Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Open up Office Formats

Been on TV writes to tell us that Microsoft is expected to announce on Tuesday the opening of their Office file formats, according to Financial Times. From the article: "Microsoft will submit its Office file formats to Ecma International, the standards body, which will develop the documentation and make it available to the industry. The move is being supported by a number of organizations including Apple Computer, Barclays Capital, BP, Intel and Toshiba."

35 of 451 comments (clear)

  1. Licensing by queenb**ch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how much of your soul will you have to sign away in order to use this?

    2 cents,

    Queen B

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
    1. Re:Licensing by Kjella · · Score: 4, Funny

      And how much of your soul will you have to sign away in order to use this?

      2 cents,


      I hear 2 cents of a soul. Do I hear five cents? Three cents? It's not much to look at anyway, is it? Going once, going twice...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Licensing by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And:

      -Will they allow changes in the standard after submission?
      -Will they use those changed standards in their own products?
      -Will they not release new formats until approved by the standards board?

      One of the problems with OO.o, and a lot of other software that clones existing document formats, is that they're always late to the game. If Microsoft released Office 12 today with a new document format that no one has seen, even if it was immediately released to the standards body it would be months or years until an open source product could be released that would duplicate the format. As long as Microsoft leads, everyone else has no choice but to follow.

      TW

    3. Re:Licensing by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Informative

      Out of date. That refers to Microsoft's pseudo open format licensing. Specifically crafted to exclude GPLed software from legally using the formats. If this announcement tomorrow is supposed to mean that Massachusetts and the EU won't drop them, then it will have to drop the license terms that stop sub-licensing, such that GPL apps may use the formats. Anything less won't cut it.

    4. Re:Licensing by sydb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There's a very big difference between:

      • two software licenses being incompatible such that code under one license may not be relicensed by all and sundry under the other; and
      • a license to a file format preventing the implementation of that file format in any piece of software under a specific license.


      The first is common and acceptable. The latter is a deliberate attempt to look good while not being good.

      Don't pretend you don't know that.
      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    5. Re:Licensing by Captain+Perspicuous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you nailed the central problem: Unless MS also outlines an open process how new features are implemented to these Office Formats, they will still be perceived as "closed" because the world of office users will keep looking towards Microsoft for "guidance to the future" instead of looking towards a standard comittee for future changes.

    6. Re:Licensing by Art+Tatum · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'd rather argue against a hundred idiots than have one agree with me.

      You've certainly come to the right place.

    7. Re:Licensing by masklinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a standard != the standard

      Just so you know, C# is standardized by the ECMA. Does that make it the only programming language in the world? Uuuh nope.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  2. Having an effect by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Call it what you want. But I imagine that open source definately has had a major effect on the industry over its lifetime. It has definately been worth all the effort. Despite what some may think.

  3. Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...It's a TRAP!

  4. Define "open up" by Psionicist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So.. Will they really open everything, or just wrap their proprietary implementation inside XML and therefore claim their format is "open"?

    I hope they really open up the format. Otherwise it'd be as bad as RIAA promoting DRM "for freedom". Sigh.

  5. 18 months? by dada21 · · Score: 4, Interesting


    It seems odd that it will take 18 months to develop documentation for the file formats. Sure, the formats must be complex, but it seems like maybe this documentation organization might not be a truly independent standards body.

    Ecma's wiki and site seems to be pretty much confirm that they're composed of manufacturer members. I wouldn't consider them the equivalent of ANSI or UL. 18 months of work by a collusive industry is more throwing those governments a bone than actually getting the work done right.

    I guess there should be some applause for getting the ball rolling. Uphill?

    1. Re:18 months? by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems odd that it will take 18 months to develop documentation for the file formats. Sure, the formats must be complex, but it seems like maybe this documentation organization might not be a truly independent standards body.

      It's worse than that. Like RTF, they will change the formats arbitrarily with every revision of office, and will then probably take 18 months to document each new version. And of course they will claim this is complete openness and interoperability, ignoring that they're keeping 3rd parties 18 months behind...

    2. Re:18 months? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ecma's wiki and site seems to be pretty much confirm that they're composed of manufacturer members. I wouldn't consider them the equivalent of ANSI or UL.

      A related point that I'm wondering about: When the standards specs are complete, how will I get them? Will they be online? Or will I have to pay and sign an NDA to get a copy?

      This isn't an idle distinction. I well remember, back in the 1980's, working on networking projects where we really wanted to get the OSI stuff up and running alongside IP, to compare them. A problem was that the OSI specs weren't online; they could only be ordered in print. By the time we got a purchase order approved, an order sent, and the docs delivered, we had long since downloaded the RFCs for the internet equivalent and implemented it all. And part of the problem was that we had to hand-type the stuff from the OSI specs, leading to lots of typos and extra time to spot the typing errors. The IP docs could be directly copied to the code without error. (And yes, I am one of those weirdos who writes perl scripts that read spec docs and spit out code. I've gotten all sorts of funny reactions from people when they first discover those entries in my makefiles. ;-)

      The end result was that our OSI code could never catch up with the IP code. It couldn't even come close, simply due to the delays in dealing with for-pay, on-paper specs when the competitor was instantly available online in machine-readable form.

      If we'd had to sign NDAs for the OSI stuff, we'd never have gotten anywhere. But then, I guess we really didn't anyway, because all that OSI code is now dead and forgotten.

      I can see ECMA using a similar approach to delay us "open source" geeks, so they can hold it semi-private while oh-so-innocently pretending to have opened it all. It'll likely be open in the same sense as the OSI specs, but maybe with NDAs. With MS's marketing clout, the effect won't be to eliminate those formats from the market. The main effect will be a big drag on developers' time, as they try to jump through all the hoops required to get something working.

      I do expect that 6 months from now, we'll be hearing a lot of "Hey, we opened the formats, but nobody else has implemented them. Our competitors must be intentionally ignoring them; or maybe they're just incompetent." No mention of the fact that the specs haven't been published yet. And, if computing history is any guide, that 18-month estimate means at least 3 years, probably more.

      This sort of thing isn't what you'd call a efficient. But I don't suppose anybody ever called software a rational market.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  6. What about patents ? by sunya · · Score: 4, Informative

    It may be an ECMA standard, but it could still be patented. IIRC, the ECMA / patent issue affect Mono as well. From the Mono FAQ : "The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission"

    --
    MLT - simple and robust open source multimedia framework for Linux
  7. Having a standard != Strictly following a standard by HateBreeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See Internet Explorer/HTML...

    --
    Sigs are for the weak.
  8. Ogg Vorbis, Png, and Odt benefit everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ogg Vorbis, Png, and Odt benefit everyone, even the people who have never used any of these three formats. Ogg Vorbis benefits everyone because it stops Thomson from taking any legal action against the free Lame mp3 encoder and XMMS mp3 playback library; Thomson knows that if they have their lawyers even look at the Lame web page, the entire Open Source community will perform a mass exodus to the Ogg format.

    The PNG format, in addition to being far superior to GIF, kept Unisys from taking too much legal action against GIF; the little legal action they took increased cross-browser PNG compatibility to the point that people can safely put non-transparent PNG images on their web pages today.

    Odt will benefit everyone because this format gives Microsoft a clear message to open up their .doc file format.

  9. Against government use of OASIS format by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wonder what kind of impact Microsoft hopes to achive by doing this.

    Fully documenting the Microsoft Office file formats and permissively licensing any essential patents could help dissuade governments from migrating to OASIS OpenDocument format, which happens to be the native format of a competing software package called OpenOffice.org 2.x.

  10. End of times... by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apple choosing Intel, Dell choosing AMD, MS openning up Office formats.

    Dogs and cats, living together! MASS HYSTERIA!

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  11. My take by dslauson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My take on this is that they have caught a lot of flak for not supporting open document. This way, they don't have to make any changes, and they don't have to support open document, but they'll still be supporting a document format that is open.

    Now, many of the reasons for switching to open document will be nullified, and if Microsoft's doc becomes the standard, the burden will be on the OSS community to make changes to their software rather than the other way around.

    Basically, it's MS's way of waying, "You want openness? Fine, but if we're going to play, we're going to play with our ball."

    I think it would be awesome to see MS support an open standard. This seems like kind of a petty way to go about it, but that's the Microsoft we all love to hate, right?

  12. Write not read by dereference · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You're right. But look, I think it's even worse than you suggest. Look at this gem FTFA:

    Within about 18 months, customers, competitors and developers should be able to download detailed files from Ecma on how to create a Microsoft Word, Powerpoint or Excel document.

    This is going expose only a way to write to these formats. It says absolutely nothing about how to read documents created by their proprietary packages. It's much easier to say "here's how to create a valid document" without giving away all of the keys to the kingdom than it is to explain fully "here's how to read any document created by our suite" (and you have to presume they'll intentionally leave out the good stuff).

    As far as I can tell, this is a no-op.

    1. Re:Write not read by dereference · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Do not a single one of you idiots understand a binary file format?

      Well, on the admittedly limited chance that you're not trolling, and that instead you'll actually consider a reasoned response with an open mind, I'll try one more time. First, yes, we "idiots" do know exactly what we're talking about, so I honestly hope you'll bother to read and possibly even learn something.

      The fine example you gave is a trivially simple and quite static format, similar to an image. It is far from complex and dynamic enough to describe any useful arbitrary document. If you'd actually re-read the post to which you replied, you'd find a much more relevant example, that of HTML. HTML can't be described as a basic C-style structure like your example, but a formal grammar such as BNF (or a DTD for XHTML) could be used. However, you can very easily omit many optional flags/features when describing how to write a valid document in any such format. As noted, I might only tell you only about the head, title, and body tags, and perhaps the h1-h7 tags as well.

      Is it possible for me to neglect to tell you about all the other formatting tags (like b and i and friends) and even "forget" to mention the whole hyperlink concept with the "a" tag? Sure it is. Can you write a valid document? Sure you can. Now, can you really read all possible documents, including those that use the tags I so conveniently neglected to describe? No.

      Let's even use your own example, with a modification:

      long version 0x0100
      long number of strings 0x0002
      long string length
      string
      long string length
      string
      long number of options 0x0001
      int option_num
      int option_length
      byte [] option_data
      EOF

      Here you see that I've told you how and where to add multiple options. However, I've not told you what options are valid. I might only tell you about some of the options and not others. You can always still write a document given that format, but you can't read all documents unless you've been told all the possible valid options.

      So, really I hope this hasn't been a waste of time, and that you can see that Microsoft can choose to give out any arbitrary amount of detail for how to write a proper and valid document, without giving sufficient tools with which to parse all possible valid documents.

  13. Will change nothing by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... Ultimately, we'll see software and computing industry shift into a business model based on service alone. This way, competition is no longer a race to market the latest and greatest features -- it becomes a competition based upon who best serves the customer ...

    Thank you for restating the theory and hope behind OSS, now for reality ...

    MS had previously published Word and Excel formats. They did so as they took over the market, as they destroyed the competition. The competitions support for Word and Excel formats further reinforced those proprams as the defacto standards.

    1. Re:Will change nothing by morganew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's also a larger problem with this approach - it sucks for small companies trying to become bigger.

      If you are only able to profit off of service contracts, you can't 'write once, reach many' like you can with COTS software. Moreover, companies like IBM and Novell which have large established sales and service teams will win all the larger contracts.

      If you write a great peice of software, and then have to sell, educate the customer AND hire/train all the workforce, how much time are you going to have to devote to Rev. 2 of your world beating product?

      Whenever folks talk about OSS in the context of markets, I think it should be with a jaundiced eye towards our "helpmates" at IBM, Novell, SAP/MySQL and Sun.

      Ultimately, IBM et al are about making money for shareholders, if they didn't see that as the likley outcome, they would not be out there pimping OSS.

      I think a world where software is only 'sold' in the context of a service contract is bad for the next great idea. OSS is great in its place, but to preclude software for sale isn't the answer.

      --
      A sig?!? I don't think so.....
  14. Indeed by sterno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It will be interesting to see how "open" it really will be. The funny thing is I swear I've heard this before. Wasn't the big deal supposed to be how they were going to use XML and how this was going to allow them to place nicely with others?

    I get the sense that Microsoft may take a security through obscurity approach with this. Make it a pain in the butt for somebody else to implement. Then keep adding new stuff to it so that there's always subtle incompatibilities with older software. A "open" format is of minimal value if third parties have to struggle to keep up with the standard.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  15. Pull the other one! by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets put this PR spin through the reality filter.

    1. Microsoft promising something 18 months down the road is meaningless. Hell, ANY tech company promising something 18 montsh out is meaningless.

    2. This announcement is for Europe, without software patents.... for now. Of course if in 18 months there just HAPPEN to be software patents and said patents are licensed under their no-GNU terms... oh well, who wants to support smelly hippies anyway.

    3. The only promised the ability to write, kida curious since most of the EU objections are about random folk being able to READ their government's output.

    4. There is no committment to continue using this 'standardized' format in any future product. So there is nothing to provent them from releasing a future Office that uses an 'embraced and extended' version and either not documenting the changes at all or another 18 months after it ships.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  16. MS is opening up the Office 12 XML format. by massysett · · Score: 4, Informative

    MS says it will go to ECMA first with the Office 12 XML format. They say that once Office 12 XML is recognized by ECMA, they will go to ISO. See News.com story.

  17. Seems To Only Count For Writing by EXTomar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They are fully and openly specifying how to write all of the Office formats. While this is good, it does nothing for the other important half which is reading. They clearly don't want all applications to perfectly files generated by some software. This tatic seems to guarentees that at least one product will "clean" as well as special Office formats: Office itself.

    I suppose people can take the information on how to write a valid "clean" Office format to make better format translators but we are still hosed for various random files that will be generated and only readible in sanctioned applications.

  18. Really read it... and then weep by sjvn · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the license:

    "Microsoft may have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas."

    and that's why this has never been acceptable to the open-source community.

    Steven

  19. Re:Hold on... by joe+user+jr · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's kind of misleading. The pressure on m$ is coming from the fact that many government departments are waking up to the fact that it's absolutely insane to "own" millions of vital files which are written in a format where they can't produce software to access the contents themselves in the way that they choose. In a quite real sense, they are only by-proxy "owners" of such data (the proxy being the m$ programs in question, of course).

    However, they wouldn't be waking up to this were there not a healthy looking and viable alternative in the form of OpenOffice, which, as well as delivering true ownership of the files, also provides (most of) the convenience, bells and whistles of the m$ software stable. So in that sense, open source is a driver of this pressure.

    That's why I think the half-assed, quasi-open strategies discussed in some posts here do not present a real long-term option for m$ - once people are fully awake to the fact they don't really own their own data, only real open formats will solve m$'s marketing problem, and we'll see a real shift in the file-format landscape, of which this latest thing may be an early sign.

    --
    .sigs: Just Say No!
  20. Perhaps, but I suspect more of the same... by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful
    from Microsoft, albeit in a slightly different order.

    Microsoft has historically "embraced" open industry standards by adding proprietary extensions, making its user's data worthless outside of the MS world.

    In this case, I suspect they'll end up releasing, but still maintaining control over the office formats. If not there already, they'll make sure there's the ability to store proprietary objects (or meta-data, or whatever the current popular nomenclature is) in the now "open" format. They'll then simply move on to placing more and more document content in these proprietary closed objects, while claiming they're using an "open format."

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Perhaps, but I suspect more of the same... by masklinn · · Score: 4, Interesting
      In this case, I suspect they'll end up releasing, but still maintaining control over the office formats.

      Adobe has been doing it for years with the PDF format, and most people are ok with it.

      Keeping control over the evolution of the format but having the specs fully open so as to allow completely compatible products is a good thing, I myself would appreciate it if MS did that.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  21. Minor nitpick by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Massachusetts did not go OSS. Massachussetts went open format (this also explains why PDF is an acceptable format too). The advantage is that vendors can compete with both closed and open solutions as long as the data they produce is in the open format.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  22. Re:Models... by Nate+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can appreciate the count of "failed" and abandoned projects on SourceForge. By and large, they can be resurrected by anyone willing to do so. The open source world is not unique in this respect as there are probably thousands of shareware and freeware (not to mention commercial) programs that have been adandoned just since Win32 hit the street, not to mention since DOS hit the street. The critical difference is that in the majority of cases when a shareware or small commercial developer closes shop, the users are left with little recourse for further support.

    At least F/OS Software is never truly dead. It may enter a state of dormancy or being a zombie, but it can always be brought back to life by anyone interested in doing so.

    --

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
  23. Re:Hold on... by SeventyBang · · Score: 4, Interesting



    They're opening their file formats because they still has a trump card. Or has anyone forgotten about this?

    A quick patch or two to Microsoft Office (now one of their biggest or the biggest ca$h cow - 1/3 of their profits?) and MS Office suddenly reads|writes XML format only. They aren't about castrating themselves voluntarily. They still have shareholders to keep happy, but more importantly, they want to be the trendsetters, no matter what.

    How does this impact Open Office? Open Office can then read the XML Format because it's declared in the patent. But what O^2 won't be able to do is write the MS Office XML Format [except to violate the patent]. This means: no interoperability and any business which wants to migrate away from a closed system (MS Office) to Open Office can do so only as a one-way trip, burning the bridge behind them. And the company can't communicate both directions, so that forces a move en masse.