OOXML now an ISO standard!

[aktiwers]

Oh Nooo! They Won!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,144009-pg,1/article.html
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-OOXML-becomes-an-ISO-standard/0,130061733,339287840,00.htm

Truly sad IMO..

[DJ_Peng]

That's not just sad, but IMO well and truly fraked up. There are definite questions about the approval process including complaints about voting irrregularities but since Norway didn't respond to the right people "in time" their complaints fell on deaf ears.

I really wished this was an April Fool's prank when I saw it yesterday, but to find out it's true is costing the ISO organization respect for a lot of users. Especially in the light of the fact that nobody's seen the full version of what came out of the meetings in February to try to address technical issues and that M$ themselves say they have no plans on putting out any programs that use the new "standard."

[Polygon]

whee...now iso has lost all credibility. good job.

[Wobedraggled]

Bad news, but hardly shocking.

[el mariachi]

after all the petitions and all the emails and letters that were made... I even sent one to them, even phoned! I just can't believe this...

[Tomatz]

Sad news :(

[meborc]

the first link was to an article written on 1st of april :) ... the second was not :(

[the_darkside_986]

Well, we cannot simply sit and cry. And I think an appeal is possible. Besides that, people will still use proprietary formats whether or not it is a false ISO "standard." It is necessary to do things in one's daily life to encourage the usage of open document formats.

Any Office document I download for whatever reason, I ALWAYS resave it as an Open Document Format and discard the original proprietary form. If I am sending something to a friend, I will send it as *.odt for example and require them to download OpenOffice for Windows in order to view it. (My friend runs Ubuntu now so that's not a problem anymore). I also show OpenOffice to family members that need to read Office documents sent to them in an email when their system is a typical pathetic XP install with no serious software for reading the files.

Regardless of OOXML's status as legitimate ISO format, people will continued to be manipulated into using proprietary software and formats unless we actually do more to encourage the usage of open document formats. It's really a matter of hardly anyone knowing there is a free/libre alternative.

[23meg]

Benoît Jacob has a nice take:


...

What is interesting is that TeX, LaTeX, OGG/Vorbis, OGG/Theora, Perl, Python, PHP, Ruby, OCaml, are not standardized by any organization. Yet everybody knows that they are "self-standardized" by the free availability of extensive documentation and/or a by free-as-in-freedom unobfuscated reference implementation.

This shows that standardization organizations are no longer relevant in the software field. What really matters is free full documentation, free full implementation source code, and of course the absence of any patent risk. In other words, coming back to the fundamentals of what a standards is, what matters is evidence that any independent third-party can create and distribute a fully-conforming implementation. When this is the case, nobody needs an organization to certify that it is a standard.

That the ISO just proved itself open to the influence of special interests, is the consequence, not the cause, of its present irrelevance (again, in the software field). Since it is not needed anymore, nobody knows exactly what its mission is, what role it should play. Which allowed Microsoft to redefine that to its own advantage.

...

http://bjacob.livejournal.com/5086.html

[piousp]

Well, we cannot simply sit and cry. And I think an appeal is possible. Besides that, people will still use proprietary formats whether or not it is a false ISO "standard." It is necessary to do things in one's daily life to encourage the usage of open document formats.

Any Office document I download for whatever reason, I ALWAYS resave it as an Open Document Format and discard the original proprietary form. If I am sending something to a friend, I will send it as *.odt for example and require them to download OpenOffice for Windows in order to view it. (My friend runs Ubuntu now so that's not a problem anymore). I also show OpenOffice to family members that need to read Office documents sent to them in an email when their system is a typical pathetic XP install with no serious software for reading the files.

Regardless of OOXML's status as legitimate ISO format, people will continued to be manipulated into using proprietary software and formats unless we actually do more to encourage the usage of open document formats. It's really a matter of hardly anyone knowing there is a free/libre alternative.


I used too argue at college, that since .ODT was the universal standard for documents, they were force to accept my documents in ODT. But now, they'll probably just refuse to accept ODTs, or even worse, force me to use OOXML. I know this sounds xtreme, but it is possible.

[ZarathustraDK]

Well, it doesn't matter so much at this stage. The whole process has been permeated by practices which would make Robert Mugabe seem like the poster-child for fair elections, if anything this have made MS look worse than ever.

Yes ordinary people may or may not care about this, but somehow I think Neelie Kroes is starting to froth at her mouth about this. If the EU goes after MS on this one, that's a serious blow. Bruxelles tends to be less prone to "P-member-subversion" so to speak.

[the_darkside_986]

I used too argue at college, that since .ODT was the universal standard for documents, they were force to accept my documents in ODT. But now, they'll probably just refuse to accept ODTs, or even worse, force me to use OOXML. I know this sounds xtreme, but it is possible.
Yeah, it is probably not a good idea to try to submit assignments as odt, but at least the professors are nice enough to use Office 2003 formats, which are easily readable by OpenOffice. If they were posting 2007 docs, I would probably resort to unzipping the file and reading the raw xml before booting into Windows or using Wine to run freeware 2007 document readers.

But I have no fear of putting pressure on friends and families to upgrade to OpenOffice in order to read any files that I might send. Most of them would probably rather have a free office suite anyway instead of paying $400 for something like that (my dad, for example).

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I was about to write to my school board and point out that their school computers should be able to open ODT since it is a recognized standard. (Solution: OpenOffice. Finally).

This makes that, once again, less likely. This is not meant to happen. The point of an international standard is to have one method to do something so that the process is coherent. As is typical, Microsoft's contribution again muddies the water by unnecessarily creating two ways to achieve the same task. If a program wants to be standards-compliant, its developers have to waste a considerable ammount of time supporting both with only negative impact on the actual overall usability of the thing. Great, that sounds just like building a standards-friendly web site which works for Internet Explorer!

Looking forward to OOXML 2010 with the next version of Office; if the sparks don't start flying there, I give up.

[Ozor Mox]

I used too argue at college, that since .ODT was the universal standard for documents, they were force to accept my documents in ODT. But now, they'll probably just refuse to accept ODTs, or even worse, force me to use OOXML. I know this sounds xtreme, but it is possible.

I plain and simply refuse to use a non-open standard that isn't supported by my operating system of choice. I write my work in OpenOffice and then save an odt format for myself and a doc format for submission. I think I have tried and OpenOffice cannot open newer Word formats (docx is it?), and if my university insisted on giving me material in that format I'd request it in an open format. My attitude will be the same at work. This may be a risky approach, but only we can change what Microsoft are trying to do here.

[aysiu]

If I am sending something to a friend, I will send it as *.odt for example and require them to download OpenOffice for Windows in order to view it. (My friend runs Ubuntu now so that's not a problem anymore). I also show OpenOffice to family members that need to read Office documents sent to them in an email when their system is a typical pathetic XP install with no serious software for reading the files. If they complain that Ooo is too big a download, Sun has created an ODF plugin for Microsoft Word:
http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/index.jsp

[LaRoza]

If they complain that Ooo is too big a download, Sun has created an ODF plugin for Microsoft Word:
http://www.sun.com/software/star/odf_plugin/index.jsp

You can get a portable version from http://portableapps.com

Also, there is a Ooo support planned for OpenOffice. It may be implemented, I don't know.

[el mariachi]

Thanks for that LaRoza

[Darkhack]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through. For the first time ever, Microsoft is embracing open standards and compatibility and all people ever do is complain. Microsoft has finally done what everyone demanded they do for more than a decade now.

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Microsoft has released the documentation for their binary formats in older Office versions and now they are using an open XML format. It should be easier than ever to work with documents between Microsoft Office and other office software, such as OpenOffice. Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.

[el mariachi]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through.

Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.

Fanboys? Hell Yeah! Open Source Fanboys! I never, ever, heard of Microsoft embracing open standards without some drawback, like those "we promise not to sue" clauses...

and IE8 passes acid2? almost every engine (if not all) passes that test. And Webkit already passes acid3.

Sorry, I just can't agree with you :p I'm an opensource hardcore fanboy hehe

[Mateo]

This is very good news for linux users or any openoffice / gnomeoffice user on any platform. The people who have turned this into a purely ooxml vs. odt debate are missing the point. The point is OOXML was going to be the defacto standard anyways. Just like .doc is the defacto standard today. The fact that OOXML has been opened up (even if you think it's not open enough), means that we should be able to view OOXML files in OpenOffice and other platforms without getting wildly different looking documents. This is very good for any practical user. Bad news for format holy warriors, i suppose.

[lancest]

Also Microsoft is claiming they will support ODF compatibility. Lets hope its true. Let the EU investigation roll on though!!

[el mariachi]

it's sadly true that it would become the most used format...

[Dekkon]

I don't think this will really affect free software and even it wasn't elected as a new standard it wouldn't change the fact that my school still uses Microsoft Office.

Also, Does this mean that ODF is not the universal standard anymore or can there be more then one. Sorry, not up to date on standards and what not.

[LaRoza]

Also, Does this mean that ODF is not the universal standard anymore or can there be more then one. Sorry, not up to date on standards and what not.

It just means that it will continue as usual. Instead of MS Office using existing and compatible standards, they make up their own and the OpenOffice people will have to make OO support it.

[Dekkon]

Instead of MS Office using existing and compatible standardsit.

Wah Wah What!!!!!! MS Office using standards, when did this start? Also, is ODF still the standard or is OOXML or both?

[SunnyRabbiera]

Bah, microsoft wins again...
I guess we will have to backhack this like we did with DOC.

[piousp]

It just means that it will continue as usual. Instead of MS Office using existing and compatible standards, they make up their own and the OpenOffice people will have to make OO support it.

Darkhack,

i dont know if i'm been a fanboy, but LaRoza point is just plain evident. Anyway, what's OOXML?!?!?? Didn't we have 'normal' XML?!?!?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but this whole iso crap its back to the beginnings: where MS just dont worry at all, and we have to struggle against them.

[bruce89]

Anyway, what's OOXML?!?!?? Didn't we have 'normal' XML?!?!?

It's MS's new default file format for Office 2007. In other words, it's the reason to upgrade to MSO 2007.

[LaRoza]

Wah Wah What!!!!!! MS Office using standards, when did this start? Also, is ODF still the standard or is OOXML or both?

By "standard" I mean they use a format of their own.

Obviously, it is a "standard" somewhere, as it isn't random.

[bruce89]

By "standard" I mean they use a format of their own.

I thought OO.o's 1.x "SXW" formats were rather similar to their OpenDocument equivalents.

[Mateo]

Darkhack,

i dont know if i'm been a fanboy, but LaRoza point is just plain evident. Anyway, what's OOXML?!?!?? Didn't we have 'normal' XML?!?!?

Correct me if i'm wrong, but this whole iso crap its back to the beginnings: where MS just dont worry at all, and we have to struggle against them.

there is no normal xml. xml is just a markup language. anything that looks like html can be called xml. <see>i'm doing xml</see> ooxml is just microsoft's existing format converted into xml.

[Dekkon]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through. For the first time ever, Microsoft is embracing open standards and compatibility and all people ever do is complain. Microsoft has finally done what everyone demanded they do for more than a decade now.

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Microsoft has released the documentation for their binary formats in older Office versions and now they are using an open XML format. It should be easier than ever to work with documents between Microsoft Office and other office software, such as OpenOffice. Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.

Exactly what I said except yours is typed better. ;)

Would you rather have a Binary-undocumented format or a Completely-Open Document? Either way, they were going to win the format battle for Office; so pick and choose wisely. They also used the standard on the Xbox 360, UPnP is used for streaming music and videos. I read that MS Office might support ODF format, and if allow writing to it, then I'll be even more surprised.

[LaRoza]

Exactly what I said except yours is typed better. ;)

Would you rather have a Binary-undocumented format or a Completely-Open Document? Either way, they were going to win the format battle for Office; so pick and choose wisely. They also used the standard on the Xbox 360, UPnP is used for streaming music and videos. I read that MS Office might support ODF format, and if allow writing to it, then I'll be even more surprised.

..or an existing and supported format.

MS is playing the same game. I bet that MS Office has some "hidden" features that are not part of the standard.

Think of it his way: The format, ODF, is already in existance and supported. It is just as good and ready to be used. MS decided to pay people to make up a new format and submit it. Think of how much money they wasted. Who pays for that? They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts you know.

[SomeGuyDude]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through. For the first time ever, Microsoft is embracing open standards and compatibility and all people ever do is complain. Microsoft has finally done what everyone demanded they do for more than a decade now.

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Microsoft has released the documentation for their binary formats in older Office versions and now they are using an open XML format. It should be easier than ever to work with documents between Microsoft Office and other office software, such as OpenOffice. Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.

Gotta agree. Sometimes I think, in the eyes of the Linux community, MS cannot redeem itself no matter what they do.

[LaRoza]

Gotta agree. Sometimes I think, in the eyes of the Linux community, MS cannot redeem itself no matter what they do.

Trying to make it difficult for others. Instead of using an existing free standard they make their own. Why? Because they know they have a large market share. When MS was starting out, they had to go uphill and try to be compatible with others to make it, because they knew they wouldn't get anywhere if they were the odd ones. Now, they are on top, and are doing the same to others.

Sure, the average person will be getting MS Office 2007, and as usual, they won't care what the format is (they think in file extensions mostly), and they will assume everyone else has it.

OpenOffice development has to work support in. What a waste. They are supporting yet another standard because they have to, to get new users. (Read the comments on the devlopers on this)

[Knyven]

Whats done is done, Openoffice should start working with OOXML support.

Why? because Openoffice is at least realistically can defeat MS office in terms of user base or people who use them, more realistic than FF outnumbering IE user, and Linux users outnumbering Windows users.

If Openoffice can support OOXML 100% there is no reason to buy Office 2007. As its not pre installed like IE and WMP. People will come asking, "where can i get Office 2007, oh! at the store for $100 but there is a free version called OpenOffice, you can download it."

[zmjjmz]

IIRC, OOXML has *yet* to be implemented by MS, which I'm assuming means that .docx and .doc don't fit the OOXML spec, so those formats still aren't ISO recognized.
I will still call MSO idiotic for not saving to an ISO-recognized format.

[Dekkon]

..or an existing and supported format.

MS is playing the same game. I bet that MS Office has some "hidden" features that are not part of the standard.

Think of it his way: The format, ODF, is already in existance and supported. It is just as good and ready to be used. MS decided to pay people to make up a new format and submit it. Think of how much money they wasted. Who pays for that? They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts you know.

That wasn't the point, either Microsoft was going to make there own format.

Now again, if you had to choose, would you prefer the world to use a closed-binary format or a documented-open format. I agree, that Microsoft should've have used the original standard but like you said, but i think they had a reason for creating there standard; there might have been something ODF couldn't do that Microsoft wanted to do.

[Mateo]

Trying to make it difficult for others. Instead of using an existing free standard they make their own. Why? Because they know they have a large market share. When MS was starting out, they had to go uphill and try to be compatible with others to make it, because they knew they wouldn't get anywhere if they were the odd ones. Now, they are on top, and are doing the same to others.

Sure, the average person will be getting MS Office 2007, and as usual, they won't care what the format is (they think in file extensions mostly), and they will assume everyone else has it.

OpenOffice development has to work support in. What a waste. They are supporting yet another standard because they have to, to get new users. (Read the comments on the devlopers on this)

Microsoft didn't make up a new format. OOXML is based on their old propierty office format that they've been using for years and years. if you'll read the documentation of OOXML this is obvious. It is the binary format translated into xml. It would be more work to get ODF working in their software suite than it was to get a format that already does work in their suite and just make it human-readable.

OpenOffice already does support the old MSoffice binary format. Of course they're going to support OOXML too because it would be stupid not to. And it's not going to be that much work, or at least not nearly as much work as implementing .doc and .docx were, since OOXML is open and therefore doesn't require reverse engineering.

Whether OOXML passed through standards is largely irrelevant. MSOffice was going to use it as their default format anyways, and OpenOffice was going to support it anyways.

[LaRoza]

Whether OOXML passed through standards is largely irrelevant. MSOffice was going to use it as their default format anyways, and OpenOffice was going to support it anyways.

Yes it is important. Now there are two standards for the same function.

[piousp]

Gotta agree. Sometimes I think, in the eyes of the Linux community, MS cannot redeem itself no matter what they do.

Redeem?? I think my definition for "redeem" is just different that yours.
If I consider that MS is now "open source" (redeem) and then look at how they practically forced they way up to get the stardard, at least for me thats just like:

1 - 1 = 0 or 1 * 0 = 0

[Mateo]

Yeah, yeah, redundancy is unfortunately, but since everyone with a computer will have the option to use either (or both) formats, it's not worth crying about.

[arbulus]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through. For the first time ever, Microsoft is embracing open standards and compatibility and all people ever do is complain. Microsoft has finally done what everyone demanded they do for more than a decade now.

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Microsoft has released the documentation for their binary formats in older Office versions and now they are using an open XML format. It should be easier than ever to work with documents between Microsoft Office and other office software, such as OpenOffice. Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.


I don't agree with this at all.

I don't like being negative and trashing others, and I really make an effort not to. Microsoft has made some solid products, so has Apple. I'm always willing to give the devil his due, because it's only fair that if we as a community expect recognition for our accomplishments that we acknowledge the accomplishments of others as well.

However, criticism should be levelled where it is due. And this is one instance where it is due.

If MS wanted to change their previous binary file format to a human readable form, then good for them, I think that definitely helps interoperability. But for making it an international standard? No, I don't think that is necessary at all. ODF is already an ISO standard and completely non-proprietary. That, to me, defines international standards: ones that are non-proprietary and are not chained to the will and actions of one company. MS had no business offering one of it's formats as an ISO standard. If they want to open it up for everyone to see, then good for them. But ISO standard? No.

They simply want an excuse not to support ODF. Because if they have their "open" format as an ISO standard, then they can justify never offering support for ODF because theirs is a "standard" as well. And that's the real bottom line right there: Microsoft will NEVER support ODF and they have gone way out of their way to ensure it.

So, they've made a move that proves that they are not interested in openness and interoperability. But I think that our community needs to take the opposite approach. OpenOffice, AbiWord, etc need to quickly integrate support for all MS Office 2007 formats and OOXML, which will show everyone that our community cares about openness and interoperability. Lead by example, as it were.

[piousp]

From Wiki:
International standards is one way of overcoming technical barriers in international commerce caused by differences among technical regulations and standards developed independently and separately by each nation, national standards organisation, or company. Technical barriers arise when different groups come together, each with a large user base, doing some well established thing that between them is mutually incompatible. Establishing international standards is one way of preventing or overcoming this problem.

Interesting, huh?

[Mateo]

It's one thing to be upset if you truly think ODF is a better format, but since no one here has (yet) made any argument that way, it sounds like nothing but sour grapes to me. If there are 2 open formats, why do you care which one is most widely used?

This would be like HD-DVD supporters saying "we should win because we were here first". Luckily none of them were crazy enough to do that.

[LaRoza]

It's one thing to be upset if you truly think ODF is a better format, but since no one here has (yet) made any argument that way, it sounds like nothing but sour grapes to me. If there are 2 open formats, why do you care which one is most widely used?

This would be like HD-DVD supporters saying "we should win because we were here first". Luckily none of them were crazy enough to do that.

ODF is better, happy? I didn't think it needed to be said.

Blu-Ray won because it was better in some respects. (Also, Microsoft had their teeth in HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray uses Java)

[Mateo]

Blu-Ray was/is better, but that's not necessarily why it won. Betamax was better than VHS, it lost. Atom is better than RSS, it's losing. Quality is largely irrelevant in format wars. But again, no one here is really making a quality argument on this. People are either arguing "ODF was here first!" or "Microsoft has some evil conspiracy in mind". The fact that you're going to have the ability to use both formats flawlessly in any program that's smart enough to support both, is going largely unnoted.

[calc]

The version of OpenOffice.org in Ubuntu already supports OOXML. The upstream version of OpenOffice.org will support OOXML in 3.0.0.

[piousp]

But are you sure they'll spend money (MS) to just read (another) ISO standard??
Again, people will force us to use MS format and now we just have to accept it and work around to be able too, while they just wont do anything to support us.

You can argue that MS WILL in fact, support ODF. The way I see it, they wont. Why? 'Cuz it doesnt make sense to spend money in ...(see above).

And, if they really will support ODF, just read my above post about "international standards". Thats why i cannot simply say that this is good for us.

Just to let you know, this is a great debate! (really)

[arbulus]

Blu-Ray was/is better, but that's not necessarily why it won. Betamax was better than VHS, it lost. Atom is better than RSS, it's losing. Quality is largely irrelevant in format wars. But again, no one here is really making a quality argument on this. People are either arguing "ODF was here first!" or "Microsoft has some evil conspiracy in mind". The fact that you're going to have the ability to use both formats flawlessly in any program that's smart enough to support both, is going largely unnoted.


You're last sentence is really the kicker though. ODF isn't flawless on MS products because Office doesn't support it.

I think that if Microsoft would fully support ODF, then their claims of wanting to espouse openness would have a bit more weight to them. But they're not doing that. They only want to play with others if it is on their own terms, which is antithesis to what openness is all about.

[zmjjmz]

I'll stop my b*tching if MSO reads ODF by default.
Perfectly.
And the same with OOo and OOXML, but that may be harder to do...

[calc]

Even if OOo can read OOXML properly, which it probably is still buggy right now, that doesn't mean it will be able to open MS Office 2007 files properly, since at least as I understand it Microsoft hasn't committed to actually following the standard they created themselves.

[proalan]

Hypothetically how would microsoft react if linux became an iso standard.

Would they propose a OOvista?

[kaboodle_fish]

Three words

Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

[aktiwers]

Also we all know that OOXML is very poor documented or at least not as well as ODF.

MS created OOXML because they found out more and more governments require an open standard(like Denmark since 1. Jan 2008), but deep down MS does not feel this is a real benefit and I truly believe they would never have done this if the governments/EU etc. didn't pressure them a little.

The sad thing is they do as they usually do.. they do it half. I mean they didn't open up OOXML up enough to become an ISO standard.

Why didn't they just completely open source the DOC format? Because they have no interest in this idea, when most of the world obliviously uses this format and they own all the rights to it.

Wow.. that was a lot of crappy English.. sry about that..

[quinnten83]

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Nah, it's been done!!


Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

except that there is no guarantee that they won't since openxml refers to some packages which are propietary and closed. So other implementing this "standard" becomes more difficult should microsoft choose to make it so.
Also the only reason they are opening up some formats and only their old formats which nobody uses to make new documents is because EU is breating down their necks. Make no mistake, MS don't give two sh17s about anybody but their own pocket.

I don't hate MS, (i love VISIO), but i trust them as far as I can throw them, and seeing how much money they got, they're to heavy to throw very far.


MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.
Why didn't they then work with the existing standard to implement these things?

[jomiolto]

The reason I'm opposed to OOXML is the fact that it is an awful standard, not because it was created by Microsoft. If you've read any of the debate surrounding the matter, you will already know about the shortcomings of the format: there are errors and ambiguities in the documentation, it doesn't use any of the already existing standards (not even for country/language codes, which is plain idiocy), it isn't very good XML, there are heaps of stupid implementations of things (why do you need four different ways to define percentages?), it uses MS's own cryptographic functions instead of the many public ones that are extensively tested and known to be secure, etc.

Also, partially thanks to the fact that existing standards (such as SVG) are not used, the documentation is an incredible 6000 pages long! Creating a full implementation of that for an office suite is an enormous task. In comparison, the ODF documentation is only something like 700-800 pages, and I'm yet to hear of any important feature that OOXML has that ODF doesn't (well, except for the formulas, but they will be added to the next version of ODF and I'm quite certain that they won't bloat the documentation by much).

Then there's the fact that MS Office does not implement the actual OOXML standard (not that it even could, since Office 2007 was done before the standard was approved), but a specific version of it that is not documented. So, even if some office suite implements the full OOXML, there is no guarantee that documents written in MS Office will look even close to the same on the other office suite.

[Deamos]

This is truly horrible....

[articpenguin]

how could have microsoft won when they lost the vote in september? Cant ODF have another chance?

[piousp]

how could have microsoft won when they lost the vote in september?

Thats one of many points here.

[EdThaSlayer]

This is truly horrible....

I have to agree with you, well, at least open source users will keep using ODF as a format! :lolflag:

[brennydoogles]

I plain and simply refuse to use a non-open standard that isn't supported by my operating system of choice. I write my work in OpenOffice and then save an odt format for myself and a doc format for submission. I think I have tried and OpenOffice cannot open newer Word formats (docx is it?), and if my university insisted on giving me material in that format I'd request it in an open format. My attitude will be the same at work. This may be a risky approach, but only we can change what Microsoft are trying to do here.

I agree completely. I have done the same thing at my University. Some professors are great about it, and others not so much. I have one that posts every assignment in .docx and .pdf (for the Linux users), and another who can't seem to understand that Windows isn't the only OS out there (and this is in the Computer Science department :o:o:lolflag: ).
I am trying to get my university to at least provide OSS where available so that students can choose.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I love you guys, but you are fanboys, through and through. For the first time ever, Microsoft is embracing open standards and compatibility and all people ever do is complain. Microsoft has finally done what everyone demanded they do for more than a decade now.

What's a guy got to do? Do I need to cry under a sheet saying "Leave Microsoft Alone!" and post it on YouTube?

Microsoft has released the documentation for their binary formats in older Office versions and now they are using an open XML format. It should be easier than ever to work with documents between Microsoft Office and other office software, such as OpenOffice. Internet Explorer 8 passes ACID2 and aims for standards compliance by default. Plus with MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML) as an ISO standard, it means Microsoft won't be pulling little stunts where things are just suddenly changed out of the blue. They will stick to the standard.

MSOXML was needed. There have been several articles specifying certain features that ODF lacks that Microsoft Office needs.

Microsoft is not embracing open standards; they are, again, enacting "Not invented here" syndrome. They could use the ODF standard, which is already an ISO standard and a really good format, but Microsoft's problem with that is they did not invent it, so they run the risk of losing their control. Thus, the wimps chose to complicate this field by bringing in another standard -- a format that was clearly not designed with standardization or even external use in mind -- and using that. Thus, they could ignore the ODF thing altogether and continue their failing attempts to avoid free software.
Microsoft is also trying to force movement of businesses to Office 2007 (and only Office 2007). They are currently reluctant to go there, but the need to upgrade is becoming obvious. A few days ago, the choice was:
-Office 2007; convoluted new interface... new format would require updating internal software to follow a 6000 page specification.
-OpenOffice; native format is an ISO standard, very similar feel to Office 2003. The format being an ISO standard means that compatibility "should not" be an issue, and upgrading internal software, while still time-consuming, should be a reasonably permanent fix. Standards do not die quickly.
Now that Office 2007's format is an ISO standard, those reluctant businesses are obligated to upgrade. A tiny bit of marketing later (note Microsoft's insistence that OOXML is the best format), and the choice seems obvious.

This problem that Microsoft has is a big one, and it injurs the entire industry. It is because of them that web design is so difficult; they chose to ignore web standards, and are forcing other browsers to incorporate their own out of place tweaks in order to stay competitive.
Image formats? Video formats? -- Many custom formats implemented and used by Microsoft, in some cases only by Microsoft. There are many far superior formats out there, but Microsoft refuses to accept that competent software developers exist outside their walls.

Like many of Microsoft's other rushed-to-market formats, OOXML is a mess. You have binary blobs, AutoSpaceLikeWord95, the completely ignored 1900 bug... oh, and it's 6000 pages long. No specification like this should be 6000 pages; if it needs to be that long, something is broken. No, that thing should not be "fixed", it should be incinerated and started again from scratch.
How was it accepted, then? Two theories exist:
-Stupidity of the same form that has allowed Microsoft to continue thriving as it is. The theory is that some governments may vote for a standard because it is already widely implemented. Actually, the OOXML spec has changed enough in the past year that Office 2007 is not actually using it, so it is not really widely implemented. For that matter, I wonder if it is implemented at all...
-Bribes and piles of money going to promoting the format. No, I don't mind that Microsoft spends their money. My problem is that any decent format should not need any such marketing to become standard. Do you think ODF's standardization made as much noise as Microsoft's?

These guys have a pretty good explanation of the technical issues: http://www.noooxml.org/

My biggest problem, though, is with how Microsoft continues to have no respect for standards. They could have implemented ODF in their products (Sun even created a plugin for them), but they instead are creating a second standard. Their behaviour is seriously harming the software industry, making the end user experience excessively complex and inconsistent. Microsoft is holding back the true power of consumer computers ("the magic of software", as their founder would say), keeping everything completely stagnant, until they are themselves ready to invent it themselves.

Free software, on the other hand, follows a pattern where nobody has that type of grip. Innovation happens as it wishes; standards (eg: Freedesktop, POSIX) pop up where it makes sense and in the natural way. No sane developer risks being an outlier here, so software tends to interoperate fairly well, with the result being that development is potentially much, much easier.

[kaboodle_fish]

Sir, I stand to applaud you

[zmjjmz]

Microsoft [snip] easier.

(That was because it was too long for the enitre thing to be quoted.)
A friend of mine who got an important piece for a biology project has come to the conclusion that this isn't MS afraid of losing control, rather it's them using vendor lock in to milk the market.

You do have to admit that it's a good (although somewhat evil) business model.

[piousp]

After all, Bill is a marketing genious. Of course its gonna be a "good business" model....
OMG, i was just about to ask this:
"There is no guarantee that anybody can write software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent lawsuits or patent license fees by Microsoft;"

taken from http://www.noooxml.org/petition

[Chame_Wizard]

we all know that M$ always push their motives with money,

[Tom Mann]

ISO have some massive issues now - they have two standards accomplishing the same task (assuming you take that as ISO think OOXML can do it) now, they have to:

Make OOXML and ODF work together, as they are both standards and should both work together.

Microsoft actually have to implement ISO OOXML instead of the OOXML in Office 2007 (Maybe in a service pack? Or is it another pay-to-upgrade) ODF is implemented on various platforms with various applications. This will take a lot of time and ODF still has the edge here.

Now - this is how I see it. MS will still try to discredit ODF with FUD whilst suggesting (which would be lying) that Office 2007 OOXML is ISO standard (which it is not due to alterations to OOXML post-release).

The reality is ISO ODF is here, ISO OOXML isn't quite here. This is where our community has to take charge and educate people around us of what ODF is compared to OOXML. However I wouldn't suggest sending people to defectivebydesign.org, as some people could see it as propaganda (my impressions when I go on there is just that, so I learn from it and show people the problems instead).

Wow, sorry guys quite a long post. Any comments?

Tom

[piousp]

However I wouldn't suggest sending people to defectivebydesign.org....


Woah, i thought it didnt exist http://defectivebydesign.org/

[drascus]

ahhhh *insert vulgar words*. I am so mad.

[Dekkon]

Yes it is important. Now there are two standards for the same function.

They do have the same general function but the Microsoft format might have funtionality that Open Document Format does not and Vise Versa. Its funny how you all flaunt around about how you guys like choices, well Microsoft is giving users another choice; a documented and open one at that. Think of GStreamer and Xine, they share the same function but the linux community doesn't mind that.

I like Linux, but the community can be quite irritating at times and no one likes a fanboy.

[akiratheoni]

They do have the same general function but the Microsoft format might have funtionality that Open Document Format does not and Vise Versa. Its funny how you all flaunt around about how you guys like choices, well Microsoft is giving users another choice; a documented and open one at that. Think of GStreamer and Xine, they share the same function but the linux community doesn't mind that.

I like Linux, but the community can be quite irritating at times and no one likes a fanboy.

Isn't that because Gstreamer and Xine aren't backed by a multi-billion dollar organization whose business model can be summed up by three words?

Embrace
Extend
Extinguish

Watch out, the first step is already out of the way... =/

[Dekkon]

Isn't that because Gstreamer and Xine aren't backed by a multi-billion dollar organization whose business model can be summed up by three words?

Embrace
Extend
Extinguish

Watch out, the first step is already out of the way... =/

Well, Time will tell and we will all have to wait and see. I'm just curious is Microsoft will follow the standard without using closed source extensions.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

They do have the same general function but the Microsoft format might have funtionality that Open Document Format does not and Vise Versa. Its funny how you all flaunt around about how you guys like choices, well Microsoft is giving users another choice; a documented and open one at that. Think of GStreamer and Xine, they share the same function but the linux community doesn't mind that.

I like Linux, but the community can be quite irritating at times and no one likes a fanboy.

There is a big difference between a choice and an ISO standard. GStreamer and Xine are not ISO standards. If one of them was, however, there is a good chance lots of software would strive to support it under the thought that, being a standard, that specification will remain compatible and easy to work with into the future.

Okay, good, Microsoft released the OOXML specs. (Ever heard of security by obscurity, by the way?). Good for them, they're accepting that they need to let go of some control if they want their customers remotely content. However, at no point there is it necessary to get the thing passed as an international standard when a superior, well tested and easier to implement standard already exists.

[akiratheoni]

Heh, I doubt it. Doesn't Office 2007 save in an OOXML incompatible file format?

[TeraDyne]

I like Linux, but the community can be quite irritating at times and no one likes a fanboy.

I can think of a few more communities that act the same way.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter if MS got it passed as a standard. Users and developers will make their choice of what to support and what not to support, no MS. Again, that's how I see it.

[arbulus]

Microsoft is not embracing open standards; they are, again, enacting "Not invented here" syndrome. They could use the ODF standard, which is already an ISO standard and a really good format, but Microsoft's problem with that is they did not invent it, so they run the risk of losing their control. Thus, the wimps chose to complicate this field by bringing in another standard -- a format that was clearly not designed with standardization or even external use in mind -- and using that. Thus, they could ignore the ODF thing altogether and continue their failing attempts to avoid free software.
Microsoft is also trying to force movement of businesses to Office 2007 (and only Office 2007). They are currently reluctant to go there, but the need to upgrade is becoming obvious. A few days ago, the choice was:
-Office 2007; convoluted new interface... new format would require updating internal software to follow a 6000 page specification.
-OpenOffice; native format is an ISO standard, very similar feel to Office 2003. The format being an ISO standard means that compatibility "should not" be an issue, and upgrading internal software, while still time-consuming, should be a reasonably permanent fix. Standards do not die quickly.
Now that Office 2007's format is an ISO standard, those reluctant businesses are obligated to upgrade. A tiny bit of marketing later (note Microsoft's insistence that OOXML is the best format), and the choice seems obvious.

This problem that Microsoft has is a big one, and it injurs the entire industry. It is because of them that web design is so difficult; they chose to ignore web standards, and are forcing other browsers to incorporate their own out of place tweaks in order to stay competitive.
Image formats? Video formats? -- Many custom formats implemented and used by Microsoft, in some cases only by Microsoft. There are many far superior formats out there, but Microsoft refuses to accept that competent software developers exist outside their walls.

Like many of Microsoft's other rushed-to-market formats, OOXML is a mess. You have binary blobs, AutoSpaceLikeWord95, the completely ignored 1900 bug... oh, and it's 6000 pages long. No specification like this should be 6000 pages; if it needs to be that long, something is broken. No, that thing should not be "fixed", it should be incinerated and started again from scratch.
How was it accepted, then? Two theories exist:
-Stupidity of the same form that has allowed Microsoft to continue thriving as it is. The theory is that some governments may vote for a standard because it is already widely implemented. Actually, the OOXML spec has changed enough in the past year that Office 2007 is not actually using it, so it is not really widely implemented. For that matter, I wonder if it is implemented at all...
-Bribes and piles of money going to promoting the format. No, I don't mind that Microsoft spends their money. My problem is that any decent format should not need any such marketing to become standard. Do you think ODF's standardization made as much noise as Microsoft's?

These guys have a pretty good explanation of the technical issues: http://www.noooxml.org/

My biggest problem, though, is with how Microsoft continues to have no respect for standards. They could have implemented ODF in their products (Sun even created a plugin for them), but they instead are creating a second standard. Their behaviour is seriously harming the software industry, making the end user experience excessively complex and inconsistent. Microsoft is holding back the true power of consumer computers ("the magic of software", as their founder would say), keeping everything completely stagnant, until they are themselves ready to invent it themselves.

Free software, on the other hand, follows a pattern where nobody has that type of grip. Innovation happens as it wishes; standards (eg: Freedesktop, POSIX) pop up where it makes sense and in the natural way. No sane developer risks being an outlier here, so software tends to interoperate fairly well, with the result being that development is potentially much, much easier.


You deserve an ovation. You hit it right on the head.

[arbulus]

They do have the same general function but the Microsoft format might have funtionality that Open Document Format does not and Vise Versa. Its funny how you all flaunt around about how you guys like choices, well Microsoft is giving users another choice; a documented and open one at that. Think of GStreamer and Xine, they share the same function but the linux community doesn't mind that.

I like Linux, but the community can be quite irritating at times and no one likes a fanboy.


But that's the thing, they ARE NOT offering choice. They are telling users "when you use our products, you will use the formats WE tell you and those alone. We don't care if there are other ISO standards out there, ours is the only one we are going to let you use."

If MS built full ODF support into office, I could buy the "Microsoft offering choices" arguement. But it falls flat in the face of reality. And that reality is that MS doesn't want you to have choices, they want you to use only the formats THEY create and no others. They are never going to support ODF and they went way out of their way to make sure they never have to.

That's not choice.

[ZarathustraDK]

Let's not get overly annoyed, there's plenty of headspace to mess it up for Microsoft.

First of all, there are 2 months to appeal the decision. Something I, somehow, think is already in the making which would stall OOXML's acceptance further (it requires 2 months for the appeals to come in, then even longer to consider those appeals).

Second, Neelie "Badass" Kroes will most likely have a say in this too, as the EU will inquire into the irregularities of the vote as part of their investigation into the interoperability-issue with MS Office : http://peytz.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/eu-will-inquire-into-irregularities-in-ooxml-voting-process/

Yeah yeah, shamelessly linking to ones own blog....I sent the letter, I got the reply, I get to link :)

[StooJ]

Just in response to all these accusations of fanboi-ism.

Whether or not you love Microsoft, the OOXML format being approved as a standard is a bad thing.

First of all, it was pushed through the fast-track accreditation process by microsoft, which was created for standards that already have implementations within the marketplace.
There are NO existing office programmes that can use the OOXML format, microsoft or otherwise. Office 2007 uses a different OOXML format to the one submitted to the ISO.

OOXML uses non-standardized formats within it's structure, for example, the storage of dates BREAKS existing ISO standards. It is also NOT open. Microsoft have come up with a "covenant not to sue". However, that doesn't mean developers can rest easy (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62037862,00.htm).

The OOXML specification is a 6000 page document that had over "1,100 comments (after elimination of duplicates) registered by the 87 National Bodies that voted last summer with respect to a specification"
"Only a very small percentage of the proposed dispositions were discussed in detail, amended and approved by the delegations in attendance at the BRM, indicating the inability of OOXML to be adequately addressed within the "Fast Track" process"

There is a standard already! ODF is the ISO approved standard, and limitations in the standard are solved by adding to it, not creating a new one.

Not to mention the allegations of an alarming amount of cheating going on. My girlfriend accuses me of being naive, but have a look at this (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2008032913190768) (it's a translation)

"Here's an article from Norway, and the translation of the title of the article is, "Scandal in Standards Norway. I didn't write that headline. They did. And here's why. The article says there should be an investigation of the irregularities there, because while there were only two votes to approve, from Microsoft and a business partner, Statoilhydro, and all the others voted no, 21 votes, they approved anyway."

I know that a lot of people here are very anti-microsoft. I might even be one of them sometimes. But accusing us of fanboy-ism when we bemoan the approval of a corrupt, broken standard with dodgy "open" promises and an escape route should microsoft close the spec in the future, especially when an existing standard is already in place, is going too far.

[TeraDyne]

I know that a lot of people here are very anti-microsoft. I might even be one of them sometimes. But accusing us of fanboy-ism when we bemoan the approval of a corrupt, broken standard with dodgy "open" promises and an escape route should microsoft close the spec in the future, especially when an existing standard is already in place, is going too far.

No, actually, it isn't going too far when it comes to some people. However, not everyone's like that.

As for your reasons behind being against it, I say "So what?". The thing is, people have to be willing to use a ISO standard before it's useful. A lot of people are switching to OOo and ODF, but a good majority would still use OOXML, even if it wasn't an "ISO Standard", as it would quickly become the de facto standard.

Even if MS hadn't cheated or given a spec that didn't break current standards, it's not like a real difference would have been made. The only way things are going to change is if people start using the open alternatives like ODF, and that'll take some time and convincing.

We should start pushing the use of ODF, rather than trying to constantly bash or stop the opposition. When the only thing people know is "Microsoft Office", they're not to go know what to use in place of the defective product. By getting all of the information out there at once, we confuse them. Therefore, we need to start with information about Office alternatives and ODF, and then we tell people to switch.

Of course, the majority only know how to use Office, will only use what certain people tell them to use, or are forced to use closed formats, but that's a completely different discussion, which I'll save for another time... or as a discussion on my livejournal.

[z0mbie]

I will ignore OOXML. ODF only. If you can't handle it, tough luck. This is what I do with mp3s, all my encoding is ogg, if you can't play them I'll help you install codecs, but I won't send you mp3s. Forget about it.

[piousp]

Ogg vorbis is awesome!

[bruce89]

Ogg vorbis is awesome!

Indeed.

We all know how success MS has had with VML (a fake SVG).

[piousp]

Indeed.

We all know how success MS has had with VML (a fake SVG).

i just can say: :lolflag:

[el mariachi]

VML?! never even heard about it xD

[bruce89]

VML?! never even heard about it xD

I'll fill in the gaps.

A load of companies had their own vector standard which was to become SVG. At this time, MS also proposed VML, but the W3C didn't recommend it, but SVG. VML is still used by MS however, especially in Office.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I'll fill in the gaps.

A load of companies had their own vector standard which was to become SVG. At this time, MS also proposed VML, but the W3C didn't recommend it, but SVG. VML is still used by MS however, especially in Office.

Hehehe, that sounds precisely like OOXML. Microsoft is starting to look like the kid nobody pays attention to, except this one has money, plans world domination (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958) in secret and is seeking revenge!

Trouble is, to the outside world, things are precisely the opposite. Strange little inversion going on there...

[bruce89]

Hehehe, that sounds precisely like OOXML. Microsoft is starting to look like the kid nobody pays attention to, except this one has money, plans world domination (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958) in secret and is seeking revenge!

I'm afraid it's not really the same. VML was only used in the MSO 2003 HTML output.

In fact VML is the vector part of OOXML, even though SVG is the proper standard. It would appear OOXML is just a load of MS's own failed "standards" rolled into one.

[vexorian]

Miguel loves ISO's OOXML approval...

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Apr-02.html

... This is the kind of people behind 'mono'

If you bought Miguel's praise of how the approval is good to FLOSS, a MS employee begs to differ: (Edit: I misunderstood some other article that said this was a MS employee, it actually comes from some sort of MS business associates, I have no idea what they are, this said, they use asp.net in their site, that's enough to link them to MS...)

http://rcpmag.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=2075

That's how MS feels about the whole thing, ODF was unfair to them and in no way would they actually implement it, that would treathen their bussiness model, then:


But now, all of those government agencies charged with implementing standards-based computing are free to turn away from open source and run back to sweet mama Microsoft


Well, in this case, nobody could knock out the champ -- not the open source movement, not rival vendors, not bloggers, not the trade press. OOXML's status as a standard might not affect our everyday work lives all that much, but it does remind us of one thing: Microsoft is still Microsoft, and, when it wants to be, Microsoft is still the boss.

The world has its change to fight a monopoly that is unfairly abused, but we failed and gave the control back to MS, and this guys agrees. Thanks ISO.

So, the sanity award goes to the anonymous guy that replied to that blog:


I think all they've demonstrated is that there is NO integrity, NO values, NO ethics in what they do. As far as I'm concerned, it confirms my decision was the right one in canceling our contract with Microsoft. All this tells me, is that Microsoft is unable to compete fairly

After all, Microsoft is competitively inept, and that's the truth, all the spawning of dirty tricks might help it today, but I really think that this whole deal has shown how vulnerable Microsoft is. We actually were able to see the beast scared. I can confirm this out of all the crazy stunts they had to do in order to buy the vote accordingly. What they got now is an utter mess.

They got two standards they have not implemented yet.
They are once again a target for an EU investigation.
Their image has been squashed, everyone sees MS as the big old MS that never respected users, so we all verified all that openish talk was BS.

So, my take is that this is a huge victory to MS, but it will backfire and that's going to hurt.

[kaboodle_fish]

If, perhaps, anyone was under the mistaken impression that MS doesn't use underhand tactics to get their own way regardless of the legal, moral or ethical implications should read the link below

http://boycottnovell.com/2008/04/05/microsoft-ibm-epa-proxy/

[el mariachi]

creepy