OSNews

Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay...

This is a common argument. OOXML has not reach anything near a critical mass to make it worthwhile, and it doesn't justify it as an implementable standard or the doctored process it has gone through. Saying that Microsoft has come up with it to so it is inevitable is not a great argument.

So, I think the GNOME project is doing the rigth think, always thinking with the cold head for the sake of the user and not jumping into attacks that won't lead to anywhere but isolation.

The rational approach is to help get peoples' existing documents into an open format everyone can work with. That is the only workable, technical solution that can have any benefit for users. Running around trying to support yet another unsupportable format isn't the answer.

MS Office uses it by default. Since it has more market share then everything else put together, I would say that it has long since hit critical mass, and you really need to come up with good reasons NOT to use it, since it is what the rest of the world operates on.

I'm not sure if MS Office 2007 (earlyer versions don't use OOXML by default) has a higher market share than OpenOffice etc.

I really don't have the numbers, but I do know that Office 2k7 has been selling real well. The point is moot though, if OOXML doesnt have a bigger market share now, it will over the next few years, unless something completely unexpected happens to the office productivity landscape.

"Microsoft Office."

FALSE.

DOC has critical mass behind it.
For OOXML to reach the same critical mass, MS must first force-upgrade each and every Office 2K/XP/2K3 user.

- Gilboa

Edited 2007-11-25 08:18

Exactly.
And in fact, nobody is rushing to upgrade to office 2007. I know all new systems will eventually have it, but for the time being most people use the older versions.

As a matter of fact, experienced users have a hard time getting the new logic based on the ribbon interface. Maybe new users will find it easier, but for someone used to the classic menu it is confusing and counter productive to begin with (but it may just be a matter of time to adjust).

Biggest problem is office 2007 saves in OOXML by default, novice users don't know about it, they send these files to office XP/2K3 users, and my phone keeps ringing all the time

Hiev, Its obvious from your posts on this site that you love the gnome project, perhaps even worship it, but be told... it is not the messiah, its just a naughty boy.

I like GNOME because is a project that thinks and behaves like me most of the time.

KDE may verbaly reject OOXML now, but they will implemented it and they will look as hypocrits and give explanations later to justify that movement. I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS, FreeDesktop.org, etc.

Think smart the first time and you won't look as an hypocrit or give explanations later.

Edited 2007-11-25 17:51

I like GNOME because is a project that thinks and behaves like me most of the time.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

KDE may verbaly reject OOXML now, but they will implemented it and they will look as hypocrits and give explanations later to justify that movement.

It would be wise for free and open source software to take a stand and make sure that people can convert their binary office documents to ODF rather than running around like a headless chicken to re-implement the same thing. Should OOXML conversion be required in the future then it will be that much easier.

That's all that's at issue here: OOXML -> ODF to make sure we have a sustainable format.

I wouldn't be the first time, remember DBUS, FreeDesktop.org, etc.

DBUS is very heavily inspired by DCOP, that KDE came up with and used, DBUS is now used throughout the KDE desktop and much of the stuff you will see on Freedesktop has KDE people behind it.

What point are you trying to make?

I think it's a difference if you just write a converter for OOXML or if you join OOXML promotion groups on behalf of the GNOME Foundation.

Right. In one case, you're implementing a shitty standard that's nearly impossible to support properly.

In the second, you're trying to force MS to produce modify the spec to the point where it's possible, if not quite easy, to implement support for OOXML.

>>Well, love it or hate it OOXML is here to stay<<

That is not the problem. The problem is that OOXML is being certified by the ISO as on open standard, and OOXML is absolutely *not* open.

In many places, the OOXML documentation makes statements like: "do this the same as in Office-97" but the office-97 specs are closed. Hence OOXML is *not* open.

Msft is free to churn out whatever proprietary standards they want. And stupid people are free to be vendor-locked by those standards. Just don't lie about OOXML being open, that is all I ask.

If there were some sort of international regulatory body that could force Microsoft not to use OOXML as its default file format in MS Office unless it's accepted as an ISO standard, then maybe I'd agree with you.

But Microsoft is only pushing for ISO approval as a half-hearted nod to the "rest of the software ecosystem", and if they can't lie, cheat, and steal their way to official standardization, then becoming a de facto standard will be alright on them.

In fact, if their competitors don't want OOXML to be a standard, then Microsoft has every business incentive to make it a moving target in retribution. "Hey, you guys didn't want a standard, so enjoy chasing our tail lights."

The free software idealists' stance is similar to boycotting an election. Great, you stood by your principles, and now you get to live under the most repressive regime.

The outcome of this format war is obvious: it's a game of chicken to decide which format becomes the pivot, and it's Microsoft's Hummer vs. everybody else on motor scooters. The free software community needs to support OOXML more than Microsoft needs to support ODF.

To quote David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief legal counsel: "We're going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop." Show me the larger force that's going to prevent Microsoft from pushing OOXML and maybe then the free software community can afford to shun it.

Edited 2007-11-25 01:38

If you ask me, Hummer is a fat piece of crap and on a dirty terrain like this one I can tell you precisely who will be the victim slained in the mud.

If you don't mind to abuse your rhetorical instruments

Microsoft isn't the only suite that supports it, IIRC, Apple's iWork 08 also supports OOXML.

Microsoft isn't the only suite that supports it, IIRC, Apple's iWork 08 also supports OOXML.

Can you tell me how much of OOXML Apple has been able to implement, how much compatibility they have with Office 2007 and can you point me to the test suite that Apple and everybody else is using so they can work towards a 100% implementation?

This is my very point. Coming up with an exceptionally basic spreadsheet and then opening it up in Numbers and Gnumeric doesn't prove a thing.

That is a common opinion that is going around around. Miguel, talking from his position as founder of gnumeric, says that OOXML has a far more usable spec for spreadsheet apps, and goes into a high level comparison of the two here http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html, but that it is really hard to say one spec is better then the other.

There are really only three main areas not open in OOXML, that is backwards compatibility with binary office formats, clip art, and encryption. That is far from the popular opinion that OOXML is basically an XML wrapper around binary blobs.

Miguel, talking from his position as founder of gnumeric, says that OOXML has a far more usable spec for spreadsheet apps...

Miguel can say this all he wants, but it isn't backed up by facts. Open Office, KOffice, Lotus and Google Docs are all implementing various spreadsheet features like the often criticised formulas part and people are improving it as part of something called a community.

...but that it is really hard to say one spec is better then the other.

There is ample evidence that it is going to be as close to impossible as possible to get a 100%, complete implementation of OOXML that is interoperable with Office 2007. You and Miguel should read it, because we're not going to go over it again.

There are really only three main areas not open in OOXML, that is backwards compatibility with binary office formats, clip art, and encryption.

OOXML is merely various parts of the old binary format thrown into a XML format with most of the implementation not specified. That much is obvious when you read it. Backwards compatibility is a central reason why Microsoft has justified OOXML, clip art is very much a part of the spec, and it is exceptionally inadequate for an international standard as most of it is westernised, and where's the interoperability if you can't open an encrypted document?

Saying something is open does not make it so, but then, that's all the OOXML proponents seem to have in response.

That is far from the popular opinion that OOXML is basically an XML wrapper around binary blobs.

You obviously haven't read the spec documents. Some light reading:

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.h...

Very little of the useful information in a file is encapsulated in XML, and XML doesn't make it usable either.

yes, there is a very real difference between implementing a spec and being a part of the standardization process.

sadly, Jody will likely only be a bystander in that process anyways as it is doubtful Microsoft will allow meaningful involvement beyond what helps their own self interests (e.g. allowing just enough input to be able to point and say "hey, see, others are involved too, just like a real standard!").

i understand why Jody and the GNOME Foundation are doing what they are doing, however i also think it's a bit on the naive side of hopefulness and certainly sends the wrong message to the world.

one can certainly implement standards without being involved in their creation. sometimes that's precisely what one needs to do.

when looking for cues as to when to do that, it may be useful to look at what your friends, allies and trusted colleagues are doing.

Aaron, we were not involved in OOXML's creation, nor are we contributing to it becoming an ISO standard. Microsoft dumped the spec on ECMA, Jody has been pushing them hard to release relevant documentation for as much of it as he can.

That has actually been of material benefit to the fight against OOXML in ISO, given that Jody has blown out the OOXML specification size pretty well. :-)

That has actually been of material benefit to the fight against OOXML in ISO, given that Jody has blown out the OOXML specification size pretty well. :-)

What OOXML specification?

It doesn't matter what the published spec is. The only defacto standard that matters is Microsoft's implementation, and it's already out there. That implementation can, and probably will, change as and when Microsoft sees fit with no regard whatsoever to the published specification.

What is Jody going to be using as his test suite for OOXML? If it's Office 2007, I rest my case.

Anyone who cannot see that is an idiot.

Im afraid the only idiot here is you.

You speculate to much of what MS will do with OOXML without probes, and you will recall history saying "MS have done that and that and other". Get a life.

Even if it happens, do you think GNOME is going to be the only one affected? KOffice, Qt, OpenOffice all those are going to be affected because they will implement it too.

BTW. Do you recall them to have changed the .DOC format? no? of course not. They did just in versioning.

Like I said, you are just blinded by choice.

Edited 2007-11-26 20:48

hey jeff =)

"we were not involved in OOXML's creation,"

the whole point of Jody being involved with the ECMA group is to help have a say in OOXML isn't it? that's pretty much "involved in OOXML's creation". perhaps the word "creation" is incorrect; let me replace that with the word "development".

"nor are we contributing to it becoming an ISO standard"

that's merely an unintended side effect of this. i certainly don't believe it is the intention, however. it sucks when intention and results don't match up, i know. =/

p.s. see you at l.c.a in january =))

No. OOXML was very much Microsoft's creation, dumped on ECMA. As noted in the statement and my comment earlier, Jody is there to get as much documentation out of them as possible.

The problem is not in the implementation but in the collaboration. What he was trying to say was that at the end of the day ooxml is an MS office format and that the format will most likely primarily cater to MS office as opposed to being something that all projects can give input on. Even if the format were accepted as an open standard only one implementation really matters, and thats Microsoft's. If every other office suite were to implement the standard to the letter but MS doesn't then the standard is not a standard because all anyone is going to care about is how MS implements the standard, thus MS's version of ooxml (eventhough they wrote this one)is the defacto standard not the one held by the ECMA. Kind of like the Renderman spec. Pixar released a standard spec of their Renderman platform hoping that other rendering systems would implement them, yet Pixar themselves have added things that go beyond the spec (they do update it eventually but note that not all things have to be implemented in-order to be called renderman compatible, but what use is that?) at the end of the day the only "standard" people adhere to is the implementation (product) that Pixar has released and very little focus on the actual standard specification that is released.

What exactly does that mean? It means that the OSS community will always be playing catch-up with MS, Any office suite that implements ooxml will always be one step behind MS, because they have to be compatible with MS's version of ooxml not the one released by the ECMA. The problem is that the ooxml standard actually allows this. ODF was created without MS but that was MS's own fault (or plan?) they did not want to get involved in the standardization of the format, but MS wasn't the only being asked, it wasn't just one company but many all agreeing on the standard, and to adhere to it in varying degrees (if I'm not mistaken, with ODf you can always implement less but not more to the format). That in my opinion is what makes ooxml so dangerous. Its not really a standard that anyone will adhere to and it ill put us back into the same situation we are already in where huge amounts of data is at the mercy of one company with everyone else trying to follow with their half-ass implementations trying to grab stray users who don't want to be tied down.

The biggest example I can think of in the OSS community is Mono. If Mono isn't a poster child for why you shouldn't follow a MS "standard" then I don't know what is. At the beginning Mono was just implementing the standard ECMA version of .Net, then MS releases a whole bunch of things to .net outside of the ecma standard. The devs have to re-implement these things into Mono. It doens't matter that most of these things aren't part of the ecma standard, people expect them because they are standard (on an MS platform) and so Mono has to constantly go sniffing MS's ass trying to re-implement everythign they have added to the platform that are outside of the standard (asp,net, winforms, etc.) That will most likely happen with ooxml.

Edited 2007-11-25 01:22

Spot on.

I'm sorry, but Gnome guys are very naive to think that MS is actually sincere about allowing other people fully implement their format (ie 100% compatible with their MS Office.)

This is beyond being naive. If some people here aren't on the MS payroll yet, they should immediately apply!

Testing: MS.

Edited 2007-11-26 11:03

Holly cow?! Did you know that character M combined with $ sign in posts on this forum is automatically converted into initials of a certain company? I fooocking hope that misspelled words aren't simply deleted

Rude, but to the point. All this energy trying to be the young boy looking up to the 'big and wise brother' Microsoft is wasted, I'm afraid to say.

It will only make the older brother, not the younger one, look better for the girls -- also known as 'managers'.

It will only make the older brother, not the younger one, look better for the girls -- also known as 'managers'.

Girls are never impressed when you look the part and act the part, only to find your equipment isn't up to the job ;-).

Girls are never impressed when you look the part and act the part, only to find your equipment isn't up to the job ;-).

True, but when they finaly discover that, it's too late and they're already in bed with them... ;-)

True, but when they finaly discover that, it's too late and they're already in bed with them... ;-)

Alas, an inferior repeat performance is not on the cards.

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop, then we've got a problem on our hands.

Really, the two-proged approach is the way to go:
1) Try to prevent OOXML from taking over. Promote free, and truly open, document standards and try to make them win.

2) Make sure that if OOXML does succeed then it's possible to implement it without too much guess and check.

Which is exactly why Gnome has to be involved in the specification of OOXML.

What specification of OOXML? Since it's a woeful dump of Microsoft's existing Office features, what makes you think anyone will have any bearing on it at all?

If OOXML reaches critical mass, and it very well may eventually, then Linux office apps will more or less have to be able to handle files coming from it. If nobody pushes the standard to the point at which it's more easily implementable by the free desktop...

OOXML, as implemented by Office 2007, is already live and out there. There will be no changes made to it. It's not worthy of anyone's time or promotion.

Novell definitely doesn't have a stranglehold on GNOME, and GNOME is very much a level playing field for more companies than just Novell. Look at all the commercial and individual contributors to GNOME, look at the GNOME Foundation web page to see who is on the Advisory Board.

If anything, Novell's influence in GNOME has waned. Few GNOME developers are pleased with their deal with Microsoft, and quite a few of their influential GNOME developers have left the company. They're actually in a very difficult position in the GNOME community at the moment, and it is very much of their own making.

Novell were not involved in the GNOME Foundation's decision to help continue Jody's participation in ECMA TC45-M.

I hope that's cleared a few things up for you.

Oh, and if all of you OOXML will be only used only in Office 2007 just show your ignorance, the OS, the .NET framework and tons of other applications will use it, think in OOXML as a TextProcessor format is plaint wrong.

Telling us that it is inevitable is not addressing the issues with it.

You promote free software step by step not with absolutes, all or nothing, black or white. etc.

I don't think many people here would argue with that.

What they do try to say though, I think, is that by moving the discussion to the "OOXML is a fact we have to live with, let's now discuss how to implement it" point, Microsoft has actually managed to frogleap any questions about the politics and business moral behind OOXML, let alone the consequences for actual businesses and organizations using OOXML. And that would be a bad thing.

MS has and always will play dirthy, and everytime he does all I see is curses to MS and curse your own luck and never think with a cold head to learn from your own misstakes, and MS will and continue to do the dirthy cheats he does because you all as childs get foolled again.

Don't want to support OOXML? fine don't, and lets see who is the real loser here, the freeworld or MS, but you don't need to much to figure out who is.

You play the game smart, not whining and with "spirit and ideal" speaches because we have had to much of that, people always say those nice speaches that do nothing. If you want to ODF to succes you do it the right and smart way.

MS has and always will play dirthy, and everytime he does all I see is curses to MS and curse your own luck and never think with a cold head to learn from your own misstakes

The biggest mistake is running around supporting other peoples' formats when you don't need to.

Don't want to support OOXML? fine don't, and lets see who is the real loser here, the freeworld or MS, but you don't need to much to figure out who is.

The reason why the non-Microsoft world is in this mess is because we've all had to play these games with formats. It's about time it ended.

The biggest mistake is running around supporting other peoples' formats when you don't need to.

Those formats you call are going to be the dominant, you want it or not, you don't like it I can see that, but your patological behavior is just to think people should want what you want anyway.

The reason why the non-Microsoft world is in this mess is because we've all had to play these games with formats. It's about time it ended.

And you end it slowly step by step, because right now no one has the power or resources to kill it and one time period.

Want to keep playing the same "lets hate MS and hide our heads deep in our sorrow"?, fine I wont.

Is not my job to highlight why OOXML sucks, I know it does but ODF is not a complete solution eather, but you and others are mixing reality with passion and using it just to prormote an anti MS agenda...

Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, anti-Microsoft.