No soft option

[Perdition]

ODF had been free and available for a while. Why create something new? Why not simply improve on the ODF format? There is channels available for this.

Perhaps because it's a free market and people can decide for themselves what they wish to use? I thought being an open standard advocate included being and advocate of choice, perhaps I'm wrong.

You trust MS with your data?

Non sequitur, where does trust come into this?

 

[Perdition]

That argument works both ways. ODF is a standard, and anyone can use it - why don't MS?

ODF plugins are being developed for office, this point is moot.

Actually, come to think of it, it doesn't really work both ways. Some of the specs in MSOXML (or whatever they call it) include things like space like microsoft word 97, where that behaviour is not documented and the guidance is to not try to emulate the behaviour.

Who cares? If it's such an issue save your old word 97 documents into a new format. None of these flag behaviours are used if you save a new Open XML document.

A 600 page well-documented established standard vs a second MS-written poorly specified 6000 page proposal that they've had to bribe to get this far: what's so difficult to understand?

You misrepresent the facts. The reason the spec is so large is because MS were asked to provide more documentation, EU Commission ring a bell? How would it serve MS to document their format poorly?

 

[Nod]

Perhaps because it's a free market and people can decide for themselves what they wish to use? I thought being an open standard advocate included being and advocate of choice, perhaps I'm wrong.



Non sequitur, where does trust come into this?

Of course you're free to use what you wish. It just doesn't make sense to make another XML format for documents, when one already exist. Saying it doesn't support your needs is also bogus, as you can ask for the format to include these needs, if it's found to be practicle.

Seeing that MS will start to rent office to people, what happens to your data if you decide to not use them anymore? Even if you bought the software, and want to switch to another office suit, how will you get to your data? If the format is open this is not a problem. However, MS had never been open about their formats, and I don't see a reason to think that they have all of a sudden changed their minds about it.

 

[Nod]

You misrepresent the facts. The reason the spec is so large is because MS were asked to provide more documentation, EU Commission ring a bell? How would it serve MS to document their format poorly?

The reason why more documentation was asked for, is because things were not clear in their first submission.

It serves MS quite well to have poor specifications. Their current one is testament to that. It's also the easiest way to force people to use your product. If all other products support the format poorly, people will think it's because it's a bad product, when it is actually a poorly written specification.

 

[Perdition]

Of course you're free to use what you wish. It just doesn't make sense to make another XML format for documents, when one already exist. Saying it doesn't support your needs is also bogus, as you can ask for the format to include these needs, if it's found to be practicle.

If MS want to implement new features in Office why should they have to wait for these changes to be voted on to be included in the document format? With the whole political quagmire surrounding ODF I'd also give it the finger if I were MS.

Seeing that MS will start to rent office to people, what happens to your data if you decide to not use them anymore? Even if you bought the software, and want to switch to another office suit, how will you get to your data? If the format is open this is not a problem. However, MS had never been open about their formats, and I don't see a reason to think that they have all of a sudden changed their minds about it.

Last I checked the Open XML is a ratified ECMA standard and MS cannot retract this. If MS discontinue support for Open XML everyone is still free to use it.

 

[chiskop]

ODF plugins are being developed for office, this point is moot.

By Microsoft?

 

[Perdition]

By Microsoft?

Nope, but they are not preventing the implementation in any way.

 

[Nod]

If MS want to implement new features in Office why should they have to wait for these changes to be voted on to be included in the document format? With the whole political quagmire surrounding ODF I'd also give it the finger if I were MS.

Maybe to have some kind of standard, so that all participants know about the changes, and can implement it.

Last I checked the Open XML is a ratified ECMA standard and MS cannot retract this. If MS discontinue support for Open XML everyone is still free to use it.

And thats fine. Let's take the example of HTML. HTML is a standard. Documented and all. What did MS do with that? They extended it for their own purpose. What prevents them from doing the same with OOXML?

A link to a comparison, slightly dated, but still usefull.
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/introduction/odf_vs_oxml

 

[Perdition]

Maybe to have some kind of standard, so that all participants know about the changes, and can implement it.



And thats fine. Let's take the example of HTML. HTML is a standard. Documented and all. What did MS do with that? They extended it for their own purpose. What prevents them from doing the same with OOXML?

A link to a comparison, slightly dated, but still usefull.
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/introduction/odf_vs_oxml

Practically all browsers are guilty of this, Netscape "extended" HTML long before MS came to the party. MS just took the ball and ran with it. This is the past though and while IE 7 is not perfect (and admittedly still a pain) MS are starting to adhere to the standards as customers are demanding it. By the same token if there is a large outcry from their customers (and not just vocal zealots) to support ODF as the standard document format they probably will.

 

[chiskop]

Nope, but they are not preventing the implementation in any way.

And right there is a good reason why we should be wary of an MS standard - when the best thing you can come up with for their support of existing standards is that they're not obstructing its implementation.
Nice to see such wholehearted acceptance of the existing standards from MS.

Seriously, before you start thinking about the technical problems with MS Open XML, MS's history of standards-compliance, or the shady methods that were used in this attempt to pass the standard; there is an existing standard! IIRC MS were involved in that standards process (and if they weren't, they certainly could've been).

By the same token if there is a large outcry from their customers (and not just vocal zealots) to support ODF as the standard document format they probably will.

Well, we've seen their response to govts asking for ISO standardised document formats: bribe, cheat and make your own.

 

[Nod]

Read part II of the link I provided. It makes a more technical comparison, and the reason why it would be easier to develop for ODF.

In the end, we don't have a real say in the matter, and there will probably be tools to convert between both formats. So, personal choice will win in the end.

 

[Perdition]

In the end, we don't have a real say in the matter, and there will probably be tools to convert between both formats. So, personal choice will win in the end.

This is the crux of my argument and why this whole situation is so silly.

 

[antowan]

I cannot see Office losing ground soon. It is pretty damned solid and I work on the others from time to time to see their goings on. They are wonderful free products, but MS Office outshines them all atm. It may change in time, but MS Office is still a good solid product.

 

[fskmh]

ODF plugins are being developed for office, this point is moot.

The Sun ODF plugin is a 30MB download and an extra install, the point is not moot.

Who cares? If it's such an issue save your old word 97 documents into a new format. None of these flag behaviours are used if you save a new Open XML document.

Businesses and large organisations care. Who fixes the formatting and macros in thousands of 10 year old documents? This is the same argument used against implementation of OOo.

You misrepresent the facts. The reason the spec is so large is because MS were asked to provide more documentation, EU Commission ring a bell? How would it serve MS to document their format poorly?

That is also a misrepresentation of the facts. MS simply tried to snow the JTC1 members with a large document. It was that much larger because of all the kludges used to get around something fundmentally ill-conceived.
Why else would there be comments like these:

"2.8.2.2 [p740, 0xEE]

This value is said to signify “an Eastern European character set”. There is no such thing. First, “Eastern Europe” is not unambiguously delineated. Second, this region uses many character scripts, including Roman, Cyrillic, Arabic, Armenian, etc.

Proposed change: Explain what is meant by “an Eastern European character set”.

2.8.2.2 [p740, 2]

The default character set is said to be “the ANSI character set”. But ANSI has standards for many character sets. Do you mean ANSI 209-1992 “Matrix Character Set for OCR”? Probably not. So a normative reference to a specific standard is required.

Proposed change: Provide normative reference for “the ANSI character set”.

2.15.3.6 [p1378]

The “autoSpaceLikeWord95” element is defined in terms of mimicking a legacy application's behavior. The standard contains insufficient detail on how to replicate this behavior.

Proposed change: Define the intended behavior."

If MS want to implement new features in Office why should they have to wait for these changes to be voted on to be included in the document format? With the whole political quagmire surrounding ODF I'd also give it the finger if I were MS.

The failure of DIS 29500 has nothing to do with new features, it has to do with implementation, that is what obtaining the ISO standard is supposedly all about. The quagmire was all MS's making. ODF was passed by the required no. of P-level members without any maneuvring because it was technically more sound. I can say that because the 32 P-level member countries that voted yes with no abstentions were in a better position to determine this than the O-level countries that voted for OOXML, as well as the 10 new P-level members who suddenly joined in the weeks before the vote. (Also coincidentally the newcomers had a mean CPI (Corruption Perceptions Index) of 3.7.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi
Read the full story here:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/09/how-to-hack-iso.html

Nope, but they are not preventing the implementation in any way.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=printArticleBasic&articleId=9022878

Last I checked the Open XML is a ratified ECMA standard and MS cannot retract this. If MS discontinue support for Open XML everyone is still free to use it.

For all the technical flaws pointed out in OOXML, the more likely conclusion is that Ecma failed in its review.

 

[psichron]

SLOW website is SLOW

"This weekend SA voted against a Microsoft proposal to have a new document file format adopted as an international standard."

I thought this already happened July:
South Africa stands up to microsoft (posted 20 July)

 

[BandwidthAddict]

For those that want to understand why OOXML is not good enough to be a standard, read this:

http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

 

[AirWolf]

@autowan, I couldn't agree more. I have used Star Office and Open Office but still prefer MS Office. If you have been using it for a long time it can get a bit irritating trying to find a specific feature you need in one of the other office packages.

 

[Nod]

From the link provided by BandwidthAddict:

Ecma Technical Committee 45 included the following goal in its terms of reference: “produce a formal standard for office productivity applications within the Ecma International standards process which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats”. In other words, the technical committee was specifically limited to producing a format that was a subset of a single vendor's own proprietary format. Addressing the needs of users of other products, accomodating the functionality of other products, improving the format, and other such efforts to ensure the widest degree of interoperability were not permitted. The Ecma development process was not an open standards process nor industry consensus, but instead was clearly dominated by a single vendor.

In contrast, ISO/IEC 26300 was developed and modified by cooperative work of many independent parties, including a number of significant improvements through technical changes in the format

And this is then the problem. Read the whole article for more clarity on what OOXML really is.

 

[chiskop]

@autowan, I couldn't agree more. I have used Star Office and Open Office but still prefer MS Office. If you have been using it for a long time it can get a bit irritating trying to find a specific feature you need in one of the other office packages.

Thats all good and well. And I'm sure you'll understand the problems that long-time OOo users might have trying to find the features they rely on in a different office suite. Hey, even office 2003 users will struggle with the new interface of 2007, for sure.

But it doesn't matter. Nobody needs to give up the office suite that they are already comfortable with - MS just needs to support the already established document format: ODF.

 

[Conspirator]

Nearly rofl'ed the other day. I wrote a doc in M$ office 2000 and wanted to open it in Office 2003. Refused to open it, so I tried opening it in OO. OO works of course...