Slashdot Mirror
Saving in OOXML Format Now Probably A Bad Idea
orlando writes "Much drama is unfolding prior to the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva, currently schedule for the end of February. After that there's a subsequent 30 day period while countries can still change their vote. As a result, Bob Sutor is recommending that saving your documents in OOXML format right now is probably about the riskiest thing you can do, if you are concerned with long term interoperability. At this point nobody has the vaguest idea what OOXML will look like in February, or even whether it will be in any sort of stable condition by the end of March. 'While we are talking about interoperability, who else do you think is going to provide long term complete support for this already-dead OOXML format that Microsoft Office 2007 uses today? Interoperability means that other applications can process the files fully and not just products from Microsoft. I would even go so far as to go back to those few OOXML files you have already created and create .doc, .ppt, and .xls versions of them for future use, if you want to make sure you can read them and you don't want to commit yourself to Microsoft's products for the rest of their lives.'"
It's a bad idea anyway, regardless of your future data needs. I've already received a handful of .docx files in my job and have had to email the person back, asking them to save as an alternate format. And inevitably the response is "Oh right, I always forget that not everyone can open these files."
Microsoft's done a crappy job introducing a crappy format, and only people on the latest office (or the ability to install the Windows-oriented Windows-installer for old Office for Windows) can even work with the files.
Of course we have, it's the only type of porn that can be viewed without a GUI.
No matter what is in the published specification ... the ONLY implementation of OOXML that will matter will be the "de facto" standard that is whatever Microsoft is shipping at that moment.
... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.
You can be 100% compliant with the published spec
Not to mention that the various kinds of .doc are often problematic, when one party has a newer version of office (and has saved in said format) while the other party has not upgraded.
The 'classics' are always best, anyway--because, frankly, if you need more formatting than some basic markup that would be covered by rtf or html, you ought be using something aimed more towards desktop publishing than word processing--and for that, you can use TeX or something.
These fancy-schmancy formats are just feature creep, really, in my opinion. If you need clip art to say it, then perhaps you don't need to say it at all.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Wish that I had shorted Microsoft stock, and look for the price of Apple to go up.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
I agree ascii porn is not good enough to achieve "gui" - I guess that's what the kids are calling it these days.
Probably because back when it was being approved, it already existed as a standard, and was already implemented by multiple applications.
Unlike OOXML, ODF (or OASIS as IIRC it was referred to more often) was the main format for Open Office, and at least KDE was supporting it as well.
The fact is, if MS suddenly drops OOXML, everybody else will instantly lose interest in it. Meanwhile ODF has wide adoption: You can open it with OpenOffice, AbiWord, KWord or a MS Office plugin, for instance.
The biggest difference is that ODF did not go through Fast Track, it went trough a long and tedious process in OASIS. Besides, OOo did not save to ODF before it was done deal in ISO.
Then there is the problem that Office 2007 does not fully support the OOXML (so you cannot save to OOXML now, only OOXMLish).
Furthermore Microsoft has clearly stated they will not follow ISO-OOXML - unless it does exactly what Microsoft wants it to do.
So no matter what you do, your file will be outdated in a few years.
Apart from the OS, of course.
"What is the most-linked image in
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
And there was much rejoicing.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Seriously, can't we block these IP's already? I mean this is happening in ever story...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
A comment on tagging:
"whatcouldpossiblygowrong" is pretty entertaining when used sparingly, like maybe on a story about a new robotic dentist. But when we are talking about document formats, I think it starts to lose that special something.
To reduce the (probably intended) market confusion over the pedigree of the format names, it would be nice if people used "MS-OOXML" to differentiate it from ODF and OpenOffice.
[repost]
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Check my alibi!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
You can be 100% compliant with the published spec ... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.
.doc formats exceptionally well. The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot.
You don't think Microsoft *planned* it this way, did you?
The *only* reason Microsoft purchased... I mean, went through the IEEE standardization process was to fast-track to ISO. This is because places like Massachusetts were pondering passing resolutions that would require certain government agencies (in the case of Mass, the executive branch) to publish documents in a standard, open format. Microsoft, of course, fought that with money, lobbying, and disinformation (Microsoft's best weapons).
By getting a rubber-stamp standard, Microsoft can continue doing exactly what they do now: locking in customers by creating the perception that theirs is the only office suite that can handle the "standard" correctly, making the other suites look inferior (despite the actual compliance of the other suites).
Notice the timing of OOXML-- it happened just as OOo was beginning to render
I don't know why Microsoft doesn't believe they can compete on merit alone. They almost *always* resort to market manipulation to maintain the upper hand. It'd be funny, if they weren't teabagging capitalism in the process.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
People are trying to get laws passed that say that government documents must be saved in an open, documented format. If OOXML gets forked into the ISO version and the MS version, then MS loses there since they don't save in a documented format.
One option for MS is to have a very hidden "save in ISO OOXML" switch that is hard to toggle, or only available in more expensive versions of office, with a converter between the MS and ISO versions of OOXML.
If MS uses the ISO version of OOXML, then as you say, anyone could make an office suite that used that format, and MS would have to compete on something more than "everybody uses office".
If it wasn't for those laws that people are trying to get passed, you would be completely correct.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
The biggest difference is that ODF did not go through Fast Track, it went trough a long and tedious process in OASIS. Besides, OOo did not save to ODF before it was done deal in ISO.
Wrong.
Wikipedia Article on OASIS
And although the WP article does not mention it ODF actually got to skip the one month contradictory period that was required of OOXML. So this long and tedious process for ISO certification you're talking about . . . Didn't exist.
Then there is the problem that Office 2007 does not fully support the OOXML (so you cannot save to OOXML now, only OOXMLish).
So someone has found bugs in Office 2007? Say it ain't so.
Furthermore Microsoft has clearly stated they will not follow ISO-OOXML - unless it does exactly what Microsoft wants it to do.
Can I get some sort of cite here?
I know that 5, 10, 20 years from now I would still be able to open the files, though I have no idea why I would want to.
Or so you think. It seems that every MS "standard" is nothing more then just a memory dump of the product in question. For all we know, MS could release an Office 2007 Service Pack 1 that changes the format however could ignore all data on CDs/Flash drives when they update all the files. It doesn't help that chances are you are going to have to buy an Office 2009 to use the new OOXML format to even open newer OOXML files. The problem is MS is a company and a large one that doesn't care about stabbing its customers in the back to make a buck.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Since we're not going to run out of idiots anytime soon, they will use the word just because it is perceived as offensive. The only solution is to stop being offended by it.
The only way you can be offended by somebody (you or not) being called a nigger is if you yourself think that being a nigger is bad. Once you realize this, it's not an insult anymore. Heck, it's often used as a term of pride (that's bad too).
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
OK, I was wrong about the Fast Track, but that was not my point. The point was that it took a long time in OASIS to prepare ODF.
The article in question says Office 2007 does not fully follow OOXML. Bugs they are not.
Brian Jones has said that Microsoft is not committted to OOXML http://www.techworld.com/storage/features/index.cfm?featureid=3685&pagtype=all
Why in the world would you want your data to expire? If it was worth creating, it should be readable for a long, long time. Imagine if all documents (books, carved tablets, etc.) faded away after 20 years. We'd have no history at all.
Formats based on open standards guarantee that it is possible to write a reader from the spec no matter how long ago the document was created. I don't think there's a single legitimate argument against this.