Microsoft Office program manager Brian Jones, whose work has centered around the Open XML document format, now says the so-called format war with OpenDocument is officially over. The winner, he says, is both. Jones made the statement in a blog post over the weekend following the release by Novell of an Open XML translator for OpenOffice. The plug-in enables the free, open source productivity suite to open documents created in the Microsoft format, as well as saving OpenDocument files into Open XML.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-10
So what kind of Kool-Aid you drinking over there?
It's sort of cute how you ignore all his actually comments and points and focus right in on comments that really don't have to do with the ODF specification. You seem to conveniently skip over all his critiques of the ODF.
What about where he said the ODF is a very light weight when it comes to spreadsheet applications? He personally helped write Gnumeric a spreadsheet application, and he said there is no way you can provide the level of functionality that the users need only in the 15 or so pages ODF dedicated to the matter.
What about where he talks about the need for legacy support in a document format. Microsoft took a lot of guff over support Word Perfect formatting. Let me say that again Microsoft took a lot of guff over supporting IBM Lotus Word Perfect formatting. I noticed that IBM decided to ditch all these users. It's sort of nice that ODF is saying screw you to all the legacy documents that will have to be converted as far as formatting goes.
ODF is a light weight standard and the only reason it has gotten as far as it has, is because of personally grudges against Microsoft. OOXML is not supported in OOo, so now the only valid reason that all the pundits actually put forth. That it was going to be too hard to impliment, is now null and void, because Microsoft ponyed up the cash for one of their developers to make it.
You all need to ask your self if this is a personal grudge or do you actually believe the dribble coming out of your mouth. This is the reason I use BSD and support the BSD license whole heartily over GPL. GPL brings too many evangelistic wackos to the table.
Also it is really amazing how easily people in the OOS community leave a person out to dry that has given more than most to the OOS community.
Edited 2007-03-07 01:15
Member since:2005-07-06
So what kind of Kool-Aid you drinking over there?
Evidently not as strong as what you're drinking.
It's sort of cute how you ignore all his actually comments and points and focus right in on comments that really don't have to do with the ODF specification.
Dude. Those comments in my post are exact quotes from Miguel's article that focus right in on what he believes to be problems with ODF and why he's defending OOXML, and I've given my response as to why not a great deal of it stands up to any kind of logic.
If you are able to do that in response rather than skirting around with 'it's sort of cute' meaningless replies, I'm all ears.
What about where he said the ODF is a very light weight when it comes to spreadsheet applications?
Because it's not. KOffice, Open Office, Google, Lotus Workspace etc. are all doing it. That's just a very lightweight comment without any argument apart from "Oh, it's ten pages long so there's no way I could implement that".
What about where he talks about the need for legacy support in a document format.
The legacy support arguments, that Microsoft have come out with, are utter rubbish as well. OOXML is a totally new format that is simply not backwards compatible with the previous binary format (you can't read and write them without an add on) - and yet Microsoft has felt the need to dump all the elements from the binary format into the XML one.
The way to handle this was to create a new and independent format built for the purpose, much like ODF, and then use Microsoft Office to do the awful heavy lifting of getting the old formats and all their quirks into a new and clean format without the overhead of historical problems. The ludicrous situation where OOXML replicates the Excel date problem is a case in point.
Microsoft took a lot of guff over support Word Perfect formatting.
No they didn't. They supported it at a time when they really wanted and needed to get into the office suite market, and they were not number one. That format has suddenly gone right down the pecking order at Microsoft. What flack did Microsoft take, exactly, in supporting WordPerfect's formats - or was this pulled out of the wind?
What kind of feeble argument are you trying to make here?
It's sort of nice that ODF is saying screw you to all the legacy documents that will have to be converted as far as formatting goes.
Converting to a new format is up to an application to do. It is not up to the format itself, and the notion that a new format can be responsible for converting the old format to the new by itself is just so stupid it isn't even funny.
The backwards compatibility claims with regard to OOXML are non-existent. Think about it. The only way OOXML would be backwards compatible is if I could open a document in that format in Office 97, 2000, 2003 and Open Office without any add ons or modifications. I can't - because it's a new format!
ODF is a light weight standard and the only reason it has gotten as far as it has, is because of personally grudges against Microsoft.
There's no evidence that ODF is a lightweight standard at all in view of the people and projects that are currently implementing it. That's a wonderfully well reasoned argument, which dovetails well with Miguel's apparent view that the objections people have come together to create with regard to OOXML are politically motivated and how Microsoft is consistently whinging that it's all a big IBM conspiracy. Go figure.
ODF was created first, and has been in existence for years without any trouble whatsoever. Microsoft clearly didn't have to create a new format, but they did and it has some serious problems if it is ever to be considered an open format. I refer you back to the Groklaw objections page for information. That's all that matters. Anything else is just pointless whinging.
OOXML is not supported in OOo, so now the only valid reason that all the pundits actually put forth.
ODF existed years before OOXML, and ODF is not supported in Microsoft Office. The point here being?
That it was going to be too hard to impliment, is now null and void
The implementations outside of Microsoft Office are so incomplete it isn't even funny, and they would never be practically useful in exchanging documents with Office 2007. Given the usage of back end implementations such as WMF, Microsoft's own vector drawing and math libraries (which will have to have their own implementations on other platforms rather than re-using existing standards) there are solid technical reasons for suggesting that full implementation of OOXML will never be practically possible - which is the point.
You did read my comment rather than jumping up and down, right?
You all need to ask your self if this is a personal grudge or do you actually believe the dribble coming out of your mouth.
Whatever. That's a sour grapes, emotional statement by any stretch of the imagination and a pointless waste of time - something you and many people defending OOXML claim everyone else is doing!
This is the reason I use BSD and support the BSD license whole heartily over GPL. GPL brings too many evangelistic wackos to the table.
Goodness me. That's a tangent if ever I saw one.
Also it is really amazing how easily people in the OOS community leave a person out to dry that has given more than most to the OOS community.
No one is hanging Miguel out to dry. I'm afraid that he needs no help from anyone whatsoever in doing that, sadly. All people are doing is responding to some of the things he is coming out with, and the confused message he has always given regarding open source software in relation to Microsoft.
It just shows how sad Novell have become when they release a totally incomplete OOXML translator plugin, and then a Microsoft employee immediately bangs on his blog that this is evidence that OOXML is open and everything is OK.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I encourage everybody to read this article.
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html
I'm not impressed by Miguel's reasoning in that article. He just seems to have lost it a bit more than he already has in view of the Novell/Microsoft deal and the whole .Net replication thing. There are better responses elsewhere, but some highlights:
Some folks have been using a Wiki to keep track of the issues with OOXML. The motivation for tracking these issues seems to be politically inclined, but it manages to pack some important technical issues.
Hmmmm. A community of people get together to point out shortcomings in a proposed specification - and it's somehow politically inclined? As opposed to what, exactly?
By comparison, ODF only references three ISO standards: Relax NG (OOXML also references this one), 639 (language codes) and 3166 (country codes).
So what about all the W3C standards, with a lot of implementations out in the wild, that ODF uses as well as IETF?
It is weak because the complaint is that Windows Metafiles are not specified. It is certainly not in the standard, but the information is publicly available and is hardly "undisclosed information".
Goodness Miguel....... WMF is actually a shadow, if you like, of graphical function calls made by Windows as it renders. It is absolutely specific to the Windows API and maps right on to it. Hell, even Wine suffers from the WMF flaw it's so specific.
Not only it is demanded that OOXML abide by more standards than ISO's own ODF does, but also that the format used for metafiles from 1999 be used.
I also don't understand this, because WMF is ancient, and was cobbled together in the late 80s for Windows 3.0. CGM dates from 1999, so it is somehow bad? Don't get that one.
There is a good case to be made for OOXML to be further fine-tuned before it becomes an ISO standard. But considering that Office 2007 has shipped, I doubt that any significant changes to the file format would be implemented in the short or medium term.
So Office 2007 has shipped, and that's the barometer by which a proposed ISO standard is approved? There is somehow one law for Microsoft and one law for everyone else and we simply have to lump it? I simply don't get that one. Suppose Office 2007, or a later version of Office, differs from what is in the OOXML spec? What the hell does everyone else do then?
The really bizarre thing he then proceeds to do is praise .Net and XAML at the end and call them achievable goals. I can understand that to be honest, because he needs a reason for Mono to exist, but I still find it........bizarre in view of his silly criticisms elsewhere.
There's something even more bizarre at the end though:
Christian Stefan wrote me to point out that the OOXML specification published by ECMA uses 1.5 line spacing, while OASIS uses single spacing.
He then proceeds to do some adding up of the number of pages in the ODF specification, and all the standards and specs ODF uses, and then uses that to apparently defend why the OOXML spec document is 6000 pages long!
Edited 2007-03-07 00:22