Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Releases Pre-2007 Binary File Format Specs

Posted by timothy on from the in-exchange-they-can-read-the-odf-spec dept.

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)."

16 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. ,,, or undo file corruption? by MickLinux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know it's old hat by now, but back in the Office 98 days, file corruption was a big deal.

    I wonder what was going on, but it occurs to me that now I could concievably actually back out
    the errors, and figure the thing out.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  2. So that's only about 2400 pages! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A far cry from the 6,000 pages for OOXML ..

  3. 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 10scjed · · Score: 5, Informative
      Not that Open...

      Some of the Microsoft protocols include patented inventions, and others do not. You may benefit from a patent license if you are distributing implementations of these protocols commercially or if you use an implementation of any of the protocols covered by Microsoft patents. For more information, contact the Microsoft Open Protocols Team.

      Check out the patent maps here

      --
      --10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
    2. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by KokorHekkus · · Score: 5, Informative
      To be fair, the article also adds:

      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, according to Microsoft's Patent Pledge for Open Source Developers.

    3. 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
    4. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but at least they offer the appearance of wanting to feel like changing...

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:How freaking "open" of them... by jsebrech · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. 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.)

    7. 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.
  4. interesting... by AmaDaden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Did anyone else notice this is coming out on the first business day at MS that is Gates free...?

  5. I think the real question by bragolach · · Score: 5, Funny

    is WHEN are they going to release the source code to the Flight Sim in Excel 98?

    1. Re:I think the real question by MiniMike · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's actually hidden in the released documents. You have to go to a specific page of the Excel portion, and by starting at a specific line and skipping the correct numbers of lines between read lines, the spec will be revealed. The exact details are left as an exercise for the morbidly curious.

  6. Chicken and Egg by BobNET · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only problem? They released them in Word format...

    (Okay, not really -- someone must have realized that that would be silly.)

  7. are we clear ? by rs232 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Crystal clear to me .. :)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  8. Re:By following the links.... by temcat · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been dissected and shown to promise nothing - because it's impossible to clearly see what exactly the "necessary claims" are, and because useful implementation of the spec without the "merely referenced" stuff may be impossible.