This whitepaper from a RIP vendor summarizes the technology behind Vista's XPS document format [.pdf] and its implementation as a print engine as compared to the current GDI in Windows XP. Will it suffer on non-Microsoft platforms, even if its specifications will be open, and how does it compare in methods and goals to Apple's PDF-based Quartz rendering engine?
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh right, so where is the ODF plugin for Office?! nothing stopping someone from grabbing the ODF specs and creating their own plugin for Office!
Right..... So why doesn't Microsoft do it then?
they offer PDF and they offer XPS; let the consumer decide which is best for his or her needs;
Which is built into Windows and Office, and the PDF implementation in there is something Microsoft controls. The user will in no way end up deciding.
Let's get this customer and consumer choice bullshit out of the way, OK. I know you Microsoft guys sit having it brainwashed into you, but it doesn't exist, OK?
or is this the old communist ideology of 'you don't know what you want, so leave it up to us elite to make those tough decisions for you!'
Nice communist argument there, and yes, that's exactly what Microsoft does ;-).
You seem to have a major problem with Microsoft offering choices!
Oh right, so ODF is a choice then? Since when has Microsoft done choice?
good lord, the possibility that you might just have to actually CHOOSE which file format you want
There's no point in Microsoft giving people the choice of their own, controlled format. Open and accepted standards in PDF, PS and SVG already exist. Tell Microsoft to adopt them.
If XPS is submited to ECMA, in full, what are you going to do?
Yet more ECMA bollocks. Just because Microsoft submits something to the ECMA it doesn't mean that it isn't patented (the exact opposite in fact), it doesn't mean that the technology isn't under Microsoft's control and it doesn't stop Microsoft from creating extensions that are not part of the ECMA submission, like .Net.
The ECMA stuff is about playing at being open.
Member since:2005-07-06
Yet more ECMA bollocks. Just because Microsoft submits something to the ECMA it doesn't mean that it isn't patented (the exact opposite in fact), it doesn't mean that the technology isn't under Microsoft's control and it doesn't stop Microsoft from creating extensions that are not part of the ECMA submission, like .Net.
Anyone, not just MS, is free to participate in the ECMA process and help evolve the standards (and several entities have). The other formats you mentioned also have patents on them. XPS et al., are no less open than they are. ECMA is only deminished in your view due to your bias against MS. The reality does not fit your bias. Is ISO also "bollocks" because they also approved C# and CLI as standards, and will likely approve other MS submissions in the pipeline?
.NET is an extension of the ECMA/ISO standard in the same way that MFC/Win32, etc. are extensions of the C++ standard. .NET is one (of many) implementations that conform to the standard and include the standard libraries. It also includes new libraries to support MS-specific needs. Mono likewise includes *n*x-specific libraries. This is what is expected and encouraged, and is the whole point.
A programming environment wouldn't be of much use if one could not build code on top of it that is specific to their applications. The standard is there to create a common base that developers can use to build solutions to their specific problems. It is not there to solve everyone's problems from the start and offer no means of extensibility. And just because MS actually uses the platform does not mean everything they produce should be rolled into the standard.
Edited 2006-03-01 18:00
Member since:
2005-07-06
Oh right. Where's the ODF support then?
Oh right, so where is the ODF plugin for Office?! nothing stopping someone from grabbing the ODF specs and creating their own plugin for Office! If it is so important, that person might even get funding from a few companies who are interested in that support!
PDF is in Office 2007 simply because Microsoft wants to surround and replace it with Metro and XPS, because PDF (and Postscript) is an accepted standard in the professional printing world which Microsoft is a bit uncomfortable with.
XPS is Metro - and whats wrong with offering the consumer another choice? they offer PDF and they offer XPS; let the consumer decide which is best for his or her needs; or is this the old communist ideology of 'you don't know what you want, so leave it up to us elite to make those tough decisions for you!'
You seem to have a major problem with Microsoft offering choices! good lord, the possibility that you might just have to actually CHOOSE which file format you want rather than it being rammed down your proverbial throat! shock! horror!
I *CHOOSE* to use iTunes over Windows Media Player, I *CHOOSE* to use GAIM over YIM/AOL/Google, I *CHOOSE* to use VLC over Windows Media Player.
I have made choices, and this will be another choice for the market to make; do they continue to support PDF or do they give XPS a try, give its fairly liberl nature in respects to its royalty free licencing and encouragement to other vendors to support the format.
If XPS is submited to ECMA, in full, what are you going to do? will you continue to use PDF even though XPS would be an official openstandard? sounds like it, by the tone of your post; its all about hating Microsoft rather than praising the idea that maybe another format out there, as competition to PDF, is just what is required.