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)."

15 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. How freaking "open" of them... by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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
    1. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by Lord+Crc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...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.

      I guess that whole ISO voting stuff on OOXML just passed you by?

    2. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by neokushan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they keep hold of the spec and don't release it, you'll bitch about them not being very friendly.

      If they release the spec to everyone and promise not to go after any Open Source projects that may take advantage of it, you'll bitch about them still trying to line their own pockets.

      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.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    3. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by Xtifr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is important to note that open source developers, whether commercial or non-commercial, will not need a patent license for the development of implementations of these protocols or for the non-commercial distribution of these implementations,

      So...commercial developers can develop as long as they don't distribute. Boy, that's helpful/useful. About as helpful and useful as a kick in the nuts. :)

      I still say the idea that a protocol can be patented is silly to the point of almost being an oxymoron. We can, perhaps, debate whether an implementation of a protocol can be patented, but the idea that the protocol itself can be patented seems like blatant abuse of the patent system, even if you're one of those who believes that software or business-method patents are a valid notion.

      Fortunately, it does seem to be getting easier to challenge patents. Now if only we could get MS to admit what patents they think various open source projects might be violating, so we can start the search for prior art.... :)

      (Alternatively, maybe we can keep them muttering vague threats about their patents without being specific long enough that we can ask for estoppel or laches if they ever do try to get specific. The rumblings help because that way they can't pretend that they didn't know about the supposed violations all along, a vital point in raising a defense of laches.)

    4. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Sigh. Microsoft can never do anything right, can they?

      They *could* do something right, but they choose not to. It would work against their business model.

      They *could* release specs unencumbered by patents. They simply don't want to.

      True interoperability is the last thing that they truly want.

      This has happened before. It will happen again. See IBM decades ago. The entrenched monopolist is never in favor of true interoperability -- nevermind whatever they may say. Everybody else who lives on the scraps is in favor of interoperability. Who you think is right depends on whether you think the currently in power monopolist has the God given right to be the only one in the business.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by clang_jangle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe he meant that this announcement from MS would give some "hostages" who wish to feel more optimistic about MS becoming less evil some false hope to brighten their dreary day.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
  2. Re:So that's only about 2400 pages! by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  3. Honest Attempt by clampolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Honest Attempt by syousef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Joel on Software my arse. I do wish people would stop quoting that shill. He's a Microsoft apologist who in the past has managed to present Bill Gates' unprofessional attitude (swearing at staff etc) as some kind of misunderstood genius. No Joel, your boss was an unprofessional asshole.

      As for this article. No intern should have been working on Microsoft's flagship product even 15 years ago. That's 1992 we're talking about, not 1982. It's entirely possible to write efficient code that isn't unreadable spaghetti and it's not always a good solution to use Office automation to read office documents.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  4. Kudos to them by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. 2 things though... by hee+gozer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 )

  6. Yes, kudos for this ... but not for MS's past by KWTm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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]
  7. Visio by llzackll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where is Visio ?

  8. Meh.. /.-ers by comm2k · · Score: 4, Insightful
    for all those thinking that this has anything to do with Gates leaving - you're wrong, its neither right nor interesting AND CERTAINLY NOT 5+ INSIGHTFUL.
    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.

  9. Re:So that's only about 2400 pages! by kestasjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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);