Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Office 12 To Utilize ODF?

Posted by Zonk on from the humble-pie dept.

J. Random Luser writes "Groklaw is carrying a story about Microsoft quietly engaging a French company to develop Open Document filters for Office 12, due out mid-2006. The SourceForge project claims to be an import filter for MS Office, and that is how the developer describes it. But ZDNet quotes Ray Ozzie as talking about an export filter from MS Office, and this french blog takes Ozzie at his word. Ostensibly the tarball unpacks as OpenOfficePlugin, and SourceForge has the WindowsInstaller.msi listed as 'platform independent'." From the ZDNet article: "Ozzie told me that supporting ODF in Office isn't a matter of principle. Microsoft isn't opposed to supporting other formats. The company just announced support for PDF, and he added that the Open Office XML format has an 'extremely liberal' license."

44 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Utilize isn't the same as support by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's one thing to read/write a document format through a filter.

    It's another to utilize the format, i.e., as the underlying default storage format.

    1. Re:Utilize isn't the same as support by Deviate_X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The OpenOffice formats support only a subset of the funtionality in Word format - therefore there is emphasis on Import. But that does not exclude Export.

      Microsoft has a number other reasons why not to support OpenOffice file formats directly however, here are three:

      * OpenDocument has next to 0% market share (when opendocument has market share comparable to PDF, or HTML or RTF support considerations should be made)

      * OpenDocument Format is a legal mine-field. As stated previously OpenDocument is a subset of MsOffice format, any attempt my MS to Extend the format, or any perceived crippling of output (conversion from ms->opendocument --- downgrade) will leave Microsoft wide open to billion dollar anti-trust, anti-competitive, lawsuits from all the other members of the OpenDocument committee - please remember Ms had to pay Sun Micrososystems 2Billion US (Sun is also OpenDocument committee Member).

      * OpenDocument is a version 1.0 Spec and hence it is a moving target, and will probably go thru several revisions before the next Version of Ms office is released.

      For the above reason it is appropriate to leave the implementation of OpenDocument support in Ms Office versions in the hands of small third-party developers.

    2. Re:Utilize isn't the same as support by Tinidril · · Score: 3, Informative
      OpenDocument has next to 0% market share

      Maybe this is true in your backyard, but globally that is not the case. For one thing, you can count the state of Massachusetts as one big customer, and open office is rapidly becoming popular in may overseas circles. I know I read that the open-office format is actually the most used format in the world when you consider that users of MSO are fairly equally divided among the various versions. I'm to lazy to look it up now, but it certainly seems plausible. And if its not the case now I expect it soon will be. Every office sweet that is not MSO is, or soon will be, supporting ODF as the default. It is also a given that the ODF formats have a much larger market share than Microsoft's XML format that hasn't even been released yet.

      OpenDocument Format is a legal mine-field.

      Microsoft had to pay Sun $2B because they intentionally created a broken implementation of Java in order to break the "Write Once Run Everywhere" nature of the platform. As a condition of calling their product JAVA Microsoft was required to support the standard properly, and they _chose_ not to. If there had been incidental compatibility issues that MS had shown an interest in resolving that would have been an entirely different matter. Instead they chose to ignore their obligations because they believed the legal bills would be less than the cost of allowing platform competition.

      I find the suggestion that ODF is a subset of the MSO formats to be either ignorant or misleading. Many of the most demanding office users were heavily involved in the creation of the OD formats. For instance, Boing was very involved because they have unusually complex needs that they need addressed. They have to manage some of the most complicated documents in existence, and they have to be able to access those documents properly 30 years down the line.

      If Microsoft was so concerned that there are important features missing from ODF then they had ample opportunity to bring that up in the standards process, but they chose instead to be uninvolved because they saw it as unimportant. ( That is their claim, but more likely they saw it as enabling open competition which they hate. )

      Any features that MS sees as missing from ODF formats are most likely there because MS has a history of creating the data formats to serve the needs of the code instead of the needs of the data. In an inter-operable world the data must come first, but MS is not interested in an inter-operable world. Letting your data be defined by your code is a much faster way to write software, but it is one of the main factors that keeps one version of MSO from being able to properly read data from other formats. Its also the reason that MSO has had such a hard time converting to other formats like HTML.

      OpenDocument is a version 1.0 Spec

      I hope your not saying here that MS doesn't want to support a document format unless it knows that the format will never change. First of all, the MS track record for backward compatibility with their own older formats is well known to be piss poor. Second, in the history of computers I don't think there has ever been a document format more complex than ascii text that hasn't changed. But open formats like HTML have a much better track-record with backwards compatibility than proprietary formats ever have.

      Microsoft doesn't want ODF to succeed, because they don't want to have to compete on an open playing field. That is the driving reason behind everything they are doing in this arena. Their first choice would be to not support the format at all, but if that is not an option then they want to support it in a way that makes it appear broken or inferior. Given that goal, it seems that supporting the standard through a third party set of tools with only import/export instead of native support is the way to go.

      --
      XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
    3. Re:Utilize isn't the same as support by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      * OpenDocument Format is a legal mine-field. As stated previously OpenDocument is a subset of MsOffice format, any attempt my MS to Extend the format, or any perceived crippling of output (conversion from ms->opendocument --- downgrade) will leave Microsoft wide open to billion dollar anti-trust, anti-competitive, lawsuits from all the other members of the OpenDocument committee - please remember Ms had to pay Sun Micrososystems 2Billion US (Sun is also OpenDocument committee Member).

      That's just silly. Microsoft has hundreds of import/export filters with varying levels of quality. Nobody would ever implement import/export if it were possible to be sued by standards bodies or their member companies. Why hasn't anyone sued them over Word's horrible HTML? Ths Java situation was totally different. Java was not (and is not!) a standard. Microsoft was only allowed to redistribute Java because they entered into a conract with Sun. They violated that contract. Therefore they were sued. Half-assed OpenDocument support is not even remotely comparable. Half-assed OpenDocument support would be simply Microsoft doing business as always.

    4. Re:Utilize isn't the same as support by Tinidril · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...as of now we only have the equivalent of a papal bull decreeing this is to be so. I suspect that there will be considerable push-back from the business (especially multi-state, multinational business) community which interacts with Massachusetts if this politicized OpenDocument requirement is applied too religiously.

      Wow, two references to religion in the same paragraph. I guess we are supposed now see that the ODF movement is just religious idealism fostered by anti-Microsoft fanatics. Its funny that when Microsoft declares the future of XML office documents to be the yet incomplete MSO XML you believe them without question. But when a major customer declares that they will only accept ODF you become a skeptic. I think you have a little religion yourself.

      Microsoft is not in business to give a new format a free-ride into ubiquity.

      I never have, and never will accuse Microsoft of not acting in their own best interest. But as a customer, I have interests of my own. If MS, or any other company, chooses not to align themselves with my interests than I will not use their product.

      Nearly all the members of the OpenDocument collective are Microsoft enemies and many of them are know to have launched lawsuits against Microsoft in the past. Some have even done this multiple times.
      ...
      The members of the OpenDocument format group should be forced to signed a "NO Lawsuits" contract before its supported in Office.

      Some companies have competitors and others have enemies. MS has enemies because of their long history of business practices that are designed to prevent competition, not win in the marketplace. Your suggestion of a "NO Lawsuits" contract would be ridiculous in any case, but especially so in light of Microsoft's history. No business would ever sign such an agreement, and in fact I don't see Microsoft stepping up to the plate to do so with their new "open" XML format. Your ignoring the fact that in almost every case MS lost the suit, or settled because they knew they would. MS has always been willing to break the law if they believe the benefits outweigh the penalties

      One of the major charges brought against Microsoft vs. Sun in the JAVA case was the fact that Microsoft broke the Java potential by "intentionally" only supporting version Java 1.0.

      That is a clear red herring, and does nothing to change the fact that MS _intentionally_ broke their agreements concerning Java, and _refused_ to remedy the situation by bringing their implementation into compliance. Sun wasn't looking for a $2B award from Microsoft when they created Java. They wanted a ubiquitous development platform to provide true competition in the software marketplace. Microsoft was willing to do anything to stop that from happening. Your focusing on one small aspect to avoid looking at the big picture.

      Additionally what you are asking is for Microsoft to support and chase a format already widely discussed and described on the web as incomplete and broken.

      I am not asking MS to do anything. I want open formats for Office Documents, and I don't care if MS has anything to do with that or not. What I will not do is fall for the argument that MS is rejecting OSF on technical grounds. MS will compete when it has to, but it will first do whatever it can to prevent competition from ever taking place.

      I don't think there is a single file standard that has not be criticized by someone as being incomplete and broken, but in fact complaints about ODF have been really few. I don't recall seeing complaints anywhere that the standard is broken, and the only complaints I have heard about it being incomplete relate to the specification of spreadsheet formulas. For the most part this hasn't been a problem, but to address this concern efforts have already begun to turn the existing de-facto standards into a formal standard. Microsoft has made no effort to make their "standard" anything other than de-facto. (De fact

      --
      XML is the best data format; unless your data needs to be read or written by a human or a computer.
  2. How to get the State of MA to upgrade by lseltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, it's kind of clever: Support it, but only in the new version.

    1. Re:How to get the State of MA to upgrade by ThogScully · · Score: 4, Informative

      This doesn't mean that MA can't switch to OpenOffice if they think it's the better solution for them. This does mean that they can use ODF files and *expect* everyone else to be able to open them. If someone can't because they're running Office, then they can just upgrade. This puts the expense of using Office and upgrading Office on the people who are forcing it down everyone else's throats. I don't use Office, but I do recognize a problem with exchanging documents with those who do. I generally save as Doc files for them and try to verify on another person's machine that it will open correctly. It's good to know that I may be able to just send them ODF files from now on.
      -Neil

      --
      I've nothing to say here...
    2. Re:How to get the State of MA to upgrade by bypedd · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "This does mean that they can use ODF files and *expect* everyone else to be able to open them."

      That's exactly the point. I know someone who was involved in the pitch to the Massachusetts government, and it's very hard to explain that distinction to someone who just wants to write documents and send them to other people. At least now the argument of what their users have on their computers is slightly weaker (except for the fact that people still use Word 97, so it's bound to be an issue for years whether you have a new enough version). But the point isn't that this could break Microsoft's stranglehold - that's just a lovely side effect. The point is that Microsoft hedged its bets that every would use Microsoft - and they almost all do, so it was a good bet - but it could absolutely lead to some scrambling for a solution if these type of moves to Open formats takes off.

      Without the politics, it's 100% the right move because everyone should share the same format and it shouldn't matter what system you're on. Unfortunately, you can't decide this without the politics because of the situation of Office products and their history in everything from homes to businesses to government.

    3. Re:How to get the State of MA to upgrade by jacksonj04 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know this is going to sound bizzare, and possibly get me flamed into oblivion, but what if this is a genuine change in the way MS is thinking about business?

      For a long time MS has been around locking people in to their own formats and systems, but I think with the advent of the internet MS has realised that the most money lies in integrating with existing systems. Having well designed products which can talk to everything else is a big plus, they have brand recognition to begin with, and even if everything talks in open standards Microsoft can still sell their 'solution'. SharePoint, Exchange, Active Directory, Outlook, Office and Windows is currently a tightly integrated system, what's to stop MS making it use open standards and basing their business model on the fact that they can then sell the entire bundle to companies, with a unified administration system (Group Policy can remain proprietary, even though everything can talk to everything else using open standards). I know businesses would rather pay a large MS licence fee for a solution which is easy to look after than use 'free' components and pay someone to maintain them all and make sure they can communicate properly.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    4. Re:How to get the State of MA to upgrade by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the only problem I see with that theory is that, as far as I know, MS still uses proprietary formats whenever they can get away with it. Although it would be nice to think that they're turning over a new leaf, I think the evidence suggests only that they're grudgingly capitulating to Massachusetts' desires.

      Call me when you see a large scale shift to open formats (i.e., when they abandon MS XML entirely, switch to XUL instead of XAML, stop working on that "PDF killer" I've heard stories about, drop Windows Media file formats and codecs for MPEG and H.264, etc.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. Support by TechJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    MS Office also had support for WordPerfect files. If you want to have the leading Office software you must have support for your competition. OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.

    1. Re:Support by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny
      OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.

      Indeed it would be a big surprise if MS didn't include support for Word documents even if OOo wouldn't :-)
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Support by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If they supported MS Works, it'd save the computer lab I work in a ton of trouble every semester.

      Then again, if PC manufacturers bundled OpenOffice with new PCs, that'd solve the problem, too.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    3. Re:Support by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.
      Wrong. MS Office doesn't support Word documents in general, but just those produced with the same version of Word, and -perhaps- with the previous one. In some rare cases, you may succeed with importing simple documents from even earlier versions -- but you will need to spend a long time reformatting everything.

      MS Office is compatible only with the same version, and even only if both computers have the same default printer installed.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    4. Re:Support by nine-times · · Score: 2, Interesting
      MS Office also had support for WordPerfect files. If you want to have the leading Office software you must have support for your competition. OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.

      There's a small problem with this idea: It's true that, if you want your office suite to be the dominant office suite, it helps to support other formats. However, if you're already the dominant office suite, and you want to maintain your monopoly, you might not.

      Everyone supporting loads of formats is good for the consumer, because it makes your data more portable and encourages competition among software vendors. It's particularly good for the underdog, because it's hard to steal customers from your competition if you can't interoperate with the dominant software on the market. However, it's dangerous for the guy making the dominant software because it makes it easier for someone to switch to something else. Suddenly, your dominant position isn't as much of an advantage as it used to be, and you have to compete with improved products and better features.

      So, yes, especially given Microsofts anti-competitive history, it would be surprising that they'd support ODF. The only reason that it isn't surprising is that the lack of ODF support means that Massachusets has effectively banned Microsoft Office from being used by government agencies.

    5. Re:Support by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong. The MS Word document format has not changed since Word 97 for the express purpose of ensuring that 90% of common formatting attributes were preserved between Word 97 through 2003

      No. I am a lucky fellow who was forced to have anything to do with .doc files only several times in the past few years, but still, I don't recall a single case where at least the formatting wasn't completely screwed up.

      A recent (~2 weeks old) example:
      my boss received a ~4MB file containing ~40 pages, each with a screenshot and some text below. But, if you tried to even save the same file without making any modifications whatsoever, the resulting file got a random size anywhere between 2MB and 218MB -and- all the images were resized to a tiny size. I couldn't tell what could influence the file size, but the size the images were resized to depended on which printer was set as the default.
      When I tried to import the doc on my box, both OO and AbiWord were able to read it just fine -- but, as you can expect, saving it and reading back in Word didn't help the tiniest bit.

      Being a C programmer/sysadmin, I don't produce any formatted documents, but if I was forced to do anything beyond HTML, something tells me it would be a good idea to refresh my memory of TeX.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Support by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MS Office also had support for WordPerfect files. If you want to have the leading Office software you must have support for your competition. OpenOffice has support for Word documents so it comes as no suprise that MS would do the same.

      Hello, my name is Rudimentary Software Marketplace Strategy and Economics. It's good to meet you.

      Let me tell you a few things about myself, for I am a complex, varying sort.

      For instance, if I'm an underdog trying to get into a new market, then I'll do everything I can to advocate and embrace "openness", be it support for all types of files, standardization, and so on. I'll beseach the big boys to open up, for the good of all consumers, and allow for a dynamic, competitive marketplace.

      For instance let's say I'm an underdog in the instant messaging marketplace, I might say "Come on everyone, let's just be friends and work with open standards!".

      Now if I'm successful with this scheme - hopefully really successful - by making it easy for other people to switch to my product, then I move to stage 2 - lock in. This is where I start doing whatever I can to ensure that someone else doesn't do to me what I did to them. I'll embrace and hide behind proprietary standards, I'll make it a bitch for people using different clients, not only technically but via FUD, and I'll constantly move the target to ensure that no one can catch up. Maybe I'll add a "conversion screw-up-ifier" to make sure that the user of more standard formats is an imperfect, painful experience.

  4. It's irrelevant by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Funny
    The article says they've hired a French company. With their 23 hour week, 14 weeks annual holiday (and never mind cheese breaks and strikes), it'll never be finished.

    And even if it is, it won't work.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    1. Re:It's irrelevant by m4dm4n · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes it will, it'll just automatically translate the document into badly done, babelfish style, French.

      --

      No France
  5. PDF Support? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 3, Funny

    The company just announced support for PDF

    I imagine that this will add extra features to PDFs which Adobe's (or anyone elses) Reader won't be able to handle.

    Except Microsoft's Reader, obviously.

    --
    Summation 2
  6. ODF Is Sweeping Through Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft has no choice. Either they will support the format, in a usable form, or be increasingly left out of government, city/state/country level, contracts.

    I am surprised at how quickly ODF is becoming a must have feature. It makes perfect sense of course, but I think so many people have gotten so use to the "Microsoft is always the winner" mentality that they are having a hard time imagining that anyone would mandate an open format for documents.

    1. Re:ODF Is Sweeping Through Governments by ronanbear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OpenOffice.org are doing well. They have won this battle. M$ have tried to crush ODF by saying that they won't support it and tried to muscle customers into accepting their format. Now someone has stood up to them and they know that MA will just buy StarOffice they have to move onto phase 2. They don't care (much) about the money of the MA contract. What they don't want is StarOffice to gain important market share and extra development cash. Once that happens other governments will follow. M$ will give MA full OpenDocument support. But don't go thinking that the version of Office 12 you get with your Dell or on the shelf at Best Buy will have it. M$ will try and win the MA contract with Opendocument support but that doesn't mean they are gonna give that feature to everyone. Even making it a feature that you must install additionally from the 2nd CD would be enough to put most people off. M$ haven't given up the war. In fact they still think they will win.

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  7. Platform what? by cyclop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SourceForge has the WindowsInstaller.msi listed as 'platform independent'."

    Ehm... Since when WindowsInstaller(s) have been 'platform independent'? Do I miss something?

    --
    -- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize /. comments with a sig attached to the end.
    1. Re:Platform what? by HawkingMattress · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep, it's totally platform independant as it will run on 9x and NT !

  8. It's all about the customer by Dekortage · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, really, it is. If MS Word can open and save in OpenDocument XML format, then Microsoft can honestly say, "Sure, Mr. Corporate Buyer, go ahead and experiment with that open source stuff. And when you're done, you can rest assured that your data can safely return to Microsoft Word with nary a scratch."

    At the very least it is a slight nod to the increasing public awareness of open source software.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  9. Microsoft playing catch-up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They've heard that Open Office is beating them in bloat, and are scrambling to get back on top.

  10. Good, because OO's import filter sucks by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Hald the documents I created come out horridly screwed when I try to go back and forth between Office and OO. Text boxes get resized, floating graphics end up all over the place, graphics lose their transparent color, etc.

    It would be nice to have a way to go back and forth (between work and home, for example) with consistant results.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Quiet by squoozer · · Score: 3, Funny
    ...quietly engaging a French company...

    Not very quietly it would seem.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  12. Looks Like Conversion Is One Way by canfirman · · Score: 4, Informative
    By looking at the SourceForge project description it says, "This project aims at providing a plugin for Microsoft Word 2003 XML to open OpenOffice XML documents." It doesn't say that it converts Word XML format to OpenOffice XML format. So it's really not a true converter, because it won't allow you to save back into OpenOffice format.

    I find it interesting that Microsoft will support other document formats (such as WordPerfect - is anybody using that anymore?) but not OpenDocument.

    --
    It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
    1. Re:Looks Like Conversion Is One Way by julesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      WordPerfect - is anybody using that anymore?

      Yes. It's still popular in the publishing industry. Many writers are still using WP5.1. It does everything they need... why would they want to upgrade?

    2. Re:Looks Like Conversion Is One Way by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "WordPerfect - is anybody using that anymore?"

      Lawyers. Giant teeming armies of lawyers. It sounds like the profession has to a fair extent moved to Word, but it took a while, they held on for a long time, they have GIGANTIC archives of Wordperfect docs, and they still use it a lot.

  13. Up to their old tricks? by mrogers · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem with an extremely liberal license is that it can be embraced and extended. The best way for Microsoft to kill OpenDocument would be to implement it perfectly, wait a year, then add lots of cryptic, undocumented extensions that are only supported by MS Word. When you receive an OpenDocument email attachment you'll be in the same position you're currently in with .doc attachments - it might work, it might not, and you'll never be sure the document's supposed to look the way it looks on your computer, unless you're running Word.

    OASIS (the consortium behind OpenDocument) is doing its best to avoid licensing issues and legal arguments, which unfortunately seems to mean you can write whatever you want and call it OpenDocument, or at least "OpenDocument-based" or some other form of weasel words.

  14. Re:in other words... by finkployd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How? It is all well and good to say that but it is an open spec, you either support it or you don't. You cannot break it and still call it ODF.

    What you CAN do is try to wrap it in DRM that only Office (I'm sorry, registered and activated Office) can open, but they don't need ODF for that, they can (and do) impliment that now with thier format.

    However, doing so would violate Mass. requirements (and the entire point) anyway, and be rejected.

    Finkployd

  15. Not "Open Office XML format" by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    It isn't the "Open Office XML format". It's the OASIS Open Document Format. Microsoft is attempting to confuse the issue by deliberately confounding "Open Office" and Open Document".

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Not "Open Office XML format" by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ODF Myths

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  16. Denial by debilo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently, Microsoft has already denied this.
    I got that on OSNews.com yesterday.

  17. It's not a filter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you look at the source code, you'll see that it's a plugin that adds a "Import OpenOffice Document..." command to the File menu. It uses an XSLT transformation to convert the document into a a file Microsoft's patented/proprietary WordML document which is only supported in Office 2003 and then directs Word to open this file. Subsequent saves to the document would simply update the "temporary" WordML document (without prompting).

    A real filter would add an SWX option to the normal Open dialog (and allow you to associate SWX with Word) and load the document directly into Word's document model. If the filter has write support, saves would automatically save back to the SWX. If the filter was import-only, saving would prompt the user to choose a document format to save into (where the user could select RTF or HTML or something that's portable). I haven't been able to find the docs on Words import filter API; however, it would make sense that MS would keep those proprietary.

  18. There is no there there by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 2, Informative
    Look at the code in the tarball. To be polite, it is a bunch of empty stubs that 'implement' enough methods so that the code will compile. There is a dtd that has a single line (the XML document declaration
    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
    )
    --
    Think global, act loco
  19. Matter of time by smallguy78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reading http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510261 95537674 describes how the body responsible for advising UK schools on IT policies (BECTA) is planning to force schools to

    "...use software that saves files in open formats (see pages 25 and 26).".

    Following from this, it probably won't be long until government bodies follow suit in the UK, and the trend spreads from country to country.

    Microsoft will then definitely be forced to support the OpenDocument standard, or someone will get very rich writing plugin to do so.

    Office vs competition will then be down to features and useability rather than format tie-ins (Microsoft purposely tieing people to their products surely stems from a satanic Sales/Marketing department rather than evil developers).

    If the competition comes down to UI/useability I think Star Office and OpenOffice are a long way behind MS Office, both tending to looki like cheap shareware applications at the moment. Which then leaves the doorway open for a company to take OpenOffice, pretty-fy it and sell it for a vastly reduced amount compared to Office (unless the license restricts this?)

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
  20. Do you *really* think... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... they gonna use a fully *compatible* implementation of ODF?? *LOL* Then you really don't know microsoft at all...

    As we all know (example: Java), microsoft never had problems "implementing" some non-ms-standards. But usually they just become *a bit* incompatible for no reason and then it becomes a ms-standard and the original creator has nothing to say anymore...
    Maybe they get sued, but this does not change their behaviour because they achieve to even earn money from it. (You know what their "punishement" was for the java-case: Give some scools "free copies"* of windows and office. [read: hook kids to microsoft as soon as possible. earn the cash later.])

    * to me this is a tautology, because a thing that is copyable without effort always is free by definition.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  21. The first E by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 3, Insightful


    The first "E" in "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is "Embrace". We are here.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  22. Re:Have you opened ODF in a text editor? by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unzip the odf. (rename it filename.zip and doubleclick). Now, look at the XML file named content.xml

    --
    Think global, act loco
  23. Re:PDF for resumes by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Have you tried applying for a job through agencies?
    When I was recently looking for a job I as a matter of principle tried everything to avoid sending out in .doc format.

    Me: Here have my CV in ODF
    Job agency: What the hell format is that? Can I have it in word please
    Me: Here have a PDF!
    Job Agency: We can't edit that
    Me: Good - that's kind of the point of pdf
    Job Agency: Nope we need to edit it to remove your personal contact details
    Me: Here have a pdf without my personal contact details on it
    Job Agency: We need to send it to our client, we need in in rtf or doc
    Me: Why?
    {long discussion snipped}
    Me: So you can alter it to fit your format and change it to be what you want?
    {long discussion}
    Job Agency: Yes

    BTW It wasn't just job agencies, but job websites and most HR departments looked at me like I'd tried to send them it in chinese - which to most people ODF or PDF are. In the end I grudgily settled on rtf where possible or doc if I had to.

    --
    "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  24. Well that's MS's own damn fault by BobPaul · · Score: 4, Informative

    * OpenDocument Format is a legal mine-field. As stated previously OpenDocument is a subset of MsOffice format,

    Microsoft is ALSO an Open Document committee member (and has been for many years). They've had ample opportunity to ensure that the OpenDocument format supports everything that they need it to.

    Since OpenDocument has been painstakenly crafted as Extensionable XML, there should be no problem with Microsoft Extending the standard to add support for anything that is not currently included, provided they do so using Pure XML without any of the binary nuggets they've included in their own XML format. If they extend the format properly through the OpenDocument committee, then their updates can become part of the standard rather than being a fork (which definately would give Microsoft a lot of flak.)

    Licensing on the ODF is actually very liberal and Sun, the only IP owner for anything related to the ODF, has already released an IP claims relating to the use of ODF. This is something they can't sue Microsoft over anymore.

    --
    Bob/Paul