Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Open XML Project A Short-Term Fix
TechPro writes "In an interview with eWeek the managing director of the ODF Alliance (Marino Marcich) was pretty dismissive of Microsoft's Open XML Translator project. While the move was a recognition of the ODF Format's acceptance by government's around the world, the installable software plug-ins that would be created under the project were really 'only a bridge, a stopgap measure that will probably not be acceptable to government's around the world over the long term. Plug-ins simply don't give the benefits of open file formats and standards,' he said."
Quoting the blog entry:
python>>> q="'";s='q="%c";s=%c%s%c;print s%%(q,q,s,q)';print s%(q,q,s,q)
Dammit learn to use apostrophes! Government's either implies possession or is short for government is, it doesn't belong on a plural.
I'll accept that this is a half-arsed effort on MS's part, and that it in no way can be seen as a comittment to "open" or "free" software - but does this change the fact that now govts around the world can adopt open standards without any complaints from people who only use MS software or disabled people; which has to be a good thing
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
And how is that any different than any Open Sorce project? The anti-Microsoft double standard....
Didn't MS do something similar with Java? Basically have their own "interpretation" of it which is almost, but not quite, compatible. How difficult would it be to make MS' version just off from everyone else's?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I don't understand the problem. If it's a plug-in, and it reads and writes to the ODF standard, where is the problem?
The only thing I can think of is if people worry about a Microsoft "upgrade" breaking this plug-in. And then having to wait for the patch to the plug-in.
Excuse me, but, fuck "translating". This isn't about "translating". This is about being able to read ODF files and save your work to the ODF format.
"Translating" only comes into play when you're talking about:
a. Converting all your previous work to a new format.
b. When some people you are communicating with are restricted to the
c. And Microsoft's "Open" XML format will only be available in their NEXT release so it won't affect anyone who is still using their current or a previous release.
Am I missing something, somewhere?
Microsoft's claims seem to center around an organization upgrading to the next release of MS Office and then migrating to the ODF format.
While I see most situations as an organization migrating to the ODF format from an existing installation of MS Office 2000 or previous.
Are we all really surprised? Im never one to explicitly advocate for microsoft - wishing secretly linux and apple would talk over the world in some beautiful social movement.
But given our current systems, no one can really "stick it to the man" and force Microsoft to do anything. It's their software, their format.. and really whose to force them to do otherwise? So to speak, we are a slave to the machines we use.
We can't expect a self serving corporate body to really care for us unless it of course, benefits them in some way.
Oh come on now. You didn't really think Microsoft was going to give ODF equal billing with their own preferred (and proprietary) Doc and Xml did you? And about this only being the start of creating an open source converter plug-in, you don't really accept that the reason we don't have a plug-in now is because Microsoft has done no work at all on integrating ODF into MSO right up until the minute of this announcement, do you? That they haven't had running converters in their labs for years in the event they actually had to ship something on short notice? That we still have to wait many months and pay the MS-tax for MSOffice 2007 to get this because it has never existed at MS before.
You do?
Really?
About this bridge I have for sale...
I could never take a job at Microsoft, because then I'd have to quit bashing them again and again for either lying to me -- or just plain being stupid in the first place about understanding their market. Even being a monopoly can only get you so far.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
how long till they embrace and extend? Microsoft Open Document Format ODF with extensions, you can open ODF documents, but once you do microsoft starts "updating them" with MS only extensions, making MS documents all but unreadable in other word processors, and once an ODF file is opened in MS office it is modified so no longer conforms to ODF. They would surely claim, hey we support ODF see, everyone else is just not smart enough to offer you the extra stuff we put in, aren't we the greatest? 1. take someone elses great idea 2. break ...mmmmm extend it so it only works with MS windows
3. claim everyone else is broken
4. profit!
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces -- Murphy's Law of Poker
There really needs to be a reference renderer for ODF. Something independent from OpenOffice, with examples of all of the grammar and semantics in the spec.
HR-XML Anyone?
http://www.hr-xml.org/
Dammit, learn to use quotation marks to reference words! "Government's" refers to the word "government's" ;)
That's exactly what Apple and Linux users do. They talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk all over the world about how wonderful their systems are, how evil MS systems are, and bemoan how stupid everyone else is not to see that.
If better won out over cheaper, we'd all have Betamax video recorders today.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I'm sure there would be MSEODF (Microsoft Enhanced Open Document Format) files. They'd have to have them because there will be some FNOU (Feature No One Uses) that can't be saved in ODF. Then you'll have the option to save in either Standard ODF, or MSEODF if you want to preserve your usage of the FNOU. After that, the ODF spec will be on a constant treadmill to keep up with the MSEODF releases.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You think MS really cares about what OpenOffice did to ODF or whether there version of an ODF parsers works with OpenOffice?
Now you're going to have to explain to me how Windows is cheaper than Linux.
Or explain how Windows is better than Linux.
Or you can go with the third option, which is "faster." You are free to use any interpretation of "faster." (Suggestions: operating speeds, release times, patch times.)
Or you can admit that good rules of thumb rarely apply in Computerland.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Dammit, learn to use semicolons! Two complete sentences separated by a comma make a run-on sentence.
Plug-ins simply don't give the benefits of open file formats and standards,
Heh - guess he's never heard of XML before...
Oh...
Wait...
The notion that any MS project of this nature is a short term fix cannot help but to be dead on target. As a point of discussion, look at the release timeline for the next releases of Internet Explorer, and even Windows itself.
Microsoft takes considerable heat from many sources that it's development process is dragged out far beyond need or reason. Look at the long development cycle with consideration of anti-trust verdicts, agreements, etc. and you begin to see some logic.
Microsoft is under some legal obligation to de-bundle or make removable certain components of their preferred distro. These obligations have an expiration date in the not very distant future. That expiration date is also not rediculously far beyond the historic release cycle for MS product upgrades.
Given the choice of re-engineering my product so a specific component MS wants to become ubiquitous may be removed, or delaying release a few months and using the time to tie it in so tightly that the notion of removal becomes irrelevant, guess what Microsoft will choose to do.
With delayed release they allow themselves to present that they are in compliance with all orders in effect at time of release, without having to de-couple anything. As a result, your filesystem browser is also your internet browser, is also your front end for all GUI desktop apps... Nevermind that this is in complete opposition to the expectation that the kernel is the interface between hardware and all other software, and that the command shell, filesystem browser, web browser, GUI windowing system, etc. all fall into the category of 'all other software.'
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
I don't know. As much as embrace and extend is probably exactly what Microsoft wants to do, take a step back and look at history. Yes, it is a wonderfully effective means if wresting control from someone else. Now look at what happened as a result of the browser wars. Sure, Netscape is virtually destroyed, but there are plenty of other browsers that rose to take its place. And this is the kicker. I've been to many schools (I've moved all over the country) and I've taken several computer classes, several of which were, surprise, html coding. You know what the first thing that they told us? Do not use IE to test your code. They told that to every class, every semester, every year. That's a lot of people. As if that weren't enough, there were a lot of people who got F-ing F's for the first couple of weeks because they had tested their code with IE. And don't get me started on Javascript.
Anyways, it's been a while since I've stubled across a page Firefox couldn't open, unless it had Active X of course (which is sometimes an inconvenience, I'll admit), but the thing is, people are making better code now, and a site with broken code is usually a sure sign that it's probably unreliable. Also, IE now only has 80% market share. So what, you think, 20%. Actually, that is a LOT of money. Let's say your site gets a 100 thousand hits a day. Would you be willing to give up 20 thousand hits a day, that just slow down the servers with no results? Or even better, if you were in a management position, would you be willing to accept that loss because one of your employees was too lazy to write proper code? If you're afraid of embrace and extend, don't give your kids Microsoft office, give them open office. Then, if there's ever a compatibility problem of anykind at school, file a complaint. Call it discrimination because of OS or choice of format. Lawsuits don't always have to help the coorporations, people. We definetely have the higher moral ground. Why require students to purchase a product just to recieve their right to an education?
Before you die, you see DoubleRing...
I agree, people who misuse apostrophe's are the worst.
Now you're going to have to explain to me how Windows is cheaper than Linux.
Linux is only cheaper than Windows if your time is worth nothing.
Or explain how Windows is better than Linux.
Windows is better than Linux in a lot of ways, but especially in the way most people care about. People use applications, not operating systems. Applications under Windows are far more numerous and generally far better.
Or you can go with the third option, which is "faster." You are free to use any interpretation of "faster." (Suggestions: operating speeds, release times, patch times.)
Again, people use applications, not operating systems. Graphics applications under Linux are generally slower and less responsive than ones under Windows, mostly because of the legacy of X11 and the horrible way fonts are handled.
Don't get me wrong -- I like Linux and use it every day. As a server. But for desktop application work, I use Windows.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
What if OpenXML isn't that bad? It has been submitted to ECMA, and I think they've mentioned ISO. So I presume it will really be open and properly documented (with the necessary license changes) if more shit hits the fan. I also seem to recall reading about some rather nifty features of OpenXML, such as embedding audio and video into documents and the ZIP container being constructed so the important files inside come first, and graphics et al last.
On the other hand, OpenDocument relies on open standards all the way (we all know how important that is), and should be more interoperable...
Why can't we all just get along and have OpenXMLDocument, The One True Document Format, with the best of OpenDocument and OpenXML? Both sides seem to be pushing their agenda more than being concerned about the well-being of everyone, and it looks like each of them has something the other does not. So for crying out loud, sit down together, create the next super-format and transition to it! It will bring money to everyone involved, and create everlasting peace on Earth.
Microsoft's Open XML is just a delay tactic -- their old strategy of vaporware vaporware vaporware ... that sometimes materializes at the last second, never as grand as promised, but having accomplished it's goal of causing everyone to say "Let's wait and see what Microsoft will do first!"
And MOX is Latin for "soon". Coincidence?!
yeah, prolly
BUT: a cute synchronicity, nonetheless.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
I'm confused... From what I understand this plugin ultimitly allows Office 2007 users to read/write ODF files... what's he bitching about?
"to government's around the world" - how rude...
Servant of karma
And if someone declares "Grammar Nazi!", just remember two things, equally important:
1. They're invoking Godwin's Law. Conceding an argument on their second post?
2. Declarations of "Grammar Nazi!" against those who point out glaring spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors are generally made by Grammar Idiots.
I love the Grocer's Apostrophe (add 's to anything to make it plural). I passed a pool hall the other day (Chalkies). It's smokeless! It's where the Black Widow hangs out when she's at home between tournaments. One of the advertisements in the window involved scheduling "Party's". What's just as bad is when people make any unfamiliar word an acronym (all uppercase).
(I propose "The Ignoramus' Acronym".)
No, this isn't flamebait. It's an ongoing examination of those who can write and those who cannot, and the excuses the latter use when they aren't being defensive.
Every supporter of ODF sounds as if ODF is the most used format world-wide and the de facto standard. Every supporter sounds as if there is no alternative to ODF and that it is the holy grail. But they all forget the realities that exist today. The de facto standard is not ODF, but the Microsoft Office 97-2003 binary formats. Billions and billions of documents are in those formats today and the number of documents currently in ODF pales compared to it. With Office 2007, Microsoft will offer a free method to upgrade all those documents to the OpenXML format. It's free, because the converter itself will be available as free download from Microsoft.
OpenXML provides full-fidelity for all 97-2003 documents, which means that users can upgrade their files to OpenXML without losing anything. In contrast, 97-2003 documents cannot be converted without any loss to ODF, as ODF doesn't support everything in those formats. This means in a few years, the vast majority of documents will be in the OpenXML format and everyone will be wondering why we even need ODF.
Microsoft providing an OpenXML-ODF translator is a stop-gag measure to prolong the eventual death of ODF.
NT
This site http://netmoc.cpe.ucf.edu/Projects/OpenDocument/Te stSuite.html
has Sample ODF documents intended as references. From the site:
We are working towards developing a comprehensive set of sample documents for the OpenDocument specifications developed by the Oasis consortium.
Every document has associated rendering samples created with:
* OpenOffice v2.0.1 on Windows XP SP2
* KOffice v1.5beta on Gentoo Linux
The set of sample documents was developed at the Networking and Mobile Computing Laboratory at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science of the University of Central Florida.
Developed by: Yi Luo and Majid A. Khan under the supervision of Dr. Lotzi Boloni.
The development was sponsored by Intel corporation and released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License
"The ODF standard is far too new to be considered as a government mandate."
Why? It is a standard. A real standard that is open for all to understand and use. No reason that government shouldn't mandate its use if they feel it is in the best intrest of the public.
There is a mistrust of Microsoft but that is to be expected. Microsoft has already been convicted multiple times for its anti competitive behavior. It would be foolish to ignore this fact.
"A much better way to deal with the news would have been to have hailed the step as an endorsement of ODF and glossed over the limited nature of the support on offer. "
I disagree. People need to know that Microsoft is trying an end run. They'll use the fact that people will not be inclined to not bother installing an add on. If Microsoft really wanted to support ODF it wouldn't be that hard for them it implement the format natively. They do other formats.
"As it is the article does more to highlight the contentious nature of ODF, the belief that Microsoft continues to be hostile to it and the beleif that the whole point of ODF is simply to attack Microsoft."
1.ODF does not have a "contentious nature" Microsoft does.
2.Microsoft does continue to be hostile toward ODF and people need to know that.
3.I don't think many people believe that "the whole point of ODF is to attack Microsoft." ODF has nothing to do with Microsoft, Open Source or proprietary software. It has to do with keeping the people's data available to them forever.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
In what way has ODF been extended by Open Office? A link would be nice...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
of what XML is by Microsoft.
l /
eXtensible Markup Language is meant for a base specification to ensure portability. Anyone can add to an xml based specfication for their product / needs. that is the idea.
if Microsoft's openxml format for office 2007 is an xml format, then they will have a dtd and reference url for the dtd that will enable any xml based application to use the format. If this is not possible, then it is another case of Microsoft lying to their customers about Microsoft products.
The above is the comment I made on Techrepublic in response to the article at the url below.
Since the Article I'm referencing is about the plugin for office 2007, it's a related story.
http://techrepublic.com.com/2100-3513-6090912.htm
J. Henager: If the average user can put a CD in and boot the system and follow the prompts, he can install and use Linux