Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Pre-2007 Binary File Format Specs
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has released the specifications for the binary file formats used by pre-2007 Microsoft Office applications. They're accurate this time! Honest! While the documents are enormous (Word alone requires 533 pages; Excel runs over 1000 plus another 850 pages for the Office 2007 binary format), they hopefully will be useful to developers trying to create or extract information from Microsoft Office files (which despite their flaws, have been the de facto standard in many fields for some time now)."
Isn't this old news? I mean, it's been covered on Slashdot at least twice now. (Dear timothy, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Google.)
Yes, the formats are large and complicated, but for a variety of good, if antiquated, reasons. I'd suggest anyone interested read Joel Spolsky's blog post on it (which, being posted last February, isn't news either but hey, this is Slashdot).
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Check out the patent maps here
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
Thanks, good info for those who will not RTFA. Same old self-serving MS...
Caveat Utilitor
From here -> You or anyone else has nothing to worry about. Microsoft has changed its tune.:
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation to the extent it conforms to a Covered Specification (âoeCovered Implementationâ), subject to the following. This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification made or used by you. To clarify, âoeMicrosoft Necessary Claimsâ are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. âoeCovered Specificationsâ are listed below.
Read this article:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
Summarizing how Office file formats were made super complex without anybody necessarily doing anything wrong, or anybody writing bad code.
Comment of the year
Yes and no. DOCX is based on OOXML's early concept, but it does not represent that standard that MS was pushing. So technically, no one, not even Microsoft, has a product that can create or read the OOXML standard.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
This means, as far as I know, that GPL implementations are not allowed. So it's an even worse situation than before, because Free Software developers can't even look at this documentation to verify any of the conclusions of their reverse engineering.
Really, Microsoft has no chance of pleasing you, do they? Just accept that it's good for everyone to have open standards, regardless of the possible ulterior motives involved.
The point is that MS's patent licenses (and therefore their specs), due to the non-commerce clause, are not GPL compatible. See, MS is not threatened by a BSD license, because if a BSD product takes off, they can just embrace, extend, extinguish. They're really worried about GPL though, because any GPL project that succeeds is a true competitive threat.
In short, I don't think they've opened the specs. Documented them, yes, published them, sure, but they have NOT opened them.
This isn't new. MS posted an earlier revision on February 20 this year. Today's announcement is mostly about the fact that it's out of "beta".
Remember folks that this is Microsofts own description and that the GPL experts have said that Microsoft's OSP (Open Specification Promise) is incompatible with Open Source licenses. The SFLC also say that it would even comply with BSD-style licenses.
And please -- this is a legal matter to do with the wording of the Microsoft pledge, so lets not hear slashdot legal advice -- lets link to actual legal opinion if anyone wants to debate this.
Oh and the Sun license pledge for ODF is compatible with GPL according to the people who helped design GPL
Gates is still chairman of the board and the largest stockholder.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Not trying to troll, but why is it that only Microsoft products get "corrupted"? Seriously, I use three platforms (Windows, Solaris, and OSX) and I don't ever recall a corrupted file in anything that was NOT made by Microsoft.
Or you could setup Excel to trust that spreadsheet (or it's location) so that you don't get prompted with warnings etc everytime. Very easy to do and would remove, what seems to be your biggest gripe.
Normal people worry me!
And everything I can do in word I can do in LaTeX - and more. Strangely enough, the LaTeX specs don't make my head spin. As much.
Actually the non-commercial clause is incompatible with the BSD license as well.
It's about distribution.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."