Brian Jones, a Microsoft employed Office developer, speaks about the new XML format to appear in the new version of Microsoft Office and answers a lot of questions about the OASIS issue. No the formats will not be compatible and Brian takes the time to say why: “Our primary goal at Microsoft was to create an open format that fully represented all of the features that our customers have used in their existing documents, documents that have been created using the existing Office products over the past couple decades.“
Office developer speaks about the Office XML format
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m glad Microsoft is, at least, trying to answer this question. Some of the comments at the end of the blog are helpful. Let me summarize:
* Why is Microsoft complaining that OpenDocument is not good enough, but Microsoft did not participate in establishing the specification with OASIS?
* If the translation filter is possible to write, why doesn’t Microsoft include a bi-directional filter with Microsoft Office?
* The new Microsoft Office XML format still locks people in with Microsoft.
Didn’t the OASIS group invite all third parties including Microsoft to help define the new open format? But alas, Microsoft played a deaf ear to the invitation. Today they have the balls to tell me and you that the OASIS open format does not cater for all the features in their products. Leave it to Microsoft to create their own open standards and continue to lock you onto their products. This most likely means I would not be able to save or open ODT formatted documents in Office 12. They never learn, do they?
that guy looks like a mechanic
Hi, I’ve done 3 months worth of work writing XSLT to translate between Docbook, OpenOffice (different to OpenDocument in all but name), and MS Word XML.
What they’re talking about is layout concepts. If you open a binary document from Office 2000 and save it in the new XML format, then open it again things shouldn’t change.
With that constraint — backwards compatibility, the only way they could support any XML format would be to redo RTF in XML.
The new format is a list of blocks with styles, no hierarchy, just like RTF. Only this is in XML.
If they wanted to ditch backwards compatibility and move to different primitives, different layout concepts, then they could have adopted the format.
But the idea that the format was a 1:1 mapping that they could easily support is incorrect. They could support many of the ideas but things would appear subtlely different — like OpenOffice openning MS Office documents.
They use different primitives.
I’m not saying either way is good or bad, but that’s the decision they had.
Exactly. Microsoft had a chance to join and work with others on an open format…and they didn’t. So, an open format was created without them…based on OpenOffice 1.x but greatly enhanced. Now, an open standard for office documents exists.
Anything they say is just marketing at this point; Microsoft Office documents aren’t based on an open standard they are based on a closed (but very very popular) propriaitory implementation that has helpful but incomplete documentation. (Advocates of a contrary position are encouraged to offer evidence to the contrary…but keep to the facts please!)
Microsoft didn’t want to join an open group because they saw no benifit and some risk. Others who are adopting Open Document see the benifit of having an open standard as opposed to chasing Microsoft’s propriatory format around. The adopters of Open Document can interoperate without any gotchas.
This, more than anything else, is the reason to boycott Microsoft. If people start using their XML format, once again, we will be locked into one proprietor.
I would lie to see a huge marketing push when OO.o 2.0 is released, like that for Firefox.
I’m happier with Open Office as are most consumers as it not only offers similar tools but also lowers TCO.
It’s their decision to make, not ours. And besides, it’s not because Microsoft created the format, that it’s automatically NOT open.
It is open, they will release a schema and a lot of documentation on how to use the format. Their license will allow you to use the format for anything you need. You’ll be allowed to read the format, write the format, generate your own files without Microsoft-tools, …
That will make it a lot easier for OpenOffice.org and other products, to create filters and be compatible with MS Office.
It’s not really clear IF the license allows you all of that, actually.
What’s more, the OASIS format has been defined as a standard, and will probably be adopted by governments, government agencies, and other large organizations as the standard format. If MS wants to risk and try to shoehorn their own xml format in thi picture, fine with me. But if they fail they’ll be forced to release a converter or lose market.
Simple as that.
if ms has no plans of allowing interoperability with their xml format then wats the point of (MS) using an xml format. They could just use the binary format. They would really get lots of flak if they disallowed interoperability
[i]Didn’t the OASIS group invite all third parties including Microsoft to help define the new open format? But alas, Microsoft played a deaf ear to the invitation. Today they have the balls to tell me and you that the OASIS open format does not cater for all the features in their products. Leave it to Microsoft to create their own open standards and continue to lock you onto their products. This most likely means I would not be able to save or open ODT formatted documents in Office 12. They never learn, do they?<?i>
You are correct; they offered; infact, SUN voiced the request on behalf of the founding members, which included Corel.
As for Microsoft, the only way they will learn will be when CIO’s grow a thing called a backbone and say, “I don’t care *HOWMUCH* money we can save, or how much bribes you give us, unless you support, out of the box, the OASIS format, we’ll move to StarOffice – even if it means major retraining!”
LOL, thats American English! They don’t do prepositions.
e.g. “write your mother”, what to file? to disk? Oh you mean write to your mother.
Does MS Word or OpenOffice flag this sort of thing as grammatically incorrect I wonder.
The “license” Microsoft to date offers for the use of their XML schema documentation (so if you want access to the documentation) is in reality a contract, as you have to sign it (by pressing an “I agree” button).
And if you signed the contract you signed away your soul to the devil. The only thing positive in this contract is, that you do not have to pay money in order to get and use the documentation.
However, you explicitly have to give up the right to license YOUR MS-XML import/export filter implementation under any open source license, because you agreed to NOT sublicense any intellectual property Microsoft MAY have regarding MS-XML schemas.
So for OSS programmers there still is no other way than to painfully reverse-engineer the MS-XML schemas, additionally not knowing about any patent bomb Microsoft might get handed from the USPTO (MS filed a patent and currently it is pending).
“It’s their decision to make, not ours. And besides, it’s not because Microsoft created the format, that it’s automatically NOT open.”
I’d be stunned that if the format they specifify is not limited by either;
1. Is complete enough to be used without gotchas.
2. Does not have some IP or other legal restrictions that make it useless w/o substantial payment.
I’d guess that it suffers from both problems, though if you have facts to the contrary I’d appreciate hearing from you.
The reason? Microsoft’s past history.
“It is open, they will release a schema and a lot of documentation on how to use the format. Their license will allow you to use the format for anything you need. You’ll be allowed to read the format, write the format, generate your own files without Microsoft-tools, …”
So, it’s been released? I didn’t notice a link in the main article.
“That will make it a lot easier for OpenOffice.org and other products, to create filters and be compatible with MS Office.”
Not if IP or licence issues are involved. At that point, the format details become poison and give MS grounds to sue if they are implemented.
Call me a hater, though Microsoft has shown themselves to be worthy of being questioned when they do something new — mainly because of past behavior and lawsuits.
“if ms has no plans of allowing interoperability with their xml format then wats the point of (MS) using an xml format. They could just use the binary format. They would really get lots of flak if they disallowed interoperability”
An XML format means that they can import generated documents that use a subset of the schema they actually use. Also, parts of Microsoft Office-generated files can be manipulated and written back out if you know the schema.
Same as Open Document.
Unlike Open Document, Microsoft’s use of XML doesn’t necessarily allow interoperability on all levels. See some of the previous posts on IP/licence issues.
Here’s a blog entry from Brian Jones (program manager of the MS Word team) about the new format:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/06/13/428655.aspx
A video of an interview with Jean Paoli:
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=76169
A blog entry from Dennis Hamilton about the license:
http://nfocentrale.net/orcmid/blog/2005/06/heavy-lifting-toward-ope…
Come on, Limey:
“Directly I’m done reading this blog post, wherein a Microsoft employee attempts to make their Usual Antics seem acceptable, I’m going down the pub.”
😉
Indeed. Not to attack the guy, but to me he certainly doesn’t look like a visionaire. But appearances can easily deceive, so we should judge based solely on actions. As others said, Microsoft was invited to join and work on a fully open format that now exists, they didn’t, and now they say they need to support everything from their previous formats so that is why their format must differ from the fully open standard format that was crafted without their participation. While they have a right to push their private agenda, giving the wrong excuse and trying to peddle poison to people by calling the format “Open XML Format” when it is not fully open, is despicable.
My respect for Microsoft and some other companies is gradually thinning…
Here’s something I read yesterday
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=28937&category=main
“The users of Microsoft’s new China-based internet portal were recently blocked from using the words ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and ‘human rights’ in a move by the software giant to please Beijing.Other words that are not permitted on Microsoft China’s free online blog service, MSN Spaces, include: ‘Taiwan independence’ and ‘demonstration’.”
Since when did Microsoft care about documents from one version of one of their products opening cleanly in the next version, let alone use a format that can be said to be open or portable? Aren’t the Office formats just memory dumps written in append mode onto some file anyway?
Why would MS want to have an open standard that anyone can access in already available office suites? What business sense would that make? Why would they NOT want to hold onto their existing customer base? (btw, I’m a Linux user)
“Directly after I’m done reading this blog post, wherein a Microsoft employee attempts to make their Usual Antics seem acceptable, I’m going down the pub.”
Either he’s a Brit with American Preposition Avoidance, or a yankee that goes down the pub.
What is important for the more demanding users is ability to parse an Office document. I mean to be able to write C, Java,
Perl, Python or other program that parses the document and extracts what is required. I was working in a quite big news agency, and some bulletins were created in Microsoft Word. It is crucial for such organization to be able to process the documents in automated way. I left the agency, but remained in contact with some friends from IT department. They are still struggling with Office documents. If theese new format means posibility of automated processing, using standard XML parser, then it is a great news for them.
DG
You neglected the ‘to’, un-positioned before ‘pub’, not once, but twice.
You may haze yourself at your discretion.
http://www.sham69.com/life.htm#HARRY
Do stock phrases need to conform to grammatical rules?
[ informative links removed ]
Thanks for the links. None of them are to the licence itself, so that leaves what Geri wrote;
“The “license” Microsoft to date offers for the use of their XML schema documentation (so if you want access to the documentation) is in reality a contract, as you have to sign it (by pressing an “I agree” button). …
… However, you explicitly have to give up the right to license YOUR MS-XML import/export filter implementation under any open source license, because you agreed to NOT sublicense any intellectual property Microsoft MAY have regarding MS-XML schemas. …”
…and other interesting notes as potential show stoppers.
Do you have a link to the actual licence, and is Geri’s analysis correct?
For most Microsoft licences I’ve read — though not all — what Geri says would also be true, so at this time I have to say that I do not want to even touch Microsoft’s documents covering XML Microsoft Office file formats. It’s just not worth the risk if Geri is correct.
“Why would MS want to have an open standard that anyone can access in already available office suites? What business sense would that make? Why would they NOT want to hold onto their existing customer base? (btw, I’m a Linux user)”
In some sectors — such as local and national governments — the ability to interoperate and follow documented standards is a big deal. It’s written into some contracts.
While Microsoft may not want to be fully open and interoperate like an independant standards body like W3, IEEE, or Oasis, they must have the appearance of interoperability or working with standards such as XML. XML, by itself, is very simple. What you do with it can and often is implementation specific. Because of that, they can attempt to be what they aren’t while blocking competitors.
Do stock phrases need to conform to grammatical rules?
When committing acts of pedantry, up with which we shall not put, yes.
What I find humorous about all this is the fact that MS claims to have an obligation to support all office documents created in the last two decades but doesn’t feel the same about VB projects and web browsers. They pretty much said to us VB6 programmers, “Get with the times man, we can’t support your legacy crap forever”, but they say to office users “sure, you can open and edit that 1995 word document with no formatting loss”. It makes me feel good to know that I can open an english paper from jr high in Word 20XX but I cant open a vb project from ’99 in VS.net without destroying it.
They are doing the same thing with ie7 and win2000. “Your users don’t have xp or longhorn? Well I guess you can just forget about png transperancy and css then.” I have to ask why all of the sudden it is of the upmost importance to support legacy office documents but force us to follow the bleeding edge in other areas. I’m not an MS hater, I love WinXP and visual studio, but as a dedicated MS developer I expect the same courtesy as an ordinary office user gets.
“… They pretty much said to us VB6 programmers, “Get with the times man, we can’t support your legacy crap forever”, but they say to office users “sure, you can open and edit that 1995 word document with no formatting loss”. …”
While I’m no MS fan (I don’t use Windows at all if I can avoid it) they do have the proper emphasis. Documents have legal status and should be readable forever. Program code should take advantage of new developments — so having it run forever isn’t as much of a necessity.
That said, I want to make it perfectly clear that;
* Not having a method to run and maintain legacy code is a problem.
* Business rules in software are critically important, so total abandonment isn’t acceptable.
Neither of these are a major problem if you plan for the move from VB going from supported to legacy to abandoned.
That said, there’s no garantee that Microsoft will make it possible or practical to read MS Office files over the span of decades.
The design of Office files prior to the XML-based versions was very fragile. I recommend people move to a more stable format if at all possible, such as PDF (for archival purposes) or OpenDocument (for documents that must be kept up to date). Neither OpenDocument nor PDF require the good graces of any one company — though both Visual Basic and MS Office do. Microsoft hasn’t been shown to be a friend to customers or other companies, and considers both to be sources for revenue/debugging and competition.
it’s still lock in….