... 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?"
Just In
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.
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.
Certainly sounds like it to me.
What a dumb idea. Why have standards at all then?
What a dumb idea. Why have standards at all then?
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.
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.
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?
... 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!
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!
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 :P
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 :P
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.
If this group delayed, some software might in fact go on sale prior to a standards change.
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.
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.
... 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?
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?
... 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.
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.
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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
When, as in this case, the standard arises from the software's functionality, then having the software comply with an unchanging standard would prevent change in the software. The horse is the software and the cart the standard.
That said, I think that Microsoft will not try to gain advantage by concealed formats. If Office is declared a monopoly, and that doesn't seem difficult, then preventing use of formats would draw attention. Especially now that the company has acknowledged standard-setting.
At one time, Microsoft also gained advantage from pressuring OEMs to ignore operating systems other than Windows. That time has passed, if not the advantages. Format control is a similar obsolete idea, I think.
That said, I think that Microsoft will not try to gain advantage by concealed formats. If Office is declared a monopoly, and that doesn't seem difficult, then preventing use of formats would draw attention. Especially now that the company has acknowledged standard-setting.
At one time, Microsoft also gained advantage from pressuring OEMs to ignore operating systems other than Windows. That time has passed, if not the advantages. Format control is a similar obsolete idea, I think.
"standard arises from the software's functionality." Don't you mean "the software's functionality must comply with the standard"?
The standard is simply a set of rules for the structure of the data: the file. It's more like the tail wagging the dog if you try to say the software dictates what form the data is.
If what you say is true, how come Microsoft didn't simply release the NTFS spec a LONG time ago?
The standard is simply a set of rules for the structure of the data: the file. It's more like the tail wagging the dog if you try to say the software dictates what form the data is.
If what you say is true, how come Microsoft didn't simply release the NTFS spec a LONG time ago?
Is there any question that OOXML is a standard because of the potential requirement by customers that Office software purchased use "open" standards?
Is there any question that IBM and other Microsoft competitors and antagonists fought so hard and expensively to prevent OOXML's designation as a standard because of the potential to diminish Office's market share by such requirements?
Is there any question that OOXML is as it is because of the way Office software works?
Microsoft may be past using formats as a means to gain market share, but the company now resists having formats used as a ploy against it.
OOXML is not a standard set as the perfection of document formats. It's "open" as a political response to a political attack.
OBie, you don't usually uphold ideals against realities. Why do so on this issue?
Is there any question that IBM and other Microsoft competitors and antagonists fought so hard and expensively to prevent OOXML's designation as a standard because of the potential to diminish Office's market share by such requirements?
Is there any question that OOXML is as it is because of the way Office software works?
Microsoft may be past using formats as a means to gain market share, but the company now resists having formats used as a ploy against it.
OOXML is not a standard set as the perfection of document formats. It's "open" as a political response to a political attack.
OBie, you don't usually uphold ideals against realities. Why do so on this issue?
Or do you expect that Microsoft will be required to await outside approval before improving the software?
I absolutely expect that MS be required to wait, not for outside "approval" but for the standards bodies to approve proposed changes to international standards. If MS has such mega-brilliant ideas then they can submit those ideas to ISO/IEC for approval. (MS has proven that they can hijack/manipulate the ISO adoption process; no need to worry that MS will somehow fail to manipulate the maintenance process.)
Anton, the whole point of having standards is that everyone gets on the same page. If MS wants to play nice with the world computing community, including the 95%+ office suite market share that they have, then doing the DIS29500 ramrod and subsequently abandoning that standard in the name of "improving the software" would just be plain silly. The best way to handle the situation where there's a big need to improve the software (and thus improve/change the standard) would be to submit proposed standard changes to SC34. If OOXML is so great then it should be extensible in ways ODF is not and should be "improveable" for lack of a better term. Improving software and improving standards should in no way be mutually exclusive processes. One may occur at a different pace than the other, but that certainly won't justify abandoning a standard in the name if improved software, IMHO. After saying all that, there is this question: will MS even come up with realistic software improvements to MS Office that require it to abandon 29500 (or make proprietary sub-sections thereof)? If so then that would prove what most OSSers believe: MS is dishonest and does not have its users' needs at heart.
Standards are designed to prevent vendor lock-in. MS can prove by its behavior that it believes MS Office has earned its market share by being the best available office suite, not because of shenanigans or monopolism that promote vendor lock-in.
Bottom line: you don't need to abandon good standards in order to improve software. If MS abandons IS29500 then that tells you all you need to know about the quality of OOXML as an international standard.
-MC
I absolutely expect that MS be required to wait, not for outside "approval" but for the standards bodies to approve proposed changes to international standards. If MS has such mega-brilliant ideas then they can submit those ideas to ISO/IEC for approval. (MS has proven that they can hijack/manipulate the ISO adoption process; no need to worry that MS will somehow fail to manipulate the maintenance process.)
Anton, the whole point of having standards is that everyone gets on the same page. If MS wants to play nice with the world computing community, including the 95%+ office suite market share that they have, then doing the DIS29500 ramrod and subsequently abandoning that standard in the name of "improving the software" would just be plain silly. The best way to handle the situation where there's a big need to improve the software (and thus improve/change the standard) would be to submit proposed standard changes to SC34. If OOXML is so great then it should be extensible in ways ODF is not and should be "improveable" for lack of a better term. Improving software and improving standards should in no way be mutually exclusive processes. One may occur at a different pace than the other, but that certainly won't justify abandoning a standard in the name if improved software, IMHO. After saying all that, there is this question: will MS even come up with realistic software improvements to MS Office that require it to abandon 29500 (or make proprietary sub-sections thereof)? If so then that would prove what most OSSers believe: MS is dishonest and does not have its users' needs at heart.
Standards are designed to prevent vendor lock-in. MS can prove by its behavior that it believes MS Office has earned its market share by being the best available office suite, not because of shenanigans or monopolism that promote vendor lock-in.
Bottom line: you don't need to abandon good standards in order to improve software. If MS abandons IS29500 then that tells you all you need to know about the quality of OOXML as an international standard.
-MC
Let's say that Microsoft's competitors and antagonists continue to believe that "open" document format standards are a means to reduce Office's market share by bureaucratic means. So they continue to oppose the company's efforts regarding standardization of the formats.
And let's further hypothesize that Microsoft is about to issue a new version of Office with features that the company believes will encourage people and organizations to replace their older versions. Such features may be assumed to require changes to the formats.
So the situation being considered is what Microsoft would do if the company's opponents attempt to prevent approval of the changes, and can be expected to achieve a delay.
Will Microsoft delay the availability of the new version or issue it with the expectation that the changes will eventually be approved when the resistance is overcome?
My speculation is that the company will obtain the additional revenue associated with the new version as soon as possible. Just as the company did not stop sales of the most recent version of Office while the standards process "worked". And is still continuing to sell Office even though the standard as submitted has been changed.
That's not abandoning the standard, but responding - or not - to the timing of approval.
And let's further hypothesize that Microsoft is about to issue a new version of Office with features that the company believes will encourage people and organizations to replace their older versions. Such features may be assumed to require changes to the formats.
So the situation being considered is what Microsoft would do if the company's opponents attempt to prevent approval of the changes, and can be expected to achieve a delay.
Will Microsoft delay the availability of the new version or issue it with the expectation that the changes will eventually be approved when the resistance is overcome?
My speculation is that the company will obtain the additional revenue associated with the new version as soon as possible. Just as the company did not stop sales of the most recent version of Office while the standards process "worked". And is still continuing to sell Office even though the standard as submitted has been changed.
That's not abandoning the standard, but responding - or not - to the timing of approval.
You do have the most amazing ability to accentuate the shame of mankind with your logic that I have ever seen!
No telling how many minds you have muddled with your rhetoric. Careful you don't let it effect your own too much, and wind up arguing with yourself in your mirror.
No telling how many minds you have muddled with your rhetoric. Careful you don't let it effect your own too much, and wind up arguing with yourself in your mirror.
The real question is whether Office 2007 will be updated to comply with the standard, or whether an upgrade will be needed.
They have not yet changed Office to keep up with spec changes negotiated during the ISO standardization process. They have long ago made announcements regarding this and their plans for bringing it into compliance.
I can't decide which was more stupid, performing this test on the currently shipping Office product, or trying to hype pointless results as some kind of newsworthy tripe...
I can't decide which was more stupid, performing this test on the currently shipping Office product, or trying to hype pointless results as some kind of newsworthy tripe...
I can't believe anyone thought MS 9or anyone) could have re-written the code everyday to keep up with the changes that occured during negotiations.
Given that they can't even write a decent standard spec, it's no wonder they don't want anyone to see their source, stolen IP and all aside
I mean you say it so easily SURELY you have some sort of proof, right?
There's the coverity studies (which included looking at Microsoft code) that showed a pretty horrific error rate. That would be an indicator to a lousy codebase.
As to other's IP in Microsoft products, well, there's the court cases where they've settled and/or licensed code they've "accidentally borrowed." My personal favourite memory on that is the attempted complete and total rip off of BlueJ code. Oh yes, it's more than likely given the number of times Microsoft has been caught with other's IP that there's a lot more to be "discovered" in their code.
Ta Da! Evidence for you. Not that you'd believe it even if you were paying Microsoft's fine/settlements personally. Ah well.
As to other's IP in Microsoft products, well, there's the court cases where they've settled and/or licensed code they've "accidentally borrowed." My personal favourite memory on that is the attempted complete and total rip off of BlueJ code. Oh yes, it's more than likely given the number of times Microsoft has been caught with other's IP that there's a lot more to be "discovered" in their code.
Ta Da! Evidence for you. Not that you'd believe it even if you were paying Microsoft's fine/settlements personally. Ah well.
... what was stupid was forcing through a standard to get your products accepted as an ISO standard without ensuring that your products met the standard in the first place.
Second place in the "dumbness" strategy was producing a standard so complex and convoluted that the ISO committee had to change it thus ensuring your products were out of spec.
This outcome is just the latest event in a catalogue of stupidity triumphing over commonsense.
Second place in the "dumbness" strategy was producing a standard so complex and convoluted that the ISO committee had to change it thus ensuring your products were out of spec.
This outcome is just the latest event in a catalogue of stupidity triumphing over commonsense.
Tell me what software was in 100% compliance with ODF when it was made a standard? Please start with "accesibility".
Uh huh, thought so...
Maybe he got busy doing his job and couldn't come back out to play?
Doesn't matter whether all the software makers complied with ODF, first crack out of the box, or not: they didn't developed the spec. OOXML is Microsoft's spec to begin with so why wouldn't their software comply with it?
You need to git yer head screwed on straight, Axey: MS Office ain't the STANDARD, OOXML is. OOXML (or, Ecma 376) has been available since December of 2006, and my understanding is that DIS 29500 didn't make any substantive changes to it, why couldn't we expect MS Office 2007 to comply with it?
Doesn't matter whether all the software makers complied with ODF, first crack out of the box, or not: they didn't developed the spec. OOXML is Microsoft's spec to begin with so why wouldn't their software comply with it?
You need to git yer head screwed on straight, Axey: MS Office ain't the STANDARD, OOXML is. OOXML (or, Ecma 376) has been available since December of 2006, and my understanding is that DIS 29500 didn't make any substantive changes to it, why couldn't we expect MS Office 2007 to comply with it?
.
.
or that change, the latest Office poducts must be updated at the same time.
Or you wait until the standard is agreed upon, then change the software once to compmly
Or you wait until the standard is agreed upon, then change the software once to compmly
ISO doesn't tell anyone to do anything. They work on the standards (hopefully making them better), and then you can choose or not to become "ISO certified" or whatever that process is called.
You meant before Microsoft kidnapped the ISO, didn't you?
No that it belongs to Microsoft, they can make it do anything they want it to.
No that it belongs to Microsoft, they can make it do anything they want it to.
Software programs allow users to manipulate documents. The format of the document is now expected to follow an ISO format. This doesn't inhibit a wide class of software improvements. Microsoft can work to improve the user interface, reduce memory footprint, improve scalability and make all sorts of other product improvements without altering the document format.
Like you, I am not surprised that Office doesn't yet produce clean OOXML. I would expect that Microsoft will be able to produce patches that will improve OOXML conformance, just as browsers are able to improve standards conformance in patches (e.g. look at the improving Acid 2/3 conformance scores in Firefox 3). So, it is quite feasible that Microsoft can be working to improve their OOXML conformance.
I remain skeptical that Microsoft wants to implement ISO's OOXML cleanly, but I would love to be proven wrong.
Like you, I am not surprised that Office doesn't yet produce clean OOXML. I would expect that Microsoft will be able to produce patches that will improve OOXML conformance, just as browsers are able to improve standards conformance in patches (e.g. look at the improving Acid 2/3 conformance scores in Firefox 3). So, it is quite feasible that Microsoft can be working to improve their OOXML conformance.
I remain skeptical that Microsoft wants to implement ISO's OOXML cleanly, but I would love to be proven wrong.
You know, the one that actually works with the standard, and can be compared with it.
Office 2k7 sure isn't it, so who's going to build one?
Office 2k7 sure isn't it, so who's going to build one?
and many technical problems identified were rolled up to be addressed by the "standardisation process" that somehow happens *after* OOXML has been declared a standard...???
So it's going to be a long time before there's a fixed target to implement to let alone a reference implementation.
(and even then, it will be a gargantuan pig to implement the full standard).
Even after spending lots of money to implement this, the feature set will be no greater than ODF.... so why?
OOXML is *still* nonsense, and always will be.
So it's going to be a long time before there's a fixed target to implement to let alone a reference implementation.
(and even then, it will be a gargantuan pig to implement the full standard).
Even after spending lots of money to implement this, the feature set will be no greater than ODF.... so why?
OOXML is *still* nonsense, and always will be.
You just gave away the reason why from governments on down shouldn't (won't!?) accept OXML as it currently is. There's no way of showing that a document can be saved/retrieved using it.
It puts them in a hard place, where they may want to use OXML (for good/bad/ugly reasons), but won't (I hope) until it gets fixed. Mind you, sanity and clear thinking about standards compliance isn't necessarily going to take place in all this.
It puts them in a hard place, where they may want to use OXML (for good/bad/ugly reasons), but won't (I hope) until it gets fixed. Mind you, sanity and clear thinking about standards compliance isn't necessarily going to take place in all this.
Just fill in the details and the story is complete.
All the more reason that ODF is the real and open standard.
ODF and OOXML are both standards, and both are real. Requiring documents to confrom to the standards are decisions that will be made by governments, and other private organizations.
One organization could decide the only ODF documents will be accepted, while another could decide that only OOXML will ge accepted.
The norm will probably be that both will be accepted.
We as consumers win because no matter which format we decide to use, we will be able to exchange our documents with others.
One organization could decide the only ODF documents will be accepted, while another could decide that only OOXML will ge accepted.
The norm will probably be that both will be accepted.
We as consumers win because no matter which format we decide to use, we will be able to exchange our documents with others.
That there appears to be something like a reference implementation for ODF, while there isn't such a beasty in the OXML space. Note that Office2k7 is pointed at pre-ISO acceptance, and there's no sign that it's being updated, or being turned into something that can produce OXMl as it stands.
Most of the revisions brought to OOXML during the ballot were in fact drafted by ECMA and Microsoft, to answer all the comments ISO made to the initial standardization attempt. As such, Microsoft itself made the corrections to the now standard.
But then, they 'forgot' to implement the corrections in their software. Maybe they're waiting for the next service pack?
Still, this leaves other editors in a bind: should they implement OOXML 'the Microsoft way', or implement it like the norm describes it? Thing is, doing the latter means that files from MS Office won't be opened by the import filter, and that MS Office won't be able to open OOXML-compliant files created by the other office suites.
Case in point: OpenOffice.org Novell edition currently uses a soft-linked converter based on Microsoft's original format, but upstream's implementation is going slowly because it's based on the norm - and no standard-compliant files already exist. They're not even trying to create an export filter, saving everything as ODF instead - which is still an ISO standard. Microsoft's suite and plugin can't even open ODF correctly (while the independent free implementation does just that).
About conforming with standards: each and every new release of OpenOffice.org and KOffice (the two earliest, major independent implementations of ODF) improve standard compliance and implementation details. This comes at the price that files created with these later versions may not be reliably opened on earlier versions, but then it's not as if you can't update your version (StarOffice updates are free, too).
But then, they 'forgot' to implement the corrections in their software. Maybe they're waiting for the next service pack?
Still, this leaves other editors in a bind: should they implement OOXML 'the Microsoft way', or implement it like the norm describes it? Thing is, doing the latter means that files from MS Office won't be opened by the import filter, and that MS Office won't be able to open OOXML-compliant files created by the other office suites.
Case in point: OpenOffice.org Novell edition currently uses a soft-linked converter based on Microsoft's original format, but upstream's implementation is going slowly because it's based on the norm - and no standard-compliant files already exist. They're not even trying to create an export filter, saving everything as ODF instead - which is still an ISO standard. Microsoft's suite and plugin can't even open ODF correctly (while the independent free implementation does just that).
About conforming with standards: each and every new release of OpenOffice.org and KOffice (the two earliest, major independent implementations of ODF) improve standard compliance and implementation details. This comes at the price that files created with these later versions may not be reliably opened on earlier versions, but then it's not as if you can't update your version (StarOffice updates are free, too).
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
