A ZDNet article discusses Microsoft’s upcoming version 11 of Office, that will use XML to make Office files more interoperable with “Web Services.” Analysts quoted in the article note that this is a risky strategy for Microsoft since it will chip away at the file format stranglehold that Microsoft has had for many years. The more open and interoperable Microsoft makes Office, they say, the more likely that alternatives to Office will be able to co-exist, or even replace it in the corporate sphere.
Give me a break, Staroffice has had XML formats for years.
Probably not. Just because it’s text based or XML or whatever doesn’t mean that it’s easy to interpret and export to. I mean, look at RTF
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
It’s absolutely disgusting! But it’s also the text version of the .doc format.. and so it shows us information on how MSWord organizes itself. It seems that an XML fileformat for word documents will probably be quite similar to RTF, and so we haven’t really gained that much.
Just my 2c.
Give me a break, Staroffice has had XML formats for years.
So what? Staroffice could have whatever it wants, as long as MS Office doesn’t open that format, it’s useless to 99.9% of population.
The point of the article is that if MS goes with XML as ITS primary file format then other office suits could easily become 100% compatible with MS Office and therefore have a fair chance of competing with it.
The point is that if microsoft uses XML formats it will be very easy for others to work with office files.
isn’t xml customizable? so microsoft could add its very own special tags. yum.
There is really no such thing as a “special tag” in xml. All xml tags are user defined.
-G
ralphT you’re right that a fair amount of work will be required to reverse engineer Microsoft’s format, even if it’s in XML. I assume Microsoft won’t be providing the schema so the best anyone can do is *approximate* the schema by saving dozens of files and examining the results, perhaps using some colation tool. But the going should be considerably easier than it is with today’s binary formats. I suspect Microsoft will try to hold something back, somehow, because otherwise I agree with the author – this will lead to lots of new low-cost competition in the productivity space. Of course MS’ll play the game of adding lots of new tags with each subsequent release, but Office 11 compatibility may be enough for many customers.
XML sounds good, but it can also be something like this:
<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″?>
<Document>
<![CDATA[some proprietary binary stuff]]>
</Document>
or.. at least, theyll have to be clever to make it a win.
The problem is that more and more governments are starting to open their eyes to the importance of open standards. (latest Peru, Venezuela, India and now Denmark).
MS products risk being disqualified on the basis of not being open standards. But if they open it they risc that other software (including open source) can compete equally in handling MS-document formats.
🙂 yeah, I expect they’ll have something opaque like that, but on a smaller scale. Maybe something that will kick in only if certain features are used.
You know, it’s funny. Microsoft finally does something I think we all agree is a Good Thing, and then they rode hard for not making a good business decision.
You’d think people would focus on the positive aspects.
Could someone please explain to me why absolutely everything has to be in XML these days ? Does it have advantages other than being more “human-readable” ?
isn’t xml customizable? so microsoft could add its very own special tags. yum.
It does not make a difference if the tags are all in text. Pretty hard to embrace and extend a text-based format.
It would be intresting to see if the Microsoft network-based office plan takes off. They could conceivably change the file formats every month.
Could someone please explain to me why absolutely everything has to be in XML these days ? Does it have advantages other than being more “human-readable” ?
You answered your own question. It is human-readable.
Also, cross-platform and cross-architecture.
Perl.
XMl allows “normal” programs to suck just about any data they need out of a file, operate on it, and put the results back in a similar format. Exactly the reverse of programming a MySQL/Apache/Perl webpage. Same tools just backards–from the page to the server!
1. Will files be so bloated that even a two paragraph document will not fit in a floppy?
2. Will all that happen without Microsoft extending XML in a Windows-only comatible fashion?
Just wondering.
Read my comment about XML here
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=1929&offset=30&rows=45
it will teach you a few advantages of XML
If MS can create new reasons people have to own Office besides the file format monopoly (like it does things useful and new than no other product provides), then they are earning their rent. Right now, however, they are just milking the file format monopoly. And they have been doing this for years.
I think MS means business when they say they are going to try to out-innovate open source, beat them by providing value. They hired all those new programmers. God knows they have enough $$ to try.
My main question, is how is a company that is not very innovative all of a suddenly become real, super, duper innovative? This is going to be interesting.
Infoworld’s reporting of the Office 11 beta makes it sound like Microsoft is embedding XML within their binary formats, not replacing them with pure XML. This makes sense as it won’t create any additional risk for Microsoft of third parties reverse engineering their file formats.
It would be very un-Microsoft like for them to take that chance.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/10/22/021022hnoffice11b…
Anyone who has ever tried to programmatically generate .doc files (and had to start an instance of Word to do so – no I couldn’t believe it either) will be very grateful that M$ has decided to move to something workable.
XML formats shouldn’t be to hard to reverse engineer – easier than the current Office formats, anyway.
That is, provided Microsoft
1 – don’t embed binary standards between tags (i.e <bold_text>(some unreadable rubbish)</bold_text>)
2 – Don’t encrypt the actual XML files and build some decryption component into MSOffice and their webservices platform (.NET I guess),so that the actual XML cannot be read.
Microsoft market share won’t go away just because Sun can suddenly claim it is 100% compatible with Office. I personally won’t dump Office and try something else. My dad, my aunt, and a bunch of other family guys wouldn’t even consider it.
Why? Features. Features. Features. They don’t care if the macros they get in the mail don’t work in OpenOffice.org. They only care if they can get their work done. If they can’t do that, they won’t use it.
Not forgeting to mention: no sane person would move just for the sake of moving. Sure, it might have all the features they would ever need, plus 100% compatiblity – they won’t move: What would they get from it?
Exactly. Microsoft knows this. As long they remain the best (in terms of features), they have nothing to worry.
One thing that might disturb them is the cost, but unless you are until a rock or something, Balmer said because of the negative backslash, they are finding for better terms.
Besides, accroading to the press release, this is an external beta test. Any way to sign up for it?
Anonymous: Give me a break, Staroffice has had XML formats for years.
Actually, it only have them since StarOffice 6.0. So what? KOffice had XML formats for years earlier than StarOffice!
simpl3x: isn’t xml customizable? so microsoft could add its very own special tags. yum.
You have no idea what XML is, don’t ya? Go read about it. There is no such thing as “special tags”. Even if there were “special tags”, it would be much easier to reverse engineer them compared to binary formats.
RalphT: It seems that an XML fileformat for word documents will probably be quite similar to RTF, and so we haven’t really gained that much.
Actually, we would have gained a lot. XML formats, unlike binary formats, make it easier for someone to reverse engineer it. Sure, it might be messed up – but still easier for, say Sun, to get support for it.
Ascay: XML sounds good, but it can also be something like this:
<?xml version=”1.0″ encoding=”UTF-8″?>
<Document>
<![CDATA[some proprietary binary stuff]]>
</Document>
I just got to wonder…. even if this is true, wouldn’t this make it easier for someone to write proper filters for Office, compared to their current formats?
Peter Mogensen: MS products risk being disqualified on the basis of not being open standards. But if they open it they risc that other software (including open source) can compete equally in handling MS-document formats.
Open source software can’t even get some useful features…. i don’t expect Microsoft to die in their hands anytime soon. For example, KOffice. If it had 100% compatiblity with Office, I would only use it for simple stuff. Why? Heck, for a long time they didn’t even have footnote support!
Tyr: Does it have advantages other than being more “human-readable” ?
That’s not the only reason. Part of the .NET strategy is being cross platform. XML is exactly that. Not forgeting that you could only push a binary format too far before it gets out of hand – XML seems to be a quick fix to their problem.
dude: ]i]1. Will files be so bloated that even a two paragraph document will not fit in a floppy?
2. Will all that happen without Microsoft extending XML in a Windows-only comatible fashion? [/i]
On the first question, I believe the file sizes would *shrink* rather than grow. But it all depends on the compression type they use. On the second question – how the heck do you make a text file “Windows-only”? Oh wait, I just answered that, maybe they would have a ultrasecret compression type.
appleforever: Right now, however, they are just milking the file format monopoly.
Like I said to you earlier on a different thread, I have done a nice business plan with market surveys (which is unfortunately gone thanks to my fiddling around with my PC causing it to go *ka-boom*). “File format monopoly” is the least of the things keeping back people. Features, my friend, is keeping back people.
People only use a small subset of features. But each person uses different features – and the only way to please them all is to have all the features. Something no other office suite have done. ALL of the people I have surveyed, even when asked, 100% compatiblity with Office doesn’t seem to be the problem.
How I know this? Because I personally am planning to build my own office suite when I finish college and get funding. And if the format issue was the only thing keeping people back – I would be the happiest boy on earth.
1. Will files be so bloated that even a two paragraph document will not fit in a floppy?
Given the size of a short .doc file or .xls file today, pure XML should reduce the size of Office documents, except in cases of large documents with heavy formatting (documents with a lot of embedded data from other Office programs may be smaller as well). Of course, XML isn’t meant to describe the exact formatting of a document, it’s supposed to describe types of information and then the application chooses the formatting according to it’s own guidelines or user preferences, but that didn’t stop Microsoft with HTML either.
2. Will all that happen without Microsoft extending XML in a Windows-only comatible fashion?
There are things that can be done with XML that would be proprietary, but the XML itself will remain cross-platform. They can make the XML formats a token gesture at best and make it nearly impossible to share the documents with other software, but that almost misses the point of doing it in the first place (but since when has that stopped MS?).
I really don’t buy the “features” thing. Perhaps companies and businesses care about things like annotations, templates, and macros; I know precious few home users who do. In my experience, home users use Word because they got it “for free” with their computer. Home users will actually upgrade their version only when attachments start trickling in, written in a newer version of Word – which deliberately breaks binary compatibility. I say “deliberately” because obviously, it’s silly that even if I don’t use any new features, older versions still can’t open my documents.
Also, I find it ridiculous that Word, even in the 2000 version (what is it – Word9?) can’t even get kerning right, will actually _switch_ lines of your document when printing it, etc. If such basic typographic features of a word processor don’t even work correctly, I don’t care about the fancy 3D tables with hyperlinks and DirectX. I will use TeX instead (which got typography right before DOS was even conceived).
I really don’t buy the “features” thing. Perhaps companies and businesses care about things like annotations, templates, and macros; I know precious few home users who do.
The business market is the largest segment of Office licenses, and you’re right, those things are VERY important to those users. Not to mention embedding other Office document types (spreadsheets in .doc files, Visio/Excel/Word documents in PowerPoint presentations). I see annotations, templates, and macros at least once a week, and I’m as far removed from Office documents as you can get in this company.
In my experience, home users use Word because they got it “for free” with their computer.
Or because they do occasional work from home. Most of the people I know that have used computers since before Windows/Office 95 switched from WordPerfect to Word precisely because the businesses they work for made the switch, not because they preferred Word over WordPerfect.
Home users will actually upgrade their version only when attachments start trickling in, written in a newer version of Word – which deliberately breaks binary compatibility. I say “deliberately” because obviously, it’s silly that even if I don’t use any new features, older versions still can’t open my documents.
Which hasn’t been the case since Office97 was released. Office97, 2000, and XP can share files with little (if you use new features) to no (if you don’t use new features) hassle. The biggest changes between versions there were application features rather than document format features, and the only major compatibility issue is with macros (macros built for OfficeXP without considering Office2000 and 97 might not work in the previous versions).
Also, I find it ridiculous that Word, even in the 2000 version (what is it – Word9?) can’t even get kerning right, will actually _switch_ lines of your document when printing it, etc.
I’ve never actually had any issues with printing Word documents, though I’m sure they exist. Word isn’t really great for typesetting. Publisher might be better, but again that’s not really where I do a lot of work.
If such basic typographic features of a word processor don’t even work correctly, I don’t care about the fancy 3D tables with hyperlinks and DirectX. I will use TeX instead (which got typography right before DOS was even conceived).
Of course TeX was written specifically for that purpose, and has a bit more of a learning curve for most people. Then again, people that are doing typesetting are willing to take a little more time to get the right results, and in most businesses that use that are highly concerned with typesetting, the people doing the typesetting aren’t the original authors of the work in the first place.
And have licensing so that you can’t use the same DTD’s for other applications.
We’ll see about it’s fileformat when the beta gets shipped. I’m one of the betatesters of Office 11.
I really don’t buy the “features” thing. Perhaps companies and businesses care about things like annotations, templates, and macros; I know precious few home users who do
Guess where most of Office customers come from? Yes, you got it all wrong: it is the corporate market. not home users. Most home users have Office either because they office uses it, or they are dumb, or they need some features they like.
(Besides, annotations are used a lot by those not using the Latin alphabeth; while templates is used a lot with the home user, and macros is almost a must in the corporate market).
In my experience, home users use Word because they got it “for free” with their computer.
Most, if not all, of consumers desktops either don’t come with anything bundled, or come bundled with MS Works. Not Office. Even with those made for busineses, this is quite rare. It may be an option – a pricey one at that (certainly not “free”).
ome users will actually upgrade their version only when attachments start trickling in, written in a newer version of Word – which deliberately breaks binary compatibility.
Since Office 97, the file formats have change little to nothing. Unless you are using nifty new fomating features in Office XP – which is quite unlikely, considering there is none, a document made in Office XP should be able to load properly on Office 97. What would be the difference is macros, the Word Art…. that’s just about it.
Office XP is, BTW, 100% compatible with Office 2000.
I say “deliberately” because obviously, it’s silly that even if I don’t use any new features, older versions still can’t open my documents.
Oh really. Liar.
If such basic typographic features of a word processor don’t even work correctly, I don’t care about the fancy 3D tables with hyperlinks and DirectX
What DirectX has to do with Word? You mean ActiveX… right? Anyway, quite funny to mention, although I practically skipped Office 2000 (while I maintain being a anti-MS jerk using Linux), I never had that problem you mentioned.
I will use TeX instead (which got typography right before DOS was even conceived).
Although I never got one TeX file to print properly under Linux….
So basically, you didn’t even counter not even one of my arguments. Wow.
—-
jocknerd: And have licensing so that you can’t use the same DTD’s for other applications.
If they manage to do so, there are prior works using DTD before Microsoft could patent it.