Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open XML Translator for Microsoft Word Available

Posted by Zonk on from the translate-the-night-away dept.

narramissic writes "The first phase of a Microsoft-funded project to create software that can convert Microsoft Word documents between Open XML and Open Document Format (ODF) has been completed. As a result, the Open XML Translator is now available for download in version 1.0 from SourceForge.net. A ComputerWorld article details the history of the project, discussing the work of companies like CleverAge and AztecSoft, as well as community efforts to bring this project to realization."

96 comments

  1. Aw... by darkhitman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please no clippy, please no clippy...

    "It looks like you're trying to convert to a non-Microsoft proprietary format. I can't let you do that, Dave"

    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  2. Relation to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And how's this related to Linux? It is just a ODF - OpenXML convertor for Windows.

    1. Re:Relation to Linux? by mtenhagen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Software Requirements

      Before installing the add-in, make sure you have one of the followings...

              * Microsoft Word XP
              * Office Compatibility Pack
              * .NET framework 2.0

      or

              * Microsoft Word 2003
              * Office Compatibility Pack
              * .NET framework 2.0*

      or

              * Word 2007 with .NET Programmability Support activated
              * .NET framework 2.0*

      Minimum Software Requirements

      To compile the source distribution, you will need Microsoft Visual Studio 2005.

      --
      200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
    2. Re:Relation to Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's just for the Word plugin, the command line tool will merely require you install the MS patent litigation timebomb known as "Mono". Doubtless there are thousands of Steve Irwin types who won't flinch at being asked to insert their member in the crocodiles mouth, common sense should prevail for the rest of us.

    3. Re:Relation to Linux? by solafide · · Score: 1

      It's under the BSD license, so I'm sure someone can redo it so it can be compiled on Linux. After that, surely the Word hooks aren't that difficult to emulate? (IANAMP (not a mono programmer), so I don't know how difficult it'd be. Assuming it works better than what the OO.org people have, though, I suppose they'd rather adapt well-working code than write it from scratch...)

    4. Re:Relation to Linux? by bobsledbob · · Score: 1


      It didn't mention clippy anywhere??

      Bah!

      --
      Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
    5. Re:Relation to Linux? by albalbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Michael Meeks made a version of this converter available which compiles using mono, see entry 2007-01-29 on http://www.gnome.org/~michael/ .

      Realistically, there's no reason it even needs to be in C# - the various bits of wrapper could be rewritten into other languages, and the main work is done by an XSLT. The OpenDocument Fellowship might include a similar tool in future tool sets, translated to be a bit more native.

      --
      "Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
    6. Re:Relation to Linux? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      That's just for the Word plugin, the command line tool will merely require you install the MS patent litigation timebomb known as "Mono". Doubtless there are thousands of Steve Irwin types who won't flinch at being asked to insert their member in the crocodiles mouth, common sense should prevail for the rest of us. Mono is built from Shared Source code (see: http://www.microsoft.com/sharedsource/) and is perfectly legally licensed to the Mono team. Microsoft cannot open lawsuits against people using code under terms Microsoft and the developers mutually agreed to.
      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  3. Why is this such a big thing? by grahammm · · Score: 1

    Why is this such a big thing considering that OpenOffice has the ability to import from and export to MS Word format? It even allows you to email the document in Word format without having to explicitly save it in that format.

    1. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The idea is that it would let Microsoft Word users do the conversion, and save their documents in ODF, rather than leaving them in DOC and requiring OpenOffice users to do the conversion.

      The big difference is which format the documents get stored in. If they're being stored in DOC, then you're still mostly at the mercy of Microsoft; it's easy for someone to open the document in some new version of Word, save it, and silently move it into some new MS-created "binary blob" format, breaking backwards compatibility.

      So basically, a converter would let states like Massachusetts start to move away from DOC as the de facto standard format for electronic documents. They'd probably still use it as an editing format, because I don't see them tossing Word for OO.org anytime soon, but it would help get rid of the huge "silos" of DOC stuff that's sitting around, getting silent migrated from one version of Microsoft's formats to the next.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      IIRC (correct me if i'm wrong), but i think OpenOffice can only handle the word-processor part of Open XML, not the rest of it (spreadsheet, presentation, etc).

      and, since many large organizations/governments have already switched to ODF, those groups wouldn't really be able to switch back to Microsoft without a conversion tool, preferably built into Office. this could be MS's attempt to get them to switch back.

    3. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Why is this such a big thing considering that OpenOffice has the ability to import from and export to MS Word format?

      Some governments have conflicting directives including support for ODF and a contract to buy MS Word. Many tools designed to allow the blind to use computers work only with specific products, like MS Word. As a result, some governments asked for a converter that would move documents back and forth between these formats and for some reason they asked that MS not contribute or control the code, just fund it.

    4. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1

      IIRC (correct me if i'm wrong), but i think OpenOffice can only handle the word-processor part of Open XML, not the rest of it (spreadsheet, presentation, etc).

      OpenOffice.org is a complete office suite, comprising Word Processor (Writer), Presentations (Impress), Spreadsheets (Calc) and Vector Graphics/Diagrams (Draw). The Open Document Format (ODF) is able to encapsulate all these document types.

      Whether the Office Open XML (OOXML) to ODF convertor can handle all of these transformations, I don't know. I'm not holding my breath for a complete converter from OOXML to ODF either - 6000+ pages of OOXML spec is going to be hard to read, let alone code all the different options into it. At least with ODF, they kept it around 700 pages.

      Cheers,
      Toby Haynes

      --
      Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    5. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      When OpenOffice imports the Word document and it does not look exactly like it did in Word, people will blame OpenOffice. You can cry till you are hoarse that it was because of bugs in word, and no one would even listen to you.

      Now you export word doc to ODF using Microsoft Ceritified Export tool, and if the user complains that it does not look exactly as it did in Word, we can 1. Blame Microsoft for insincere export. 2. Read it into Word and see if the document survives round-tripping. If it does not, we have proved that it is Microsoft's fault.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      yeah, i'm an idiot. in my head "Microsoft Word" and "Microsoft Office" are interchangeable. didnt occur to me that they were just talking about Word, not all of Office.

    7. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      //As a result, some governments asked for a converter that would move documents back and forth between these formats and for some reason they asked that MS not contribute or control the code, just fund it.//

      1. They didn't ask for a converter, they asked for the ability to save OpenDocument (ODF) as the default file format. That is something that the CleverAge plugin specifically cannot do.

      2. They said nothing whatsoever about Microsoft controlling it or funding it.

      3. Due to its sever limitations, the CleverAge plugin is not the one you want anyway. Wait a little while for the daVinci plugin to become available, and get perfect compatibility with your old legacy format documents and perfect conformance to ODF, and also get the ability to have ODF as the default document format. If you get the daVinci plugin, it will also solve conversions between different versions of Office as a bonus feature.

      http://www.fr0mat.org/

      Get a preview demo here: http://opendocument.foundation.googlepages.com/hom e

    8. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by Locutus · · Score: 0

      There's one tiny little problem here. The fox is incharge of the hen house. Do people STILL think that Microsoft is going to let there be a nice clean efficient and seamless migration from Microsoft OOXML to ODF? They might say they will and they might show some demo of that but as history is my witness, they'll be tweaking those ODF docs in places the sun don't shine. And the result will be less than an easy to use converter.

      Just ask yourself, what profit motives does Microsoft have in making this work? What profit motives do they have by making people THINK it's going to work? If Microsoft was so willing to enable this, why isn't it a builtin feature to MS Word?

      Nope, it's a timebomb waiting to blow up in many many a businesspersons face. A few government officials faces too I suspect. After all, it's the "One Microsoft Way". ;-) IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    9. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's open source. If there is some piece of code that causes it to produce bad ODF files, you can fix it yourself, and make the fix available for anyone else. If they refuse to merge it back into the the main branch, you can fork it and then fix it, and again make it available to anyone else.

      As for the profit motive, more and more governments are starting to talk about mandating non-proprietary file formats. Microsoft doesn't want to include this in Word, obviously, but if a city, state, or even national government decides it wants to use ODF, Microsoft doesn't want to be the only Office suite on the block that can't handle it.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    10. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this new shiny format that Microsoft has cooked up, relates back to the old stuff (even the document they submitted for international standards approval will likely be rejected because it refers back continuously to microsofts old formats). microsoft showed how the document is stored in XML, but kept the binary containers holding the XML utterly proprietary, and they are loaded chock full of DRM tags. Sharing? Only with an approved microsoft product: "I see that you are trying to save a document. Please type in a valid microsoft licence in the first box, or a valid credit card number in the second box. Your licence (if entered) will be checked, so make sure your internet connection is active, or if the second box is filled, make sure your internet connection is active, and your bank or financial institution allows billing against your account. Thank you for using microsoft, and thank you for letting microsoft use you."

    11. Re:Why is this such a big thing? by vic-traill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just ask yourself, what profit motives does Microsoft have in making this work?

      I'll second that emotion.

      This initiative is at odds with Microsoft's decision to use Open XML for the Office suite. If they really think folks are going to be stuck with Open XML-format Office documents that they need converted into ODF (say, for distribution reasons) what is it that stops them from saving the documents as ODF directly out of the Office app?

      I think Microsoft is feeling a little shaky on this issue. They've had great success historically using their own document formats - in particular, the lack of backwards compatibility between Word formats, which should have served to infuriate their user base when it realized they were being forced to upgrade just so they could open up Word docs sent to them by folks using a newer version of Word. Instead, this lack of compatibility brought Office upgrades *forward* into the next quarter. What a great scam, Steve! Thanks, Bill.

      As other readers have noted, though, there are enough indicators out there (the on-going Mass. debacle, for one) that it seems MS is afraid of being left holding the incompatibility bag, so they're hedging their bets by supporting the creation of these translator modules.

      All this just serves to leave them looking indecisive, IMHO. If they really give a shite about their users being able to share files, they'd jump on board ODF.

      Are there functional advantages in Open XML compared to ODF?

      --
      [17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
  4. Unfortunately by User+956 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The first phase of a Microsoft-funded project to create software that can convert Microsoft Word documents between Open XML and Open Document Format (ODF) has been completed.

    Unfortunately, when you run it, it starts off with, "Hi! It looks like you're trying to convert a Microsoft Word Document! Would you like some help?"

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  5. A Microsoft converter for a competing product? by mandelbr0t · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone else feel chills? Remember how good the Import/Export of .WPD files was in Word? I'm guessing that this will be of similar quality. At least it's OSS. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this to bridge the gap between ODF and OpenXML. Best is to use OpenOffice and save as .DOC if you have to. Here's the Microsoft Press Release about it.

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    1. Re:A Microsoft converter for a competing product? by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      At least it's OSS
      Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines here, but it said the project was OSS *and* either sponsored or blessed by Microsoft. Again, maybe it's nothing, but I see MS setting a trap here so that anybody with DOC and ODT conversion becomes a target for future lawsuits by MS (kinda like the SCO deal - "Oh, you must have our code, so we're gonna sue the crap outta you")...
    2. Re:A Microsoft converter for a competing product? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

      This MS-sponsored converter converts between ODF and OOXML, both of which are publicly spec'ed. So it can be *perfect* in theory.
      OO.o's conversion converts between ODF and OO.o's best guess as to what the binary .DOC format is. And OO.o's best guess is pretty poor for anything but the simplest of documents.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    3. Re:A Microsoft converter for a competing product? by berzerke · · Score: 1

      Since the code is under the BSD license, I doubt any lawsuit would be viable.

  6. a question instead of a statement by Ace905 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can I ask, since the article doesn't seem to really explain -- what good is this? I know converting to XML is supremely important _in theory_ so that your documents can be easily parsed and used among other software applications - but say for example:

    I have a document
    I convert it to XML

    then what? Is this excellent news in theory, or is there a demand for this?

    I honestly don't know, I'm not claiming there isn't. Please tell me.

    ---
    this isn't xml

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:a question instead of a statement by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      I have a document
      I convert it to XML

      then what?

      The latest and greatest(?) versions of the MS Office programs save natively in XML. This converter lets you convert to ODF, which lets you read the files into OpenOffice on any operating system, or any other application that supports ODF. It basically lets you get out from under the MS proprietary format and into an open standard.

    2. Re:a question instead of a statement by gvc · · Score: 1

      XML (and open for that matter) is just a synonym for "good." So read "OOXML format" simply as "(MS) Office format." The fact that it is sort of based on XML is irrelevant.

    3. Re:a question instead of a statement by Ace905 · · Score: 1

      Ok, my mistake - it converts TO ODF from XML ; but aside from the incredible sense of freedom you experience getting out from under the crushing weight of MS proprietary format (haha) -- does this actually, at the moment, open up any new avenues for anybody?

      Like someone else commented, OpenOffice and already import and export to microsoft word. So is this really a practical utility, or does it just make everybody happy that hates Microsoft but still actually uses them?

      ---
      Open What?

      --

      Ace
    4. Re:a question instead of a statement by kfg · · Score: 1

      Is this excellent news in theory. . .

      No.

      . . . , or is there a demand for this?

      Yes.

      Demand trumps excellence.

      KFG

    5. Re:a question instead of a statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I convert it to XML

      People don't seem to get this. XML is not a file format. It is a syntax that file formats can use. The difference between XML and a file format is like the difference between the English language and a book.

      You don't convert documents to XML. What you can do is convert documents to a file format that uses XML syntax. This is what this tool does. There is a file format - which incidentally uses XML - and this converts Word docs to this other format. This other format happens to be understood by multiple word processors, such as Open Office and KWord. And that is the benefit. The fact that XML is involved is not something end-users should really care about.

    6. Re:a question instead of a statement by woodhouse · · Score: 0, Troll

      Since when is completely missing the point of the article +3 interesting? I think there should be some kind of basic IQ test before you're allowed to moderate...

    7. Re:a question instead of a statement by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Can I ask, since the article doesn't seem to really explain -- what good is this? I know converting to XML is supremely important _in theory_ so that your documents can be easily parsed and used among other software applications - but say for example:

      I have a document I convert it to XML then what? Is this excellent news in theory, or is there a demand for this? I honestly don't know, I'm not claiming there isn't. Please tell me.

      Can some one please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought MS's new format was xml based and the open document is also xml based. Wasn't the supposed beauty of the whole xml thing was that it was "easy" or "near trival" for programers to write coverters to display that xml data in different formats or style it differently? I don't see what the big "news" of this is? I also don't see what the big ruckus is that MS isn't using opendocment for its file format rather than their own xml standard. Sure, I understand in theory back in the day, all word documents you needed to go through MS to read anything out of it. Wasn't that mainly why their new format was in xml so that all those MS centric freelancers could "easily" do whatever they needed to do with the files? I'm sorry, but it seems like MS just kinda smiled and nodded at the whole open document thing and was like heck all we need is a "plugin" and you can convert or should be able to read this new handy dandy xml file "anywhere" sort of like a pdf. O.k. I recongize this is slashdot and isn't a good place to find any real MS news other than rantings, but some one around here must know what the whole big deal is with xml is and two seperate xml file formats. You'd think it wouldn't be difficult for folks to read either format if xml was so easy to read.

    8. Re:a question instead of a statement by ender-iii · · Score: 1

      step one: convert to xml
      step two: <shrug>
      step three:collect underpants

      --
      ender-iii
    9. Re:a question instead of a statement by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      You save the document in XML. 6 months down the road, you think, gee, bob edited a document I worked on, but I don't remember which one. Because XML is basically a text flat file, you do a search for edits to your documents done by Bob. It checks all documents, including the files done in word, wordperfect that the legal team uses, OO that the engineers use, etc. Or, again, because its not a proprietary format, you send the same document out to 10 people to edit.. they all email back changes.. very, very easy to merge them back together.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    10. Re:a question instead of a statement by Ace905 · · Score: 1

      At first I felt kind of stupid posting the question, but after reading the responses I think it was mod'd up for being a valid question. I completely missed the point, yes. It converts XML to ODF - but the question is still valid, no? what's the point. Where's the actual practical use. Heck, I should get +5. Nobody can really tell me aside from,

      "You're NO LONGER GOING TO BE CRUSHED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF MICROSOFTS PROPRIETARY XML.... which isn't proprietary...."

      ---
      speaking of a big crush

      --

      Ace
    11. Re:a question instead of a statement by Ace905 · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to argue semantics because you're right - but I know what XML is. My _point_ once again is what is the practical use? OpenOffice and KWord import and export from Microsoft Office format.

      Speaking of something end users shouldn't care about, my whole question is, why care about this?

      ---
      Definitely don't care about this

      --

      Ace
    12. Re:a question instead of a statement by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 0
      1. I have a document
      2. I convert it to XML
      then what? Is this excellent news in theory, or is there a demand for this?

      3 Profit!!
    13. Re:a question instead of a statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenOffice and KWord import and export from Microsoft Office format.

      Imperfectly. Microsoft have a better track record (though not perfect) with writing software that can understand Word documents.

    14. Re:a question instead of a statement by asills · · Score: 1

      That's more the party line of XML rather than the real world of XML. While translating XML from one format to another may be trivial in some cases, translating the content the XML contains (in this case the content is document formatting) may be incredibly difficult when the two XML formats are incredibly different (which they are, considering the 6000 page doc versus the 700 page doc).

      --
      -- What did Spock find in Kirk's toilet? The captain's log.
    15. Re:a question instead of a statement by asills · · Score: 1

      The practical use in this case is a business need. Microsoft has customers saying "we want the option to leave you" and competitors saying "hey we can convert their documents! Move to OpenOffice!". The customer might not actually want to leave Microsoft, but doesn't want to be forced to stick with them forever so they want that option. Microsoft made the right move and sponsored a way to convert their document format to ODF to make customers believe they can move away from Office if necessary.

      --
      -- What did Spock find in Kirk's toilet? The captain's log.
    16. Re:a question instead of a statement by asills · · Score: 1

      And furthermore, while the Office XML format may not be proprietary due to it being published to a standards body, it's not something one should expect anyone other than Microsoft to implement.

      Microsoft published it as a standard in response to external pressures to shut some critics up. There are things in that standard that are nowhere near spelled out how to implement (for instance I think there's a Word95 compatibility flag but no definition of what changes when it's on other than "renders in Word95 compatibility mode").

      That said, the number of documents that will have these weird-ass flags and unusual behavior will be few and far between (I'm pretty sure most are to emulate old behavior) and just creating a new document in Word probably won't use them.

      --
      -- What did Spock find in Kirk's toilet? The captain's log.
    17. Re:a question instead of a statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      //I'm not going to argue semantics because you're right - but I know what XML is. My _point_ once again is what is the practical use? OpenOffice and KWord import and export from Microsoft Office format.//

      The CleverAge plugin (subject of this thread), OpenOffice and Kword all have imperfect conversion between Microsoft formats and ODF, and all require the document to have been saved in a Microsoft encumbered/proprietary format to begin with.

      The soon-to-be-released daVinci plugin solves all of these issues. If you have a copy of Microsoft Office (any version from '97 onward), getting the daVinci plugin when it becomes available and setting your default format to ODF is the only hope Microsoft users have of ever escaping the Microsoft format lock-in.

      http://www.fr0mat.net/

    18. Re:a question instead of a statement by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      Say I create a document in Word 2007. Say it's my resume. I would save it "resume.docx". Say I create it on OpenOffice. I would name it "resume.odt". Six months from now, I would see one of those files and know what it is based on the name, extension, and icon.

      It's not any different than going by doc, xls, ppt, etc now. Why would it being a zipped XML make a difference? To a user the only difference is the extension and what programs can open/save it.

      Open Office Extensions:
      Writer: .odt
      Calc: .ods
      Impress: .odp

      Office 2007 Extensions:
      Word: .docx
      Excel: .xlsx
      PowerPoint: .pptx

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
    19. Re:a question instead of a statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what.... well it's in a malleable format so you can move it around between formats (Eg, with Docvert) so you could put it into HTML or DocBook or something like that.

    20. Re:a question instead of a statement by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that OO will screw the formatting for anything that's a little more complex. If whenever you open something, everything is out of place, or you can't be sure that somebody will be able to open the document how you saved it, it's best just to use MS Office.

      It means that now, I will be able to send ODT's to people who seem to think OO is somehow inferior to the "real" MS Office.

    21. Re:a question instead of a statement by Steve001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LordVader717 wrote as part of a post:

      The problem is that OO will screw the formatting for anything that's a little more complex. If whenever you open something, everything is out of place, or you can't be sure that somebody will be able to open the document how you saved it, it's best just to use MS Office.

      The problem is, this is not even viable in a pure MS Word environment. An often-heard complaint is that MS Word documents will look different on different computers, even if both users are using MS Word. I personally had to deal with the problem and ended up requiring people to FAX us a printed document to ensure that we saw precisely what the creator had. We tried to do it electronically, but what we received often did not match what the originator sent (we were both using the same version of MS Word).

    22. Re:a question instead of a statement by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Even other microsoft products will fail badly...
      The mac versions of word have many compatibility problems with the windows versions, and just try loading/saving word documents with ms publisher (publisher even comes bundled with the more expensive versions of office)

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    23. Re:a question instead of a statement by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      Bert64 wrote:

      Even other microsoft products will fail badly...
      The mac versions of word have many compatibility problems with the windows versions, and just try loading/saving word documents with ms publisher (publisher even comes bundled with the more expensive versions of office)

      Maybe the solution is to move away from the entire WYSIWYG-while-editing method of document preparation, to an instruction-based system like LaTeX where the document will print on paper exactly as instructed regardless of the computer system. That, combined with an extremely accurate page preview function, might be a way to deal with this problem.

    24. Re:a question instead of a statement by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward wrote and included with a post:

      OpenOffice and KWord import and export from Microsoft Office format.

      Imperfectly. Microsoft have a better track record (though not perfect) with writing software that can understand Word documents.

      One of the problems with trying to write a program that can accurately read and write MS Word files is the way that information is stored in an MS Word file. The article "In Depth With StarOffice Filters" by Brian Proffitt http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/385 7/1/ lists the difficulties in creating a filter for MS Word files.

  7. Seems the common files are written in C# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Surprised? Seems Microsoft just see this as another way to infect the better platforms with their CLR, an attempt to start the countdown on the patent timebomb.

    If you're writing cross platform code at least have the decency to use C, C++ or Java, requiring a CLR is insulting.

    1. Re:Seems the common files are written in C# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java isn't a form of CLR? Sun's been really good about licensing that, too. By March 2007, J2SE will be released under GPL after over 10 years of existence. No, it's not an evil Microsoft conspiracy, people are making the .NET framework for **nix systems (working on 2.0, last I checked) and Microsoft isn't even suing! How crazy is that?

    2. Re:Seems the common files are written in C# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Common Language Runtime" is the specific name for a Microsoft VM, a belated NIH copy of the JVM. So no, the "Java Virtual Machine"is not the "Common Language Runtime". Maybe Sun should have freed Java 5 years ago whereas nobody in their right mind trusts Microsoft. Do you really want to entrust the future of core IT infrastructure and free software to that world famous Microsoft good will? If you're buying that, can in interest you in a bridge?

    3. Re:Seems the common files are written in C# by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Surprised? Seems Microsoft just see this as another way to infect the better platforms with their CLR, an attempt to start the countdown on the patent timebomb.

      If you're writing cross platform code at least have the decency to use C, C++ or Java, requiring a CLR is insulting.

      OMG! Mono & Rotor! WTFBBQLOL!?!?!

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    4. Re:Seems the common files are written in C# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bitter Java nerds ftw

    5. Re:Seems the common files are written in C# by Allador · · Score: 1

      If you're writing cross platform code at least have the decency to use C, C++ or Java, requiring a CLR is insulting.

      Then why is using Java okay?

  8. Excel and Power Point promised by Nov. 07 by schwaang · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the Microsoft press release:

    The second phase of the translator project, including translators for Spreadsheet (Microsoft Office Excel®) and Presentation (Microsoft Office PowerPoint®), will begin in February. Regular customer technology previews will be posted to SourceForge.net beginning in May 2007, and the final versions are scheduled to be available for customers in November 2007.
    One thing I'm wondering is how to automatically keep the OpenXML translator up to date on windows. If you install it from the MS Office Downloads site, will WindowsUpdate just keep it updated for you?
    1. Re:Excel and Power Point promised by Nov. 07 by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      No. Normally, 'office' downloads (if not 'critical' for security) are request-only. An that means 'genuine advantage check' too..

    2. Re:Excel and Power Point promised by Nov. 07 by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      No...
      windows update only really updates what comes bundled with the os, and not any additional apps, even if those additional apps came from microsoft

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  9. WTF?! by TheWoozle · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just tried to use it, and here's what I got:

          This is not a winning document. Better luck next time.
     

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
    1. Re:WTF?! by protactin · · Score: 1

      What happened next time? :)

      Oddly, that text isn't in the source code anywhere, so I wonder what's causing it..

  10. What's the point? by protactin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the point if the add-in doesn't allow ODF to be set as the default file type, or even used via the Save As menu?

    Hopefully the Word "interop" API actually allows for this sort of thing to be properly integrated.

    1. Re:What's the point? by blowdart · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually if you look at where it appears it's right off the root of the File menu. So it stands out more than Save As, which needs to be chosen; then subtype chosen. It looks (to my mind) to be more important in the menu structure.

    2. Re:What's the point? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The point? Being able to pretend to support ODF while not actually doing so in any meaningful sense, of course.

    3. Re:What's the point? by bbtom · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a masterful move on the part of Microsoft's PR department.

      If you want to satisfy large government and corporate buyers who want the data security that XML/(your favourite open data interchange standard) brings, you have three options:

      1. Make a sensible, well-designed XML standard to facilitate interop.
      2. Don't bother.
      3. Make an insanely complex XML standard to facilitate interop in theory while hindering it in practice.

      Microsoft have chosen the last option. Anybody surprised?

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
  11. needstag: openoffice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because this thing is about increasing compatibility between MS Word and the Open Document Format, used mainly by OpenOffice.

  12. But _REALLY_ needstag: itsatrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Common files in C# and...

    "Novell's contribution to the ODF Converter project is porting and integration with OpenOffice.org"

    Can some cat from Novell remind us all which part of openoffice.org is written in C#?

  13. does it run with wine on linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'd run it if it did.

  14. MS was very much against this by bendodge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A while back a state IT Department (I think Massachusetts) decided to only use open-source document formats and talked back and forth with Microsoft. The head of the IT Department (or something similar) privatly asked some of Word's programmers, who said an odf/xml feature would be trivial to add, but MS flatly refused to make a plugin for Office to convert to odf/xml, even though it meant losing the state's patronage.

    Microsoft is really determined to strangle open formats.

    --
    The government can't save you.
    1. Re:MS was very much against this by Allador · · Score: 1

      ... an odf/xml feature would be trivial to add, but MS flatly refused to make a plugin for Office to convert to odf/xml, even though it meant losing the state's patronage. Microsoft is really determined to strangle open formats.

      Yes, so determined that they're actually paying for someone else to do it and host it on sourceforge.

      http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/

  15. Microsoft-think explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no valid arguments against open document formats, we're fighting a losing battle here... and I'm all out of chairs. How can we turn this huge loss into a win?

  16. Fugetaboutit by LibertineR · · Score: 4, Funny
    IT Admin = "Boss, we can move to Open Office now, we have an XML converter for MS Word!"


    CIO = "What is this 'ribbon' thing I keep hearing about?"

    IT Admin = "Boss, we dont need the ribbon, its just Microsoft hype."

    CIO = "Have you seen the ribbon? Bring me the ribbon!"

    IT Admin = "Khaaaaaaaannnnn!"

  17. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If OpenOffice was a reasonable alternative to MS Office, this might be interesting. But it's not, and all the fanboys in the world can't make it. Maybe some day, but that day is a long way off if the current OO product is any indication.

    1. Re:Why? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Please define your usage of the word "reasonable".

      To the level at which I personally use MS Office as a (non-Windows/MS) computer professional of some 25 years, OO has all the features that I need from a word processor and spreadsheet program. I also do quite a lot of training slides in Powerpoint and find that OO's Impress imports those pretty well, albeit with some minor adjustments afterwards. I have some simple databases in Access but have not yet checked OO's ability to import those. I therefore find OO a "reasonable" alternative to MS Office.

      Furthermore, evidence suggests to me that 90% of the people I know who use MS Office would find OO a good replacement for everything that they do - the exceptions are those people who use macros and VB in Office who would probably find OO not to be suitable. I believe those same people would find OO a "reasonable" alternative to MS Office.

      Your argument makes it sound as though the entire MS Office user base has tried to convert to OO but somehow rejected it when, in reality, because most people find MS Office meets their needs and they don't themselves have to pay for it, they have no reason to look at OO as an alternative.

      I know of **ABSOLUTELY NOBODY** who has paid for a legitimate copy of MS Office for their own use yet most people I know use it. But I would imagine that if they were faced with paying the going price of several hundred pounds/dollars/euros for it, they would no doubt seek out a free or cheaper alternative.

      I would suggest that you "watch this space" closely over the next year or so. If the talk of Vista is anything to go by, MS are seriously planning on alienating home/private users in favour of corporate licenses - this can only mean that they'll tighten up on their product licenses, fewer people will be able to use MS Office for free and they'll start taking a serious look at OO.

      And then we **REAL** OO users will be laughing at the people like you who have never tried it and base all their opinions purely on hearsay.

      And in case I am wrong, and you have used it, then just how many times have you dropped the development team an email explaining just **WHY** OO doesn't meet your needs?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of **ABSOLUTELY NOBODY** who has paid for a legitimate copy of MS Office for their own use yet most people I know use it.

      I've paid for a copy of it. And I don't even have Windows! (I tend to alternate between Linux and Macs.)

      I looked at OpenOffice.org for the Mac (which I use on Linux, and Windows at work, all the time). It kind of sucked. Compared to my salary, MS Office isn't really that expensive, so I bought it. (I'm still using the same version 5+ years later, mostly because they still haven't released a Universal binary for Macs.)

      And in case I am wrong, and you have used it, then just how many times have you dropped the development team an email explaining just **WHY** OO doesn't meet your needs?

      I could email them that their Mac version sucks, but they can read that on any OOo forum. I don't think they'd find that useful.

  18. What article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Screen cap of article with javascript disabled

    2 week ago I cud not even spell "web develeper" and now I is one.
  19. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're in government, I imagine even in rich countries, you need to manage a diverse base of Office suites: 95, 97, 2000, XP and maybe 2003.

    These things, I can say from my limited experience, and contrary to M$ allegations, do not work well together. Some even suggest this is done on purpose, to create through net marketing the need to upgrade, in order to maintain relationships with peers (IOW, if you want to keep using Office 97, good luck being alone, because you won't fully interoperate with more recent products). "Backwards compatibility" is as easy to say as "I love you".

    That's why there's never a real scenario study like comparing costs in a business using OpenOffice.org versus a mix of said products. Usual "sponsored" studies focus on just one version of Office (tipically just released) versus using the combo (OpenOffice + old Office previously in use).

    And that's why M$ solutions' TCO is higher than Free Software's: because with F/OSS you can EASILY deploy a single version, which is easier to maintain. This is rather obvious but I just learned some months ago...

    Now, my point is: why, just why, would a public department be interested in OOXML to/from ODF conversion?

    The answer: it would not!

    Governments want compatibility with doc, xls, mdb, ppt and other proprietary s... formats. Because they have a lot of stuff on these formats. And others maybe, like AutoCAD's or Wordperfect's...

    This conversor will facilitate the legal acquisition of proprietary solutions in case ODF wins and OOXML (M$) loses. It will enable bad administrators to say: "Well, we can purchase M$ products as usual, because they can read ODF via OOXML conversor. We won't use OpenOffice.org because it's too complicated." (Blatant lies... "so what," I guess they think).

    Everybody needs traditional format conversion, and OpenOffice.org already does a pretty good job at that, thank you very much. OOXML conversion might come in handy now and then, but it sort of opens a galactic hole when adopting exclusively the ODF standard...

    Before you think "that's good 'cause everybody gets to use ODF", let me say "no, they'll use OOXML and only resort to ODF in rare occasions when legally required". Intense use of OOXML will convert ODF in a new Betamax, EBCDIC, or whatever analogy fits.

    a) Trademarks and brands are property of their legal owners.
    b) Yes, they can get away with this... let's hope this gets harder and harder.
    c) Don't ask me to back my opinion with links; go google the vast material available and get one yourself.
    d) I'm not American so I'm free to have an opinion. Sorry.

    1. Re:THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's automatic rating system seems to work perfectly: nobody reads anonymous' comments, thus nobody contributes with any ideas or solutions.

      Meanwhile some jerks post idiotic remarks with automatic +2, after a lot of karmawhoring.

      How it was different 8 or 9 years ago! I guess the trolls that motivated this system have won.

      8-L

  20. With love from Vista by ughmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can't wait to see what Vista does with this. "Premium content detected, doc files are proprietary content I have notified Microsoft about your attempt to circumvent the DMCA. Please stay where you are and make no sudden moves".

  21. It's XML, but... by bbtom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Try reading Microsoft's documentation for OOXML. It's 6,000 pages long. Seriously. This is a great Microsoft PR stunt - yes, you've gotten your data in to XML format, but the XML format is so complicated that only the Microsoft programmers who wrote it can actually understand it. Part of the point about XML is interoperability. There's no way that sane people are going to read a 6,000 page Microsoft specification and write an XSLT to convert Microsoft OOXML in to a simpler and saner format. In short, this will not mean any competition with Microsoft. They buy PR in the geek community by saying "Office is going XML! Open data! Whee!" and making an XML format that's so complicated that nobody would ever use it. That's a pretty smart move. And it's a pretty dumb move on the part of ECMA. Congratulations on just giving your dignity away by signing off on a specification that's about nineteen times longer than War and Peace...

    No document in living history is ever going to be so complicated that it needs to be in a format that's specification is 6,000 pages long. Part of the point about XML was that we should be setting up simple, domain-specific markup languages and extending already existing markup languages. OOXML is bad because it's needlessly complicated and obscure. Having visited the OOXML website, I'm missing a lot of things I expect. First, I'm missing schema. If these guys are serious about XML, where are the XSD/RNG schema? Secondly, where are the cross-platform translators - ie. XSLs? I'm missing some kind of high-level summary of how I'm supposed to parse the XML. If the only way of doing anything with OOXML is a closed, black-box Microsoft converter, then we still haven't really got anywhere.

    Well, I'm breaking the cycle. All my documents are going to be either ASCII or a standard, non-obscure XML format like XHTML. Or something home-brewed and simple that can be easily transformed using XSL and XSL-FO. Screw Microsoft's phony attempt at interoperability. The Internet is interoperable by design. (X)HTML is interoperable by design. Let's prove to them that we mean interoperability by sticking to simple, sensible, semantically-based and scalable principles.

    --
    catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    1. Re:It's XML, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try reading Microsoft's documentation for OOXML. It's 6,000 pages long. Seriously.

      Uh, that's a *good* thing. Have you tried using MS Office recently? It has about a gazillion features. I won't claim that the OOXML spec is good (it's not), but it's not bad because it's long. If it was 34 pages long, it sure would be easy to read, but it would be woefully incomplete -- useless.

      making an XML format that's so complicated that nobody would ever use it

      Well, MS Office is that complicated. Granted, that's not a good thing. But given the choices:
      1. write a short, incomplete spec
      2. make OOXML crippled, and unable to use most of MS Office's features
      3. write a long spec
      is anybody surprised they chose #3?

      To quote somebody who knows more about it than me: "Depending on how you count, ODF has 4 to 10 pages devoted to [spreadsheet formulas and functions]. There is no way you could build a spreadsheet software based on this specification." [source]

    2. Re:It's XML, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote somebody who knows more about it than me: "Depending on how you count, ODF has 4 to 10 pages devoted to [spreadsheet formulas and functions]. There is no way you could build a spreadsheet software based on this specification."

      No shit, is that because ODF documents a file format and not an application? I should write a native ODF clone of sc just to prove monkey-boy wrong. If you're going to quote someone then quote someone without their tongue permanently lodged in Redmond's sphincter.

    3. Re:It's XML, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Forget writing How about first giving a grammar for formulae? How about just a list of available operators or functions? Since you can't give me a complete syntax or list of valid functions just by looking at the ODF spec, how are you going to write a spreadsheet that works with anything else?

      In case you're wondering where to look, see section 8.1.3 of the ODF 1.1 spec. Here's the gist of it:

      Formulas allow calculations to be performed within table cells. Every formula should begin with a namespace prefix specifying the syntax and semantics used within the formula. Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components:

        Numbers.

        Text.

        Named ranges.

        Operators.

        Logical operators.

        Function calls.

        Addresses of cells that contain numbers. The addresses can be relative or absolute, see section 8.3.1. Addresses in formulas start with a "[" and end with a "]". See sections 8.3.1 and 8.3.1 for information about how to address a cell or cell range.

      The following is an example of a simple formula:

      =sum([.A1:.A5])

      This formula calculates the sum of the values of all cells in the range ".A1:.A5". The function is "sum". The parameters are marked by a "(" at the start and a ")" at the end. If a function contains more than one parameter, the parameters are separated by a ";".
      In other words, the spec is completely useless for this. If you want to know what a formula looks like you need to download another 200+ page spec (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php? wg_abbrev=office-formula). If you want to know how to draw mathematical text you have to download the 541 page MathML spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/). If you want to be able to want to be able to have drawings on your spreadsheet you need to get the 719 page SVG spec (which is 13 pages LONGER than the original ODFv1.0 spec)! If you want to be able to use MathML in some SVG text, you're SOL because SVG doesn't allow for that.

      dom
    4. Re:It's XML, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget writing How about first giving a grammar for formulae? How about just a list of available operators or functions?

      This has nothing to do with the ODF file format.

      Since you can't give me a complete syntax or list of valid functions just by looking at the ODF spec, how are you going to write a spreadsheet that works with anything else?

      By downloading the openformula spec?

      If you want to know what a formula looks like you need to download another 200+ page spec (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php? wg_abbrev=office-formula).

      Have yourself a nice big cookie

      If you want to know how to draw mathematical text you have to download the 541 page MathML spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/MathML2/). If you want to be able to want to be able to have drawings on your spreadsheet you need to get the 719 page SVG spec (which is 13 pages LONGER than the original ODFv1.0 spec)!

      For an SC clone? Let's not ignore the reality of the situation, Mozilla tri-license and existence of XULRunner either.

    5. Re:It's XML, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The format is so long, because they created new methods of storing data when there are already standard formats in existence, for instance images... MSXML defines an internal way of storing images, while opendocument specifies the use of external formats (png, jpeg etc) the documentation for which is already publicly available, and widely implemented.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:It's XML, but... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they refuse existing standards like MathML and SVG instead of reinventing the wheel.
      If there already exists a standard that is capable of performing some of the functions you require, why not use it? This means that people who have already written code to support these functions won't have wasted their effort, and people implementing OpenDocument will be able to find existing code and expertise to implement several parts of the standard rather than having to write it themselves.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  22. All the features? by r00t · · Score: 1

    Word suuports "art borders". Users can choose from a wide selection of images selected from 1980's western culture. Does this get exported properly?

    If I can't get the candycorn borders, no deal!

  23. Re: Both Open Office and Linux are piles of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but they are good shit!

  24. I think it's great. by twitter · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thanks to this Microsoft funded and approved converter, I won't have any problems working exclusively in ODF now will I? OK, you can stop laughing but the last time I tried to open the crappy new .DOCX with Open Office, it did not work. The save as dialog was difficult to find on Word and confusing when you did find it. Chances are, this converter will be just another trap like Windoze itself.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:I think it's great. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      the last time I tried to open the crappy new .DOCX with Open Office, it did not work.

      Cos OpenOffice doesn't support it yet? Hardly Microsoft's fault.

      (Nor, on the other hand, is it OpenOffice's fault. It's still a new format, for christ's sake.)

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  25. Copied from OOo ? by catman · · Score: 1

    I installed it and tried in in Word 2003 on a small, simple documents. I noticed that when the result file was loaded into Writer, it looked at first glance the same as if Writer had loaded a .doc file - e.g. white page background turns red, numbered section headers lost the numbering. I'll have a closer look and do the round-trip test, but it seems that the Windows team has exactly the same difficulties that OOo has in the conversion? Someone(TM) should perhaps compare some code here - not to point any blaming fingers, but to make the code better, in the best spirit of FOSS ... In the meantime, I'll just stick with OOo as it fills my needs completely. Well, almost, but there's also LyX/LaTeX.

  26. Try mono you troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  27. We Can Put an End to Word Attachments by aerthling · · Score: 1

    Noo! What will happen to the GNU Foundation's war on .doc?!

    1. Re:We Can Put an End to Word Attachments by aerthling · · Score: 1

      Next time, I will RTFA. I promise.