialup connection (v.slow) to research information while i`m away from a faster connection (think travelling, trains, airports etc) and i browse with lynx because loading images on websites really kills the 9600bps connection.. And since what i`m looking for is usually textual information there`s no reason for me to need a graphical browser, i HATE poorly written sites that force me to use a graphical browser and waste my time, not to mention the fact that the mobile operator charges per megabyte of transfer and i want to minimise that.

Re:What about browser standards?

[oliverthered]

what about aural browsers?

unless I'm just putting something together quickly I try to make sites fully standards compliant (even down to putting in the acronym and abbreviation tags), I have a load of XML scripts that do those kind of things and check for complacency. Sometimes that breaks IE, but I suppose it was broken to start with.

Re:What about browser standards?

[mr3038]

Could the same paradigm be extended to the browser and browser standards? [...] This would be very beneficial since every web page would look the *same* and act the same regardless of the browser use to view it.

The whole point of HTML is that it does not define a single way to view the content. The whole point of CSS is to provide hints about how the page author thinks that the content should be displayed.

As long as we're using different devices and different people have different needs, there's no reason to force same look and behavior for everybody. Some people do require 72pt font just to be able to read because they have such a bad vision. Some people are blind. Some are deaf. You cannot present the same content identically to everybody. What does matter, is that the user agent (commonly referred as the "browser") behaves the same when it comes to what the server sees. This is not the case today.

You're supposed to be able to always change the font size. The fact that MSIE isn't able to adjust font size if it's set to "12px" or "10pt" is a bug, not a feature. The fact that MSIE only has total of 5 different settings for font size in the UI might be a feature, but I consider that a bug, too.

Support will be useless for the most part

[Jeff85]

Even if Microsoft includes support for an OpenDocument format, the only thing it will do is enable MS Word users to read documents from other word processors such as OpenOffice or StarOffice. However, I'm sure MS will still have the default save setting be their proprietary .doc format, which Joe User will automatically choose when he saves his document which someone who only has OpenOffice will try to read. Sure, OpenOffice does its best to render .doc files, but sometimes it still looks disfigured. What MS really needs to do is open up its .doc format.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[generic-man]

Office 12 will not write .doc by default, but rather an XML-based format called .docx. More information is available at the Microsoft Office XML Formats blog.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[mytec]

Even if Microsoft includes support for an OpenDocument format, the only thing it will do is enable MS Word users to read documents from other word processors such as OpenOffice or StarOffice.

There are a lot of Office users and I doubt that trend will change any time soon. Supporting OpenDocument is a good thing for those users. It's also good for MS being part of the procurement process for any company, state, or government choosing that format.

However, I'm sure MS will still have the default save setting be their proprietary .doc format, which Joe User will automatically choose..

So? The OpenOffice Write (2.0 beta) defaults to .odt even though it supports the reading and writing of .doc documents.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure MS will still have the default save setting be their proprietary .doc format

duh? Word was still their product last I checked. Would you expect windoze media to default to .mov?

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[javilon]

Even if they don't support writing OpenDocument, _you_ will be able to use OpenOffice and send them documents that they can read. This would be a biggie.
Right now, most people in business require a .doc document. If you send them something that word will open without problems, they will accept it, and you will be able to ditch ms-office for a free and Free alternative.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite. And for symmetry, OpenOffice needs to read M$' .docx format. At least .docx is openly documented, unlike .doc.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[Jesus_666]

As long as the next version of Paint doesn't save all images in the .goatsecx format...

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[Anonymous Coward]

Meet the new proprietary format, same as the old proprietary format.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[AstroDrabb]

Office 12 will basically be using a proprietary patent-encumbered format wrapped in a buzz-word XML wrapper. That doesn't make it open at all, though that is what the MS PR-machine is trying to make everyone think.

I can serialize an object in a program to a file. I can then encrypt that file and stick it in an XML-wrapper. Does that make it open? Nope. Sure, the plain text in an Office 12 doc will be viewable, however the objects will be what are in a proprietary format (and probably patent encumbered to boot). So anything more complicated than a Dear John letter will need to be reverse engineered just like the current .doc format.

Why would MS totally be open to putting their _whole_ doc format in XML where anyone can read/write to it, yet be against an OpenDocument format? The only reasons I can think of is because in the XML-wrapper, MS can still keep things proprietary by just encoding a proprietary blob and dropping it in XML and the fact that MS has a patent on their XML "innovation".

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[Bellum Aeternus]

I've found that the average user will save their documents with the file type that has the most pleasing icon associated with it. As a test, I adjusted a coworker's machine to default to .rtf and associated the .rtf extension with the .doc icon and he couldn't have been happier.

So, my assumsion is that OpenDoc files will have an ugly icon to dissuade their use. You'll be suprised, but it'll make all the difference in the world to the average user.

Heck, my mother told me that her Word files were better than mine because her PC has WordXP on it and it has newer icons than my old Word2000. Whatever...

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[ZuggZugg]

Just a guess, perhaps some Windows Group Policy admin can jump in and correct this. But doesn't Office/Windows allow you to set the default save as file type to whatever you want? Any organization that wanted to ensure interoperability with 3rd parties should be able to easily change the default.

It's certainly an option that can be set individually under Options : Save. Any decent group policy admin could roll that out to all users at their next login...

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[generic-man]

No.

Microsoft Office Word "12" will write .docx files, which are ZIP-compressed XML files. These XML files are in plain text; the only thing binary about them is binary attachments (such as PNG files) that are referenced in the document itself.

Please read this blog, by a real Microsoft software engineer who actually accepts and responds to questions from concerned citizens like yourself. .docx files are not blobs wrapped in XML tags; they are actual bundles of human-readable files just like OpenOffice.org files.

And if you still want to play lawyer, here are some posts that you can visit and leave comments on or even TrackBack to your own blog. You can USENET-style-reply to this comment, but if you want your questions answered then take them to a Microsoft software engineer.

The myth of the Binary Key, a myth which you still believe as fact

Comments from some dude about OpenDocument

Some background on the reasons why Microsoft chose an XML format, and information on how their choices predate and differ from OpenDocument

License wankery

License wankery, part 2

Follow-up on comments regarding license wankery

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[generic-man]

"These XML files are in plain text; the only thing binary about them is binary attachments (such as PNG files) that are referenced in the document itself."

This statement is vague. Before I see a "BZZT WRONG" reply, I'll rephrase it.

"These XML files are plain text; the only thing binary about the contents of .docx files are binary attachments (such as PNG files) that are stored separately from the document body and referenced in the document body as external files."

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[AstroDrabb]

These XML files are in plain text; the only thing binary about them is binary attachments (such as PNG files) that are referenced in the document itself.

So an embedded excel spreadsheet in a word doc is going to be plain text? An embedded PowerPoint presentation is going to be plain text? Microsoft has finally given up their entire "IP" to all their office formats? I don't think so.

What exactly is going to stop any MS Office competitor from just using the MS Office XML format if it is "totally open" as you suggest? Oh, yeah, those damn patents, not to mention that it is not totally open. Please show me _one_ official link from MS that tells me all the specs I need to know to fully read and write MS Office documents with zero patent/license encumbrances, and then I will believe you.

It was really great "innovation" on the part of MS to use XML for exactly what it was designed to do and then get a patent to block others from doing it.

Please read this blog, by a real Microsoft software engineer

No thanks. I don't need any more corporate MS crap. I doubt this "real" MS software "engineer" is allowed to speak his mind. Plenty have been fired for MS for less than saying that MS is not the "best". How about the poor guy who just posted some pictures of MS getting in some nice new G5 Macs that got fired?

but if you want your questions answered then take them to a Microsoft software engineer

Does MS call _all_ of their programmers "engineers"? Do all of those "software engieers" _actually_ have degrees and certifications in engineering? Or are they really just programmers with a nice PR made title? I studied engineering and work as a programmer. I personally cannot stand when I see people who just program computers with _zero_ engineering training get titles of "engineer".

You seems to be a shill for MS. However, MS has not, and will not give up their hold on their proprietary MS Office document formats. Please send me a link the day MS officially allows _anyone_ to use their office formats in the way OpenDocument would allow.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[generic-man]

You don't need any "corporate MS crap," so instead you're going to live in your own little dream world where everything you agree with on Slashdot is true. I've met Microsoft engineers* who speak their mind just fine -- they own iPods, they have hacked Xboxes and PS2s, and they even use Linux! (Some even use Linux and open-source tools at work!) You seem to believe that all Microsoft employees are required to parrot the marketing line of "Microsoft rules Linux is teh suck," whereas it's possible to actually find Microsoft employees who actually have minds of their own.

You keep fighting the good fight, though. Ten years from its inception as an open source project, OpenOffice.org might hope to achieve the 10% market share established as a victory point by Mozilla/Firefox advocates. You might want to work on the fact that this Free As In Beech software looks like crap, isn't compatible with the VBA macros that businesses use daily (but which you would childishly dismiss with name-calling and "I don't use that, so it's not important" rhetoric), and is slow even compared to Microsoft Office**.

You also missed the point where I said I don't want USENET-style replies. I'm not having a vocal conversation with you, so stop pretending like we're having a back-and-forth chat, point for point.

* Programmers, engineers, whatever.
** Even on the Mac, where Microsoft doesn't bore deep into the OS to preload libraries on boot.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[AstroDrabb]

whereas it's possible to actually find Microsoft employees who actually have minds of their own.

Please show me _one_ that has done this in any public fashion and has not be fired. Saying "oh, I talked to one in an MS-Toilet(tm) and he said, hey, I use Linux and an IPod", is not much of an argument IMO.

You keep fighting the good fight, though. Ten years from its inception as an open source project, OpenOffice.org might hope to achieve the 10% market share established as a victory point by Mozilla/Firefox advocates. You might want to work on the fact that this Free As In Beech software looks like crap, isn't compatible with the VBA macros that businesses use daily (but which you would childishly dismiss with name-calling and "I don't use that, so it's not important" rhetoric), and is slow even compared to Microsoft Office**.

Geez, you have to work for MS to be such a shill or you and Bill make man-boy love weekly. Why would you get so emotional over a stupid freaking company and some software? To answer some of your stupid points, IMO OOo doesn't look like crap, I like the interface and it is pretty darn close to MS Office, so if you think OOo looks like crap, well you must think MS office looks like crap as well. As far as this stupid point:

isn't compatible with the VBA macros that businesses use daily (but which you would childishly dismiss with name-calling and "I don't use that, so it's not important" rhetoric)

So VBA crap is waht business use daily? So I take it you have worked for _all_ business that use MS office and know that they use VBA crap daily? Wow, you are great. Me personally, I have only worked for 3 fortune 500 companies and not one has use VBA in any production software. The fortune 500 I am at now would never deploy VBA office crap as an "application" and expect it to be stable and our user to use it. So get over _your_ childish crap that "all" business use VBA, because it just isn't true. Any "application" I have seen based on MS office and VBA has crumbled once the concurrent users have gotten over a very small number and _more_ money had to be spent on programmers like me to create real applications that are not based on VBA and MS office.

You also missed the point where I said I don't want USENET-style replies. I'm not having a vocal conversation with you, so stop pretending like we're having a back-and-forth chat, point for point.

Huh? This is /. reject. If you don't like the way /. works, than don't post. It is a simple as that.

* Programmers, engineers, whatever.

Uhh... not quite dummy. There is a huge difference. To program software you don't even need a stinking education, just some stupid MS "certification in VB" can get you in the door to many companies. Now, try to go and engineer a bridge or some electrical systems of a rocket with just some MS "certification" and see how far you get.

Re:Support will be useless for the most part

[generic-man]

Jeez, I'm bored with this thread. Good night.

--- Original Message ---

whereas it's possible to actually find Microsoft employees who actually have minds of their own.
Please show me _one_ that has done this in any public fashion and has not be fired. Saying "oh, I talked to one in an MS-Toilet(tm) and he said, hey, I use Linux and an IPod", is not much of an argument IMO.
You keep fighting the good fight, though. Ten years from its inception as an open source project, OpenOffice.org might hope to achieve the 10% market share established as a victory point by Mozilla/Firefox advocates. You might want to work on the fact that this Free As In Beech software looks like crap, isn't compatible with the VBA macros that businesses use daily (but which you would childishly dismiss with name-calling and "I don't use that, so it's not important" rhetoric), and is slow even compared to Microsoft Office**.
Geez, you have to work for MS to be such a shill or you and Bill make man-boy love weekly. Why would you get so emotional over a stupid freaking company and some software? To answer some of your stupid points, IMO OOo doesn't look like crap, I like the interface and it is pretty darn close to MS Office, so if you think OOo looks like crap, well you must think MS office looks like crap as well. As far as this stupid point:
isn't compatible with the VBA macros that businesses use daily (but which you would childishly dismiss with name-calling and "I don't use that, so it's not important" rhetoric)
So VBA crap is waht business use daily? So I take it you have worked for _all_ business that use MS office and know that they use VBA crap daily? Wow, you are great. Me personally, I have only worked for 3 fortune 500 companies and not one has use VBA in any production software. The fortune 500 I am at now would never deploy VBA office crap as an "application" and expect it to be stable and our user to use it. So get over _your_ childish crap that "all" business use VBA, because it just isn't true. Any "application" I have seen based on MS office and VBA has crumbled once the concurrent users have gotten over a very small number and _more_ money had to be spent on programmers like me to create real applications that are not based on VBA and MS office.
You also missed the point where I said I don't want USENET-style replies. I'm not having a vocal conversation with you, so stop pretending like we're having a back-and-forth chat, point for point.
Huh? This is /. reject. If you don't like the way /. works, than don't post. It is a simple as that.
* Programmers, engineers, whatever.
Uhh... not quite dummy. There is a huge difference. To program software you don't even need a stinking education, just some stupid MS "certification in VB" can get you in the door to many companies. Now, try to go and engineer a bridge or some electrical systems of a rocket with just some MS "certification" and see how far you get.

I know why

[matt me]

I imagine Microsoft will refer to it, or want their users to refer to OpenDocument as OpenDoc, so most users think it's just a different version of their .doc format, and don't understand the difference.

Re:Diligence

[Ingolfke]

Now we just have to figure out have MS intends to "embrace, extend, extinguish" or otherwise make it unattractive and derail any of their attempts to do so.

That, and also determine how the government has managed to hide the alien lifeforms for the last 60 years and of course where they keep their mind control rays. Tin-foil hats of the world unite!

Big deal

[Dracos]

Even if MS decided to realize what interoperability actually is, the only reason they would add OpenDoc support to Office is to grab back the millions of dollars they'd lose on MA not buying Office licenses. This is precisely why MA is switching, and whether or not MS can FUD them into going back to Office remains to be seen. I predict promises that will ultimately go unfulfilled.

offically could ==

[Gaima]

un-officially won't.

Re:offically could ==

[theSpaceCow]

Hey, don't be so pessimistic! This is a totally solid, set in stone, 100% official, absolutely definite "maybe"!

(Don't the thoughts behind "official statement" and "maybe one day" seem a little contrary? This seriously isn't the confirmation many of us were hoping for.)

Could?

[zappepcs]

Yes, I suppose so, and they could relicense MS Office under GPL too, but it doesn't seem likely unless 100's more government and business organizations do as Mass. did....

It will be good to see the bull with a ring in its nose for a change, so to speak, but the more relevant down line consequences don't seem to be jumping out at me. If MS goes with ODF, then we are all back in the same mess, more or less, aren't we?

I have faith in people, open-minded people, to see a product, and when the value of the product is comparable to any other product of similar purpose, then choose the cheapest one, or the one with the most compatibility with present relevant investments.

The trouble is, so far as I have seen or understood (I could be wrong), when the products are equal or close, MS uses those 'politicians' they paid for to ensure that only MS products get sold to all but the very edgy techno-geeks. That would leave us right where we started (more or less) in respect of MS's domination of the OS and software world.... that means very little competitive product in circulation by comparison.

So, what would make this more of a move to open and competitive markets?

I don't see the bright future in this.

Re:Could?

[morgan_greywolf]

Exactly. Yeah, I suppose that pigs could fly, too, if they had wings.

Read between the lines very carefully. What Nick Tsilas says is:

Andy, this is not accurate. I think what we have said is that features are dictated by customer demand and, until the Massachusetts-related activity occurred, Open Document was not even on our radar screens.

Yep. OpenDocument is not even on their radar screens. Nope. Never heard of it before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts wanted it.

Puh-lease. Does he think we're all stupid?

Microsoft may or may not support it. More likely not. But I agree with you. What difference would it make?

Re:Could?

[jallen02]

It does make a difference. I can send people an open office doc and have comfort knowing they can read it in. As long as MS does not cripple it somehow with scary warning messages on open or some such. Its still a good thing. Even if it is not the ideal thing.

Jeremy

Re:Could?

[iabervon]

The real danger to Microsoft of using ODT is that it makes it much harder to force people to upgrade. With proprietary stuff, the default format in the latest version isn't supported by older versions, making it hard for people using older versions to avoid upgrading when they get documents from people with newer versions. If everyone is choosing ODT (either by default, or, more likely, by selecting it specifically), files from the new version will work fine in the old version, either because the format is the same, or because the format was updated in ways that maintain compatibilty, because it was done by people who want to keep things compatible.

This doesn't matter much for adoption of non-Microsoft products, but it does matter to Microsoft's income. It also makes it easier for individual users within an organization to use non-Microsoft products without having hassles getting them to interoperate with the rest of the organization (think using Firefox in a generally IE environment).

Re:Could?

[morgan_greywolf]

Let's start off with the fact that they aren't likely to associate the .sx? extensions with Office, even if they do implement it. They're likely to break the schema somehow, and there most definitely will be warnings when you go to save the document that formatting could be lost, just like there are with other filters.

Hopefully

[RLiegh]

Hopefully any government bodies which adopt OpenDocument will thoroughly test any suites they do purchase for compatibility (so that they aren't stuck creating 'open' documents which are only able to be opened by products from one company).
However, given the corrupt and incompetent nature of governments, I'm very much not counting on it.

Re:Hopefully

[awkScooby]

Why is this a troll? Microsoft has a very bad track record of abusing standards. The parent post seems like a very valid suggestion. Just because a product claims to support Open Document doesn't mean that it actually does. The only way to be sure is to test.

Re:Hopefully

[jimicus]

Not quite sure why you've been modded Troll. Seems like a perfectly valid concern to me.

I can just picture an organisation testing Office 2010 with a whole bunch of fairly straightforward OpenDocument files, finding it's OK, awarding the contract to Microsoft.... then 3 weeks later discovering it breaks completely on anything vaguely complicated.

Re:Hopefully

[Burz]

Just because a product claims to support Open Document doesn't mean that it actually does. The only way to be sure is to test.

Let us start by creating an "ACID2" test for OpenDocument. :-)

ActiveOpenDocument-X!

[tnk1]

Say Hello to ActiveOpenDocument-X! It's just like OpenDocument only it's more fully featured!!!*

*New features require Microsoft Office Vista XP 2008 Professional and .Net for best results.

Save, by default, in the OpenDocument format.

[khasim]

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-09-26-a.html

Agencies should therefore "begin to evaluate office applications that support the OpenDocument specification to migrate from applications that use proprietary document formats. As of January 1, 2007 all agencies within the Executive Department will be required to: (1) Use office applications that provide conformance with the OpenDocument format, and (2) Configure the applications to save office documents in OpenDocument format by default."

They've already thought of that and included it in the requirements.

Re:Save, by default, in the OpenDocument format.

[KarmaMB84]

That just says that people in the government must configure it as the default. Microsoft could make their own format the default for new installations while allowing people to configure Word to save in whatever format they wish by default. You can already configure Word to save in other formats by default.

Oh, They'll Support It...

[Greyfox]

Just like they support Posix -- just enough to be considered in bids by government organizations that mandate the format. There may be tools out there that do it better, but the "Supports Opendoc" checkbox on those contracts don't specify how well that support works, just that it's there. And although OpenOffice might be free, government IT bids will necessarily go through the 3 companies on the planet that feel it's profitable to do that work despite all the paperwork, and they prefer Microsoft products. Don't think to take your independent consulting firm into the bidding process either. You won't even get past the form WXD-423. Assuming you can even find one.

Re:Oh, They'll Support It...

[amcdiarmid]

"I'm sorry, to enter into this bidding process you will need precisely three copies for form WXD-423y. That's form WXD-423-little-Y, little, as opposed to form WXD-423-big=Y."

OK, where do I get the form?

"That particular form is conviently located in our forms distribution center. It's just four exits down the highway, turn left at the toxic waste site, go through the area posted 'Hazardous Radiation' and into the nuclear waste silo. Of course you'll have to dig a bit to get to level 3. Ask for Gloria, she's behind the door marked 'Danger, loose Tiger'. Got that then?"

Yes, of course. But could you tell me down which highway the forms distribution center is located?

"Oh sure, you have form WXD-423 filled out then - let's have it. I can't give you that information without form WXD-423."

Retardedness

[OneByteOff]

FTA :
"and also to lessen the likelihood that public information will not become inaccessible in the future"

lessen the likelihood..... that public information... *will not become inaccessible*

-- 2010 --
User : "I can't access Files on the Server"
Admin: "Yeah thats just part of the IT Policy"
User : "WTF?!?"
Admin: "Yeah I know, it's fucked up but I didn't write it..."

Re:Retardedness

[Anonymous Coward]

Read that sentence again. It's perfectly correct the way it's written. "will not become inaccessible" means it will remain accessible.

Re:Retardedness

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is wrong! Because they state they are trying to lessen the likelihood that the information "will not become inaccessible" so they are trying to make the data inaccessible.
Perhaps it is easier if you consider the sentence with a "not" removed.
I hate people who think that other people will think they are smart if they use complex language... to the point that they don't even know what they are writing! A true genious will try and be able to express himself as simple as possible.

Re:Retardedness

[Anon.Pedant]

"A true genious will try and be able to express himself as simple as possible."

I, on the other hand, would prefer to express myself as simply as possible. I guess I'll never be a "true genious" (or a true genius either).

Also, "try and be able to" is unnecessary verbiage. Why not say: "A true genius will express himself as simply as possible."

Brevity is the soul of wit.

-- Anonymous Pedant

P.S. You really shouldn't hate people, it's bad karma.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we just have to wait for Microsoft to put word in the Kernel, load OpenDocument with ActiveX controls, set default dialog boxes to yes, with always say yes as a checkbox.

Oh wait, that was the web...

Completely different.

[pavon]

Well yeah, but what does that have to do with anything? The term OpenDoc isn't mentioned in any of the articles. It also has nothing to do with OpenDocument and had a completely different goal. OpenDoc was a programming framework for object embedding and encapsulating, you can think of it as OLE on steriods. OpenDocument is a file format.

Re:Completely different.

[generic-man]

The original title of this article was "Office + OpenDoc, Never Say Never." The editor corrected the headline, so all the posts saying "Hey, I remember OpenDoc as something different" are now complaining about nothing.

Re:Completely different.

[Junior J. Junior III]

The editor corrected the headline, so all the posts saying "Hey, I remember OpenDoc as something different" are now complaining about nothing.

Stupid editors. Complaining about nothing is what I come here for!

COULD EASILY HAPPEN

[dsginter]

There's NOTHING stopping the OpenOffice crew from adding a little PRINT TO function (ala Adobe Acrobat) that will cause a document to print into an OpenDoc format. I don't understand why they just don't do this.

Problem solved.

Re:COULD EASILY HAPPEN

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why they just don't do this.

If you had read and comprehended any of the articles related to this discussion, you would know that a PRINT TO feature will not provide the level of support for OpenDocument that is being demanded by the organizations.

Wow, someone should have proofread the abstract

[petree]

Wow, someone should have proofread the abstract

Here's the abstract from the featured article:

Abstract: For a period of 20 months, the Information Technology Division (ITD) of Massachusetts has been considering certain amendments to its internal information technology policies relating to the use of open formats when saving documents created by the Massachusetts Executive Agencies. The impetus for such a change is to prevent vendor lock in, and also to lessen the likelihood that public information will not become inaccessible in the future due to changes in proprietary software , or the discontinuance of support for such software. On September 21, 2005, the proposed amendments became final, and Massachusetts became the first jurisdiction in the world to mandate the saving of documents using only software that complies with the OpenDocument OASIS Standard or the Adobe PDF format. This article describes the history of both the process followed by the ITD as well as that of the OpenDocument OASIS Standard, summarizes and assesses the arguments for and against the amendments made by those that offered public comments, and finally seeks to evaluate the potential impact of the Massachusetts decision on further government information technology policy evolution around the world.

Maybe they meant: "and also to lessen the likelihood that public information will (remove: "not") become inaccessible in the future due to changes in proprietary software."

Maybe they need to worry less about the format being open and more about the text making sense ;)

Re:Wow, someone should have proofread the abstract

[LaughingCoder]

Actually, this is from Massachusetts - the one-party state where nothing gets done without the appropriate level of bribes and graft. I think they said what they meant and are hoping nobody will catch it. Either that or it was a freudian slip.

Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Ingolfke]

The gist of the article is that Microsoft MAY support OpenDocument in the future if the demand is there. And the nutcases who get paged when there's an M$ story on /. come a runnin' to spout off about "embrace and extend" and Netscape and monopolies and Balmer will f'ing kill you. The only point that is made by all of this commotion is that there is a group of geeks who hate Microsoft so much that they cannot make logical rationale decisions or anlaysis about technical developments or corporate directions... or posts that simply amount to "we'll do whatever is in our customers (and our) best interests in the future". Tone down all of the rhetoric... it makes you look like a bunch of ignorant whelps.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Anonymous Coward]

Catch up. This is typical Microsoft doublespeak. The demand IS ALREADY THERE! That's what the state of Mass. was asking for, and all Microsoft has to do is provide that format in addition to their own. They refused, went whining to the press, and is now pretending there is no demand yet. Fooled you, but not all those "anti-Microsoft" posters who actually knew they were being their usual dishonest self.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for staying on topic...

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[falkyrian]

Wow, are you really that angry of a person? There is some very valid points for a government agency to move on an open standard. The least of which is government doesn't change that often, so when it does the changes are more painful, especially in IT. By working with an open format things get easier. That piece alone makes this article valuable, not an exercise in ignorance.

Had to respond to this post. I do see a LOT of geeky BS on slashdot, but the pure anger over something so simple as this article is amazing. Chill out, go outside for a bit. Ignore your computer for a day or something. geez:-)

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Ingolfke]

You're welcome.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Ingolfke]

OpenDocument support by government makes perfect sense to me. Government doesn't need to create barriers for dealing with it by using expensive proprietary software products when there are affordable (free) alternatives. I get that. What I was railing and ranting against (I'll admit it was rant) was the immediate attack of Microsoft for simply saying they may at some point support OpenDocument, but not right now. They made a move from "we will never support OpenDocument" (which they may or may not have said), to "we MAY support it" and the response is not "Massachussets has made an impact" or "MS is responding ot market pressures" but ranting and raving about how MS will corrupt OpenDocument and "embrace and extend" it and how evil it is that MS has taken a position on OpenDocument. But hey... I said "crackpot" so it's flamebait.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[LEgregius]

You must be new here.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Ingolfke]

Alas, I am not new here. If I was new I would have said, "Slashdot is a honeypot for Microsoft hating crackpot". My id was created 34582 accounts before yours... so I must be slow or maybe just tired of all of the mindless rhetoric.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[michrech]

You are an ass.

Name one technology they didn't "embrace and extend" when dealing with software?

Just one.

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[jimicus]

I'll get modded to hell and back for this, so let me make this clear. I agree. /. is full of MS hating crackpots.

However, lest we forget, MS is a business. Which has historically liked to monopolise markets. Why on Earth would they implement OpenDocument in a reasonably sensible fashion unless they had literally no choice? (ie. enough invitations to tender were coming out which said "Must support OpenDocument").

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Ingolfke]

Just one.

ASCII, Unicode, TCP/IP, XML.

Furthermore most vendors embrace a standard and then extend it by adding additional functionality on top of that as their customers demand it. MS made a big mistake by taking that model to the web because the popularity of their browser created an interoperability nightmare... but the embrace and extend model is not MS specific nor is it a bad thing if you can preserver interoperability with apps that don't support your enhancements (something MS did a poor job of with HTML/CSS).

Re:Post is a honeypot for M$ hating crackpots

[Thundersnatch]

JPEG

Oh... Really?!?

[Chordonblue]

You mean like how Apple would NEVER go with x86 processors or how Intel would NEVER go with AMD's 64-bit extensions? Both of these were considered extremely unlikely in the past but are today's realities. These changes happened due to customer shifts, competition, and/or better technology. Believe me, if everyone starts eating MS for lunch because of this one sticking point, you can bet they'll support OpenDocument. In fact, much like Intel's 'skunk works' project with the 64-bit extensions, I'm certain they already have it working now.

Re:Oh... Really?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

even though Apple is moving to X86 Intel CPUs i bet there will be some propiatory chipsets to go along with that x86 CPU that makes vendor lock in work for Apple so their OS wont install on a regular (IBM compatible) x86 computer

Sharing is Caring, and makes you friggin rich!

[ajgeek]

If M$ wants to continue to make money, what with torrents, napster, E-mule (however it's spelled nowadays) burning, ripping, mashing, and overall passing the info to and from one another, they're going to have to adopt open source policies soon and they know it.

Simply put, people aren't going to tolerate closed EULA's much longer. Average Joe's can't afford 500 bucks every two years to upgrade an OS, relearn, understand, then do it again. That's why people are pooling cash, buying one copy, waiting for someone to crack it, then make tons of copies and give them to friends. (In college the "Academic Version" of XP, and Office 2k3 sold about 3 copies yet everyone had it.)

This is one very tiny step in the process toward embracing open source, but babies never started their journey on two feet by running marathons either. I say mark this as a minor event, but don't pass it aside and keep watch over what M$ does from here on out. Maybe someday people like me will drop the $ and actually give them their letter back.

Re:Sharing is Caring, and makes you friggin rich!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Average Joe's can't afford 500 bucks every two years to upgrade an OS"...why is it that everyone uses the phrase Average Joe here. "Average Joe's can't replace a carburetor blah blah blah..." could be said in another site. We should change the name to NCTJ (Non Computer Technical Joes) or something else similar :-P

"then make tons of copies and give them to friends"...ah, I'm sure pirating software is the way to bring about open source victory. If MS is so expensive, find a better alternative. People shouldn't have to tolerate draconian EULAs if there's a WORTHY free alternative. I'm sure there's a Microsoft (yes, the letter s is in Microsoft) journal that advocates using OSS libraries in their products, because that's the right thing to do. NOT.

No brainer

[jmorris42]

They will refuse to support OpenDocument just as long as there is a chance they can browbeat customers lime MA into sticking with Office. Then they will refuse to support it while they make all of their plans to switch to something else. Finally at the last minute they will offer to allow them to be a 'beta' site for their upcoming OpenDocument supporting version. Since the grunts at the keyboards hate change, tons of political pressure will be put on the people in charge to stick with MS, this offer will be accepted. Then after a couple of years of buggy and disfunctional betas we will get to the final decision. If others also demand OpenDocument it will finally go production. Otherwise they will just pull the plug on it, the current IT team in MA will have been quietly replaced by then and the whole thing will be forgotten.... except by anyone else who is thinking of taking a similar stand.

Re:No brainer

[Feneric]

They will refuse to support OpenDocument just as long as there is a chance they can browbeat customers lime MA into sticking with Office. Then they will refuse to support it while they make all of their plans to switch to something else. Finally at the last minute they will offer to allow them to be a 'beta' site for their upcoming OpenDocument supporting version.

It's already too late. Parts of Massachusetts (including perhaps most notably Saugus) have already switched. See the announcement on Saugus.net and some samples of open format usage for both Saugus' involvement with the Teaching American History Grant and Saugus' official by-laws. Other communities in Massachusetts are following suit.

Remember, the deadline is that everything has to be completely changed over by 2007; that means that the change is already happening now.

Why not use HTML?

[Psx29]

I never really understood this but how come in this day and age the default format for text isn't html? It's a standard that can be read on tons of devices, it can contain images or text or whatever, why not have word processors use it??

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Anonymous Coward]

html isn't particularly good for text formatting

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Spy der Mann]

*cough cough* ack! Have you EVER seen the ugliness inside MSWord produced html?

Anwyay, HTML is a markup language - just as OpenDocument. The difference is that HTML was meant to be read by web browsers. Printing and formatting is out of its scope.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[csirac]

I agree to a certain extent, and I think if you were to attempt to build an office workflow based around "paperless" and entirely electronic document exchange, HTML could fit the bill quite well. But I can see a possible reason as to why HTML isn't used for more inter-office document exchange.

1) It quickly becomes a collection of files (figures, pictures, diagrams, charts, formulas, etc) which are inconvenient to manage. You have to attach say six different files to your email, or mess around with zipping it up, likewise at the recipient end.
2) Printing

As for (1), there's Microsoft's Compiled HTML which forms the basis of their help file format, not sure why that isn't an option in FLOSS (maybe it is, I haven't researched).

For (2), people want to control how the formatting looks on the printed page. You don't get that in HTML. And most word-processing, let's face it, is meant to be printed on paper. Depressing that computers have yet to provide a solution to the paperless office... but that's the way things are.

In my opinion, documents > 5 pages or so should be written in LaTeX but that's just me :-) (and for those that groan at this thought, take a look at Lyx).

Re:Why not use HTML?

[koekepeer]

regarding point (2), it is possible to define pages and sizes and such in CSS level 2

http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/page.html

Re:Why not use HTML?

[MobyDisk]

Because there are two families of file-formats for text formatting:
1) Word Processing/Page Layout formats such as Open Document, MS Word, Word Perfect, and PDF.
2) Hyper text formats such as HTML, XML, and SGML.

The first family contains the exact specific information required to render (display, print) the document. In theory, I can open a Word Document or a PDF file on any computer in the universe and it will print exactly the same. It also MAY contain SOME semantic, contextual, "hypertext" information.

The second family contains mostly semantic information required to parse and convert the document. It is good for outlines, blind reders, or computers. It also MAY contain SOME rendering information, but it is not necessary, and each client may choose to render the document in whatever way is most appropriate.

This is why CSS was created. The idea is that HTML is the content (semantics) and CSS is the formatting (rendering, printing, display). But I don't think HTML & CSS specifies enough detail that it can do everything that MS Word, PDF, etc. can do.

I don't think HTML+CSS will ever become the format of choice. I don't see it moving in the direction that is needed to replace word processing formats. It will most likely remain a format for output and web transmitting. Although, maybe one day we will have browsers that can render Open Document files. That would be nifty.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[just_another_sean]

While I agree in theory this is a good idea HTML is not really a great format for portability. Although a lot of devices read HTML and it's very platform neutral it does take some skill and effort to make it consistent across platforms. So that bugs the publishing crowd who wants control over the flow and layout of a document. Ah, CSS solves that! But my next point illustrates why this is also problematic. You mentioned containing images; images and other non-textual data in an HTML document are just links. When your browser hits a web server both sides know how to deal with this properly. Have you ever tried to explain to a colleague who tried to email an HTML attachment why their pictures didn't get sent with the message? Object linking in HTML makes it problematic when it comes to end users passing it around. It works great for the client/server web model but tends to fall apart when you try to force other applications to use it. Just look at the mess that is HTML email.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[caudron]

how come in this day and age the default format for text isn't html?

It could easily replace rtf, but a full featured word processor, like Microsoft Word or OpenOffice.Org Writer, demands more. There are formatting features, revsion controls, and all manner of underlying tech that html simply doesn't suport.

That said, I totally agree that html should be the default for text documents that are more complex than raw ascii and less complex than a 500 page technical manual with macros and embedded revison history. That's the spot rtf current tries to take, but html is a better choice there.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[shotfeel]

I never really understood this but how come in this day and age the default format for text isn't html?

Call me old-fashioned, but I still think the best format for text is .txt. If you want more formatting options, .rtf. If you want images, tables, etc, then go HTML.

IMO the best format is always the simplest.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[sootman]

I seem to remember Opera, ages ago, could read zipped HTML+images. I'm surprised and disappointed that such a simple idea never caught on. Along with that, editors should be able to treat zipped files as directories and work on files directly in them. It might be trickier to handle images, but there's no reason I shouldn't be able to point a text editor at a zipped file, choose which text file I want to edit, edit it, and save changes, without once ever manually zipping or unzipping it. Come to think of it, every program on the planet ought to be able to peer inside a zipped file and treat it like a folder. We've certainly got the horsepower these days.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Zordak]

I think the help file format is compiled RTF. Or at least it used to be. I remember having to write a help file and edit the RTF to insert the right tags, but that was ~2000-ish.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[rathehun]

Check this out, as an example.

Warning: Will not render in Firefox.

Traincraft.in

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Maian]

I'm not familiar with the OpenDocument standard, but if it's an XML file, it can be transformed (via XSL) into a XHTML+SVG+CSS compound document.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep MS Word 95 around just incase I ever have to produce another Windows Help file. I find that it can produce exactly the right tags.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[nine-times]

It certainly helps, but that doesn't really get around the problem we experience on the web all the time: different web browsers display the same HTML[+CSS] differently. Plus there are different HTML standards (the different versions, strict/transitional, XHTML).

So, if you wanted to use HTML, it would help to create a stricter version of something like XHTML that was more focused on dealing with the issues of office document creation/editing/viewing. Instead of being clever, I'll come out and say it: XML. It's the conclusion that most everyone has come to, including Microsoft. (Microsoft has just caught some flack for putting binary data into their XML, meaning it still isn't open)

Sure, you're correct to point out that CSS allows for formatting for different media, including the printed page. However, even HTML+CSS does not (yet) give you the consistency, flexibility, and features that most people demand from an office suite. Maybe it will after some more revisions of those standards, but I think these developers are doing the appropriate thing to be creating their own custom XML schemas.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[budgenator]

I'm surprised and disappointed that such a simple idea never caught on
It did it's just so transperant it's invisable now; the openoffice native format is realy a zipped data files and directories structure. Just take an open office document, change it's file extention to .zip and take a peek inside. Much of the real power of the format is it's fully documented, so you can make any program take a file, open it and use the data, make a new file just what ever you can imagine and code.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[TelJanin]

It does if you disable CSS (View->Page Style->No Style)

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although chtml isn't a standard (I think) there's also mhtml, whose format looks like an http stream (with two linebreaks between file streams, http headers, and such). It's fairly easy to write and IE / MSOffice understand it. OpenOffice and Mozilla don't though :(

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Tribbin]

"1) It quickly becomes a collection of files (figures, pictures, diagrams, charts, formulas, etc) which are inconvenient to manage. You have to attach say six different files to your email, or mess around with zipping it up, likewise at the recipient end."

tar or tar.gz will do the job.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[koekepeer]

within the main discussion topic, your point is completely valid and i agree 100%.

the original post (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165648&cid=13 817908) starting the thread to which i replied was actually about html as a replacement for text.

it's not the standards' fault that no client program in the world knows how to properly render (x)html/css to different output devices. but i digress. this was offtopic from the beginning on, i just replied in kneejerk fashion ;-)

Re:Why not use HTML?

[AstroDrabb]

Which isn't very well supported by all browsers. Plus there is also the issue over print control. There is really no way to control printing via Javascript in a cross-browser, cross-plaform way. I know a group where I work are using a crappy IE-only ActiveX control because they needed a web page to print without any user control. They needed to print multiple pages and having a for() loop and window.print() that a user would have to click 25 times just wouldn't do.

While HTML is great for display of content over the web, it really sucks as a format for office documents. No one wants to have to send around multiple files to just display a single document. No want wants to have to zip up all the files of a web page (css, images, javascript) and then give instructions to users on how to extract the files and double-click on index.html. No one wants to worry about print preferences, etc. Have you ever seen how IE prints a page? It puts a URL and and other crap on the page. The last thing I want at the top of each report page is file:///D:/My%20Documents/tmp/foo.html or D:\My Documents\tmp\foo.html. The last thing I want to do is to give instructions to tons of users on how to turn off all the IE print headers/footers.

No thanks. Use the right format for the right job.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[nine-times]

I see what you mean. Still, the question from the OP was, "why not have word processors use it??" In response, I would say you *could* use html+css as the default format for exchanging text information, but it just isn't an ideal solution. html+css wasn't created for the purpose and wouldn't hold all the right information properly. (or else it'd take a lot of trickery to hide things, and maybe embed javascript and such)

That wouldn't prevent someone from making a web browser plugin that could translate the XML of the known filetype into a readable web page, however. The XML format just has to be supported.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[sootman]

True enough, but as much as I love OO, in my mind "caught on" means "more than one group using it for one purpose." Besides, OOo can *only* read their own format, which just *happens* to be .zip. Zip up a few plain text docs and use "File -> Open..." on them in OOo and see what happens. I don't have OOo on this machine right now but I'll bet the answer is "nothing." If I'm wrong, feel free to reply.

Re:Why not use HTML?

[Bert64]

Rendering OpenDocument in a browser should be a simple matter of supplying the appropriate XSLT..
As for page layout formats, that would be PDF...
word files are open to a degree of interpretation by the app too, different versions of word render the same file differently and the same version but with different printer/font configurations will often look different too.

If M$ is going to supporting OpenDocument

[8127972]

Then somebody should check the tempature of hell. It might be getting chilly down there.

FOr all you Office users...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

JUST DO IT. Go to http://www.openoffice.org/ and download it. It installs cleanly, uninstalls cleanly, and does not interfere at all with your current install of MS Office (just choose "NO" when asked if you want to link OpenOffice to MS Office file types).

Use it, and I bet most, if not all of you, will find yourself not needing MS Office.

Oh, and try that Save to PDF button. Yum.

Good night, and good luck!

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[MrP-(at work)]

i think most of us are already using it, but the average use isn't because its too hard to download

a coworker needed an office product at home so i told her about openoffice and where to download it, she came back the next day and said she tried for like 30 minutes to find it, she downloaded something and installed something but had no idea what.

i had to write instructions for her, so i began writing a step-by-step download guide and thats when i realized, its way too hard to download openoffice for an average/newbie user

it had about 6 steps and most involved clicking on weirdly named text only links

there needs to be a giant "Download OpenOffice for Windows Now!" button on the page that links directly to the installer... oh yeah that reminds me also, whats up with the zipfile containing hundreds of files? A newbie will have no clue what file is what, and most just want to install a program not unzip it first. Programs like WinZip let you run the setup from the zip but this doesn't work with openoffice either because the openoffice setup zip contains path information and winzip cant install from a zip file if it contains path information.

Anyway, just thought i'd mention that

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[dartboard]

You should really check out the 2.0 installer, which is a self-extracting exe on Windows.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[MrP-(at work)]

i have, but for an average user they should download the stable 1.x version for now, and thats not easy to install

and when 2.0 is released, if it still takes 6 steps to just download the installer, it's still too hard for the average user.

same thing applies to most projects at sourceforge.net, i download all the time from them so i never noticed until today when i had to help someone download PDFCreator and he got all confused because theres way too many files to choose from and steps to follow to download it.

firefox got it right with there big "Free Download" link/image that starts downloading the installer right away.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[slackmaster2000]

Agreed! This is where SO many great opensource applications totally miss the boat when it comes to gaining "average" Windows users. As soon as your instructions get past 2 or 3 steps you can see their eyes start to glaze over...it just stops registering. Then when you start introducing eight zillion files that might be zipped or gziped and completely lacking an installer, people just shut down.

If you have a great product like PDFCreator (which we use extensively in our organization), then it deserves an easy download page. It should not rely on sourceforge. (It might be nice too if they'd merge the dang 0.8 patch file already!) Just look at the file list for this simple application! I've personally downloaded and sent this application to people because they didn't understand what to download... PDFCreator-0_8_0_AFPLGhostscript.exe, PDFCreator_0_8_0_GNUGhostscript.exe, PDFCreator-Source_0_8_0.zip, Patch02-PDFCreator-0_8_0.exe, and that's just one revision - zero explanation to the user of what these files are. I've had people who are fairly compentent with a computer ask me what they need to download. Pity. It's a great project that has saved us thousands of dollars in Acrobat licenses (which we only needed for the stupid distiller).

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[Maxo-Texas]

I think you misunderstood his point.

What he is saying is that when you go to Openoffice.org there should be a link on the home page that says "WINDOWS USERS- CLICK HERE TO INSTALL OPENOFFICE!"

I agree- it is a bit too many steps to locate and install openoffice. I would never ask my mom to try to install it.

Many windows users need hand-holding. Microsoft gives them hand holding. Opensource doesn't even teach them to fish- it just puts a fishingline, pole and bait on the boat and expects them to go from there. The biggest thing holding opensource back is userinterface/friendliness/hand holding. Opensource people are usually so technical that when they try to make it simple- it's still complicated.

It's okay for me- but if openoffice was easy to use and install on windows and mac, it would be eating office alive even more than it is now.

OO2.0 looks great btw.
--
OO my official wp since about 1.9 build 64.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[Maian]

I use OpenOffice myself, mainly because the version of MS Office I have on this computer is in a different language and a bit outdated, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to change the language.

So far, I've had mixed feelings with OpenOffice. It's a decent product, but it still has several shortcomings. It's PowerPoint equivalent keeps crashing. It's table support still sucks. And of course, the load time. Bottom line is that IMHO, OpenOffice.org is only a barely suitable replacement for MS Office.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[ThousandStars]

I'd consider it, and have, but OpenOffice for OS X in the form of NeoOffice isn't very good. It starts on my 1.5 Ghz PowerBook in about 30 seconds, compared to 3-4 for Word, and has inferior style support and lacks a unified toolbar. I also haven't been able to get it to do complex number patterns, like 2.c.iv., and have all of them increment appropriately. Finally, although NeoOffice is a noble effort, it's ugly on OS X. Although I've already tried your suggestion, I find that I do need MS Office.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

You are right. I should have said "For Windows users". I have XP Tablet edition on my Tablet, and Powerbook OS X 10.4 as main comp when home. I also use, grudgingly, NeoOffice. Bless them for the effort, but it's a damn shame OpenOffice 2.0 does not work on OS X like it does on Windows.

That said, I am happy to pay for good software when it's worth it, and IMO Apples software Pages kicks ass, it's a rethink on work processing and really combines Word Processing and Page Layout together in one app that takes automatic themes to a new level.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[Anonymous Coward]

I completely agree. Compare:

http://www.openoffice.org/
  -> http://download.services.openoffice.org/2.0.0rc/in dex.html
  -> http://download.services.openoffice.org/2.0.0rc/co ntribute.html?continue=http%3A//mirrors.ibiblio.or g/pub/mirrors/openoffice/contrib/rc/2.0.0rc3/OOo_2 .0.0rc3_051014_Win32Intel_install.exe
  -> click, begin downloading the installer.

vs:

http://www.mozilla.org/
  -> click, begin downloading the installer.

Mozilla automatically chooses the platform and language based on the browser that you use to access the page. ie: On OSX, it defaults to the Apple version. On XP, the Windows installer. It makes it *so* easy for the end-user that even my mom could work that one out and she now uses Firefox. But she then went out and bought Microsoft Office because it looked like figuring out how to install OpenOffice was going to be complicated.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[WhiteWolf666]

Pages does kick ass.

However, its file format is a mess, and will never be supported by anyone.

AFAIK, there aren't _any_ good options of OpenDocument on OS X.

I say this as someone who relies on NeoOffice/J on a daily basis. It works, but its ugly/kludgy.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[killjoe]

So what you are saying is the open office is not good enough for anybody using windows because neooffice for mac doesn't have a unified toolbar and is ugly.

LOL.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[TwinkieStix]

I have a 1.3 Ghz iBook, and I use OpenOffice for Mac (not NeoOffice). It starts pretty fast, but it does require that you install X11 first. Give it a try, X11 should have come with your Mac on the CDs. You can download the real OpenOffice from OpenOffice.org.

Re:For all you Office users...

[ThousandStars]

I'm arguing that OpenOffice isn't an option for everyone, or at the very least isn't ready to be used by everyone, including the millions of Mac users out there.

Re:For all you Office users...

[killjoe]

The millions of mac users aren't really the target. The target is the much more numerous windows users. Besides mac users are too picky to switch to anything. If we waited till the finicky mac users to jump on board we would all grow old and die.

Re:FOr all you Office users...

[Bert64]

Yes, they could do with a link on the front page saying download now, which then tries to detect the OS and language your using, but still provides links to other platforms/languages. Just like what firefox does...

Come on folks

[Nom du Keyboard]

support of OpenDocument in MS Office could happen.

Did anybody think it wouldn't happen? Really?? And you just arrived from what planet again???

Of course it will happen. It will happen the moment MS needs it to happen. They've successfully resisted as long as they can, and when it starts costing them sales rather than creating sales for them they flip a compiler option switch and it's included. Don't think for a moment that they haven't had this running in their development labs for years. They would have been fools not to have.

Doesn't mean the battle is over. MS will certainly try to find some essential feature that OD doesn't support to keep people on their own proprietary format. Fight this by using OD regardless. The only thing I don't understand is why RTF was never an acceptable open format. I know it was supported by other platforms, and appears to be all ascii tags and data.

Kudos to Massachusetts to standing up to the MS BS. It took someone big enough and brave enough to get their attention. Apparently even a small state is big enough to really scare them.

Re:Come on folks

[Qubit]

As I understand it, RTF was a proprietary Microsoft format. They published (or left someplace people would find it) a spec for it, but there is no guarantee that Microsoft won't change the spec and/or try to exert control over it.

RTF does decently well, but just doesn't cut it. I think that ODF is going to make it as the primary document format for text with markup, but it will take some work to get it accepted.

Or worse...

[Poromenos1]

Worse, they could support it, both reading and writing perfectly, and add new "features" to it which other suites can't read, therefore forcing people to use Office.

Re:Or worse...

[Dan Ost]

I believe that Mass. had wording that a product does not
qualify if it:
a) does not completely and correctly implement OpenDoc
b) extends OpenDoc

If MS were to add proprietary stuff, they would be
disqualifying themselves.

Let's just ditch Word.

[CyricZ]

I don't know why people are putting up with all these shenanigans from Microsoft. This should be an indicator to everyone that they're only out to hassle the community.

As such, any product organization should begin to switch to a system such as LaTeX for their document formatting needs. And for those who suggest that it is too complex for memos and other smaller documents, the perfect answer to that is to just stick with plain text files.

While the learning curve of something like LaTeX is a bit more than that of Word, it is far more powerful. Using a system such as LaTeX you can easily produce some very complex documents, and they look great. You don't have to worry about proprietary binary or XML formats, because LaTeX source files are plain text files. You can easily transmit them in source form, or you can create PDF documents when you need the presentation to be exact.

Re:Let's just ditch Word.

[tomstdenis]

Not to mention being a text format it works well with CVS and allows you to have ***PROPER*** revision control, not that crap that Office does.

Tom

Re:Let's just ditch Word.

[Anonymous Coward]

are you insane? or 14? do you have any real world experience with actual people?

Re:Let's just ditch Word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Latex? Wait for Word 12. =)

Re:Let's just ditch Word.

[CyricZ]

Actually, I worked at a company for years that relied solely on LaTeX for our document formatting. Indeed, it took our new secretaries a bit longer to learn to use it than it would have probably taken them to use Word. But after they did learn it, they were unstoppable. Our documents always looked far more professional, and we never ran into problems transmitting documents within the firm. Our secretaries themselves frequently stated how smoothly things went, unlike their previous places of work where .doc incompatibilities would waste hours upon hours of time.

I Smell a Rat

[Comatose51]

I can see it now, Office can open OpenDocuments but everytime you try to save, it will ask if you want to save to .doc to prevent losing formatting info. Users complain about this extra step. Or they just say yes and you get a mix of OpenDocument and .doc going around in MA. MS runs a FUD campaign about how much this is costing taxpayers and what a mess the whole OpenDoc conversion has been. MA gives up and back to MS it is.

Re:I Smell a Rat

[The Cisco Kid]

Or, perhaps,

"Users complain about this extra step, and their IT department installs OpenOffice on their PC. Presto, no more extra step"

Re:I Smell a Rat

[aaza]

As I recall*, MA required OpenDocument format to be the default format saved for them to even consider using that office suite.

If MS Office saves as Microsoft Document by default, it disqualifies itself from consideration.

*Please, I can't be the only one who remembers this, surely?

An official statement of my own

[ZiZ]

I would like to officially state that it is possible that pigs will fly, that the sun will rise in the west, and that all males between the ages of 34 and 37 inclusive will develop a small blue spot under their left arms at 4:03am tomorrow morning.

Furthermore, it is my official position that it is possible that we will have a global renewal of peace and brotherhood, starting in the middle east; that demands on oil will suddenly drop out to nothing due to the invention of cheap, clean cold fusion; that Santa Claus will descend from Heaven with Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, and the Loch Ness Monster to tell us once and for all how we can get those tough wine stains out of our silk blouses, and that one day we will discover an honest lawyer or an unbiased slashdot story. ...Ok, maybe that last is a bit out of the realm of possibility.

That sure sounds definite! Not.

[unfortunateson]

...officially stated to him that support of OpenDocument in MS Office could happen...

Boy, that's as much a sure thing as when Owl says to Pooh, floating in the floody 100 Acre Wood, "A rescue is being thought of"

More than likely, it will be provided as an import/export format. I haven't viewed either schema, but seeing as Microsoft typically releases next-version converters (including the next XML format) for current version software, another format should be easily done.

After all, wouldn't they rather have Word, Excel, etc. be the default app that opens those docs?

perfect read

[Dink Paisy]

More likely, Microsoft would make read support work perfectly, but make write support problematic by having features in MS Office that are not supported by the OpenDocument format. Two other options are also possible, but less likely. First, Microsoft could embrace and extend the format, with vendor-specific extensions. Considering the negative reactions this usually gets them, I doubt Microsoft would do it. Second, Microsoft could add features faster than competitors, and push those features into the standard, thus ensuring that competitors were second class citizens, unable to support the standard fully.

Support for reading, but only incomplete support for writing seems the most probable action for two reasons. First, it resembles how Microsoft beat other word processing competitors, Wordperfect in particular. Second, because there is no real competitor for MS Office, and Microsoft adds features based on customer demand. Supporting OpenDocument as an external, but less featured, format would be consistent with adding it as a customer demanded feature, but not letting the OpenDocument format guide the other features of MS Office.

Doubtful

[echonull]

I found it hard to believe that the creators of OpenDocument would not be reading this article and even clearing this up for some of us. For what it's worth, I cannot ever see this happening.

Re:Doubtful

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearing what up? Sounds like you assume the creators of OpenDocument have some sort of control over whether Microsoft supports the format in MS Office.. Either microsoft chooses to include it in Office, or they don't.

Why this will happen

[foolinator]

Having a lot of IT friends in Europe and Asia, I know that a LOT of organizations are now using open office as a document standard. Since OO doesn't work 100% well with MS formats, allowing MS Office to be 100% compatable with OO will make the US companies (who are still obsessed with MS Office) more easily work with their OO businesses. If MS didn't support it, then the US companies will begin to use both MS Office and OO - which will start the push for US companies to use OO.

It's a win for MS to do this. They've done this with Java in the past and it proved damaging to the Java world.

CSV

[3ryon]

I suspect that MS support will be like that in Excel with CSV files. I choose "Save As", hit the drop down, scroll through the list for .csv, select that, hit save.

I then get a dialog box saying something like "This file may contain features that cannot be saved if you continue to save in this format. Are you sure you want to save in this format?" Well, yes. I scrolled through the list and picked that format.

This behavior occurs even if you open a .csv file, change one value and resave it...not using any fancy features.

Re:CSV

[codepunk]

Well sure they could do that but then their suite does not meet the requirements of the MA
statute which plainly states that the softwares default document save format has to be ODF. So no MS cannot play the silly little default save format game.

Could be carefull of MS could statements

[shareme]

Be carefull of MS could support statements when they did this with POSIX they did not go to the actual lciense holder of the IP of POSIX, Novell, but went to TSCO... to be fair to MS was it not the saem excuse SUn gave when gving money to TSCo that they neded to make sure POSIX was supproted?

Whooosh

[squoozer]

What was that?

Blinking 'eck, it was flock of flying pigs.

MS may well embrace OpenDocument

[davide marney]

Microsoft realizes as much as anybody that the days of desktop-bound apps are swiftly coming to a close. They realize that XML is "the" way that data is shared between applications, a trend that will likely continue for many, many years to come. The realize that being able to easily inject Office-authored content into enterprise-wide, services oriented architectures is critical to their very future.

I think people should be paying more attention to where MS has been heading lately. They are aggresively pursuing a platform of loosely-coupled, network-delivered services, just like everyone else. They have a complete software stack of everything needed from the back office to the mobile desktop. Very few companies have anything close to their breadth and depth in application coverage.

Key to this whole enterprise is a data model that can capture everything people do in the business environment. Well, it just so happens that we have a suite of products that shows us what kinds of data models we need: WYSIWYG text, spreadsheets, databases, presentations, drawing, messenging, calendar ... the whole Office suite. The Open Document format goes far, far beyond being able to encapsulate word processing documents. Open Document puts the entire office data model into one, clean spec. Open Document is HTML, XML, SMIL, and XForms, all rolled up into one. This is heady stuff. Read it for yourself at as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument .

Microsoft gains absolutely nothing by not being able to participate with other services in this larger, connected world. Of course they will always have their own specialized content, and even their own specialized XML version of what Open Document provides. But if the customer base needs compatibility with another XML schema, of course MS will participate. To participate is to make money, and that is something that MS is very, very good at.

Because HTML != HTFL

[Akardam]

HTML is of course HyperText Markup Language (emphasis mine). It was designed for inserting links and other nifty widgets like forms into hypertext. Of course, over time some basic formatting tags snuck in (bold, italics, paragraphs, etc), but those don't come close to dealing with the advanced formatting available in most word processing or desktop publishing packages. One of the reasons even older versions of Word et al produce such nasty HTML is due to them trying to as faithfully as possible replicate their formatting to HTML, which before CSS was no easy task.

So yeah. I'd much rather have an open binary format than HTML. I honestly don't care if my documents are human readable in their raw format - if I want that I'll use a text file. As long as it's an open, well documented format, I could care less.

Right...

[fizban]

"My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night."

I'll believe it when I see it. Otherwise, we're all just Rooney's in training.

In fairness...

[rewt66]

(Fairness? To Microsoft? On Slashdot? Hey, humor me here.)

I don't think he's saying that it wasn't on their radar screens, as in, "We've never heard of Open Document". Instead, he's saying, "It wasn't on our radar as a feature to implement right now." And, pre-Massachusetts, it probably wasn't.

OpenDoc.org

[Moth7]

Variation on a theme? :D

Officially stating that MS support could happen...

[digitaldc]

...is like them officially stating they will start cooperating with other businesses?


For those who like text only format, you can go to the Oxford Text Archive for all of your ASCII & html fun...
http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/ (browse by title)

Parent is not flamebait...

[BarryNorton]

The bloody article is flamebait.

From the Slashdot cookie-cutter: Some blog says Microsoft might plan to support X
Along with: Google have registered the domain gX.com
And: AJAX is teh l337
And: Which is the best programming language?

Re:Parent is not flamebait...

[CyricZ]

Do you not have the moderator points to moderate up that particular message? I thought a man of your stature and girth would be up to his neck in karma points to distribute.

Isn't "OpenDoc" the same or just as good?

[jbn-o]

I'm surprised there aren't more people outraged at the thought of someone telling someone else what to call it. After all the lame arguments favoring calling "Linux" an operating system when it always was just a part of an operating system called a kernel. Or the arguments claiming that "open source" and "free software" are the same thing despite their different starting dates, different philosophies, and different progenitors. Why let a little thing like technical correctness and respect for what someone calls their work get in the way of what you call something?

This is a rhetorical question.

Re:Isn't "OpenDoc" the same or just as good?

[subVorkian]

ummmm -- I thought it was GNU/Linux?

How do you do that?

[khasim]

You can already configure Word to save in other formats by default.

I've been looking for a way to do that and I still haven't found one.

Re:How do you do that?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Did you try asking the paperclip? He's there to help users like you.

Re:How do you do that?

[generic-man]

Tools > Options > Save > "Save Word files as:"

On the Mac: Word > Preferences > Save > "Save Word files as:"

This kind of articles could start a new genre

[Rotten]

When i read this kind of oversimplifications, i wish i could go to a bookstore and find the FUD genre....a collection of MS sponsored books and magazines.

For example, those that wish to create open source software for release under any of the licenses approved by the Open Source Initiative could not permit usage of many of the licensing terms that would be required (and considered to be unobjectionable) by the companies involved in creating many types of standards today, or by the standards organizations within which such standards are being developed.

Butterfly ripples...

[xeoron]

The state of Mass.'s move has ripple effects. All organizations that work with or for the state government will also have to run software that not only can read/view OpenDocument files, but also write them, as well.

Re:Butterfly ripples...

[swimin]

That means that other suites that are compatible with OpenDoc like OpenOffice.org, will probably be acceptable for dealing with those businesses.

OOo does the same thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you open a .doc file, you get the same kind of message when you save. I want to keep a certain document in .doc format for my co-workers, but I only want to use OOo. So they penalize me with this stupid form that you can't turn off.

wisdom

[twitter]

You quibble about the wording of public information becoming inaccessible.

From the fine article:

Why do we care about formats? Electronic file formats sit at the core of concern about future access to today's public records. Simply put, the question is whether, when we look back a hundred years from now, we will be able to read the records of what we did today. It should be reasonably obvious for a lay person who reflects on the concept of public records that the government must keep them independent and free forever. It is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system license that restricts access.

Understand it now? Twenty years from now, there's a good chance no one will have a way to read Word DOC97. Public documents saved in that format, even if they are preserved, can be difficult, impossible or illegal to read without paying a third party a fat fee. They will have become inaccessible.

You stay stuck on little words, Massachusetts is moving to save what counts. There's already a pile of M$ shit that's hard to read and even harder to print out. Already Microsoft's poorly planned document formatting tools have shown their age and old documents have to be reworked before they can be printed. The longer they wait to move to free document standards, the bigger the pile of lost material grows.

Re:wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

twitter, shut the fuck up.

Even when your argument has merit, as it does in this case, having your name attached to it lessens its credibility.

If you truly want to make a contribution to the OSS movement, the best thing you could possibly do would be to SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY!

Re:wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You make it sound like this is all some Microsoft-specific conspiracy. I have AmiPro documents I can't pull into anything else. I have an entire knowledgebase database locked into Corel InfoCentral 7, which will not install on anything other than Windows 95.

I'm sure you get a kick out of running around foaming at the mouth and writing these insightful essays with important-sounding phrases about how it's all Microsoft's fault. Well guess what - it's not.

And FWIW, I wouldn't touch OpenDocument with a 10-foot pole. It's a flawed spec, and many people agree with that. Even Hixie. Coming up with a document, calling it a "standard" and then demanding everyone follow it simply because you called it a "standard" doesn't quite work in my book. In fact it's the kind of thing Microsoft used to do back in the day with HTML and the W3C.

"M$", indeed.

Re:wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but, but... It has the word "Open" in it, so it must be teh R0XX0RZ DUD3!!!

Re:wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical sycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" or "fanboy" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or Mepis or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, check this post out. This is an article about email disclaimers. The parent of the post is complaining about the ads in the linked page and so on, and twitter actually goes off on a rant to blame it on Microsoft and recommend Lynx, because "is teh free".

Here's another. In this post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

Here's that drive-by advocacy and FUD in motion: twitter goes on about some topic and then drops the usual "oh and M$ is teh evil" because "WMP phones home" or some such. Called on his FUD, he then claims that WMP stores every song and movie you've ever played in a file, somewhere. Pressed further, he just sort of slithers out of sight, his FUD-spreading complete. This is not about some Microsoft technology that nobody likes anyway; it's about lying for the sake of lying. Way too many of his posts are exactly like this one.

More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own. Or these two. Or this one. Or this one.

Still not convinced? This is what twitter considers "humour" while going about his daily "M$" routine.

M

Stop bitching

[Anonymous Coward]

Massachusetts decides to support OpenDocument, /. says that Microsoft could support it if it wanted, and MS is only interrested in locking people to its proprietary format.

Now, Microsoft, in a highly hypothetical scenario, could support OpenDocument, and /. complains that Microsoft will destroy OpenDocument efforts through a broken implementation.

I can't believe that no highly-modded posts are saying that this could, indeed, be a good thing. WTF is wrong with you, people?

Re:Stop bitching

[SoSueMe]

You're right. They probably could. They were told how during the MA discussions. See: Microsoft: We were railroaded in Massachusetts on ODF

However, they probably won't, see previous post.

Re:Three Assertions

[jackDuhRipper]

Fareq wrote:
I assert: MS Office is still the king of the hill.

Your assertion that Office currently remains King of the Hill does not refute mine that "good enough" alternatives will chip away at Office's marketshare if more of the compatibility issues become non-issues (e.g. via a complete implementation of OpenDocument by MicroSoft).

The second part of your assertion contains faulty logic:

I assert: ... Unless you want to say that something like OpenOffice has even noticeable market-share, at least one of your premises are wrong.

Current marketshare levels of the alternatives do not do not refute either of my premises; if marketshare levels of the alternatives were falling, you'd have a point. I do not believe that fewer people are installing and using OpenOffice, StarOffice, KOffice, etc. now than they were last year, for example. More people seem to be discovering they can get the majority of their work done sans the King of the Hill.

As more users explore alternatives, and if MicroSoft fully adopts open standards to improve compatibility with these alternatives, these alternatives would be more attractive to more people. This was the point in my original response to the question "if Office is so superior, why does MS need to lock users in?"

Could happen...

[DJCater]

USA could go metric.

Just a little more clarification.

[SoSueMe]

The OpenDocument format is based on OpenOffice's XML format.
No need to "Print to..."

"LyX? Are you ****ing kidding me?"

[tepples]

While the learning curve of something like LaTeX is a bit more than that of Word

Alert! Alert! Understatement! The learning curve of LaTeX and LyX is so high that when I suggested LyX to Caspian, (s)he replied, "are you [expletive] kidding me?"

.docxxx?

[Laebshade]

As with many of their products, Microsoft usually puts "Easter Eggs" in the programs, hidden gems that allow you to do unusual things with the program. So what if they made an easter egg with the extension? Let's say if saved a file in .docx format, then renamed it to .docxxx. You open the file and Clippy comes out wearing a teddy...

Ok, I'll stop right there and take my meds again, I promise.

Re:.docxxx?

[generic-man]

I haven't seen any Microsoft easter eggs in a long time. Rumor has it that due to government requirements for software, "Microsoft can't include undocumented features, including Easter eggs, in its software." This started with Windows XP, but I haven't seen Office easter eggs since the legendary Excel 97 flight simulator.

Not like Linux has been any more fun -- I think the printer on fire error was removed at some point. Spoil sports.

Why is this informative?

[EnderWiggin99]

ODx is a zipfile containing the xml data in OD format. If there are images included, they are linked precisely how html links images, and are included in the zipfile. They could have used HTML instead of inventing a new format.

I'm just nitpicking, however, as I do not believe HTML would make a great general format. The reason why is not because of images.

and so what ?

[Anonymous Coward]

ie supports html
embrace, extend
that wouldn't make openoffice compatible with ms office...

Yes, but the styles will still be proprietary

[Nailer]

So the parent poster's point stands. The XML gives you the content, the styles are locked away with a binary key you need Microsoft products to read.

Does anyone not consider a documents visual presentation part of the document?

Re:Yes, but the styles will still be proprietary

[generic-man]

The styles are not locked away with a binary key. According to the XML schemata (ZIP file), they're stored in XML just like the document text itself.

An XML document's visual presentation is stored by semantically defining styles in CSS or by translating XML into any other desired format using an XSLT document.

Re:Yes, but the styles will still be proprietary

[Nailer]

I read the link you're pointed to (though what on earth the Pretty Printing is, and why a text document shouldn't be viewable in a text editor, is beyond me). But the link to actually use MS Office doesn't work. Could you create a document and send me a link to it so I can see for myself?

As the link you pointed to reveals, the XML is office 2003 is weak and while the schema is available, the data within is apparently not completely documented. Its understandable that people would expect similar things to occur in future.

Viral Marketing

[cyberformer]

So MS wants everyone to switch file formats yet again. The plan is obviously to force people to upgrade: If a few of your contacts start sending you .docx files, you'll have to replace your existing copy of MS Word with Office 12.

But if you're being forced to upgrade anyway, why not check out the competition? The new format will be reverse-engineered, just as .doc has, so MS might inadvertently help OO.org and other alternatives.

Re:Viral Marketing

[SgtChaireBourne]

If a few of your contacts start sending you .docx files, you'll have to replace your existing copy of MS Word with Office 12

Not unless you want to. The normal response is to agree on a mutually readable format. Usually this is done at the earlier planning stages of the project.

MS can only use the steamroller method if they have enough market share and so far the latest versions of MS Office (with the new unreadable formats) are not moving off the shelves. Many are sticking with the oldest versions they can get away with or migrating to OpenOffice.org

Win32 API calls are also presented as 'plain text'

[Burz]

That doesn't mean they qualify as an open standard! If the implementation is encumbered by patents, and it produces undocumented behavior that MS apps can use but other vendors cannot reliably depend on, then it isn't open.

Ask the WINE project how open MS "standards" are. Ask the Mono folks how they feel about being a relatively popular subject, yet repeatedly wiped from official existence at MS and INETA functions. And then there are MS threats against Samba in Europe. This is not the profile of a standard-bearer for interoperability.

Docx is nothing but a hypocritical ploy, presented suddenly after-the-fact that the OASIS standard MS played a part in creating was unexpectedly taken seriously by government and a strong FOSS implementation. Why anyone with half a brain esp. on Slashdot would fall yet again for this monopolist trickery is beyond me. It definately reeks of shill.

Context is so important.

[jbn-o]

If you're talking about the GNU operating system combined with the Linux kernel, then yes, you're quite right (and thanks for giving GNU a share of the credit). If you're talking about the Linux kernel alone, it's fine to say "Linux". If you're talking about the GNU operating system with some other kernel (there are at least two others to choose from now), it makes sense to mention that other kernel (or kernel replacement) instead of the Linux kernel. "GNU" alone means the GNU operating system with its official kernel replacement—the HURD.

What you call it depends on what meaning you intending to convey; different words mean different things. But it is hypocritical to to be so sensitive to the differences in naming on one technical issue and dismissive of another (as so many /. posters, other than you, apparently are).

They will support it...

[Burz]

...the way they have supported HTML.

Learning curve?

[tepples]

most people who use Word, could easily replace it with wordpad.

Can wordpad make tables? What about bulleted lists?

Personaly for most of what I do the MySQL-Perl-LaTeX chain works much better than any integrated office application.

Tell that to your average secreta^W administrative assistant.

Re:Learning curve?

[budgenator]

When it's more import to comunicate the content rather than dazzel'em with bullshit; Wordpad is highly usable, such as the typical interdepartment memo. When your communicating with an ouside person and proper presentaion is part of the image your trying to project, I haven't found any word processor that is up to the task.
Try this with any office suite;
1. scrape yahoo for all of you competitors in a 250 Mile radius
2. scrape yahoo for all of your potential customers in a 250 mile radius
3. determine the GPS locations for all of the above.
4. determine which potential customers are located 10 miles or more for a competitor
5. print a form letter and envelope for each potential customer located more than 10 mile for a competitor, the letter must be justified with ruler straight margins
6. spend no more than 40 man-hours on entire task over a 45 day period, and not alow it to interfere with normal work.

you can't do it with an office suite, the MySQL-Perl-LaTeX chain makes it difficult but actualy possible. Additionaly the most difficult parts are reuseable if you want to expand your radiuses. This is beyond most typical office workers, but we have gotten resumes that listed TeX and LaTex skills and were obviously typeset rather than word processed.

Crackling sound?

[MadJo]

Wait, do you hear that crackling sound? That is hell freezing over.

Standards Feel Uncomfortable

[4of12]

What about that?

RFPs with exacting specification of standards compliance for browsers would be an excellent idea for the same reason that standards compliance for any application, such as word processors, is a good idea.

Practically, though, it would meet resistance since the largest provider of such applications wouldn't meet the specification. There'd be consternation from colleagues, users and management as they wondered how MS got booted out from on a standards clause while, simultaneously, MS is what everyone uses! How can this be?!? As a result, at the end of the day, there would be pressure to relax the specification requiring full and exacting compliance with free, open published standards.

And why not? IT decision makers get evaluated based on costs and benefits that are heavily weighted to here, now and 6 months out. Not 5 years and 10 years out. And that's the cost of not enforcing standards -- 10 years out being locked into a vendor's Solution and being slowly bled through incremental upgrades. It's like agreeing to buy a house mortgage with a pre-payment penalty and an upwardly adjustable interest rate because, well, the paper work is short, the biggest bank in town offers it, it's easier to do than the alternatives, and "everyone else has one".

There's a reassurance associated with being in the same boat with lots of other people.

"These people can't all be wrong. Besides, if a boat this big started to sink Something Would be Done About It."

There are more reasons...

Requirement for standards compliance just don't look sexy: it seems to say that you want to use established technology, yesterday's technology, that you are opposed to Innovation®.

While, in fact, insisting on standards compliance gives you reliability and a path forward towards commoditized applications (exactly what the application vendors don't want) where the price will spiral down fast.

The most successful parasitic organisms don't bleed their victims too fast and kill off their source of livelihood. And, they inject an anasthetic to dull the pain by muttering soothing words that distract, boost your ego, etc.

M$ is steering Office towards collaboration...

[mcn]

Office is now a System, more than Office as in word processing + spreadsheet + presentation. M$ is turning Office into collaboration software to compete with Lotus Notes.

So, if they support ODF, they will say, "hey, ODF can't do your collaboration needs. Stay with .doc, .xls, and .ppt".

Compressed HTML + images

[SgtChaireBourne]

I seem to remember Opera, ages ago, could read zipped HTML+images.

It's in the HTTP specification, all web browsers should be able to read compressed HTML or images, not just Opera. Whether they do or not is another question. The server, however, does have to pass on the encoding information in the headers.