Slashdot Mirror
Open XML Translator for Microsoft Word Available
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."
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?
And how's this related to Linux? It is just a ODF - OpenXML convertor for Windows.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"
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".
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."); }
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.
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!
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.
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. --
Noo! What will happen to the GNU Foundation's war on .doc?!