Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Releases First Open XML SDK

Kurtz'sKompund tips us to news that Microsoft has released a finished version of the Open XML software development kit. Microsoft has made additional resources available with the download. Quoting Techworld: "The SDK includes an application programming interface (API) simplifying the creation of code for searching documents, creating documents, validating document parts, modifying data and other tasks, Microsoft said. The API can be used in any language supported by the Microsoft .Net Framework, the company said. The current SDK supports the version of Open XML supported by Office 2007, which is not the same as that ratified as a standard by the ISO, due to changes effected during the ratification process."

25 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Let me be the first to say... by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Funny

    "It's a trap!"

  2. MO2K7OXML, not Open XML by jkrise · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is Microsoft Office 2007 Open XML, not Open XML. An API for producing documents containing deprecated features is of no use to anyone bar Microsoft, who can claim tha they are making available tools that support a yet-to-be-defined standard.

    For all we know, the next version of Office will support the officially defined and documented standard, which will have hundreds of changes compared to the current O2K7 format of Open XML. Thus, everyone will have to recode all new stuff just to stay in sync. A wasted effort, in my opinion.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:MO2K7OXML, not Open XML by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Informative

      What this needs is a promise that Office 2007 and this API will be synced to the ISO specification.

      No, promises are easily broken by MS, we need it to sync to the ISO specs, not a promise. Think of all the other promises MS has made... We promise that Vista will be innovative, new, fast, out soon, etc. We promise that we will embrace an open Internet (well until we manage to kill Netscape that is...) We promise that OS/2 is the future. And more. MS has been full of promises but has never managed to fulfill any of the ones that help anyone.
      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:MO2K7OXML, not Open XML by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What this needs is a promise that Office 2007 and this API will be synced to the ISO specification.

      No, what this needs is a promise that this API will be synced to ODF as well as Office XML/OOXML

      This is Microsoft's first attack on ODF on their platform. They were forced to grudgingly support the format in Office, now they are attempting to marginalise it by building an infrastructure around Office XML/OOXML.

      The end result will be that customers already locked in to Microsoft with tools like .NET and Sharepoint will only be able to interoperate with Office XML/OOXML, not ODF. Anyone wishing to interoperate with them will be forced to make the same decision

      This is an attack on ODF, an attempt to turn it into an orphan format. It will be half-heartedly supported in Office to appease regulators, but unsupported through the rest of the MS ecosystem.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  3. Paper vs de facto by NaCh0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The current SDK supports the version of Open XML supported by Office 2007, which is not the same as that ratified as a standard by the ISO, due to changes effected during the ratification process.

    Because anyone who follows Microsoft knows the game is to never have the two match.

  4. continue the charade, but we dont buy it. by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Continue the charade all you want microsoft, but we don't buy it, and your mockery of the open standards process is now under heavy attack in the form of appeals.

    Nobody but the people you pay to think otherwise is fooled.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:continue the charade, but we dont buy it. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nobody but the people you pay to think otherwise is fooled. Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software (or Standards) Only Fools Teenagers.

  5. An API is useless by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "API" is useless without a fully documented format. The API will die over time just as certainly as the applications that use it. The only real answer to long term data storage is full documentation that can be used to create applications, on any platform, free of encumbrances, that can read and format the documents that you create on your systems that you've paid for.

    1. Re:An API is useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That does explain why Microsoft Office has virtually no marketshare, and how VBA with Office is not of the most widely used programming languages.

      Yes, your goals are noble, but your claims are invalidated by reality.

    2. Re:An API is useless by mlwmohawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, your goals are noble, but your claims are invalidated by reality.

      Actually reality validates my statement. The is a current crisis in both the public and private sector about digital documents from the 80s not being accessible because the document format is no longer supported and and there are no readers for them.

      This may sound odd to you, but "marketshare" is not the answer to every question. All too often, it is a short sighted answer to complex issues.

    3. Re:An API is useless by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Crisis? Give me $10 and I'll convert any "digital document from the 80s" you throw at me.

      Yea, but should we have to pay *you* or someone like you for every instance of a document that can not be read?

      An ad-hoc solution for a specific document is not a solution for the over all problem.

  6. Lay back and receive your SDK by adamwpants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An API for suck does not undo the suck.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many signatures like it, but this one is mine.
  7. How do these lying fucks live with themselves??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    which is not the same as that ratified as a standard by the ISO, due to changes effected during the ratification process.

    What a steaming pile of bullshit! First off, it hasn't really been ratified yet, ahem. Second, the draft that Microsoft submitted did not match the version used in Office 2007, before any changes were made.

  8. Not An ISO Standard by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The current SDK supports the version of Open XML supported by Office 2007, which is not
    > the same as that ratified as a standard by the ISO

    No version of Microsoft's "Open XML" has been ratified as a standard by the ISO.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  9. API can be used in any language... by Vexorian · · Score: 5, Funny

    API can be used in any language supported by the Microsoft .Net Framework
    In other words, the API barely works in .net only. A document format specification that is so hard to support that you need a platform dependent API in order to use, sounds about MSish enough.
    --

    Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
  10. ISO should read this over and over, 1000 times by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You can use the Open XML API in any language supported by the Microsoft .NET Framework®. The help topics presented in this SDK provide code samples in Microsoft Visual C#® and Microsoft Visual Basic® .NET."

  11. Please don't call it Open XML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Dear Editors, please don't call it Open XML — XML is already open so it's sounds as stupid as calling something Open Linux or Open Debian. They had 'Office Open XML' as a name to cause confusion with OpenOffice.org and now they've gone with 'Open XML' in order to create more confusion and to googlebomb the IT press with their misnamed technology.

    Instead, just call it OOXML.

    1. Re:Please don't call it Open XML by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer MOOXML.

      Not only does it reinforce the concept that this is a product of Microsoft, it has amusing cow connotations.

  12. What is the "ratified" version? by Excelcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    which is not the same as that ratified as a standard by the ISO, due to changes effected during the ratification process
    What is the version ratified by the ISO? They never published it - no one has ever seen it. One wonders if the ISO even knows what was ratified by the ISO. I suspect they were relieved at the appeals - it gave them an excuse to keep on without publishing.
  13. I missed something by zapakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When did this stop being called "Office Open XML" and start being called "Open XML"? Or is this yet another new animal?

  14. Re:oh no an appeal.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If microsoft wanted to play hardball they would halt sales and imports of their software to those countries...

    I hate to break it to you, but Microsoft only has a product to sell there in the first place by the grace of those countries' copyright laws. Since they are the sovereign entities, not Microsoft, if Microsoft tried to pull that kind of stunt they'd be well within their rights to simply declare Microsoft's software to be Public Domain and use it all they want!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. I didn't know XML was closed... by deanston · · Score: 5, Funny

    MSFT's next initiative: Source Open Software (SOS), to source all software technology from open source. By ISO submission time the word 'Source' will be dropped and it will simply be known as the Open Software Standard, at which time all lawsuit against MS shall be dismissed due to the fact that the 'OS' in Windows product line will no longer stand for 'operating system'... Hey Microsoft, pay me for the idea! I patented it...

  16. It's irrelevant to the ISO by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ISO should read this over and over, 1000 times: "You can use the Open XML API in any language supported by the Microsoft .NET Framework®. The help topics presented in this SDK provide code samples in Microsoft Visual C#® and Microsoft Visual Basic® .NET."

    Can you be more specific about why? It's the OOXML specification which the ISO is concerned with. An available SDK has little to do with whether OOXML is a suitable document specification one way or the other, as far as I can tell.

    Microsoft provides SDKs for lots of its technologies because it wants to make it simpler for its development community to use them. Most of these SDKs primarily target DotNet because that's the primary development platform that Microsoft wants people to write Windows apps in. The fact that this SDK exists in theory doesn't preclude someone else from writing an equivalent SDK for another platform, certainly if the actual OOXML specification is as adequate as the ISO has already declared it to be (pending the appeals process). Personally I don't think the OOXML specification is adequate for such purposes, but I can't see how a Microsoft-provided SDK has anything to do with that, or why it should be of any interest to the ISO. It's entirely another issue.

    An API like this is potentially even a good thing. Granted that it gives Microsoft direct control over whether third party developers will write malformed formats that are incompatible with the standard, and they seem to actually be doing that. But it's also encouraging developers not to duplicate their own code for reading and writing document formats, and tying themselves into specific details of an XML spec. If apps are built around an API like this one, which they certainly will be now that it's available, it would (theoretically) make it much easier to port them to work with alternative document formats in the future. Who knows? Microsoft might one day even update the code behind its API to generically support more formats than just OOXML -- especially if they're acutally serious about supporting OASIS in the future.

    Yeah it could be Microsoft trying to subvert the process again, but it could also simply be that Microsoft's a gigantic corporation, and that some parts of it don't necessarily work in sync with other parts of it. This is perhaps even to the extent that they might try to provide useful things from time to time without the malicious intent that could have been preferred from the ruling upper levels in the hierarchy.

    1. Re:It's irrelevant to the ISO by jesterzog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this means the the standard should be implementable without having to wade through a morass of patents. the standard was documented through references to microsoft propreitary code, and now the api is being implemented in microsoft proprietary dev environments. that is the point.

      Uh, everything in DotNet is implemented in a proprietary dev environment. This has nothing to do with the openness of standards being implemented. Setting aside your initial claim that the ISO is supposed to validate a standard as being free of patents (which I don't believe to be true), the GP post seemed to be trying to claim that the fact that Microsoft happens to be providing a DotNet SDK has some kind of relevance to this standard not being open.

      The DotNet API is not "the" API. It's an API that Microsoft provides. Furthermore this API, nor any other API for OOXML is the standard -- it's just a method of using the standard. The fact that Microsoft has created an API to help some of their paying customers to manage OOXML documents more easily really has nothing to do with whether OOXML is a good standard. The standard -- good or bad -- is the definition of the format, not the method of accessing it.

      Microsoft provides DotNet APIs for working with standards such as SMTP, TCP/IP, HTML, GZip, and a whole host of standards that probably everyone would agree are open. Do you think this somehow compromises their open-ness? It also provides DotNet APIs for a heap of things that aren't open, or are even very Microsoft-specific. But it's not the presence of Microsoft APIs that makes those standards closed -- it's the fact that the standards aren't clearly published in a way that allows them to be implemented.

      It's actually valid to argue that nobody else can write a valid API based on the specification, but this doesn't seem to be what either yourself or the GP post, or most of the responses to this article for that matter, are doing. Trying to draw some kind of imaginary causation between the standard being broken and Microsoft happening to provide a method of using it more easily on its own platform is ridiculous.

  17. Others have said no, it needs... by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Very little in the way of wasted effort. What this needs is a promise that Office 2007 and this API will be synced to the ISO specification.

    Others have said no, it needs (x) so let me add one.

    No, it needs to be ignored. Let's talk to the customers on this one.

    A businessman's hope for his business is that it persist and grow for several decades at least, until he can reap his reward and exit phenomenally wealthy. If you architect your business intelligence on the platform of a corporation whose business model is to obsolete its platforms every five years at the most, you're an idiot and you deserve to be have your resources drained by this decade's P.T. Barnum until in the ferocious environment of the day you and your grand ideas are forgotten.

    In the public sector the objective is to conduct the public's business in such a way that resources are not wasted and required openness can be delivered. It's essential that the public's investment in creating information is well preserved. If you're in the public sector and architect public infrastructure on such a platform as Office 2007 OXML you're worse than incompetent - you're a traitor to the cause of public service.

    OOXML is irrelevant. The problem of construction of a document is solved. The user interface is an interesting diverse field where members compete but all the options that don't lead to truly open documents are blind alleys. Office 2007 formats are some of these blind alleys that will yield only wasted efforts because the vendor needs to obsolete your documents every five years in order to maintain its current cash flow. If you succeed in hitching your cart to this train it will come off its rails in less than five years when the provider needs to sell you new applications. Why would you do that? Trust me, if you're in public service and you choose to do that eventually somebody is going to follow the money right to you. Have you got longer than that to retirement? If you're in business the problem will solve itself and not to your benefit.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.