Two Open Document Standards Better Than One?

tsa writes "Microsoft says that the consumers should have the choice between multiple open standards for documents." From the article: "Microsoft's Yates said that OpenDocument and Open XML come from very different design points. 'In the future at some point there will be convergence,' he said. In the near term, the transition period from proprietary document formats to Open XML-based ones will be 'messy and complex,' he added. 'Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing.'"

Comments

Divide and conquer

[timeOday]

We might not be able to beat one good format, but we can easily defeat two.

Re:Divide and conquer

[grasshoppa]

Ha! I never thought I'd hear from Microlimp that competition is good.

That's not precisely what they are saying. They are saying that competition on standards is good, which is a far cry from saying competition based on implementation is good.

Honestly, we should not have to deal with competition with standards. What's their to compete on if everyone agrees this is a standard? This is only a concept that is big because MS likes to fuck with standards ( embrace and extend ).

What they are trying to do is create an enviroment where PHB feel they have to go with the safe option. And no one ever got fired for going with MS.

Re:Divide and conquer

[timeOday]

Does anybody have a good handle on whether or not it will be easy to convert between the two formats?

Sure, just like you can convert back and forth between C code and assembler automatically. Just try editing that C code after one round trip though!

Complex document format conversion is lossy. Imagine converting a MS Word document to a TIFF image. OK, you'd lose some things (like page breaks) but you could do it. Now imagine trying to convert back to .doc from TIFF. You could sort of do it with OCR, maybe you could automatically recognize noncharacter regions and convert them back to images, but there's no way it would reclaim the structure of the document not to mention change tracking, comments, self-updating cross references, links to embedded spreadsheets, document-specific word lists for the spellchecker...

Two word processor formats will be much more similar than .doc and TIFF, but the same problem exists to a lesser degree. Document formats are not supersets of each other! At some level there are basic incompatibilities.

Re:Divide and conquer

[NickFortune]

You act as if Microsoft is so anti competition but then you have all heard of macs and linux so apparently they aren't perfect because most the world now at least knows there is an alternative...

So you're suggesting that we should infer goodwill from Microsoft's imperfections? That they could have destroyed Linux and Apple any time they liked, but they withheld their hand becuase they're nice people?

I have to say that doesn't sound like the Microsoft I've come to know and loathe. Should we also infer that they put all those bugs in on purpose so other OSes won't feel bad abut themselves?

Seriously if people continue to just bash microsoft hear then it shows they are no better then the funded surveys that microsoft does to prove they are better except you guys

So like, if I criticise Microsoft, I'm just as bad as they are, yeah? So if I say, Microsoft are untrustworthy hypocritical greedy grasping anti-competitive and morally bankrupt, that means that I am also untrustworthy hypocritical greedy grasping anti-competitive and morally bankrupt, made so purely by the act of saying so. Is that right?

Wow.

So, presumably, if I say the Pope is a catholic, that would make me a catholic too.

Maybe I should stop using the toiletary habits of bears for emphatic confirmation. I mean, it's not as if there's a decent sized wood anywhere near where I live. Talk about getting caught short...

I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

If there are two standards, how can they be called standards?

Isn't that like having competing monopolies?

Regardless, competetion in standards is only good for a short period of time, after that there is a waste of man hours on one project to the detriment of whatever the standard is for.

Re:I'm confused

[Pudusplat]

Nope.

Multiple ideas can be thought of as a "standard", they just aren't necessarily compatible. PAL vs NTSC, 120 volts vs 220 volts, AC/DC, DVD-R vs DVD+R, Letter size vs Legal vs Postcard. They're all standards, all used for various purposes, and sometimes (DVD-R vs DVD+R) interchangable. As long as a lot of people conform to using it (not necessarily ALL people), it can be deemed a standard. Multiple standards can be a good thing. Of course, multiple standards can also be a bad thing, as it leads to unneccessary incompatabilities.

Of course!

[Just Some Guy]

As soon as Microsoft releases a fully documented, non-patented format, or at least creates a perpetual license for F/OSS projects to use a patented format, I'll welcome them with open arms.

Since they haven't done that yet, the rest is just speculation. It looks like legal issues will be keeping the Free world on OpenDocument for the foreseeable future.

Competition

[QuaintRealist]

"Competition between two standards we believe is a very good thing"

From past experience, Microsoft only believes this when the leading standard is someone elses. Once Microsoft's standard holds the most mindshare/marketshare, then they don't like competition anymore.

Just what I've observed

Re:Competition

[Eil]

MS realizes at this point, that it's going to be quite hard or impossible to beat out OpenDocument. So what do they do? Well, they simply suggest that there will be two standards, and that they will at some time converge into one. But taking these statements apart and considering Microsoft's prior attitudes and actions toward difficult competition, we arrive at some very strong assertions from a Microsoftian point of view:

1) We will sooner curl up, die, and/or join the open source movement before letting a non-MS Office document standard become any sort of official or de facto standard.

2) There will be two incompatible standards in popular use. Yes, that does defeat the entire purpose of standards in the first place, but you have to realize that we're Microsoft and that we will never stop pushing our own solutions, even if they're inferior, evil, or expensive. Even if everyone on the planet rejects them, it will not hinder us. But we will succeed eventually.

3) Our standard will converge with the competition's in response to market forces. And if the market doesn't force it, we will, and we'll just make it sound like we didn't.

4) We plan to be in charge of this convergence. And by "converge," we mean "effectively replace that one with ours." We'll be in full control of the result.

For who?

[grasshoppa]

Competition between standards we believe is a very good thing

Yeah, for microsoft.

You can expect this kind of horse shit from MS because they are on the weak end of the document format wars. Allow me to explain:

Competition between programs is a very good thing. No arguments. Standards are just that, standards. There has already been a shake down period, and people have agreed this is an agreed set of rules. Hence, "standard". By instigating a whole new standards "war", they hope to create confusion and chaos. And those of you who work with PHB already know the next bit: They panic and go with the safe option.

Fuck 'em. I hope against logic that they get eaten alive on this one.

Re:For who?

[grasshoppa]

I have yet to even meet in person ANYONE who uses open office

Then you don't work in IT. I would further say you don't work with computers much on a day to day basis.

No one cares about OS except linux zealots and and a few governments looking to save a few pennies by using an inferior product

Try not to drool to much on yourself, it really undermines your credibility.

Let me paint you a picture. You are the IT head of a state ( lets say California ). You see Mass moving to open-office due to concerns about document formats. A year goes by, and they report an enormous budget savings due to no MS tax on their office suite.

Now, do you a) Stay with MS, and have to deal with corporation crap regarding their document formats and pay for the privledge? Or do you b) investigate costs associated with moving to open office?

Try not to drool on yourself while you think about this.

Microsoft's bastardization of the word 'OPEN'

[OwlWhacker]

Open doesn't mean what it should anymore.

Like in this article for example.

QUOTE:

Thanks to Microsoft, users will face the "unsavory prospect of two supposed standards. The truth is that only one of them is free of intellectual property encumbrances. Only one reflects multivendor support, and only one reflects openness. That standard is OpenDocument Format,"

Not again...

[Taevin]

Let's see, embrace, extend, extinguish.

Embrace: Do a complete reversal; say that open standards are a great idea, far better than our own proprietary asshattery.

Extend: So yeah, we're all about open standards now and look we've got our own version OpenXML. It's obviously better (or at least that's what people will believe thanks to our unstoppable marketing department) so we'll add extra tags and change the format of existing ones. Oh by the way, this means that only Microsoft products will create this and only Microsoft products will understand this but that's not our fault, honestly.

Extinguish: Well everyone seems to be using our version of the open document format since 90% of all computer users use our software so only masochists use that 'other' standard. We'll repeatedly change the standard by making each version of our software understand only a new version of it. After everyone is frustrated by the lack of stability in a so called standard, we'll do another 180 and point out how much better and stable closed source/standards are and move everyone back to safe, trustworthy Microsoft standards that Just Works(tm).

Thanks for playing!

For Some Definition of "Open"

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Multiple, competing open standards are fine, and being open it is usually not too difficult to translate between them. Unfortunately MS's "Open XML" standard is not open, so they are not really giving us the choice they are claiming. Open XML is format that is patented and that is licensed with a variety of important restrictions. For example, only the current version is covered by the license, it expires immediately should a new version come out. According to the letter of the license this means the benefits of backwards compatibility and even the ability to distribute a program from one day to the next are subject to MS's whim. Should MS release a new version that is intentionally broken, they could legally restrict competitors from continuing to sell or even give away a word processor.

Redistribution is completely forbidden by the licensing, leading many to believe that it was specifically designed to exclude GNU licensed applications, like Open Office, their primary competitor. How can anyone call "Open XML" and open format when the license under which that format is offered means it can't be implemented by OpenOffice?

All of this is MS marketing FUD. Closed is open. Bad is good. Ha ha we made it really hard for you to explain shit to your managers by naming our product the opposite of what it is. This is like GM calling the next iteration of their traditional cargo van "Hybrid Luxury Mobile" despite it not having a hybrid engine or any luxury features. Don't fall for their crap.

Re:UMMM???

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... not very good at the whole reading comprehension thing, are you?

Maybe I can spell it out using nice, short little sentences for you.

1. User uses MS Word trial edition to view/edit documents.
2. MS Word trial edition expires.
3. User double-clicks on Word document, Word says "Piss off, I've expired".
4. User installs OpenOffice (and doesn't change any file associations).
5. User double-clicks on Word document, Word opens document and says "Yes, I would be happy to serve you. Don't forget to license me sometime!"

See, the interesting part comes from the change in Word's behaviour upon installing OpenOffice. That wasn't so hard, was it?