Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Votes to Add ODF to ANSI Standards List
RzUpAnmsCwrds writes "In a puzzling move, Microsoft today voted to support the addition of the OpenDocument file formats to the American National Standards List. OpenDocument is used by many free-software office suites, including OpenOffice.org. Microsoft is still pushing its own Office Open XML format, which it hopes will also become an ANSI standard. Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF, or is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?"
In an epiphany, Bill Gates realized that the lackluster sales of Vista were due to all the bad things he's done in his life. So now he's got a list of them on a sheet of yellow paper and he's going around making up for them. Having Microsoft back ODF is helping him make up for #38 on his list: "Screwed over consumers with proprietary formats."
:-)
Come on, couldn't you see Ballmer playing Randy?
--Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Somebody spike the coolaid in the Redmond cafeteria? :-)
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Or is it merely a rhetorical question designed to encourage flaming and thus more page hits?
... and likewise.
YES!
Wait, this is Slashdot.
YES!
Do I even need to ask this question, or do I just like to watch myself type?
YES!
So, I'm just gonna post now, and I suppose you'll see it as you refresh every 10 seconds awaiting responce. Please post back, as I'm refreshing every 10 seconds awaiting for responce too!
THANKS!
I don't see how this looks like a PR stunt. Making ODF an ANSI standard isn't exactly making Office Open XML more popular is it?
Follow me
Not that strange, when you think about Microsofts "it's good to have more standards" argument. Knowing that the standard would be added anyway, they probably voted for it, to make that argument more credible, when OOXML is up for the ISO vote, besides ANSI is more or less irrelevant when ODF is already ISO certified. I would be very surprised if Microsoft doesn't later use this as part of an argument for accepting OOXML, directly or as a response to critics.
But still, as long as customers dont know the difference between interoperability and "microsoft compatibility" they win these games. Sad.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
It's like the "peaceful co-existance" the Soviets were all in favor of. They want to then be able to say they support is even as they choke the life out of it.
They did a good thing. It is fruitless to speculate why. 'Nuff said.
Some settling may occur during posting.
If you can't read the "standard" documentation and develop a program that properly works for that standard, then it is not a standard. The "standard" still has things like "will support rendering of Office97 table format", and never define what the "Office97 table format" exactly is and how it works.
Until each and every thing in the standard is properly defined and explained, it is not a standard.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
The end result is that ODF becomes a standard. MS maybe gets a few brownie points in the public eye for supporting it, so good for them, but is this really an issue?
Sort of runs contrary to the point of a standard doesn't it? The purpose of standards is to put out an open method that everyone uses and interoperates with. If you have two, which is then the standard standard?
Apparently M$ can do no right. It reminds me of a quote from Jesse Jackson. He once said that if he walked across one of the Great Lakes, the next day the newspapers would report that "Jesse Jackson can't swim". Methinks some of you take your evil empire conspiracy too seriously.
Life needs more saving throws.
Please. If the majority is clear they really have nothing to loose by going along with it. With the bonus of free future spin control.
How does supporting a format that probably goes against the company's welfare supposed to make its own format legitimate? That's like saying a hypocrite's arguments are void and null despite the fact that they're logically sound.
Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF, or is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?
This is complete amateurs who wrote this. Here's how it's done:
---------
Did Microsoft just voted this way since they have no reason or gain of they voted otherwise and this is not even news worth reading...
OR
Microsoft has a very sinister plan in the works, the ultimate outcome of which is victory of OOXML over ODF. It involves vampires, politics, space ships, weapons, monsters, time machines, tornados, zombies, death stars, extra dimensional ports, robots, dinosaurs, seductive girls, perfect storms, fast cars... And all of this starts with ODF becoming an ANSI standard. And this is why Microsoft voted positive.
Are MS doing this to trick their customers and partners in to adoption, then 1 year down the line spring suprise lawsuits or license fees on them?
ilovegeorgebush
But, that is exactly the point.
Microsoft has been proposing alternative standards for literally decades. Someone come up with a standard they plan on ignoring. They put out their own standard. People ignore it.
Eventually, who is the de facto standard is what Microsoft hopes to achieve. Except the ones they've had no choice but to adhere to (eg TCP/IP), they have almost universally never adopted any standard.
They're happy to water down the value of standards, push their own agenda, and the let the chips fall where they may as they wear down everyone, ensure they get industry acceptance by forcing it on them, and then wondering why nobody else uses their lovely standard.
Surely, this isn't news to you, is it?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This vote is good for Microsoft. It can work this way. With ODF on the list, and later with others like PDF on the list, plus their own OOXML added to the list, it can make the list itself look legitimate. Then they will argue that governments can meet their obligations for open documents by choosing any one format from the list, making it seem that OOXML will be at least as good a choice as ODF.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard. I can see some good reasons from a PR standpoint to go this route. With Microsoft, you have to be very careful with the word "standard." MS is all in favor of standardization. They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards. When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications; something anyone can make standardized for the purpose of allowing interoperability. Everyone can see the benefit of such a standard for the construction industries, manufacturers, and end users.
When MS talks about standards, however, they are more commonly referring to something where they are the sole gatekeeper, and often the sole creator of items that follow said "standard." OpenXML, for example, is not a "standard" in the same way ODF is and it sure doesn't bring end users the lion's share of the benefits normally associated with what we call an open standard. This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries. You could call ISO 898, industry members believing there is room for more than one bolt standard, because that is what ISO 898 is, another standard equivalent to SAE. Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.
'What's "the" standard programming language?
What's "the" standard webserver?
What's "the" standard OS?'
Yup, that would be why they aren't standards.
Now, im not american, so maybe i dont get this, but what is the point of a standerds institute if it starts to list standerds after they have become standerd. the artical talks about, some old, formats already in use for years as standerds, HTML, RTf. With the exception of ODf, which is still up and coming, this would seem to be a waste of a log time, and proberbly, money
I agree. Having multiple "standards" is stupid. There are times when it doesn't cause TOO much of a problem (DVD -R vs DVD +R). But usually it is more beneficial TO SOCIETY to have ONE standard that everyone can vote on to expand/extend.
Two standards in document formats is beyond STUPID.
Which is what Microsoft wants. Since Microsoft already owns 90%+ of the desktop market, whatever they sell becomes the "de facto" standard.
Even if it's broken and won't work with anything else.
What's "the" standard programming language?
BASIC
What's "the" standard webserver?
Wildcat BBS
What's "the" standard OS?
DOS
BTW -- offtopic -- but a question popped into my head. If Redhat hired Britney Spears' ex-husband, would they issue a distro called "K-Fedora".
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I think you're misusing the term. There's a difference between the phrase "THE Standard" and "A Standard". "A Standard" simply means the details have been opened and defined by a standards organization. "THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.
There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing. For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing. Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
MS has never supported pushing a standard unless it is theirs or it is a modification to a current standard. Even in HTML, they were late to that game and push for a number of mods (a number of which were insane but designed to give them an edge). In java, while the did not push for standards, one it was, they tried to control it.
This is totally out of character for MS, though the only issue that I can see, is that now MS will be allowed to push through a number of mods that will allow their proprietary EEE ©.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Um, you've completely misunderstood the network effect. Deliberately? None of the things you have mentioned are specifically meant to be used as a communication medium to transport information.
Instead examples should be networking protocols, spoken/written language, mobile phone protocols, DVD formats etc. Things which are designed to convey information. These are all highly standardised.
Deleted
Can two or more standards be, by definitation, standard? Why not just publish a RFC and allow everyone write applications to that. What could be more standard than that.
What is a "Standard
"Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF", NO
"is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?", YES
davecb5620@gmail.com
'Surely, this isn't news to you, is it?'
Hardly, I was just pointing out that the comment made by the GP spouting MS PR nonsense was fundamentally flawed.
Hello? This is 1991 calling, I have answers to your questions:
Fortran
NCSA HTTPd
UNIX System V
What's that? Lin-who? Sorry I can't year you over this analog telephone line.
I hate printers.
I disagree. The purpose of standards is not to create something that everybody uses. Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it. A diverse collection of competing standards is nothing new. If one standard becomes dominance, there are nice efficiencies that you get, but it's not the purpose of standards -- it's just the gravy.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Embrace, extend and extinguishe xtinguish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_
My thoughts exactly - they did it because it's a vote, and theirs probably isn't going to change the result, so they're using it as a way to argue that they care about choice.
The same I keep preaching when it comes to politicians. Don't judge them by their words, judge them by their actions.
/dev/null anyway. What would be interesting to see is whether that vote actually makes a difference. If it's already accepted or rejected by a magnitude, it's easy to cast a vote for the side which promises better PR.
It's easy to vote for something when you know that the vote is for
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
embrace, extend... oh never mind. We'll never learn will we?
You're missing the point of a standard. There can be multiple implementations of a single standard. There is a standard for a webserver (which, funnily enough, MS also break). It should speak the standard HTTP, and mostly likely that's layered on the standard TCP, and so on.
Same with the OS. The OS should follow the standard POSIX calls (which Windows sorta manages to do), and so on.
As for programming languages.. well that's too broad. For particular languages, there are standards. There is a standard for C, there is a standard for C++, and so on.
There already are more than one document format standard. For instance, ODF and PDF are both ISO standards, and while they don't do precisely the same thing (there is plenty of overlap though), neither does ODF and OXML. Multiple standards exist because some standards aren't universally applicable. ODF can't do everything that PDF does and vice versa, the same applies to ODF and OXML.
Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
It takes TIME for an ANSI or ISO standard to be created. If ODF were to undergo this process it would create the impression that it was a rough or draft standard that had yet to have all the edges polished and kinks worked out.
It is interesting that they are doing this though since it is a clear indication that they see ODF as a real threat and something that they can really only hold at bay temporarily. Has Microsoft gone into hemorrhage control mode?
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You need to turn off your ethics for a minute and think only about maximizing Microsoft's position. Clearly Microsoft would benefit enormously if they can make it so that OpenOffice doesn't officially comply with its own standard file format -- the main reason anybody even cares about a standard is so that governments and localities have a check box that makes it 'ok' to use OpenOffice.
Imo Microsoft wants to move the standard to ANSI then because that process is easier for them to manipulate into adding unnecessary complications and impossible requirements. This will put OO on a treadmill trying to support their own standard and Microsoft get to say "See, OO doesn't implement halting problem either, might as well buy from us because Office is more compatible with Office."
Of course there isn't a "standard" operating system. However, there are standards of OS components that make writing software easier (POSIX, etc)
There is no standard web server, but there is a standard http protocol for processing web requests.
You seem to be confusing standards with implementations of standards, or software written as to take advantage of a known standard.
I got nothin'
The problem isn't whether M$ supports a standard's adoption. They supported HTML but...
Remember: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Plus, then they will "comply to open standards" removing a EU/Mass./Whoever-else objection to using their software.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
As can be seen with their current "standard", they can just cite "behave the same way as MS Word version X.y.z on OS a" and claim that it is "documented".
Since Microsoft is the only ones who REALLY know how that behaviour was implemented, they'll be the only one who can write a compleat implementation.
Just as the situation is today. Look at the "reviews" of OpenOffice.org by various "journalists". You'll see them complaining that the formating on a document was "messed up" when they went
from MS Word
to OpenOffice.org
back to MS Word.
Now, if there are a dozen word processors out there and they all implement the ODF standard and none of them (except MS Word) trashes the formatting when bouncing a document between the other 11
THAT is what businesses and governments want. The ability to see the same document the same way no matter WHO edited it on WHAT operating system using WHICH word processor.
If Microsoft fails at that it will be because Microsoft failed on their own.
Can two or more standards be, by definitation, standard? (sic)
Feet and inches / metres
Pounds and ounces / kilograms
and in the case of ODF and PDF, they're used for different purposes. one is meant to be editted, the other isnt.
No, tag this with: embraceextendextinguish
I got nothin'
Since you agree that ODF and PDF do not do the same thing, you cannot say that they are multiple formats for the same thing.
PDF's are very handy for sending out documents THAT YOU DO NOT WANT CHANGED.
So, what does ODF do / not do that OOXML does do / does not do?
Examples.
they're back peddling.
after the all the talk over the past week about M$ and "their" patents, people are starting to remember M$ is a convicted monopolist and why.
they have to put back on their friendly face for the press and make a good show.
atleast until they know they have the next group in the white house bought off.
And in possibly related news Police in Seattle are reporting that Tom Robertson, general manager for Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft, was hit by a flying chair whilst out walking his dog. Police don't yet have any firm leads but are seeking to question a bald, red-faced caucasian man who was seen fleeing the scene.
Microsoft does something right for a change and everyone is discussing conspiracy theories. Could it be that they see the writting on the wall, that ODF is the way of the future and are willing to accept that and move on, no hard feelings? After all, that's how they got where they are now, by taking someone elses ideas.
Seriously folks, how else could they have voted?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
'I think you're misusing the term.'
I disagree. Your distinction while technically accurate ignores the fact standards bodies do not exist to publish standards just for the hell of it. A standard is published with the full intention of being universally accepted as THE standard way of accomplishing the given task. Standards aren't open merely opening details, they are about actual inter operation and predictable behavior. SMTP wouldn't be a useful worthwhile standard if I couldn't anticipate EVERY mail server adhering to it.
'"THE Standard" means "the most common way of doing it", and can refer to things that may or not actually be open standards.'
A closed standard is still a standard. Microsoft is a strong proponent of taking an open standard, extending it, and making their closed standard 'the most common way of doing it'. Once upon a time all standards were closed. Open standards were created so that open specifications could become the 'the most common way of doing it'. The entire idea is that the industry collaborates to develop an open specification and everyone agrees to use that specification.
'There are many cases where there is more than one standard to do the same thing'
Not beneficial cases.
'For example, bolt sizes. There are metric and English standards for precisely the same thing.'
That an excellent example that illustrates my point nicely. Metric is a unifying standard that has been adopted by almost the entire world. The United States has not converted to metric and this creates large amounts of confusion, errors in calculation, and general mayhem. It has even cost billion dollars spacecraft. Two standards for the same thing runs contrary to the purpose of devising a standard and is always a bad thing.
'Even document formats have multiple standards already. Both ODF and PDF are ISO standards, for example.'
It is actually you who are misusing the word standard. A standard is a specification that is adopted throughout the industry. A standards body develops those specifications and they call them standards on the arrogant assumption that everyone will use them. In principle these organizations have members that constitute a lion share of the industry and those members have an unspoken agreement to adopt the specifications they are helping to develop. Unless the industry actually DOES adopt the specification, it is simply a specification not a standard.
There are plenty of existing document specifications ODF and PDF are bad examples since they serve different purposes. Adopting a single open specification as the standard is the best thing for the industry in every case. Industry has recognized this long ago, that is why we have standards organizations.
A "standard" that has things in it like a flag to say "handle this the way version XYZ of MS Word did it--it's so convoluted that we can't really describe it, but you have to do it if you want to conform to this standard"?
I think our understandings of what a standard is differ.
Or how about Iran verses the rest of the world in peaceful co-existence? We're only enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. We only lie to infidels, as our religion [of peace] instructs us to.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
'Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it.'
That is a specification not a standard. I know that 'standards organizations' like ANSI and ISO make the arrogant assumption that they are defining standards but specifications they release are NOT standards unless they are actually adopted by the industry. The specifications these organizations release are supposedly developed by members of the industry who by participating are giving implicit agreement to adhere to the standards. In practice they often don't.
Many standards wouldn't even work without universal adoption. SMTP, HTTP, and TCP/IP are good examples of this. DVD-R and DVD+R are examples of specifications that are NOT standards. No standard has emerged to the detriment of manufacturers and consumers.
We are talking about the same Microsoft here aren't we?
Really???
n alContent/0,289142,sid39_gci1144104,00.html
.doc (or whatever extension is next) make it _really_ hard to use anything but .whatever.
Then what the hell happened in Massachusetts wanted to switch to ODF?? Here's a long-winded citation: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origi
No, they'll do what they already do with everything that's not a
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
'Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?'
Because those distros and GUI's adopt standards that allow them to all interoperate and exchange information. A document format is a means of storing and conveying information. All means of storing and conveying information should be standardized. It makes sense to have different document creation applications but they should all store the results in the same format so that your preferred application is interoperable with mine.
Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard.
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.
When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications
Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several. SAE and a number of ASTM standards, ISO and ANSI standards, etc...
This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries.
ODF is no more "open" than OXML is. It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML). It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved. BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.
Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.
Ok, then you shouldn't have any problem explain exactly how they are unequal, right?
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Behold the M$ party line and how it contrasts with reality:
Microsoft hasn't stood in the way of ODF at all. They just think there's room for more than one standard.
You forgot to tell me about how "open" the M$ "standard" is.
If they were in anyway serious about ODF, the new Office would be using it and there would be "patches" for users of older version s of M$ Office. Instead, they have graciously sold Novel enough information to create a partial implementation to import the text portions and called that interoperability. They expect the whole community to wade through their insane 7,000 page spec which tells them to look at 10 year old printed material! Can you really tell me that M$ is not playing the same old format war games because they did not exercise a vote in an obviously abusive way?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
A Standard is the whole world deciding to use your product instead of the competition. What, you thought this was all about the consumer? Since when?
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
'and in the case of ODF and PDF, they're used for different purposes. one is meant to be editted, the other isnt.'
Your point is spot on. But you are the second person I have seen either implying or outright saying the purpose of PDF is associated with the inability to edit it. The purpose of PDF is to provide a document that can be displayed on different media in the same way rather than having document information be tied to the physical characteristics of the display device. Of course PDF is commonly polluted with image formats that break this ability and more and more is used as you describe.
It has always been fairly trivial to transpose content from one document standard to another. You sometimes lose something (most often precise placement) in the details of the translation, but you more often do not. The only thing that matters about making ODF a standard is that it becomes a benchmark that other formats can be translated to and through. Microsoft has no reason to oppose it, as they understand that, as long as ODF is less detailed than Microsoft's preferred standard, the small loss of detail will make Microsoft's products look good when they demo them to executives and purchasing agents. Very few people who actually work with documents will care, as they understand that most content repurposing requires some giggling of the details, but Microsoft isn't likely to win that class of users anyway.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
I thought the purpose of a standard was to charge exorbitant prices for access to mind-numbing details of well-known technology. Maybe that's just ISO, though...
It is too confusing everyone using the word standard to mean whatever they want. We need a standard definition of standard.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Imperial and metric for example, are used for the same thing. different people might have different preferences, but i doubt anyone would argue that it's useful to have two.
Actually, yes. Imperial is very useful in some situations. For example, when dealing with fractions. Imperial measurements are more easily divisible by more numbers than metric is. A pound, for example, can be easily broken up into halves, thirds, quarters, eights and 16ths. Metric can be easily broken up into Halves, and Fifths without resorting into decimals or fractions of fractions or changing the unit of measurement (which is really the same thing as a decimal).
And besides, preference is important. It's called choice.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
What's the standard hair color?
Oops, forgot the quotes, let's try that again.
What's "the" standard hair color?
What's "the" standard shape for snowflakes?
What's "the" standard DNA sequence?
That's better. It doesn't improve the argument though; listing things that don't need standards doesn't mean that standards are neither useful nor desirable in other areas.
What's "the" standard Shoe size?
Obviously there isn't one. But if you buy a pair of shoes from someone whose sizes are 20% smaller than the standard ones... well, you'll soon know about it, put it that way. But I guess to your way of thinking, that'd be your fault for having the wrong size feet.
Now webservers are a bit like shoes here. There isn't a standard shoe size but having standard sizes can eliminate a lot of pointless anguish and strife. Likewise there is no standard webserver, but having them conform to the same protocol is what made webservers worth having in the first place. And as with shoes, if you get one that doesn't quite conform to the standard, well you could be in for a lot of unnecessary aggravation.
What's "the" standard railway carriage? There isn't one, of course. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be standard gauges for track. We don't insist that everyone uses the same make of train engine, but it's a really bad idea to let someone vary the width of the track to suit their marketing department's needs
Similarly, I we're not suggesting a standard O/S. Heck, we don't want a standard word processor. But we'd quite like to have a choice of word processor, just like you should have a choice when buying railway carriages.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Microsoft has proven, time and time again, that they will engage in all sort of nefarious, underhanded behavior, including lying, cheating, stealing and extortion, in order to maintain and extend their monopolies. They showed no hesitation about lying and evidence-tampering in front of a federal judge, for example. While they do occasionally do the right thing for the right reasons, their history is such that no sane, educated person can observe their actions, especially with respect to competitors, without wondering about their motives.
What you're seeing here is speculation, but it's speculation based on knowledge of the subject. This is not like seeing Jesse Jackson walk across a Great Lake. This is more like seeing John Gotti walk across a Great Lake. I think it's reasonable to speculate that it might not be the second coming.
Well, unless there are things like "Specifies whether to layout footnotes as is done in Word 6.0/95 and Word 7.0/97", where the implementation to be copied is protected by copyright and, therefore, secret.
Sorry I only troll on Tuesday. Please remod the above post accordingly and mod this offtopic.
Love,
Some guy with too high of a karma rating to actually care anymore.
Why would they do this? How about because they want to make MS Office the program *everybody* uses for *all* word processing? ODF isn't that popular yet, but it's gaining exposure. So... add support for it, then add it to the list of official formats you can use. Remove some of the primary advantages of OO.o (support all the same formats, support a couple it doesn't, and still have things like better Accessibility support, and it gets a lot easier to convince governents and companies not to switch).
Admittedly, they could do this without standardization of ODF, but there's no point in fighting it and a bit to be gained from supporting it. There's nothing wrong with the standard; to Microsoft it's just another format you can use their software for.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
And earlier today Microsoft released their list of patents, including one claiming ownership of all ANSI standards...Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying, "we'll adopt ODF and extend and embrace it by issuing OOXML as the new universal format for documents". When asked if this maneuver was undertaken to undermine open source, Ballmer replied by throwing a chair and grunting before storming off stage.
MS was scared by this, as Office wasn't designed around it
It doesn't matter whether MS office was designed around it or not. A while back MS own PR types where blowing a lot of smoke about how MS Office could support arbitrary XML schemas. If that is even remotely, true, then ODF is more or less a drop-in replacement for whichever undocumented file format MS is peddling this week. If it's not true, then MS has been making some rather false claims about the capabilities of its office products.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
What precisely does OOXML do, that ODF won't?
I'm genuinely curious.
I've yet to see any compelling reasons to use OOXML, and there are a lot of compelling reasons in favor of ODF (open format, relatively simple spec, many existing implementations with open codebases, etc.) and none in favor of OOXML.
The only things I've ever seen in OOXML that don't exist in ODF are the 'Microsoft braindeath compatibility features'; the tags that say "Do spacing like Word 95!" and can only ever be implemented by Microsoft, because they're the only ones who really understand WTF "spacing like Word 95" means.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
That's not, however, strictly true. Human interface is just as much a communication format as is a document format. Having different GUI's is the human equivelent of different file formats.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
ODF is not supported by MS in Word natively. Thus, ODF adoption usually means MS is losing a sale. Further, it means it is easier for their customers to migrate away from MS Office. You really don't think MS is doing anything to stop people from moving to ODF. You don't think they're offering price cuts to stop migrations away from MSOffice to say Openffice and ODF?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.
Open standards traditionally bring certain benefits including:
All of these things are benefits MS would prefer their customers did not have, because MS is overwhelmingly the leader in the market, possibly (probably) to the extent of weilding monopoly influence in the word processor market.
Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several.
Umm, what is the point of your comment? You're just repeating exactly what I present an example of. The point is, when you talk about ISO and SAE standards for bolts, you're comparing similar items from the perspective of the industry and of the end user. When you're talking about ODF and and OpenXML you're talking about items that are very, very different in the benefits they bring to the industry and end user. Now it would probably be better for the industry and end user if either SAE or ISO won the war and was the only remaining standard for that type of bolt size, but it doesn't much matter which one from an objective perspective. Both would and currently do provide similar benefits. This is absolutely positively not the case when comparing ODF and OpenXML.
ODF is no more "open" than OXML is.
Yes, it is.
It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML).
The restrictions needed to get patent protection from Sun are the same as PDF from Adobe, you just have to follow the spec. That is not the case with MS. Technically, there is nothing stopping MS from releasing a new version of OpenXML and telling all current software vendors implementing it that they are no longer in compliance with the license since they implement the "old" version and shutting down each and every competitor. That is not the case with ODF.
It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved.
No, ODF is currently implemented by software from dozens of companies and no one company can stop another from implementing the spec. So long as they are following the spec there is nothing Sun can do, including releasing a new version of the spec, to stop someone like the WrodPerfect team from implementing it.
BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.
Those were separate list items. Note the comma. OpenXML is encumbered by patents that can still be brought to bear. Additionally, OpenXML is tied by trade secrets. Parts of the spec refer to trade secrets and copyrighted implementations of other works. For example, in some instances it refers to behavior "like Word version X" but since only MS has the source to Word version X and it is both copyrighted and a trade secret, no one else can fully implement that part of the spec.
Ok, then you should
You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what a document format is and isn't. Document formats do not specify how the data should be displayed in most cases. They define how the data should be interpreted, and leave up to the application how to display it.
Let's take HTML, for instance. If HTML defined how everything must be rendered, it would be impossible for text based browsers like Lynx or mobile browsers to work.
That flag merely says what a piece of data is used to represent. It's entirely up to the app how it wants to render that.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Yep, they say that multiple choices are good. Which is true, just not for standards. They don't say the same about OS, word processor or pretty much anything else. Only about standards.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Well, perhaps I do misunderstand, but if I were to write a word processor that didn't render things the way that Word 5.x does, could I call my word processor OOXML-compliant?
Just like WinNT did Posix ...
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
So, which do you prefer, CDMA or GSM; HD-DVD or Blu-ray (I know, not DVD formats, but are similar nonetheless)?
Why not Sun?
They got confused my the similar names of the two formats.
CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA== RV/hBCLKKcSTP5UFK3kqsg==
I assume you mean that Microsoft has things like "Spacing like Word 95" in their standard...
But the right way to do this would be to simply have a really flexible definition for "spacing", so that users could manually implement "spacing like Word 95" in their word processor, and it would be preserved in the ODF file format, without having to make ODF specifically deal with every word processor since WordPerfect 1.0.
What you might lose is the ability to as easily convert it back to a Word95 document, but you're going to lose something when you go from a more powerful format to a less powerful format anyway.
I'd say, if it's reasonably possible, other formats -> ODF should be lossless, and ODF -> other formats may be lossy, as "other formats" should be considered "legacy formats".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Have you ever tried to purcha$e a copy of an AN$I $tandard?
Have gnu, will travel.
I'd suggest that we create a reference implementation -- either clean up OpenOffice or write something new, from scratch. Also, make sure OpenDocument (and anything close enough) is trademarked.
Then, if Office differs from the reference implementation in a way that breaks it, don't let them use the word "OpenDocument" until they fix it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
HTML was designed specifically to support custom extensions and tags. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a browser supporting a new tag that is not a part of the official HTML standard. There are tons of tag extensions. Mozilla supports the canvas tag which is not a part of the standard. Mozilla supports extensions to CSS which are even prefixed "mozilla". All the standard states is that if the browser doesn't recognize the tag it must ignore the tag and not fail to render the basic elements of the page.
Why? Isn't it obvious? Microsoft probably has a patent on using XML for representing word processing documents, spreadsheets, and presentations.
Not exactly. I might be required to read and edit your documents, and using a format that isn't handled by both of our word processors makes that hard or impossible. You are hardly required to use my human-computer interface, so if we use different desktop environments, that is hardly a problem.
If Microsoft believe their standard, OOXML, is better than ODF, or that they have an advantage in spurring its adoption, then there's no need to try and block ODF. All they have to do is make sure OOXML is on a level field with ODF, and wait for it to win. Alternatively, if they think ODF is as good as or better than OOXML, they can add support for both formats, and use their influence to guide the winning standard, whichever it is.
At the end of the day, if customers care more about open formats than rapid addition of features, Microsoft will shift towards open formats. The alternative would be a decrease in competitiveness vis-à-vis competitors using open formats, such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.
The only real risk of open formats to Microsoft's business comes from making it easier to migrate from MS Office to competing products. However, if Microsoft believe they can produce a better office suite than their competitors, this isn't really a threat at all. Mind you, I mean 'better' in the sense of providing value to users, which may include non-technical features, such as similarity to previous versions.
Somebody at MS saw the word "open," got confused about which format was which, and voted wrong.
"Wait, that's not our proprietary-blob format? But I thought -- aren't we pushing the one called Open .. uh something? Yeah, that one's ours, right? What?! Where am I?"
People, do we really want Old Man Microsoft with his finger on the button?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...so No, it's not a trap. Microsoft wants to become Linux. Microsoft management finally saw the light and saw that the one thing they lacked was being Linux. They will now soon announce that the partnership with Novell was not about patents, but actually about secretly starting the union with the Open Source movement.
In three months time, Bill Gates himself will be announcing his presence on the next HOPE conference, with a special speech called "Open source and I, how do I fit in, even though I know shit ?".
In other news, scientists have concluded air is water and water is air, yay.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Okay, if you think it's due to MS Word that OOo looks bad, try this one on for size: a document saved as ".odt" with OpenOffice.org v2 for Linux (Kubuntu) is mangled when opened in OpenOffice.org v2 for Windows (Win2k). There was no MS Word involved anywhere.
This was a document for which formatting was important: I had designed a greeting card to be printed onto thick paper and folded into quarters, so positioning was critical. I did this on my Linux box, but the printer was hooked up to the wife's box, and she only wants Windows on it. I saved the file on Kubuntu, FISh'd it over to the Win2k box and opened it, and the text formatting had screwed up, spilling over onto the next page.
If OpenOffice.org can't standardize their own document formatting, what's the point having a standard like ODF in the first place? (I finally exported to PDF in order to get it onto the Win2k box without messing it up.)
I'm grateful to Sun for all the contributions they've made to Open Source, but I have to say, OOo is a steaming pile of crap.
Okay, that was a bit too blunt, and I'm glad they have an integrated office suite with spreadsheet, presentation application, I appreciate the work they've put into this, grateful that they distribute OOo under an Open Source license, etc. etc., so let me do my best to be more subtle.
Erm, er, OpenOffice is
Sorry. I tried.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
You seem to have a gross nonunderstanding of the difference between a markup language and a document format.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
You answered argument with speculation and leading questions, and did not address my point at all. Regardless of whether or not ODF means potential lost revenue for Microsoft, Microsoft has not opposed ODF in any way other than when ODF is being proposed as an exclusive choice by an organization. Please address this point, not going off on something irrelevant.
Microsoft does not appear to be fighting the adoption of ODF, they are merely fighting the exclusion of other standards.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
What are you talking about? Why can't you have 1/3 of a kg, or 1/8 of a cm? What exactly is stopping you, and why is a pound or inch any more amiable to this? Sure, I don't have any 3/32 cm wrenches in my toolbox, but that's a matter of convention, not any "fractional superiority" of inches or Imperial units in general.
.0625 kg. Which is easier? even if you say 62.5 grams, that's a lot more difficult to remember than 1 ounce.
1/16th of a pound is 1 ounce. 1/16th of a kg is
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
"The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from."
-Andrew Tannenbaum
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Everyone is unique and therfore interfaces with a computer in his/her unique way. This implies there is no standard human-computer interface, however we often want to do very simmilar tasks and then edit someone elses?
Certainly. If you understand the file format, that's all that's required to be compliant. Nothing says you have to display that data in any particular way. Obviously, your users will expect a certain amount of compatibility in the way data is displayed, but that's a different story.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Apparently you missed the point. Nobody is claiming we live in a perfect world where everything that should be standardized is standardized. You didn't need to stretch that far either, DVD+R and DVD-R are good examples. The world should standardize on one, it doesn't matter which. Even if an inferior one is selected that is okay. Standards can be extended, revised, and updated.
The Unix subsystem for Windows, which is what provides POSIX compliance (or at least did at one point), uses Unix semantics for files, so a file or directory opened by a Unix process can have its name removed from the file system tree immediately, and will be removed from the disk when the last handle is closed. However, for some reason there's an exception to this for executables mapped into a process. These can be renamed, but not deleted. It looks like a bug to me, but maybe there's a reason.
I agree with you, however, that I'd really like to see the Unix semantics offered for Win32, though some optional global setting. I'd like to see the bug with unlinking mapped executables under the Unix subsystem fixed too.
Apparently you aren't aware that the ML in XML stands for "Markup Language".
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
In this article the term standard is used in the sense of a process for establishing a technical standard (ie, a document containing specifications) among competing entities.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Please try again, this time using the "preview" button. Your overuse of the "quote" tag, probably through a failure to close one, has made your formatting too cumbersome bother reading.
Oh, please. Yes, I botched the second blockquote tag, but the rest is perfectly understandable. You appear to be using this as an excuse to not adress the points, which indicates that you have no response.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Listen, I have a couple of minutes, then I'm off to the pub. I'm not going to waste that time trying to decipher a fairly long chunk of greyed-out text because you didn't preview. Reformat it and repost if you want me to respond and I'll get back to you tomorrow. I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect you to at least look at your post before submitting.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
I agree, I didn't think so, either.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Microsoft was on the ISO committee that ratified ODF as an ISO standard, and Microsoft voted "YES". Microsoft isn't the one that's advocating one format to rule them all and is blocking usage of certain formats, that's IBM's thing wrt OOXML (IBM was the sole "NO" vote for OOXML ECMA ratification and is the one that's most trying to block OOXML ISO ratification).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
ODF is unnecessarily complex and not very useful at all as it currently stands. Most of the people here are willing to accept a MS conspiracy theory. If anything, MS should want ODF to become a frozen standard so that they could
a) develop compatibility to the standard.
b) develop MS-only standard enhancements/extensions.
c) Argue against ODF adoption in government because of deficiencies frozen into the standard.
d) Release an upgrade to office that contains document formatting features not available within the ODF standard.
I said "even if", signifying that even if you changed the unit of measurement, it's still no easier
While other measurements are not divisible by 16, they are still more divisible by others. A foot is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. A gallon is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 8, and 16 (4 quarts in an gallon, 4 cups in a quart, so 16 cups in a gallon). All metric numbers are only easily divisible by 2, 5 and 10, making it difficult for common measurements like 1/3rd, 1/6th, and 1/8th. Also, by their nature, units that have smaller capacities have fewer units because there is less need to break it into smaller ones.
I'm no saying the English measurement is great, or that it even is better than Metric, just that there are cases, particularly with fractions, that it makes things easier.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Smells like base64-encoded binary sh!t appears in ODF, when this format will be officially supported by MS.
Yeah. Or Isreal peacefully co-existing with the world. Or the United States of America.
In seriousness, please remember that you are in the middle of a big world of propaganda with a political agenda. These opinions about other governments are just opinions, they are not facts. If you look purely at facts and actions of nations, ignoring the swell of patriotic pride, it's hard to see the United States as any less evil than Iran. Zionists invented terrorism for fucks sake.
No I am not muslim or from the middle east or anti semitic, just a bit of a realist.
I don't therefore I'm not.
Zionists invented terrorism for fucks sake. actually it was the French
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What you say make no sense.
A word processor isn't a web browser - users expect their document layout to stay the same or they will consider a word processor broken. And when a document format spec state how a specific element should affect layout and rendering they can also validly consider it to not be compliant with the spec.
It's PR. Microsoft does NOT support ODF!
From TFA Microsoft supports choice. Notice "choice" meaning that Microsoft want people to say that they want choice; i.g. OOXML too becomes a standard.
In other words; Microsoft sees taht they are very likely not to get OOXML an ISO standard, so by saying they want ODF *AND* OOXML they might still be able to squizze OOXML into ISO =(
Of course it's a trap. Don't need tinfoil, just look at history. They never have and never will do good regarding standards.
But these troglodytes are connected by money and favors to the government you know. They have experience doing modeling, demos, etc. IIRC the U.S. government models foreign policy using a tree of responses to potential situations, all precalculated for maximum results. At least that's how it used to be before the neocons. You know, the military had a plan for everything.
So it stands to reason MS does things similarly. It is all a precalculated decision tree and when something occurs that they didn't guess, they just update the thing. The scary thing is they learn from their mistakes. But MS has a lot of cash, a lot of lawyers, and very few ethics. So they're golden.
Then it is pretty easy to see the sarcasm and smirking going on as they reach this decision point.
Step 2345: ODF is getting popular (40% probability)
Step 2346: "Cave in" (lol) and recommend to ANSI or some such. (PR: "We mean business", etc.)
Step 2347: Start embrace/extend thread, Start "ODF in everything" team, Buy startups if any. Contribute some dumb thing to ODF and let wind out of their sails. (ha!)
Step 2348: Did we win yet?
Step 2351: If not start getting mean. Threaten patents (doh). Get Novell's ass moving. Get clients to complain about how glacially changing ODF can't save their important ActiveX apps, etc. Launch "Better ODF than ODF" product. Launch attack PR thread ("Would you leave your future in the hands of these guys", etc. lol!)
Anyway more of the same. Basically nobody would win a Hugo award for writing this story, it's too predictable and the aliens are the good guys.
Did you have all the necessary fonts on the Windows box? You can't really blame OOo for you using fonts on Linux that Windows didn't have. You can however, blame OOo for not supporting embedded fonts. I'd agree that OOo needs some serious work.
This is a no brainer. The standard was going to be approved anyway.
The only thing voting against would do would be to confirm what we already know, and everyone else shoud... that ODF is a long term threat to the dominance of MS Office.
By voting for its acceptance, they're playing that it isn't a threat.
This also let's them play the partial support game ("broken" ODF documents that don't work in word) with supposed good intentions.
If ODF gets even more traction and they do have to support it credibly to avoid losing big bucks, the supposed good intentions give them opportunity to play the embrace extend extinguish game a little longer before it becomes obvious what they're doing (to those that haven't paid attention to Microsoft business practices before).
What are you people talking about !?
Our standard is more standard than your standard. What sort of childish argument is this?
Look here where it states...
The work to standardise OpenXML has been carried out by Ecma International as part of an open, cross-industry collaboration via Technical Committee 45 (Ecma TC45), which includes representatives from Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba, and the United States Library of Congress.
Most of the standards that get created these days have a major corporate backer from which the majority of the work in development of the standard has taken place. It becomes a standard when it is accepted by other representatives of the development community. Who better to offer standards on word processing formats than the #1 leader in word processing on the planet. Like it or not Microsoft is that leader, not Sun who is the major backer of Open Office. I think your whole argument is based on some childish inability to accept that.
I've worked with Office 2007 xml formats, they are extremely easy to work with very powerful and extremely accessible. Microsoft has actually astonished me with the fantastic work they have done and the way in which they have provided support for Office 2007 formats in Office 2000, Office XP and Office 2003. I think the days of forced migrations are genuinely in the past. People are going to move to Office 2007 and Open XML formats for one reason only and that is a genuine value added benefit. Specifically from Office 2007's tight integration and it's connectivity with Sharepoint. The format of Office 2007's documents is not going to be a motivation for upgrading.
I think Microsoft is taking the right approach and has the right attitude on this one and that your comments are totally based on emotional and heavily biased opinions.
Oops just drag my comment up a parent or two.
Slashdot developers, feature request... ability to delete your own comments !?
Windows had threading for years before POSIX did. Keep your fork().
1003.1c-1994 (real-time extensions and threads). Thus it had to be in Windows 3.0 or 3.1 because for years is at least two years and NT came out in 1993, which is too late.
And fork() is not that bad if done right.
Nah, it must be a trap. And it's microsoft, so defectivebydesign also applies.
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
Yes, but the fact that the French and the Americans use a different communications protocol has made communications more complicated. Requiring a "translation" abstraction layer which sometimes results in lost meaning.
Further, communication within each of those languages was less easy, respectively, until an invention which largely standardized each for their respective populations. The dictionary. Just look at the rates of word drift pre-and post dictionary, and the effect phonetic spellings have done for continent-wide communication. Part of Europe's fragmentation may be due to the fact that it has historically (as in, pre-print, and definitely wax cylinder) been difficult to maintain linguistic uniformity over large empires. As goes the language, so goes the culture.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I suppose I should have been more clear: I should have said you didn't know the difference between a semantic markup language and a document format. HTML in its current kosher form does not specify presentation, but leaves it up to another language. A full-fledged document format almost by definition DOES have to include presentation information. If it didn't, it would cease to be a full document format and become a semantic markup language.
In any case, your original statement,
, is obviously untrue in this context. We're talking about full document formats like .doc and ODF and OOXML etc, the purpose of all of which INCLUDES reliably formatting all the stuff within them.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Parent post doesn't demonstrate what it thinks it does, but it does point out a couple of general problems worth noting.
If I were attempting what parent post described, I would have used OOo's .pdf capability, which probably would have worked well enough.
BTW, Scribus is a competent desktop publisher. It is FOSS, and well worth the effort to learn if one is into things like greeting card designs and other stuff where presentation is more important than content.
I was at a Novell technology preview yesterday and heard something interesting. Don't shoot the messenger btw... Part of the much-criticised MS/NOVL agreement was interoperability. Part of this interoperability will mean that both OpenOffice and MSoffice will at some point in the future not only both support ODF, but will save their docs as ODF by DEFAULT. I have to say it sounded unlikely to me, but it was announced at a public event, so who knows? Either way, don't shoot the messenger.
Probably you had different fonts on the two computers. If you want to guarantee it looks the same, you should save it in pdf format. Ooo lets you do that, and I'm sure your wife's windows computer has Adobe Reader on it.
Heh. This from a poster whose prior contribution consisted of three lines of sarcasm with neither context nor conclusion
Double standard much?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Does anyone else think that the very fact that there are >357 CSS selector compliance tests slightly worrying?
I'm a CSS hacker myself and still find that shocking. Methinks it really is time to scrap HTML(etc) and start over with WWWNG.
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Possibly the same reason that it's also choice to have several keyboard manufacturers, but all do the same thing when you press a specific key.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Not that bad? fork() is a far better model for concurrency than threads.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Isn't it funny how, when Microsoft does something puzzlingly in support of what we've all been asking for all this time, rather than being congratulated, the Slashdot crowd immediately starts trying to guess what their devious secret strategy is here to achieve world domination?
Possible reason for this: They have been around for thirty years, and in all that time, they have ALWAYS had a devious secret strategy to achieve world domination!
On with the speculation!
Obviously they're just doing this to make themselves look better when it comes time to vote for OOXML!
Did you have the same font sets stored on both computers, and did you use only the consistent font set?
People like to blame formatting on changing word processors, but one of the consistencies Microsoft enjoys is their default font set distributed everywhere. Try this. Carefully format a document, close it, delete the font you used, and open the document back up. Your layout will be trashed.
You can't make banana pudding from apples, but that is what you're possibly doing unless the font is embedded in the document.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The XML format provides hints as to how the data should be displayed, that doesn't mean it MUST be displayed that way. Otherwise, how would a word processor for a PDA be able to show the document if it was required to format it exactly as a full fledged desktop? How would a word processor for the disable be able to speak a given format? How would a text-based word processor be able to read and write the format?
You're just being stupid. There is no requirement that any word processor implement the legacy word functionality, it need only understand the flags and do what it feels is best with that data. In fact, *NONE* of the flags mentioned in the link above define how the data should be rendered.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Why this obsession with one standard? One standard to do what? Well presented bullet lists, footnotes and fancy tables? ODF can't cope well. Clearly structured content that is easy to shift in and out of different formats? ODF's strength.
The two overlap in many areas, but whereas ODF is strongly content oriented, OOXML is strongly presentation oriented. I want to have both. It's not like having to choose between 110v and 230v, it's more like having both 230v AC and 16v DC: both useful in specific contexts.
Aside from the fact that most Human Interfaces are fairly compatible with Humans.