Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Office 2007SP2 ODF Interoperability Very Bad

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the are-you-really-surprised dept.

David Gerard writes "Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 claims support for ODF 1.1. With hard work and careful thinking, they have successfully achieved technical compliance but zero interoperability! MSO 2007sp2 won't read ODF 1.1 from any other existing application, and its ODF is only readable by the CleverAge plugin. The post goes into detail as to how it manages this so thoroughly."

37 of 627 comments (clear)

  1. What did we expect? by TechForensics · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, really?

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    1. Re:What did we expect? by Vanders · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes but Microsoft said that it'd be different this time and they've changed, they really have, and they don't mean to hurt you but baby you just don't understand that when you can't keep your pretty little mouth shut then sometimes need a slap for your own good.

      I might be confusing Microsoft with a wife beater, but the mentality is roughly the same it seems.

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    2. Re:What did we expect? by impaledsunset · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If it achieves 100% technical compliance with the standard, but zero interoperability, this is certainly a problem with the standard itself.

      And the problem in this case is the missing formula specification. It's not in ODF 1.1, and ODF 1.2 is still a draft. While this is Microsoft and we all "know" that this was intentional, ODF is what should be fixed first. We were all bashing OOXML specifications, but ODF 1.1's far from perfect, as we can see.

      Did the author of the article test with anything else than a spreadsheet with formulas? Formula breakage was expected and mentioned in the comments to the previous article. The interesting part is are there other flaws with ODF 1.1, are they addressed by 1.2?

    3. Re:What did we expect? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I might be confusing Microsoft with a wife beater, but the mentality is roughly the same it seems.

      What do you tell a user with two black eyes?

      (I propose that the answer is "Did you really think Apple was different from Microsoft?" but that might not win me too many points around here. The converse would work almost as well, but nobody would have believed that Microsoft was the good guys.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:What did we expect? by Vanders · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you really think Apple was different from Microsoft?

      That's unfair. Apple have never made an iWorks product intentionally produce a broken ODF document! *cough*

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    5. Re:What did we expect? by EvilAlphonso · · Score: 5, Informative

      nobody would have believed that Microsoft was the good guys.

      Actually there was a time when Microsoft was hailed as the white knight in the shiny armor freeing us from the evil IBM empire.

    6. Re:What did we expect? by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Funny

      What do you tell a user with two black eyes?

      Nothing. He's already been told twice.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    7. Re:What did we expect? by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, that depends on who you talk to. Here in the US, that's probably true. Pretty much it's up to Europe to send the lawyers back in.

      But, there is a comment at the end of the article to check for an obvious abuse:

      The only way for Microsoft to make their legacy ODF documents work and to exclude other vendors would be to specifically look in the document for the name of the application that created the documentThis should be simple to test with a text editor, change the name of the application to match one that works and test that.

      Since I don't have access to Office 2007 until I get home tonight, I can't try this out. But if someone feels compelled in the meantime, I'd love to see the results. If the document "magically" works after changing the header, then Microsoft did *not* do enough to keep the lawyers at bay.

    8. Re:What did we expect? by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually there was a time when Microsoft was hailed as the white knight in the shiny armor freeing us from the evil IBM empire.

      Yeah but that was ~twenty years ago, which is like two hundred in do^H^H computer years.

      Since then Lancelot has screwed the king's wife and is off in the wilderness slowly going insane.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    9. Re:What did we expect? by mevets · · Score: 5, Insightful

      | Actually there was a time when Microsoft was hailed as the white knight in the shiny armor freeing us from the evil IBM empire.

      I've heard this said, but somehow I managed to miss it. I started work in the industry in 87, and had first encountered microsoft probably in 84. Outside of ziff-davis style vanity press, everything about MS was about what crap they were technically and ethically. The white knights were DEC, BSD, Borland, Commodore, ...

    10. Re:What did we expect? by mhesd · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article:

      The irony here is that the formula language used by OpenOffice (and by other vendors) is based on that used by Excel, which itself was not fully documented when OpenOffice implemented it. So an argument, by Microsoft, not to support that language because it is not documented is rather hypocritical. Excel supports 1-2-3 files and formulas and legacy Excel versions (back to Excel 4.0) neither of which have standardized formula languages. Why are these supported? Also, the fact that the Microsoft/CleverAge add-in correctly reads and writes the legacy ODF formula syntax shows not only that it can be done, but that Microsoft already has the code to do it. The inexplicably thing is why that code never made it into Excel 2007 SP2.

    11. Re:What did we expect? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Who wants to target a moving standard?"

      Software Engineers. It is what we do for a living.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:What did we expect? by Locutus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually there was a time when Microsoft was hailed as the white knight in the shiny armor freeing us from the evil IBM empire.

      I've heard this said, but somehow I managed to miss it. I started work in the industry in 87, and had first encountered microsoft probably in 84. Outside of ziff-davis style vanity press, everything about MS was about what crap they were technically and ethically. The white knights were DEC, BSD, Borland, Commodore, ...

      It was pretty obvious to many techies by the early 90s that Microsoft software was crap. The printed press was one of its tools and perpetuated the myth that companies would be better off with Microsoft. By 1995 it was getting out to a more general crowd how bad Microsoft was but these people still required having their eyes and minds open. Considering where they are today, it's obvious many are still pretty ignorant to their business practices and technology in general. By 1995, even the author, Douglas Adams saw this:

      Microsofthttp://www.gksoft.com/a/fun/dna-on-microsoft.html

      Here's a quote from the end of that short article:
      "The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all his customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who by peddling second-hand, second-rate technology, led them all into it in the first place."

      Over $200 million in marketing spent on Window 95 and about the same amount the following year pushing NT as _the_ server OS suckered in enough to seal their position in the market. That seal is leaking now but unfortunately, the general population of computer users and IT execs are mostly just as naive as they were in the early 1990s. It's the OEM's who are driving the market now because of very low margins and the high relative cost of Microsoft software.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    13. Re:What did we expect? by Vegard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yah. The real heros bringing us the PC revolution was the guys reverse engineering the hardware/BIOS, and made cheap clones. The OS was just what became the de facto standard.

      As we all know, DOS won over CP/M. CP/M was technically superior at the time, but lost for political and/or contract reasons, whatever.

      Digital Research then went on to create a better DOS to compete. MS fought it with all means it could, and it went into oblivition.

      At early stages, MS Windows was just a graphical shell on top of DOS. It wasn't particulary good either. There were competing graphical shells, for example Digital Research' GEM. Digital Research lost the patent lawsuit that MS essentially won, and GEM was limited to have only two windows simultaneously...who knows what it could have been.

      MS has not had the technical best/superior solutions at any time. It was just better at legal and marketing stuff than anyone else.

      The PC revolution would have come with or without MS. We'll never know how much innovation MS have killed on its way where it is, so to hail it as a savior is just plain stupid.

  2. Problem with the Spec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, this is either a problem with the specification or a problem with other implementations. If MS has made a compliant program, who are we to complain?

  3. Which means it won't get used.... by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...which is probably the point of this. The only reason to use ODF instead of MS native formats is for interoperability. When people don't use it, MS can point and say "see people don't want or need it and didn't care when we put it in". Useful at all manner of legal proceeding (antitrust anyone) to show that it's not important.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  4. I'm shocked! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    MS, a for-profit company, refuses to embrace a format that gives an advantage to their open-source free competitors? Surely not!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Re:I just hope by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't. All they will see is the ODF box checked off.

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
  6. The article speaks about spreadsheets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article speaks about spreadsheets, which the slashdot blurb neglected to mention.

  7. Unfinished sayings by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the trouble with people saying the first half of a saying and then trailing off. The people who know the saying get the point, and the people who don't remember a fragment and repeat it even though it makes no sense on its own.

    To the people tagging this "embraceandextend". Embracing and extending is not a particularly bad thing to do. Many formats, including XML (upon which ODF is based), are built with this in mind. The complete saying that is referred to with "embrace and extend" is embrace, extend and extinguish . The extinguishing is the goal here, the former two are merely tools to help them achieve this.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  8. Everybody pile on Microsoft... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the meantime, how the HELL is it possible the spec is so bad that you can be technically-compliant with it, and yet not be read by (almost) any existing implementation?

    --
    Comment of the year
    1. Re:Everybody pile on Microsoft... by Vanders · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The current spec doesn't cover spreadsheet formulas: it has a big whole and basically says "Do what OpenOffice.org does for now". ODF 1.2 will cover spreadsheet formulas but it isn't finished yet. So yes, it is valid to say "Well the spec doesn't cover formulas, not Microsofts fault".

      Except...Microsoft already have a perfectly good plugin that can read & write ODF documents. It appears they've gone out of their way to break that existing code and do things differently to how everyone else (including themselves) are already doing things. As the author of the blog says "If your business model requires only conformance and not actually achieving interoperability, then I wish you well.".

      If Microsoft have put all that effort into adding ODF support without actually achieving interoperability then it's a thinly veiled paper exercise on their part.

      --
      Syllable : It's an Operating System
    2. Re:Everybody pile on Microsoft... by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Self-replying, I know, but I just thought of something else.

      According to TFS, Office fails to load ODF files created by any other application. If those files are compliant with ODF standards, the blame for this lies squarely on Microsoft. They fail to open standards-compliant ODF files.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  9. Re:Really? by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, from the article: "First, we might hear that ODF 1.1 does not define spreadsheet formulas and therefore it is not necessary for one vendor to use the same formula language that other vendors use."

    Seems like a rather large hole in the spec itself. ODF 1.1 doesn't define spreedsheet forumlas? So, what version will? I wouldn't put any effort into guess, nor making my application read various other vendor formats.. when I may well have to recode again when 1.2 comes out.

    If anyone's to blame here, it's the ODF people for not having a COMPLETE spec. If formulas are so important to spreadsheets (and they are), why the hell would your spec not include how to store said forumlas?

  10. Re:Never ascribe to malice... by jkrise · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

    Of course, I am not that cynical. I was taught to never assume malice where incompetence would be the simpler explanation. But the degree of incompetence needed to explain SP2's poor ODF support boggles the mind and leads me to further uncharitable thoughts. So I must stop here.

    from the referenced article....
    http://www.robweir.com/blog/

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  11. Sun ODF plugin for Microsoft Office by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sun's ODF plugin for Office.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  12. holes in the standard by backwardMechanic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No surprise that MS has done this. What it does show, however, is that the ODF standard is incomplete. If MS can write out an ODF compliant file that no-one lese can read, ODF has a problem. In an odd sort of a way, MS are doing us a favour here by shaking out the holes. Role on ODF 1.2.

  13. Agreed ... interoperability harms Microsoft by golodh · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Seriously, Microsoft has a huge cash-cow to protect in MS Office. And the first layer of defense is lock-in. If MS Office were truly inter-operable, then that would remove an enormous barrier against the introduction of Open Office.

    Clearly Microsoft's best interests are served by denying their customers interoperability.

    That's what drives Microsoft's policy: cash. Everything else is PR. Which is duly born out by their actions.

    1. Re:Agreed ... interoperability harms Microsoft by theaveng · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh course. This has always been true with Microsoft, where in the late 80s/early 90s they advertised they could read WordPerfect files from Amigas or Macs, but all it did was strip all the formatting to leave-behind plain text. Yuck. Even later when Word was released for early PowerMacs, I found that Windows Word could not read the Word documents from my Macintosh.

      Microsoft does not want interchanging of information. They want everybody using MS Word on an MS operating system. The end.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Agreed ... interoperability harms Microsoft by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft does not want interchanging of information. They want everybody using MS Word on an MS operating system. The end.

      Every major vendor would probably like their own product to dominate. The difference is not the motivation, but the methods. Some vendors honestly try to make the best product and win customers by so doing. MS prefers to leverage monopolies to artificially break competing products and prevent users from being able to choose based upon the individual merits of the products in question.

      I have no problem with MS wanting their OS and office suite to dominate. I have a problem with their breaking the law and hurting the industry, innovation, and end users to make that happen.

  14. Re:They also claim Windows supports Posix by wild_quinine · · Score: 5, Funny

    As they also claim Microsoft Windows is Posix compliant! It is simply to be able to tic a "mandated" requirement in some government procurement, not as something one would actually use or deploy.

    Ah, I think you might have misread that one. The latest version of Windows is fully compliant with the ISO's 'Piece of Shit v9' standard. POS IX, not POSIX.

  15. Re:They also claim Windows supports Posix by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft Windows is POSIX.1 compliant, which will not help anyone today but which is nonetheless true.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Good point! by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was thinking exactly the same thing. If MS have made a compliant implementation but it isn't compatible with anyone else's, doesn't that mean that ODF is broken? Isn't this exactly the sort of complaint certain people around here have made against Microsoft's own formats in the past: just because there's a standard that officially states what the document format is, it's no use if other people can't realistically implement it and then trust that interoperability will work?

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  17. Re:Really? by rekoil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In order to claim (in a legalistic sense) technical compliance with the spec in order to be able to sell Office to companies/governments who have adopted policies requiring this, while at the same time making it virtually impossible for those organizations to actually USE a competing office product.

  18. Re:They also claim Windows supports Posix by OrangeTide · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well if you just go for the basic level of posix support, then yes it does support it. So does 100 other OSes, including weird embedded OSes that can't even run executables. Everything has to be compiled in, but they are "POSIX" too.

    To be far UNIX Services for Windows is pretty decent and gives you a very complete POSIX environment on Windows.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  19. Counter-adage by SteveFoerster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's another saying, and one that I think better applies here: "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is a conspiracy."

    And with Microsoft we're way past three times.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  20. The Microsoft formulas aren't actually conformant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft's supposed ODF 1.1 spreadsheet output is not compliant with the ODF 1.1 specification.

    From 8.1.3 (emphasis mine):

    Typically, the formula itself begins with an equal (=) sign and can include the following components:
    [...]
    Addresses of cells that contain numbers. The addresses can be relative or absolute, see section 8.3.1. Addresses in formulas start with a "[" and end with a "]".

    From 8.3.1 Referencing Table Cells (emphasis mine):

    For example, in a table with the name SampleTable the cell in column 34 and row 16 is referenced by the cell address SampleTable.AH16. In some cases it is not necessary to provide the name of the table. However, the dot must be present. When the table name is not required, the address in the previous example is .AH16.

    Now look at a Microsoft formula in their ODF 1.1 spreadsheets. You'll see a formula attribute value of "msoxl:=B4-B3". For that to be correct per the ODF 1.1 specification, that should be "msoxl:=[.B4]-[.B3]". Compare this to the OpenOffice.org and OpenFormula syntax:

    msoxl:=[.B4]-[.B3]
      oooc:=[.B4]-[.B3]
          of:=[.B4]-[.B3]

    Ignoring the prefix, they're identical. Furthermore, the formula functions used by OpenOffice.org are generally based on the functions in Excel to begin with (such as "TODAY", for example), so I can only conclude that Microsoft is intentionally sabotaging interoperability to keep people from using ODF while still claiming conformance.