Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pledges Conditional Support for ODF
Macthorpe writes "BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft has announced in a letter that they will support ODF as a format option, if it doesn't 'restrict choice among formats'. Citing their lack of opposition to the ratification of ODF as a standard, they go on to say: 'ODF's design may make it attractive to those users that are interested in a particular level of functionality in their productivity suite or developers who want to work that format. Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality [...] This is not to say that one is better than the other — just that they meet different needs in the marketplace.'"
A format richer.... with bugs!
Support a true independent artist - Leila Lopez
Is it just me, or do other people feel like gagging every time someone at Microsoft says something is "rich," has "richness," "rich user experience," etc.
It's like eating a whole stick of butter with mayonnaise to dip it in. MS "richness" can't be good for you.
*hurls into the wastebasket*
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
Microsoft Will Support ODF If It Doesn't 'Restrict Choice Among Formats'
:(
It is very noble of Microsoft to complain about all these restrictive document format that seem to be so pervasive in the IT world. I applaud them for looking out for my interests and freedom to choose. I have to say though, I am a little worried about them. All this goodwill stuff is well and good, but I can't help feel that until they start to get a little bit more militant about protecting their own IPR and file format, their business will never get off of the ground!
I hope I am wrong but I expect that they will have an import export functionality that has a deliberately crippled scope, for example not supporting all formats or only a certain level of table nesting. They will then state ambiguously that this is "unsupported with ODF", which along with marketing FUD will make it appear as a restriction of ODF rather than their implementation. I think that what has happened is that they see a possibility that OOXML will not be ratified as a standard. By supporting ODF they will still be able to supply companies and oganisations with a policy of using standards based formats. Their hope is that once Office is in there, if the implementation is bad enough, people will either unofficially use OOXML or lobby for a rules change to allow it to be used.
"richer functionality" = setSpacesLikeWord95
The good news is that if Microsoft is changing their tactics, it means that they are admitting (partial) defeat in their previous attempts. Essentially they have lost the technical argument. Many groups have weighed-in on the subject and agreed that ODF is a more open format, and actually meets the needs of a standard. OXML is not winning that particular competition.
So they have a new tactic. This tactic basically amounts to saying: "Let's just have both standards, and let people pick the one they want. Oh... did we mention that OXML will be the default in all of our products?" Moreover, they are strongly implying that ODF is a lame duck, and that OXML has "more features" and is "richer." They are trying to paint ODF as the poor-man's format, with OXML being the format you use when you're serious.
The bad news is that this tactic will probably work. If OXML is the default format (in the dominant Office suite), people will view it as being the "serious" one and anything else as being "dumb." It doesn't matter that the additional "richness" is a bunch of features that these users will never activate. It also doesn't matter that the additional "richness" won't be maintained cleanly across platforms, during filetype conversions, and possibly even across software version changes. All that matters is building mindshare that truly believes that OXML is "the real deal" and that anything else is "that weird thing that geeks use."
So the counterattack from those of us who would prefer a true standard (such as ODF) to become the default need to use ODF as much as possible, and encourage others to do the same. ODF is the one that guarantees readability into the future, and that guarantees interoperability. We need to make this clear to everyone else.
If ODF support were perfect, I might consider buying an updated OS X version of Word when a native Intel version is available - I would want to try a 30 day demo first, however. I own licenses for older versions of Word/Office for Windows and OS X (I am an author and most of my publishers like manuscripts delivered in Word formats). I have written several books using OpenOffice.org, and at the last minute converted to Word.
That said, at least for my work on Mac OS X, the best writing tools are: TexShop with OmniGraffle for technical diagrams. Latex and OmniGraffle are a great combination!
Probably not.
This looks to me like the type of jargon that is used to try to obscure a total lack of anything meaningful to say.
Stricktly speaking, it might say that ODF is fine but some people may want to use Open XML because it does more. The argument -- I believe -- is over whether the capabilities of Open XML are things that any sane person wants in a document standard.
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if Microsoft were forced to comply with an open document standard -- any document standard -- that they did not produce. When it comes to document formats, their constant, uncontrolled, (and largely unecessary?) format changes have cost users a fortune. Past time for their users to bring them to heel.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
In English, with background:
"We need people to think that OpenOffice.org and other programs that use ODF are inferior products. So, we will constantly position our product and our formats as being more flexible, having more features. So, without saying it, what we are saying is that ODF sucks and OOXML is much, much better, but we'll support ODF anyway because other people seem to want to use it. Maybe we'll do another 'embrace, extend, extinguish' thing like we did with so many other standardds."
My blog
1. Twips are anything but an arbitrary unit. There are 20 twips to a point. 72 points to 1 inch.
2. The reason for the differences is the fact that very little in a document is stored in absolute positions. Almost everything is stored relative to other things in the document. Images are generally stored as some offset from a text anchor, for example. This allows you to make broad sweeping changes to the document easily as you can add text or other elements and the rest of the document will re-flow (since everything is stored relatively) nicely. The downside is that you are now dependent on the layout engine to ensure integrity between devices, and differences in layout in one portion of the document effect the rest of the document being positioned relatively to it. This is why word processor documents can be subtly (or sometimes hugely) different when viewed on different machines.
This differs from a absolute positioning view of the document (think publishing software) where everything in the document is positioned in absolute terms (more or less). This makes the editing process more difficult, since adding big content pieces often means you have to revisit the various document elements and reposition them accordingly.
At the end of the day, your word processor and your publishing tool are really solving different problems. Your word processor document isn't meant for distribution, it's meant for revision. Your PDF file is difficult to revise, but the layout is more or less guaranteed on every machine.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
You can always tell a Java program on Windows because it breaks every paradigm that a windows user is used to. The buttons look different, act different. Menus look weird and act weird. Nothing does what you expect.
Are you trying to say that IE 7 was written in Java?
So let me see if I've got this straight:
OOXML is better than ODF because Java apps don't use native Microsoft widgets. But although wxWidgets demonstrates that non-MS products can indeed conform to Microsoft standards, that doesn't apparently count because you like Visual Studio. Neither of which points is in any way a non sequiteur, probably for reasons that will turn out to involve the mating rituals of crocodiles.
Really, if that's the sort of argument Microsoft are reduced to, I'm surprised the debate has lasted this long.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
From reading the article, its clear that the summary above is quite misleading - Microsoft will not "support" ODF in the sense that they will offer a version of their office productivity suite which allows for opening or saving ODF files.
Microsoft will "support" ODF in the sense that they will not contest the standardization of ODF as an ISO/IEC/ANSI standard if ISO/IEC also accepts OOXML as an international standard. Nobody at any point said anything about Microsoft releasing software that understands ODF.