Sign up with Google
-
Join the MyBroadband community
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputationReduced ads -
Question of the Day: Best brand for computer peripherals - mouse, keyboard, headphones, etc?
-
❗Zoom Technical Innovation Showcase Day hosted by First Distribution - Click here to apply for your ticket❗
Document doldrums for Microsoft
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Maverick_Nick
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 59
- Reaction score
- 0
A Complicated Standard
The fact that the OOXML standard is a lot more complicated than the ODF standard is proof that ODF doesn't support many features that is supported by OOXML. So Microsoft has created an alternate format to support additional features. The format doesn't belong to Microsoft [it's open], and therefore does not give Microsoft an advantage of any sort. Why are people complaining about this? How would the OOXML format disadvantage anybody in anyway? If the standard was proposed by an organization other than Microsoft, would it condemned as it is being now? I don't think so. People need to get their heads out of that dark place and begin to realize that this isn't a proprietary standard and it doesn't disadvantage anyone in anyway. They're both XML format, and one supports more features than the other. Since when did creating options become a negative thing?
The fact that the OOXML standard is a lot more complicated than the ODF standard is proof that ODF doesn't support many features that is supported by OOXML. So Microsoft has created an alternate format to support additional features. The format doesn't belong to Microsoft [it's open], and therefore does not give Microsoft an advantage of any sort. Why are people complaining about this? How would the OOXML format disadvantage anybody in anyway? If the standard was proposed by an organization other than Microsoft, would it condemned as it is being now? I don't think so. People need to get their heads out of that dark place and begin to realize that this isn't a proprietary standard and it doesn't disadvantage anyone in anyway. They're both XML format, and one supports more features than the other. Since when did creating options become a negative thing?
Bunch of anti MS drivel.
This is total bollocks, so now the OS fanboys who whine like mules about wanting options are trying to stamp out an additional option. Bloody hypocrits. Sounds a lot more like MS anti-sentiment than objective thinking to me.
This is total bollocks, so now the OS fanboys who whine like mules about wanting options are trying to stamp out an additional option. Bloody hypocrits. Sounds a lot more like MS anti-sentiment than objective thinking to me.
Last edited:
The standard may be open, but the problem is that Microsoft owns patents that are used in the standard and they aren't being clear about whether or not they will seek royalties for these patents if you decide to make use of the standard in your software.
Microsoft has never been standards friendly and this historic abuse of open standards for their own benefit is now coming back to bite them in the rear.
zamicro
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,823
- Reaction score
- 5
If you read the article again, you will see that it does not want to stop the standard, but want to follow the correct procedure.
).Abe
Expert Member
Fine, so if it is so complicated, how can it get fast tracked? MS Office won't even support the proposed standard properly until 2009.
That is where you are wrong. There are a number of patents that are used in the standard along with proprietary extensions. Competitors can only use the format if they fully implement the standard which MS does not fully implement. So you are presently unable to make a MS Office file compatible application.
Read above. There are proprietary extensions is OOXML. MS also badly manipulated the standards process and pushed it thought as a fasttrack standard. A 6500 page standard as a fast track? Come on, be reasonable. Ongoing investigations have found a number of issues per page. These are serious issues, i.e. bugs, and not just proprietary problems. Things like missing close tags for the XML. That is not even going into the anomalies in the voting process, such as Norway.
For some issues as to why other companies can't implement OOXML, look at http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html
Abe
Expert Member
Not anti MS sentiment. The are serious problems with the standard. It should never have been fast tracked. What's worse is that ISO are not following their own procedures on this one.
Actually that link kinda proves my point.
It has a Objections/Contradictions to MSOOXML section, but nothing on the same flavor towards ODF, implying that ODF is flawless, and there have been no objections. Again, this is bollocks since nothing is flawless. It is yet another anti MS site.
And I didnt lable Linux Fanboys, I specifically said Open Source Fanboys. It is easy to confuse since both suffer from the same dogmatic delusions and hypocrocy.
It has a Objections/Contradictions to MSOOXML section, but nothing on the same flavor towards ODF, implying that ODF is flawless, and there have been no objections. Again, this is bollocks since nothing is flawless. It is yet another anti MS site.
And I didnt lable Linux Fanboys, I specifically said Open Source Fanboys. It is easy to confuse since both suffer from the same dogmatic delusions and hypocrocy.
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
Groklaw have more information regarding this debacle.
Everything Microsoft touches, turns to dross. They only want to ensure that their proprietary protocols and formats being used, as they can charge a pretty penny for the use thereof, and which I am not prepared to pay.
Sure, ODF does have its shortfalls, but having open protocols and formats is better than being held ransom by closed, proprietary protocols and formats?
Everything Microsoft touches, turns to dross. They only want to ensure that their proprietary protocols and formats being used, as they can charge a pretty penny for the use thereof, and which I am not prepared to pay.
Sure, ODF does have its shortfalls, but having open protocols and formats is better than being held ransom by closed, proprietary protocols and formats?
Actually it outlines 3 reasons for the objection. First one being that their is already an XML standard (ODF) This is totally retarded since XML is a platform on which to base technologies on to facilitate interoperability, it in no way dictates the feature set of said technology. That is like saying stylesheets should be done away with cause HTML can do styling.
Second point says "ISO standards are meant to be resolved by consensus wherever possible"...wherever possible being the operative word here. Which means they are well within their right to do what they did. I will concede however that this is somewhat dubious.
His third point he lays out is total speculation, and inferences of this nature show a lack of professionalism or ignorance. I could also infer that since a child can play a computer game but not tie their own shoelaces, by implication a shoe lace is a more complicated device.
It seems you forgot your meds. Regardless, you have shown a complete lack of understanding of the subject being discussed. Perhaps it would be best if you refrained from further posts on this subject until a time when you understand the issues that are being discussed.
Which is why they are pushing for a proprietry free document format???
Again... anti MS sentiment clouding our judgement a little here.
Could you explain to me how it is you came to this conclusion? Or merely sprouting bollocks again cause you actually cant defend your point
Sure, I will highlight the parts that illustrate your ignorance:
Although you did go on to say that it was dubious, which goes against what you said just before. I guess you can't make your mind up.
So if microsoft are for open standards, why are they pushing their alternative patent-laden proprietary-bound single-authored format instead of contributing to ODF?
And why oh why did they force it through ISO as quick as they could (through a whole bunch of dubious practices and general shena****ns) rather than go through the proper processes and address the concerns with the bloated, pointless format?
I said dubious implying the process had indeed been fast tracked, however like I pointed out was still within the bounds of procedure. The reason for fast tracking is that they are in development of the next suite of office and plan to release. Obviously you know nothing of software development since if you did you would know that it is always good to have the details of what you are developing ironed out before you deliver the product.
Secondly the reason for pushing another standard is that ODF's schema is flawed and a document produced against it doesnt not even pass strict validation againt the ISO ODF specification. Interestingly enough ODF proponents claim the solution to this is to relax the validation and seem to think that introducing ambiguities between ID and IDREF attributes is a solution. Again, another reason why I would like to have a multi billion dollar company developing my software.
To further highlight my aparant "Ignorance" on this topic, I would like to state that I have developed XSL:FO engines as far back as 5 years ago, so yeah.. I am a total noob... please teach me something. On a more personal level the reason I opt for OOXML is that it represents the doc structure an additional formatting and decoration as nested nodes in the XML tree, where ODF opts for a more attribute driven approach, whilst the att approach produces a more condense document, the tree approach allows you to implement speed gains via standard tree and binary search algorithms for node location, hell they prolly implemented recursion optimization via node table hashing, similar to that found in DNA matching algorithms, which you cant do with attributes without incurring a disproportional memory hit. Personally I want speed of processing over garbled text you never look at.
Last edited:
Of course. I had forgotten that only MCSDs had any idea about product life-cycles and development practices.
Can you please provide a link?
Until you want to use your document on an OS or implementation that wasn't developed by said multi billion dollar company. What is the point of a open document standard again? Oh, right.
SlappY said:
Before you shot the site down as "anti MS", did you make an effort to read the information on it regarding what people considered to be wrong with OOXML? If not, please try to do so. The information is gathered from all over the web, from people who tried to make sense of the OOXML standard. Since you are an expert in XML, it should be easy to defunct their criticism of OOXML.
SlappY said:
Maybe you can give us more of an expert opinion than what you have said so far, as I would be really interested in you objective opinion, although your signature kind of removes any objectivity on the subject, IMO.
#1: No... not quite MCSD. But I always said experience better qualifications anyways. But you skirted my point entirely.
#2: Actualy cant... read it a while back, but google "Flaws in ODF" and you will find a bunch of problem with it.
#3: A standard is a standard. I think the OS boys are bleeting cause now they have to implement a MS backed standard in their precious software in order to carry on calling it interoperable. What is the point of a open document standard again: repeatability, interoperability are the tennants of a standard... all of which are fulfilled.
Last edited:
#1: Nope... just glanced through the highlights. Dont have time. Drew my conclusion from the fact that they are comparing 2 formats and can only find problems with 1 when flaws exist in both.
#2: Edited my previous post to give my opinions as the why I prefer OOXML from a technical level. But my alligences lie with whatever makes my life easier. So far they lie with MS.