Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Deprecating Some OOXML Functionality
christian.einfeldt writes "According to open standards advocate Russell Ossendryver, Microsoft will be deprecating certain functionality in its Microsoft Office Open XML specification. Ossendryver says the move is an attempt to quiet critics of the specification in the run up to the crucial February ISO vote. The Microsoft-led industry standards group formally offering OOXML confirms in a 21 December 2007 announcement that issues related to the 'leap year bug', VML, compatibility settings such as 'AutoSpaceLikeWord95' and others will be 'extracted from the main specification and relocated to an independent annex in DIS 29500 for deprecated functionality.'"
If MS deprecates it but makes support for the deprecated features the default option in their software, they'll still be contributing to people spewing incompatible files that don't render correctly in software following the standards. It'd be better to just rip out the parts that shouldn't be there and resubmit the standard. Having to recognize and either support or report lack of support for a maze of twisty little semi-standard features for sake of backwards compatibility is not going to help the situation much,
It's abundantly clear now that the format is critically flawed and cannot be implemented by anyone, not even the Office team themselves.
ECMA 376 is a bomb disguised as a standard. It redefines functions and components just to retain ties to the undocumented legacy formats. Therefore a number of things that should be fixed by now, thanks to better engineering, and existing ISO standards, are left not only unfixed, but even perpetuated by ECMA376. The fact that Microsoft continues to push this fake "standard" shows how little they care about their customers and how much their business is predicated on lockin."I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Sounds consistent with the way Microsoft works. Promise the moon and deliver a crater. It was their intention all along. Propose something that smacks everyones senses with a bat, then back off with something that sound more reasonable, even though it is not.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
In another move to spread more FUD, now they're trying to hide the UGLY part of the specification. But, what use is hiding it? They claim the deprecated features will be used only for the migration of old binary formats, and that they should not be used by new documents... But considering that the whole point of this document format standardization effort is to be able to open any document in 20 or 30 years time, and if the old binary format documents will be converted using deprecated features, that just means that any software implementing the standard will have to support the deprecated features anyway...
Although they keep manipulating, manipulating, and manipulating more, I still think their format stinks, they're only using it to spread FUD over other formats, and I really hope they can't pull this stunt.
I'd just like to remind everyone that OOXML is a superb standard.
-- Miguel
the AutoSpaceMonaLisasGapBetweenHerTeethButOnlyWhenShesSmilingLikeWord95BBQ compability?
> settings such as 'AutoSpaceLikeWord95' and others will be extracted
Lets just hope they keep the 'WaveYourArmsInTheAirLikeYouJustDontCare' setting.
I've done quite a bit of reading, and listening on the topic of OOXML, and I have come to the conclusion that there is no good (at least of the technical kind) in OOXML. Yet, people seem convinced that Microsoft is a "good" company. And a good company wouldn't actively push something that was obviously without any good for the industry... so I must be missing something. I generally just think that it is for the purpose of profit and control, but every now and then I like to give opposing views a chance - since I may be the one wrong.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Just like with Vista, they just drop features until it's "releasable."
Here's the obvious problem:
They will claim a feature is deprecated, or not part of the spec, but their software will continue using it. Meanwhile, other programs that try to read and write OOXML format following the "official" spec, will result in the documents created or edited by other programs not being fully compatible with MS Word. This will be seen by the user community as a deficiency in the alternative software and no as a problem with Microsoft's software.
We have seen this before and we continue to see it. People think that because a web site works with MSIE and doesn't work with Firefox that there's a problem with Firefox... Microsoft continues to damage the competition in this way and will persist in the same. I hope that the voters in the ISO decisions are aware of this potential problem.
The criticism that OOXML is basically unnecessary for anyone other than microsoft still hasn't been adequately addressed. This is like microsoft proposing MicroMiles should be an international standard because they don't control the implementation of kilometers. They could have just contributed to ODF if they were remotely interested in useful standardisation, they were given ample opportunity.
The criticism that the standard may be patent-monopoly-encumbered hasn't been adequately addressed (but that is unfortunately pretty typical of "old" standards bodies like ISO and ECMA and ITU). Really, that's not OOXML-specific, far too many "standards" are unimplementable freely (free licensing should be a basic legal requirement for any national-government-recognised standards but isn't... yet. The baby boomers are trying to get as much corruption in as possible before they become decrepit and we take over and have to clean up their mess).
Some friends of mine currently work at IBM or did within the last year or two. They all used (Microsoft) Office.
I assume some departments of IBM eat their own dog food, but they definitely don't all do it.
To be more clear, they used Office at work. It was the software that their IT department provided/installed for them.
It is highly doubtful that the "deprecated functionality" will be removed from Microsoft Office. Therefore if they get the revised OOXML passed as a standard, anyone who uses Microsoft Office based on its claim to be OOXML will have been the victim of a bait-and-switch tactic.
.doc/ppt/xls for the free world to reverse engineer.
But I suspect that was the goal all along. Orgs that just wanted to use Microsoft Office in the first place would be able to say "see, this is open" and keep doing what they were doing.
Well, at least it's somewhat documented, making it somewhat easier than
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
This seems sneaky to me. Remove controvesial stuff from the standard, but put it in an Annex, that MS will implement and people will rely upon left and right, so it will become a de-facto microsoft embrace-and-extend standard.
I really try to fight the kneejerk anti-microsoft sentiment around here, but lordy, all of their moves seem so calculated and evil. It's not just single actions, it's a pattern of actions. Humans are great at recognizing patterns. And even with good moves and bad moves, one can generally see a positive attitude behind Google, for example (some may disagree, but I think the general consensus is that they're not dastardly.) But with MS, every move seems like a piece of a puzzle showing a nasty, calculated, aggressive, anti-competitive entity. Everything seems consistent with that. The way the US rolled over on everything for political reasons is shameful. Hopefully the EU will right some of those wrongs, at least in part of the world.
I guess to try and find the bright side, one could say "at least it's documented" (without an exorbitant fee and crazy restrictions, like SMB et al.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
'Deprecate' has a precise, relevant meaning when talking about specifications. It basically is a polite way to put all people who depend on a specification (or implementation thereof) that a certain feature is slated to be removed at an arbitrary time in the future. This is done so that developers, integrators, etc., can migrate away from the deprecated features before they are removed, allowing a smooth transition.
"Deprecate" is also technology jargon that means "to mark as obsolete." How you could be a Slashdot reader and not be familiar with that usage, I cannot understand.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In software, deprecate means to officially warn that they're planning to remove the feature in question later - after everyone else (like other software that might assume said feature is present) has had a fair chance to prepare for its removal.
In a standard, deprecated can mean something like it does for software, or it can refer to stuff that's optional or old and that usually has an alternative you're encouraged to use instead.
"Deprecate" is also technology jargon that means "to mark as obsolete."
I'm not the first one to observe this, but ... how can you obsolete an element of a standard when it has never been part of the standard?
But, of course! What else could they deprecate?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
If you agree that this is a real risk, and you're willing to help with doing something about it, please join us at OpenISO.org and help put together a "problem report" document about OOXML that explains the main issues clearly.
The correct link is here: http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/06/is-vml-in-or-ou.html
.htm instead of .htmnl; which results in a 404.
I see you have it as
Nice to see that the comments thread on OOXML is shrinking as the debate matures. Of course that means that the usual trolls are either bored or on holidays but I think that we may collectively be starting to better understand what's going on.
I attended the UNSW Cyberlaw centre forum on OOXML http://www.cyberlawcentre.org/2007/ooxml/ as an interested observer and I liked what I saw. Smart people engaged in a positive discussion. Yes, the viewpoints were polar, but the words were civil and a real exchange of ideas took place.
Pia Waugh was an organiser of the event and had this to say about it: http://tinyurl.com/32zfsr
Roll on the BRM in Geneva and may reasoned debate rule over Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
--
digipres, a No voter
There was, and probably still is, a powerful pro-Microsoft faction at IBM. That said, the office version your friends used, given the timing, was almost certainly not saving documents using MSOOXML.
This is about formats, not software packages. It doesn't matter if people use MS-Office. It matters that the default document format is properly standardised, and not under the control of a single vendor.
Neither is the issue about companies: IBM can use MS-Office all they like; it doesn't have the slightest bearing on this discussion.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
That URL isn't working.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The format is, in effect, still in development and there is already an independent annex dedicated to deprecated functionality. How exactly is it possible for a decent format to have deprecated features even before it exists?
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
MS Office [11] is the standard. OOXML is just the cliffnotes.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Catch 22, remember? Milo, msft, what's the difference?
Unbelieveable.
Someone spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about a TinyUrl link in reference to a discussion about Microsoft trashing standards.
Meanwhile, the full link is:
http://pipka.org/blog/2007/12/18/initial-report-from-ooxml-technical-and-legal-workshop-last-week/
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Well, While we're at it, why not deprecate the whole shit and get the problem solved for good?
""Deprecate" is also technology jargon that means "to mark as obsolete." How you could be a Slashdot reader and not be familiar with that usage, I cannot understand."
In twenty plus years of IT I have never, ever heard deprecate used in relation to IT. Of course, I'm an admin/server guy so I'm pretty focused on care and feeding of the servers and users. As far as standards go I only nibble on the periphery. I guess maybe I could pull my head out the literary works where I'm used to seeing the word and expand into some more technical works... Apologies to the folks who follow standards issues and use deprecate in a way that is somewhat esoteric. As a side note, I couldn't find any definitions for the IT usage in any of the major dictionary sites, just wikipedia and tech sites.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
In a moment now he will start worrying about precious fluids.
Aside form the above and a few other things, it's a great standard... </sarcasm>
Now -- would you care to tell us who you are and who you actually work for "Anonymous"?
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Here's the thing that I don't get.
1) People on Slashdot claim that Open Source Software is better than Closed Source Software (not everyone makes this claim, and I doubt that people who use them both all the time believe it).
2) Microsoft releases Office 2007 with documentation about the new zipped-XML-based file formats (It's kinda neat to hack around in them for fun and profit).
3) The new XML-based formats are bug-compatible with the old binary formats - they preserve dusty old behaviors from old software that people might still be running (so if your customers still use Office 97 you can still support them).
4) There are many articles/people on Slashdot whining and complaining about OOXML vs ODF (this is Slashdot after all - news for nerds, stuff that nobody else cares about).
Is ODF any better than OOXML or the old Microsoft formats in all ways? If not, then why not? Make it better - don't waste your time on Slashdot whining - your whines do nothing. Is OOo better than Microsoft Office in all ways? If not, then why not? Make it better - don't waste your time on Slashdot whining. Your hate shortens your life and accomplishes nothing.
The truth of the matter is that it is hard to write good software, and it is complicated. There are those who write good software, and those who talk about it. Clearly people who write on Slashdot aren't the former, or we wouldn't be here.
I will point out that Apple already added support for OOXML in their iWork '08 suite, so it really doesn't appear to be terribly difficult to do. Will it matter? How many Million copies of Microsoft Office 2007 are out there in corporations around the world? While we are arguing on Slashdot, Microsoft's army of code monkies and lock-in experts are coming up with the next set of killer features and file format extensions. If you want to compete, you'd better get off Slashdot and start coding. By my recollection, you have about 10 years worth of feature work to catch up on, starting with a UI that doesn't make me want to gouge out my eyeballs with a spoon...
What happens if/when Microsoft absorbs ODF support as a "feature" and bitmap-izes/OOXML-izes the extra functionality? It would satisfy requirements that Microsoft Office be compatible with ODF while at the same time neutering OOo ODF support. Would you rather have a neutered ODF file or something which doesn't pretend to be ODF wrapping OOXML? Really, think about the compatability problems with different document formats. It's just like IE 6's rendering of HTML+W3C standards vs IE 7 vs Opera vs Netscape vs Mozilla vs Safari. Get ready for it. It is coming. The people using ODF with Microsoft products won't suffer - the people using ODF with OOo will cry bloody murder and be forced to use Microsoft Office to get full fidelity from their ODF files.
And Microsoft marketing will call the ODF support a feature. They will laugh all the way to the bank as they sell millions and millions of copies to governments and corporations around the world. If you want to beat Microsoft at this game, you have to play like Microsoft does - make OOo save out OOXML with limitations or extenstions that frustrate Microsoft Office customers - uneditable charts, etc. Embrace and extend works in both ways.
Of course, it's a double edged sword. Microsoft makes these apps, and hundreds of millions of people run them every day. People are paid to write programs around them and their APIs and their file formats. The products that Microsoft spit out are the standard. You can't stop the Microsoft army of coders directed by Gates and co from making their next version and patching the previous one. All you can do is attempt - little by little - to make something that people would want to use more.
I don't know if you're talking from the perspective of developing a compiler. I guess that would make sense, since that would involve implementing the standard (for whichever language) which is what this whole topic is about. And I can understand a compiler developer being forced to extend support for deprecated features for backwards compatibility reasons. But having given notice they are well within their rights to yank it, and for any actively maintained codebase replacing the deprecated parts shouldn't be that difficult. So where this might become relevant to the current discussion: does anyone know what office 2007 uses 'FormatLikeWord95' for? i.e. is it used for backwards compatibility when saving documents to be read by word 95. If so that would mean that most documents generated by office 2k7 will not use this feature, and most OOXML implementations could safely leave it out, thereby accelerating it's obsolescence.
Now -- would you care to tell us who you are and who you actually work for "Anonymous"? Just for the record, AC wasn't me, and I don't work for MS. Not sure why that's needed to qualify my statements. If you were an OOo developer your comments would get more weight, not less.So: The results of this deprecation could be (in the worst case):
- Developers will be deluded into believing that MS isn't going to be using this functionality (e.g. how Ashton Tate was convinced, by Microsoft to focus their Lotus 123 efforts on OS/2, while MS was focusing their Excel development on Windows 3).
- Developers who develop for those capabilities could face enhanced legal exposure
- documentation for this functionality could be decreased rather than increased (which is what most people want -- given that MS is currently using this functionality).
It's getting harder and harder to deny that MS is attempting to create a standard that their software will neither read nor write properly -- but that they can claim that they're using (because they control both the trademark and the "defacto standard" implementation of).Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
- Is it now? Odd, how MS only came up with its new proposed standard after they were told they no longer qualified in MA due to that state's adoption of the Enterprise Technical Resource Model (ETRM). This may have been overturned by now, but was the root cause of OOXML's hasty introduction in the first place.
- ODF is a standard that can be freely implemented by any vendor. Please describe the nature of any patent encumbrance you believe exists.
- Didn't know about Apple, but Novel is a rather special case, don't you think, given that they caved to the MS bogeyman that claims all manner of patent infringement by FOSS. Despite which they won't actually tell anyone what patents are supposedly infringed. Smells like FUD spreading to me.
- I refer you to an excellent article on the MS deprecation smokescreen:
http://fanaticattack.com/2007/the-deprecated-smoke-screen-of-ms-office-open-xml-ooxml.html/ It seems the Office 2007 can't even save its own documents in the format described by the OOXML document. I leave you to draw your own conclusions as to just what that says about the "standard".
While my wife might agree with the "pompous" accusation, I'm fairly certain she'd disagree with the cunt part. I did not, BTW, label you with any sort of tawdry moniker ("pompous cunt" being one such). I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from that sort of thing as well, or your "karma" might just fade away on its own...The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Thanks a lot for posting this contribution. I'm feeding it into the process for producing the "problem report" document.
I actually mean deprecate, as the article and the summary said. "To deprecate" in programming circles generally means to mark something as "The old way" to do something or "the less preferred way".
Deprecation of a programming language feature, for example, usually starts with suggestions of a better way to do something. Then, a warning goes out to say that the feature might be changed or removed in later versions of the language. Then, the docs for the language might start saying not to use the particular feature and suggesting an alternative. Programmers are warned definitively that the feature will not be portable to newer versions. Then, sometimes a version of the language tools come out that perform the function properly but which warn about its deprecation at compile time or even runtime if warnings are enabled. Finally, a version comes out in which the language tools stop supporting the feature and perhaps there's still a warning at compile time. The documentation will probably list the feature just enough to say "this is deprecated, please use feature X instead".
Since Microsoft's marking features as "deprecated", it simply means they're recommending people don't use those features in a standards-compliant file. It doesn't mean the default behavior of their software won't use those features in addition to the core standard for "enhanced functionality". I can easily imagine a situation in which Microsoft has an option buried in their application somewhere to produce a vanilla standards-compliant file, but that it's not enabled by default and most non-technical users of Word and Excel will still be sending around files with tags from the deprecated set. It's better, if MS is going to use them, that they're documented and marked deprecated than not documented at all. That way other applications can work around them more easily. That other applications have to work around them at all is the problem. If it's a standard, MS's own software should follow the heart of the standard and the deprecated portions should instead be culled.