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
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"
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.
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.
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
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_
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
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.
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.
'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.
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
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.
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."
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
Yes. The thing is, the move to ODF is usually motivated by a desire for vendor choice in office suites, and that usually means someone has a pain point that is the current version of MSOffice not being the right fit for at least some applications within the organization. MS would rather those people stay MSOffice customers because that is in MS's best interest, even if it obviously is not in the customer's best interest.
Why would they do this?First MS did not "do this" several plug-ins were developed by a third parties like Sun, sometimes in cooperation with MS. MS supports them for two reasons. First, to do otherwise is yet another violation of antitrust law, but one which would highlight the reason everyone should be pushing for ODF in the first place. Two, MS needs some ODF support in order to be eligible for certain bids they really, really don't want to lose to OpenOffice. MS's goal is to keep MSOffice on top. Lock-in file formats are a method of doing that. They aren't willing to lose the former to maintain the latter.
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.MS's goal is to keep MSOffice used by everyone. They want to do that, however, not through making it the best product for everyone's needs, but by making it hard for people to switch to something else. File formats are their normal lock-in. MS could make ODF a first class citizen and save to it, by default, with no need for added downloads. They don want to do that unless they are forced to. They'd much rather keep as many road bloack between users switching to another program as possible. This is bad for end users because in some cases other tools suit their needs better.
(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)Ahh, but here's the thing. All "support" is not created equal. MS wants a bullet point that says "ODF support" so they can win contracts. They'd rather, however, that it was just a bullet point and was as hard to install and use as possible to still get that bullet point, all the while pushing people to something(OpenXML) that sounds like it will provide the same benefits of a standard, but in reality is just slightly less of a lock in that .doc.
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 is a lot wrong with ODF from MS's perspective. It removes their .doc lock-in completely and gives people a way to move to other things. That potentially costs them money and means they have to spend money to improve MSOffice and compete on level ground with others. MS will move to ODF when they have to or when MS Office is no longer the biggest chunk of the market. Until then, they want lock-in and that means undermining ODF.
The European Commission politely asked Microsoft whether they would please consider joining that OASIS tech committee because it would encourage interoperability.
Here (not primary source): http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/50273/index.h tml
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
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]
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
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.
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.
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!