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."

Comments

Re:short term - but does it matter?

[Laura_DilDio]

They are being obtuse by ignoring the spirit of the request to support open standards. Microsoft is attempting to win the battle by frustrating users. Proprietary formats have kept them in business for many years -- why change now? However, I remember when they supported dozens of file formats .

Java Redux

[Shadow Wrought]

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?

ODF great for freedom, but needs better tech info

[ishmalius]

I have been working for months on ODF output from Inkscape. Although I am a great fan of ODF, it has become apparent to me that there is a weakness in technical specifications and programmer's references. The ODF project seems to be heavily biased in its efforts toward advocacy, with little energy left over to clean up the Oasis specification, provide application information, and most importantly, provide a test bed.

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.

Emphasis on 'Short Term'

[dkh2]

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.'