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)."
...to finally share proper doc of the old standards. This just means they feel confident that MS Office 2007 will take firm enough root to ensure that the old game of catch up for FOSS projects will stay the same.
And wasn't it just yesterday some twits had an artice about how MS is changing/will change? I sure wouldn't hold my breath!
Caveat Utilitor
actually that's inaddition to the 6,000 pages for the OOXML spec since the OOXMl spec references that data.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I honestly believe that they are trying to give out complete information. It's just that they have 20 years of spaghetti code to somehow shape into an API document. I doubt if anyone at Microsoft really knows how the code works.
With a 1000 page document describing how to list off spreadsheet information, I shudder to think about how organized their kernel is.
I can't understand the negativity. Sure Microsoft has an unpleasant past, but this is a good move on their part and should be met with nothing less than praise.
We want to encourage more behavior like this.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
a) Does this mean the standard GNU response is now invalid?
b) If someone writes a FOSS implementation of a .doc/.xls viewer, does that mean MSFT could more easily throw their weight to declaring .doc a standard? (Since a standard ought to have multiple implementations, although maybe office 2003 and 2007 counts as two, or office and word/excel/powerpoint viewer :p )
If you think Word is only dealing with "saving text" you need to spend some time learning what it can do. The format specs are big because their users needs are big.
You are right. This is a great step forward. However, I think the Slashdot community, with its cynical eye on Microsoft, is reminding us to take this in the proper context. It remains to be seen whether this is the beginning of a slow but steady change of course for the world's largest software company, or whether this is a fake-out to fool people into thinking that Microsoft is nice.
Personally, I suspect that this reflects internal conflict within Microsoft, with some portions of the behemoth trying to do something good, while another faction still trying to squeeze money out of Microsoft's unique position in the software world.
In any case, remember how some people would say, "You always complain about Microsoft! What would it take for you to admit that Microsoft is doing something good?"
#2 on the list was: Stop hijacking the HTML standard and make a compliant browser! Then they put out IE7. (Not perfect, but a heckuva lot better than IE6!)
#1 on the list was: Open up the Word document file format. Okay, so they've done that. (Again, not perfect, but a heckuva lot better than what went on before!)
Congrats, Microsoft. You did it. A little late in coming, and you really didn't impress us with your OOXML fiasco waving that money around, but I'm willing to adopt a wait-and-see attitude to see whether it's still those same money-grubbing upper level managers that are in control, or whether this really is a new day at Microsoft.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Where is Visio ?
"This is definitely useful for app developers of free software"
You mean as in you work on the implementation for free and Microsoft benefits from any commercial developments.
davecb5620@gmail.com
I'm sure this move was somewhat forced to please the European Union or something.
In any case, I'm sure this would be just what Sun needs to make OpenOffice(.org) more compatible with MS Office than MS Office itself :)
Microsoft releases api/ protocol specs | Feb. 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/
Microsoft releases further specs | April. 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/08/microsoft_posts_protocol_documents/
And they state that more will come after gathering feedback between then and June.
Between now and June it will garner feedback from the developer community. Then, at the end of June, Microsoft will publish the final versions of technical documentation - along with definitive patent licensing terms.
You can't say it promises nothing if you haven't actually ATTEMPTED an implementation.
This does not make sense. Their promise or non-promise is in no way contingent on my actions. It's me who has to consider what they promise before acting. If I find ambiguities, I'd better not act until these are clarified. And there are plenty of ambiguities. If you really can't see what they are, there are links to the analysis on Groklaw.
I personally saw the ambiguities immediately when I read the CNS. And remember, it's non-lawyers who are going to implement the spec, so the covenant must be as clear as possible.
Because "pages" are a great way to measure a specs size..
What about line spacing, detail of information, number of examples? If the spec is clearest when fully expanded who cares if they can squeeze it onto a single page in microfilm by cutting out helpful documentation?
Rather than looking at the number of pages why not look at the number of distinct node types/attributes? Surely that would give a better idea of spec size?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);