Microsoft presses on regardless with OOXML SDK
Summary
OOXML is in the balance as a formal standard, but that's no reason for Microsoft not to launch tools for the document standard.
Topics
OOXML is in the balance as a formal standard, but that's no reason for Microsoft not to launch tools for the document standard. However, the OOXML kit which is on its way could cause confusion, as it won't meet the standard being considered at ISO.
Microsoft will have a beta version of the OOXML SDK next month, and a 1.0 release in May, but that won't include the changes currently on the table at ISO, or any subsequent ones.
This means that people who use the kit to build OOXML functionality into applications, won't comply with the formal standard--if OOXML does become one.
Microsoft says this is good: it will "put Microsoft on the hook to keep your app in line with the OOXML standard" according to Miucrosoft evangelist Doug Mahugh. Which is one way of putting it.
Meanwhile, ZDNet reports that the US is likely to keep its recommendation that OOXML be accepted as a standard. At least that's the view of Mahugh, who is on the committee, and the chair, Patrick Durusau, who also edits the rival OpenDocument standard.Durusau has an interesting take: opponents to OOXML are just being nasty: ""What is puzzling in this day and age of quarterly reports and returns is that any corporate-governance structure would long tolerate spite as a business strategy. Or that investors would stay with companies that follow such strategies," he wrote in a PDF.
Talkback Most Recent of 18 Talkback(s)
-
Excellent!
And yeah, some (MS bashers) will whine, the rest of the world will move ahead.
No_Ax_to_Grind13th Mar 2008 -
"Ahead"
Zooming off into the distance on their new improved Win-FS and DRM free Vista future. LOL. Donkey.
fr0thy@...13th Mar 2008 -
Not necessary
Not beneficial, but nonetheless excellent.
Yeah, bring on the continental kit, mud flaps, raccoon tail, landau roof and by all means those opera glasses. Whoops, silly me, I forgot the fake spoke wheel covers and hood scoop.
Excellent!
Some of the others of us will just stand on the sidelines and chuckle.
IT_User13th Mar 2008 -
No reason to whine
Not having standard formats never stopped them from pushing their formats before, so why should now be any different? They have every right to promote the format they like. And we have every right to judge it on its own merit.
Michael Kelly14th Mar 2008 -
Excellent statement
Microsoft did not get from the garage it started in to the global presence it is now, by following standards. It did so by the merits of the products it developed. I'd consider myself fairly grounded in the MS world, yet I use many non-MS products because of their merits, even over MS products. Saying that there can only be one office document standard is like saying the whole world should speak one language or that all car companies should produce the same cars.
techr@...14th Mar 2008 -
Should there also be more than one inch ?
The one we have is 25.4mm. Should we not have one at say 27mm or 22mm. Oh yes; and a different litre.
hkommedal17th Mar 2008 -
Spite
Can you really call it spite if people oppose a standard that actually contains a company's product's name? Seems like a fair enough objection to me.
theoxygenthief13th Mar 2008 -
I'm Shocked!
Durusau has an interesting take: opponents to OOXML are just being nasty: ""What is puzzling in this day and age of quarterly reports and returns is that any corporate-governance structure would long tolerate spite as a business strategy. Or that investors would stay with companies that follow such strategies," he wrote in a PDF.
How can that be? I thought opponents of OOXML were all thoughtful people, who were only concerned about what's best for the computer industry? Who would have thought that they were spiteful, vindictive people, obsessesed with taking MS down? I must say that I'm totally shocked! Where's my valium!
P. Douglas13th Mar 2008 -
fr0thy@...13th Mar 2008
-
"opponents to OOXML are just being nasty"
Should read : OOXML is just being nasty to opponents.fr0thy@...13th Mar 2008 -
Use minimum verbiage
OOXML=Nasty
Ole Man13th Mar 2008 -
put Microsoft on the hook?
How can you put an elephant on a
minnow hook?
It's obvious, Mahugh and Durusau
(along with Pete) have their palms
greased all the way down to their
toes.
Follow the money. You can't go wrong!Ole Man13th Mar 2008 -
This story is incorrect, according to Microsoft
From Doug Mahugh' Microsoft blog this morning:
"Compliant with the final ISO/IEC spec? Yes, from version 1.0
There's one final detail about the SDK I'd like to clarify, which relates to Gareth Horton's point above about the spec changes accepted at the BRM. When I talked to reporters earlier in the week I wasn't certain about whether we'd have all the final ISO changes in version 1.0 of the SDK, and I was careful to not represent that we would.
Well, I seem to have underestimated our dev team: I've now verified that version 1.0 will definitely be 100% compliant with the final ISO/IEC 29500 spec, including the changes accepted at the BRM. So starting in April you'll be able to build applications that are compliant with the final spec, and in May when we release version 1.0 you'll be able to go live and ship products built on the API. Time to get coding! "
easson14th Mar 2008 -
Incorrect?
Since this blog was from this morning, it was correct at the time it was written. Actually Mahugh takes some responsibility for reporters that may have published that it was not compliant.techr@...14th Mar 2008 -
You mean to say?
That all programmers were waiting
breathlessly for ISO (and your)
certification so they could get to
popping and write down some code?
Wow! How come you (and Microsoft)
didn't do something productive before
now? How did Microsoft manage to make
billions on Office without
certification? I suppose they can
buckle down and MAKE SOME MONEY, now,
huh?Ole Man17th Mar 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
