They actually have to implement the document formats for everything from Office 95 through to Office 2007 in order to comply with the standard. Further more they will have to be mind readers to fill in the gaps in the spec, and hope MS thought the same. And a whole list of other issues.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Document doldrums for Microsoft
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
They actually have to implement the document formats for everything from Office 95 through to Office 2007 in order to comply with the standard. Further more they will have to be mind readers to fill in the gaps in the spec, and hope MS thought the same. And a whole list of other issues.
Yeah, in order to support legacy stuff and to support the MS dominated office environment. But I speculate they were hoping this exclusive ISO standard would put and end to forward compatibility. Look, I am not about to review both specifications page for page and I highly doubt any of you posting these links have even bothered to read all of them and verify what they are saying. My points still remain:
No design is perfect.
It is good to have options
OOXML is being discredited whilst ODF is hailed as flawless despite obvious flaws.
MS Frikkin RULES!!!
(oh and that link is more focused on the ISO proposal rather than flaws in OOXML if you had bothered to read it.)
Last edited:
Was the OOXML flaws acceptable to you? Was the problems justified?
We are aware that ODF is not faultless, but the pure number of problems with OOXML overshadow anything that might be wrong with ODF. ODF had a working specification when it applied for ISO approval (StarOffice). MS themselves still can't demo any OOXML features. Except for specifications, we can't judge weather OOXML is better than ODF or not, as their simply not a working OOXML application available. You acceptance of OOXML without any product that actually support it, is shocking. It points to a blind following of anything MS.
If OOXML was so easy to implement, don't you think MS would have included it in Office 2007, instead of ODF? By including ODF, and not OOXML, MS admitted that OOXML is too complex and bloated to implement.
Abe
Expert Member
So why do MS not work to change ODF to add the functionality that is missing? That aside, I am not saying that MS should not get OOXML approved down the line. There is just no valid reason for fast tracking it. The only reason to fast track it is so that MS can hold on to their monopoly and that is not a sound reason for ISO. Tell you what, why don't you do a full investigation on a 6500 page standard inside of 6 months while you do your normal work. It's not possible which should immediately tell you that something is wrong.
Where is the final standard? It was supposed to be released by 29 March 2008. That is one of the complaints in the letter that I see you failed to mention.
Wrong. MS Office actually partially supports OOXML right now. There did not need to be a standard before it was released. The reason for fast tracking a 6500 page standard is that MS don't want governments switching to ODF. In fact, they have just announced support for ODF (which is wierd, since one of their reasons for creating OOXML was that ODF could not support all of their functionlality and so this should not be possible) for this very reason. Did you even read the link I posted? There is no way that OOXML in it's present form could be considered an open standard. It's just another tie in to MS Office.
Do you know that ODF was not fast tracked and there were also concerns raised with ODF during it's standards. No one said it was perfect. MS just has to work to change the format. That is what standards are for. They are not cast in stone.
And what do you do about the proprietary portions? If you create OOXML files, I sincerely hope that you have fulfilled your patent obligations.
Correct, no design is perfect.
Options is always good.
The issue is not how perfect one standard is compared to the other, but that there was already a existing XML based document format ISO standard (ODF). MS was free to give their input in making the ODF ISO standard fit their needs, but they instead opted to create their own standard. Why? The only answer is to have some sort of control over who can implement the specification.
Abe
Expert Member
Just read some of it before you shoot it down in flames then. How on earth can you comment on something when you have not even bothered to read it. The link I provided gave just some of the problems in clear english with references to the OOXML spec.
Last edited:
I think I can guess which article you are thinking of, this one by Alex Brown?
Perhaps then you would find Rob Weir's original article and updated response to Alex's post illuminating?
The_Unbeliever
Honorary Master
I might be clouded by anti-M$ sentiments, but history shows otherwise that M$ will take an supposedly "open" format, develop their own implementation of it, which would be totally (or partly) incompatible with the original format.
HavocXphere
Honorary Master
SlappY said:
Fanboys, what fanboys?SlappY said:
Reasons why I don't want OOXML to succeed:
1) MS doesn't stick to standards. Just look at i.e. rendering of html and their frontpage plugin. It took like 10 years of screaming till they promised to make an effort to stick to standards in their new IE.(IE 7 I think)
2) MS does little without a business/profit angle.
3) MS is not renowned for maintaining compatibility across products. Its one of the things to force people to buy their shiny new Office suite...
4) When I hear Microsoft and 6 500 page standard specification in one sentence, I run. Errors in code increase *exponentially* with increased complexity....
Consequently, I don't want a bunch of OOXML docs flying around the internet for which I need the newest bloatware from MS to read them.
As for the "more choice is better" argument: MS doesn't do "choice". Why the hell do you think its being fined billions for anti-competitive behavior and abusing its dominant market position. And if you think putting the word "Open" in front of a specification changes MS's corporate mindset....
Let me sum up why I back the MS machine.
#1: They got a good product. Sure you can gripe about the nitty gritty. But all their stuff hits the sweet spot between technical enough, feature rich, and usability.
#2: Every one of their product talks to each other. From Office to OS to Zune to XBOX to Cell OS... it all integrates seamlessly, and this is by design, not an after thought, but a first canidate on the feature list. This is not a non trivial topic, ask and graphic designer that used last gen Adobe suite and the vecotr graphic exporting bollocks. While MS doesnt do graphic design, that would never have been an issue. Hell if they had done it they you would have been able to pull a vector drawing in from Word. It is one of their design tennants.
#3: They have the broad spectrum of product. From server software, to desktop software to media players to gaming console to robotics suites to dev tools, they got it all.
#4: A unified dev platform. While java is pretty neat it is a dog to get it to talk to devices. MS release comprehensive SDK's on the .NET platform (making it language independent) for evey product they push out, and more. Since their product range is so wide, you can easily wire all these together the way you want simply and quickly.
#5: Documentation. They have entire departments generating structured documentation that are easy to find information in quickly. And not just specs, but detailed stuff with tutorials, labs, vids. If you want to learn to dev on ANY MS tech, I guarentee you you can be up and running by the end of the day, their docs are that good. OS make too many assumptions, you need 500 different SDK's installed and they dont tell you which ones, they just assume. MS say to do this you need A, B, C. Click here for A, etc.
#6: Community. Unbeknown to most OS lads, MS has some heavy community ventures in play. And are focused on nurturing new talent. To boot, they push a lot of funding into educational events. They hold regular competitions, etc. To boot the release a free edition of all their software for enthusiasts (dev tools here)
#7: XNA... nuff said. I mean common, how cool is it that I can EASILY develop games on my PC / XBOX / Zune and even be given a platform to sell them to make me money... Sure they make money off the XBOX side of it, but the PC side is completely free. Plus complete support. If I want to learn how to create a peer network for my game with a lobby system and VOIP, it is as far away as clicking a button and downloading the code and pluggin it in. They have identified the patterns required to make games and developed tools and code patterns for them... which leads me onto my next point...
#8: Patterns studio. They have a room full of people analyzing how people are writing software, and then identify the reusable pieces, and produce code blocks and tools so you may plug these directly into you software... FREE... From the enterprise libarary to XNA, everything revolves around patterns and practices. And the work is top notch.
#9: PC Gaming.. DirectX and the likes.
#10: VS 2008. It is the best IDE on earth... period.
#11: WCF, WWF, WPF, MS AJAX, LinQ, Silverlight. Need and app? gimme 10 minutes.
#12: Services: Live, Live spaces, Maps, XBOX Live, That new astronomy one... the name esacapes me. Again... all talking to each other, easily and seamlessly. Plus they are not locked off, I can use them myself. If I want to authenticate someone on my site using their Live ID, I can do so. Now my users dont need to remebmer an additional login name and password. If my users want to share their outlook calendars on my website or their gamerscore, etc I can plug that right in there too.
Now you can go on at each one of these and say, but this and but that. Thing is, there is no other company on earth that has been able to deliver the entire package like this. Which is why I back them. It makes my life easy. Unitil there is another offering of this magnitude on the table, I will keep backing them. You complain about wanting option... pick one.
You dont like something, use something else. Incidently I prefer Firefox to IE, but now am faced with the problem that Firefox doesnt have OneNote integration, so for general browing I use FF for research I use IE. My alligances are dictated by nessessity rather than seamingly disparate arguments that have no bearing on my life. Smart intellisense is a lot more important to me than some crappy anti trust case that does not affect me at all.
#1: They got a good product. Sure you can gripe about the nitty gritty. But all their stuff hits the sweet spot between technical enough, feature rich, and usability.
#2: Every one of their product talks to each other. From Office to OS to Zune to XBOX to Cell OS... it all integrates seamlessly, and this is by design, not an after thought, but a first canidate on the feature list. This is not a non trivial topic, ask and graphic designer that used last gen Adobe suite and the vecotr graphic exporting bollocks. While MS doesnt do graphic design, that would never have been an issue. Hell if they had done it they you would have been able to pull a vector drawing in from Word. It is one of their design tennants.
#3: They have the broad spectrum of product. From server software, to desktop software to media players to gaming console to robotics suites to dev tools, they got it all.
#4: A unified dev platform. While java is pretty neat it is a dog to get it to talk to devices. MS release comprehensive SDK's on the .NET platform (making it language independent) for evey product they push out, and more. Since their product range is so wide, you can easily wire all these together the way you want simply and quickly.
#5: Documentation. They have entire departments generating structured documentation that are easy to find information in quickly. And not just specs, but detailed stuff with tutorials, labs, vids. If you want to learn to dev on ANY MS tech, I guarentee you you can be up and running by the end of the day, their docs are that good. OS make too many assumptions, you need 500 different SDK's installed and they dont tell you which ones, they just assume. MS say to do this you need A, B, C. Click here for A, etc.
#6: Community. Unbeknown to most OS lads, MS has some heavy community ventures in play. And are focused on nurturing new talent. To boot, they push a lot of funding into educational events. They hold regular competitions, etc. To boot the release a free edition of all their software for enthusiasts (dev tools here)
#7: XNA... nuff said. I mean common, how cool is it that I can EASILY develop games on my PC / XBOX / Zune and even be given a platform to sell them to make me money... Sure they make money off the XBOX side of it, but the PC side is completely free. Plus complete support. If I want to learn how to create a peer network for my game with a lobby system and VOIP, it is as far away as clicking a button and downloading the code and pluggin it in. They have identified the patterns required to make games and developed tools and code patterns for them... which leads me onto my next point...
#8: Patterns studio. They have a room full of people analyzing how people are writing software, and then identify the reusable pieces, and produce code blocks and tools so you may plug these directly into you software... FREE... From the enterprise libarary to XNA, everything revolves around patterns and practices. And the work is top notch.
#9: PC Gaming.. DirectX and the likes.
#10: VS 2008. It is the best IDE on earth... period.
#11: WCF, WWF, WPF, MS AJAX, LinQ, Silverlight. Need and app? gimme 10 minutes.
#12: Services: Live, Live spaces, Maps, XBOX Live, That new astronomy one... the name esacapes me. Again... all talking to each other, easily and seamlessly. Plus they are not locked off, I can use them myself. If I want to authenticate someone on my site using their Live ID, I can do so. Now my users dont need to remebmer an additional login name and password. If my users want to share their outlook calendars on my website or their gamerscore, etc I can plug that right in there too.
Now you can go on at each one of these and say, but this and but that. Thing is, there is no other company on earth that has been able to deliver the entire package like this. Which is why I back them. It makes my life easy. Unitil there is another offering of this magnitude on the table, I will keep backing them. You complain about wanting option... pick one.
You dont like something, use something else. Incidently I prefer Firefox to IE, but now am faced with the problem that Firefox doesnt have OneNote integration, so for general browing I use FF for research I use IE. My alligances are dictated by nessessity rather than seamingly disparate arguments that have no bearing on my life. Smart intellisense is a lot more important to me than some crappy anti trust case that does not affect me at all.
Last edited:
chiskop
Executive Member
Fanboys, what fanboys?
Reasons why I don't want OOXML to succeed:
1) MS doesn't stick to standards. Just look at i.e. rendering of html and their frontpage plugin. It took like 10 years of screaming till they promised to make an effort to stick to standards in their new IE.(IE 7 I think)
2) MS does little without a business/profit angle.
3) MS is not renowned for maintaining compatibility across products. Its one of the things to force people to buy their shiny new Office suite...
4) When I hear Microsoft and 6 500 page standard specification in one sentence, I run. Errors in code increase *exponentially* with increased complexity....
Consequently, I don't want a bunch of OOXML docs flying around the internet for which I need the newest bloatware from MS to read them.
As for the "more choice is better" argument: MS doesn't do "choice". Why the hell do you think its being fined billions for anti-competitive behavior and abusing its dominant market position. And if you think putting the word "Open" in front of a specification changes MS's corporate mindset....
#1: You wanna whine about standards. Hop over to quirksmode.org and see exactly which browser follows standard the most. You will be shocked to find it is IE.
#2: Wierd that... being a business and all. But I must still disagree, I can write an app for you from top to toe, DB to latest front end. FOR FREE.
#3: This is total trash. While there have been one or 2 hiccups that have been patched, there are other prominent companies that have screwed up even bigger asa interoperability goes.
#4: Software is the most complex human structure on earth. People have an insatiable thirst for feature and flexibility, this means complexity. 6500 pages is nothing unheard of in the software arena. Bugs will happen, they will be fixed. You never seen a bridge with a crack in it? It is the nature of the beast. To say the now ODF will be bug free is a little niave.
Good for you - but let's be honest about who the fanboy is here.
Read properly next time. The second MS stops fulfilling my needs I will move on. Judging by their tech road map, I dont think that will be any time soon...
Last edited:
Rubbish. Check the acid test results, and your medication apparently.
Tell me, with you comprehensive MS dev resources, can you develop a program for linux? OS X? Or are you completely tying yourself and your clients to MS and their bandwagon?
Tie yourself to their ship if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to.
K, well hop on over to the events model section and take a peek. Layout, etc might be one thing, but what prevents a site from functioning full stop is the browser javaScript implementation. IE has a superior implementation accross the board.
Of course I can. And Java, and Symbian and pretty much any platform that has a compiler. Only a fool would limit themselves. I just like using the best tool for the job, which MS provides.
I dont, but at the same token dont make stupid statements like all their products are crap. Cause it is baseless statements like this that spread the anti-MS sentiment like that found on this board. Everyone is so focused on what it cant do they never consider what it can do, and when you do you will find how much more superior it is.
You sound rather aggressive about this. You should relax and learn to laugh a little.
PS: Something else I forgot that the techheads might find fun, they even got a SDK to write your own languages for the .NET framework. Dont like C#, dont like VB.. fine.. write your own language. Now if that is not the pinicle of free choice what is??
Last edited:
chiskop
Executive Member
Who said all their products were crap? Some are, some aren't, just like just about everyone else's products. There are serious concerns with the specs as released - which you know if you'd got round to reading any of the many links already posted.
I distrust their business practices, not necessarily their products.
I distrust their business practices, not necessarily their products.