... and somehow the software will not produce the changed format. This was one of the easier test results to predict. The key paragraph:
As changes were made at an ISO ballot resolution meeting, Office 2007 documents no longer conform to the current standard based on OOXML, known as ISO/IEC 29500, according to Brown.
[End quote.]
We might in future also expect situations in which Microsoft changes the software/formats and the standard is not changed as quickly.
Or do you expect that Microsoft will be required to await outside approval before improving the software?
Microsoft Office 2007 fails OOXML conformance test
Summary
Now that Office Open XML is on its way to becoming an international standard, it could be leaving Microsoft behind.
Topics
Word documents generated by today's version of Microsoft Office 2007 do not conform to the Office Open XML standard under development by the International Organization for Standardization, according to tests run by a document standards specialist.
In a blog posting this week, Alex Brown, leader of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) group in charge of maintaining the Office Open XML (OOXML) standard, revealed that Microsoft Office 2007 documents do not meet the latest specifications of the ISO OOXML draft standard.
"Word documents generated by today's version of Microsoft Office 2007 do not conform to ISO/IEC 29500," said Brown in a blog post recounting the process of testing a document against the "strict" and "transitional" schema defined in the standard.
Microsoft Office 2007 saves files in OOXML, an XML-based format, which has been offered for standardization through the Ecma industry body to the ISO. Since a vote narrowly accepted OOXML as a draft international standard, ISO is now in control of the specification.
As changes were made at an ISO ballot resolution meeting, Office 2007 documents no longer conform to the current standard based on OOXML, known as ISO/IEC 29500, according to Brown.
In a statement sent to ZDNet.co.uk on Friday, Brown said that, although he was hopeful that Microsoft will update its Office products to stay in line with the version of OOXML approved by ISO, it is not guaranteed. "The question behind the question, for a lot of the current OOXML debate, seems to be: can Microsoft really be trusted to behave? We shall see," said Brown.
Commentators, including Tim Bray, the inventor of XML, have suggested that Microsoft is unlikely to bother to keep conformant with the OOXML standard as it develops within ISO, but Brown was more optimistic: "Given Microsoft's proven ability to tinker with the Office XML file format between service packs, I am hoping that Microsoft Office will shortly be brought into line with the [ISO/IEC] 29500 specification, and will stay that way," he said. "Indeed, a strong motivation for approving 29500 as an ISO/IEC standard was to discourage Microsoft from this kind of file-format rug-pulling stunt in future."
Brown added that Microsoft has probably realized that there may be considerable commercial advantages to becoming a good citizen in the standards community. "Actively working to make OOXML an internationally informed standard will help them to retain their considerable share of the desktop office space, as this removes objections to Office having a proprietary, vendor-controlled format," he said.
In future, Brown hopes to repeat the test to see if the open-source alternative to Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, conforms with the Open Source Initiative (OSI) version of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) document standard--ISO/IEC 26300. He asked: "Will anyone be brave enough to predict what kind of result that exercise will have?"
Talkback Most Recent of 46 Talkback(s)
-
Anton Philidor21st Apr 2008 -
Which was...
Entirely predictable, in that Office would not be compliant with OXML. It wasn't compliant in the form it was at the time of submission, and it wasn't likely to become magically compliant in the days after.
Also, to a large extent the whole point of the people who were/are opposed to OXML becoming a standard was that Microsoft would make changes faster than the standard (and other document software products) could adapt. Basically the opponents do not want another "Frontpage/IE/Netscape extension war." That was lame back then, and this shows all the signs of being even more lame.
It remains for Microsoft to pleasantly surprise the world, or not.
zkiwi21st Apr 2008 -
Make the ISO standard conform to Microsoft's code base you mean?
Certainly sounds like it to me.
What a dumb idea. Why have standards at all then?
fr0thy221st Apr 2008 -
Informative
I expect that Microsoft's efforts to improve future versions of Office will require changes to the formats. And because of rules and because of the requirements of third-party developers!, Microsoft will change the standard to match.
The process should be comparatively quick.
You wouldn't expect Microsoft to forego improving Office or wait to receive financial returns until a (sluggish) procedure had been completed, would you?
Though absence of change may be an advantage for some standards, other standards, those significant to a competitive market, should be changed to respond to changes in the software.Anton Philidor21st Apr 2008 -
So...
What of the expected "we'll look at improvement, get a concensus, update the standard and then implement" flow that is expected with standards? Are you saying that Microsoft are going to rush off and leave the standard to catch up if it can?zkiwi21st Apr 2008 -
More likely...
... they'll ignore the standard, simply tick the "ISO compliant" box in any tenders and shout down anyone who dares to suggest that they don't meet the standard they themselves forced through.
This isn't new, look at this
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/18/microsoft-flagship-flounders
"The council decided Microsoft's flagship government contract failed to demonstrate its value, four years after it was signed.
The revelation will be a boon to the open source movement after years of being faced down in the public sector by the shining example of Newham, which chose Microsoft over open source on the strength of a cut-rate deal and a report commissioned by [Microsoft] itself."
MS recommended itself, promised improvements, took the money and ran.... a quality deal from a quality company. Not!
bportlock21st Apr 2008 -
Well...
I guess a promise isn't a promise any more (if it ever was). A few more incidents like this and Microsoft will find it has shut itself out of a few places.
Time for reminiscing. I know I've had major arguments with marketing over what they promised and what I said could be delivered. I learned very quickly from that to "prime the pump" with estimates that would survive marketing "shrinkage." It made me look scary good to them, as I was always able to make it look like the code monkeys were slaving on overtime to get it all done on marketing time, when in fact they were doing more interesting things. A win-win, ah the good old days :Pzkiwi21st Apr 2008 -
Observing the forms.
The standards committee should be appropriately responsive. A majority of one consisting of Beelzebub of IBM, Pazuzu of the FSF, Michael of Microsoft, and Huitzilopochtli of Sun (an expert on sacrifices) would not consider maintaining Microsoft's market share a priority.
If this group delayed, some software might in fact go on sale prior to a standards change.Anton Philidor21st Apr 2008 -
Michael? Don't you mean...
Lucifer's not so nice puppy?
That being said, then you appear to agree that Microsoft will just tootle off and do their own thing regardless of where OXML is. So, what a monstrous waste of time this all was.
I wonder what the EC will fine them for that stunt (presuming they even allow it to be considered as a standard for the EC). ISO/ECMA isn't a guarantee that anyone uses it, or certifies that it should be used.zkiwi21st Apr 2008 -
I like the way you imply that ...
... MS if a quick innovator with no time to waste waiting for standards bodies.
Yup, they're so quick that they stuffed a new interface and some DRM into XP in what, six years or so? Brilliant for a company with unlimited resources don't you think?fr0thy221st Apr 2008 -
If you mean Vista...
... that product was completed in only two and a quarter years, per Mr. Allchin. Much of the remainder of the time after XP issuance was taken by SP 2.
And then much of the Vista effort was taken with code improvements. Remarkable that the final product proved so successful.
Also, the formats being considered apply to Office, which has been issued on schedule. Mr. Sinofsky's posting to Windows is probably not a coincidence.
Might not seem possible, but Office has been bringing proportionately at least as much increased revenue to Microsoft as Vista. Having found what the public wants, Microsoft will probably be anxious to provide people with more.Anton Philidor21st Apr 2008 -
"Having found what the public wants"
Microsoft are not about what the public want, they're about chucking out whatever they want that will make them the most money.
"And then much of the Vista effort was taken with code improvements. Remarkable that the final product proved so successful."
Come off it Anton, they wouldn't even be mentioning Windows 7 yet if that were true.
Fair play though, if people are willing to chuck money away and risk their data on a "work in progress" OS, MS is right on the button ready to vacuum it all up
fr0thy221st Apr 2008 -
Congruent interests
If people are not compelled to buy new versions of Microsoft products by intimidation, then the only way for Microsoft to make more money is to encourage voluntary purchase.
So when you write:
[Microsoft are] about chucking out whatever they want that will make them the most money.
... you're agreeing with me.
And Vista has been said to be second only to XP in acceptance, and that prior to issue of SP 1. Many organizations have an unalterable policy of waiting for SP 1, so a new onrush of purchases is likely.
The first reassurance from Microsoft about Windows 7 was that it would not be issued out-of-cycle as the company thinks of it. Meaning no worry about shoring up sales.
As you know from chess, one tries to think of his opponent's best moves, not the move that would be most pleasing. Glad as you might be for a Vista failure, I don't think that's a correct analysis.Anton Philidor21st Apr 2008 -
You forgot to mention...
Inertia. People keep buying what they always have without necessarily any real reason for doing so.
Also, format lock-in. If Microsoft just goes off on its own as it has tended to then there is no point in ever saying you wanted open document standards if you think you want to use Microsoft Office. Try and remember how screwed up the Web is because of IE only sites even to this day.zkiwi21st Apr 2008 -
LOL! Classic cart before the horse:
SOFTWARE needs to comply with the STANDARDS, not the other way around!
(Hint: this is so OTHER software can work with the same files created by the applications built by your handlers up in Redmond, Anton.)
If your software doesn't work with the current, approved STANDARD, it ain't compliant with the STANDARD.
Jeesh.
OButterball21st Apr 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
