Microsoft to Standardize Office Formats
Posted by malebolgia on 21 November 2005 - 23:50 · 32 comments & 4064 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Narlzac85 on 21 Nov 2005 - 23:56
- mmm Open standards...tasty.
Maybe next time I have a group project, I can transfer document and not have them become a formatting nightmare when opening in Open Office
-
(2 replies)
#2 Posted by Croquant on 22 Nov 2005 - 00:03
- Mircosoft adopting open standards? Hey, did hell freeze over while I wasn't looking?
-
#2.1 Posted by Osprey on 22 Nov 2005 - 01:06
- Microsoft isn't "adopting" open standards; they're putting forth their own file format to become a standard. It's the difference between giving in and pressuring everyone else to give in. Microsoft got where they're at by doing the latter, and I have no problem with it, since the Office 12 file format (like WMV9) will be one of the best file formats.
-
#3 Posted by LTD on 22 Nov 2005 - 00:17
- You can save in an open format while still having a superior tool. Microsoft is banking on their Office products maintaining overwhelming market share. Judging by what's out there now, they're right.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by machorro on 22 Nov 2005 - 02:54
- they may not be adopting a standard format, but MS standarizing(sp?) their format is sure a really nice move...
and answering Croquant question
QUOTE Hey, did hell freeze over while I wasn't looking?
I think it might
but hey that's good for us, this way Oo could implement the MS format and that way everyone is happy
and more choice to the user
-
#4.1 Posted by mr_skrilla on 22 Nov 2005 - 06:20
- standardizing
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by imtoomuch on 22 Nov 2005 - 04:26
- Since Microsoft Office is the best office software, I do believe that they should be the ones to develop the standards.
-
#5.1 Posted by Computer Guru on 22 Nov 2005 - 04:50
- I second that.
All those fanboys out there should stop talking.. MS could have sued Corel and Oo a loooooong time ago.. -
#5.2 Posted by djurbino on 22 Nov 2005 - 06:10
QUOTE "Since Microsoft Office is the best office software"
PPOR.
I use OO2 for scientific research, and MSO 2k3 doesn't begin to compete with OO2.
The only O2k3 app worth a damn is Visio, and that's not even in O2k3 standard anyway.
QUOTE "MS could have sued Corel and Oo a loooooong time ago.."
And how is that, exactly?
I think you'll find that Lotus or (now defunct) WP Corp. would be the ones bringing on a lawsuit against MS.
And MS didn't get the market share because it was a pioneer doing things first, or because it was better - it got it because Ms Word for DOS made it easy to share pirated copies - unlike the competition. Pirated copies spread like wildfire, and THAT is how MS Word became the standard.
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by hardgiant on 22 Nov 2005 - 04:53
- You can run an entire Office with Open Office, no need for Microsoft Office.
Although I do like Office 2003. -
#6.1 Posted by veltgen on 22 Nov 2005 - 05:58
- Are you really going to compare Open Office to Microsoft Office? OO is a joke, if that.
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by brianshapiro on 22 Nov 2005 - 06:50
- as far as i know, once its accepted as a standard, then the standards body can always change it from what microsoft wants. so, its not microsoft owning the standard, like some people suggest. unless you think microsoft will change their attitude if the committee ever does that in a way that isnt unfair.
-
#7.1 Posted by markjensen on 22 Nov 2005 - 12:07
QUOTE as far as i know, once its accepted as a standard, then the standards body can always change it from what microsoft wants.
They will choose to deviate from someone else's standard without blinking, and everyone will buy into it, and you have the same situation where they have their own thing going on, despite any "standard".
-
#8 Posted by Jugalator on 22 Nov 2005 - 07:17
- This is a decade overdue, but good nevertheless.
-
#9 Posted by Chicane-UK on 22 Nov 2005 - 09:19
- Wow. I don't say this often but.. go Microsoft!
-
#10 Posted by Havin_it on 22 Nov 2005 - 14:05
- I hope I'm not being overly skeptical here (shirley not...!) but perhaps someone can clarify for me:
If these formats do get accepted as standards, I presume their specs will be put into the public domain, but does that mean they'll be freed from any IP constraints M$ might place on them? I have a nasty image of something similar to their 'shared source licence', where the information is all there for other players to use, but to distribute anything based on it they're legally required to pay a prohibitive licensing fee to Redmond. Is this possible?
Me...paranoid?
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by Ideas Man on 22 Nov 2005 - 14:23
QUOTE I have a nasty image of something similar to their 'shared source licence', where the information is all there for other players to use, but to distribute anything based on it they're legally required to pay a prohibitive licensing fee to Redmond.
It's Microsoft's software, they have every right to do what they please with it, get used to it, everybody else does, just because OS doesn't, doesn't make them the 'kings' and Microsoft the 'devil' they are different business practices, everybody does it, and it isn't just localised to the software industry.-
#11.1 Posted by markjensen on 22 Nov 2005 - 15:34
- The original poster in comment #10 didn't bring up up a "good/evil" dichotomy between Microsoft and Open Source. His use of "M$" does show a bias, but I have seen Microsoft users that don't use Linux type the same thing.
His comment expressed concern on the "openness" of the standard. It doesn't appear that it will be free for all to use. Just documented, and royalty-free.
I don't know the specific terms of the license model Microsoft is using (and they are permitted to use whatever model they choose, no one has said they cannot), but if it follows their other 'open' licensing, it excludes inclusion in GPL software. -
#11.2 Posted by Havin_it on 23 Nov 2005 - 12:48
- Well shucks officer, ya got me. I'm an OpenOffice.org user, albeit for financial reasons more than personal preference - I'm a webmonkey so if I have hundreds of pounds to spend, I'd sooner spend it on dev software. (And please, there's no need to bring Frontp*ss into that discussion. Move along please.)
Am I biased against Microsoft? No. That would require that I be employed or otherwise remunerated by a competitor of theirs, or agency other whose raison d'etre is to harm their business. [Though I am an EU citizen - does that count?] As for using 'M$'; call me childish. I like saying "im up in ur base killin all ur doods" too.
I have, however, developed some trust issues with them due to apparent ongoing hostile and anticompetitive business practice. I have grown up in a capitalist country and understand the 'dog-eat-dog' underlying principle, but you must realise that it's extremely unhealthy for the market (especially the consumers) when monopolies form.
My concern is that this exercise may be by way of a 'greenwash': paying lip service to the drive for standards - a central purpose of which is reliable interoperability between software - when in reality promoting a mechanism that actually precludes it, either by diverging from the standard later when it suits them, or by withholding APIs or XML Schemas required to fully implement the format.
So, I was asking whether that was possible, i.e. were they to attempt a strategy such as this, would ECMA or ISO permit it to happen?
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by rIaHc3 on 22 Nov 2005 - 14:23
QUOTE Microsoft intends to submit Office file formats to the European standards body ECMA International
Dont. I see a Microsoft Office 12 Reduced Formats Edition coming....
**** all them European union/groups/etc. I lost all respect for them with the Windows XP issue....and Im glad they are realizing their mistake seeing as XP RME isnt selling.
-
#13 Posted by Arckon on 22 Nov 2005 - 17:13
- I'm really annoyed by this! MS should have just gave in and adopted the Open Document Format instead of trying to say that they are supporting open standards and coming up with their own format to compete with a format that is already open!
It's just another way for MS to make themselves look good but in fact they are screwing everyone else again!
-
#14 Posted by navsx on 22 Nov 2005 - 17:49
- Nothing good here. This is going to be another new Office format. They are still not opening up the specs for older MS Office formats (and they likely won't). This means Open Office and others still won't be able to perfect their support of MS office formats.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by Shadrack on 22 Nov 2005 - 18:15
- WordML and ExcelML are already "open" formats. They may not be "standards" but they are "open" which means you can create a WordML file from any XML tool and have a lot of formatting power.
It is really great, actually. You can format how you want a report to look in Word, save it as a WordML file (XML), and then script your database output to create the same XML structure. You can do the same with Excel.
Edit: This only works with Office 2003. -
#15.1 Posted by MrA on 23 Nov 2005 - 00:59
- Read http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1829355,00.asp
Looks like these "open" formats are not so open after all. And don't just read the article, I suggest reading the license itself (http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/...tentlicense.asp)
I think the step towards standardization will remove some of the licence problems and then we'll have a real open format (from microsoft).
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by Magallanes on 22 Nov 2005 - 23:46
- I wonder how MS can keep the format open and in the same time, keep the format obfuscate and fill with trash.
For instance, open Word and write :"hello world", no format, no configuration, no nothing... this file weight 20kb (20'000 bytes) while single textfile weight less that 16 bytes.
-
#16.1 Posted by karmakillernz on 23 Nov 2005 - 08:44
- I assume you're talking about the binary .doc format as my testing shows that as ending up 20KB. The WordML file comes to only 3KB uncompressed and 1.5KB compressed (Office 12 files will be zip-compressed).
The difference is due to the overhead of binary formats, and the difference between them is so slight that unless your documents contain no more than a sentence or two of text you won't notice the difference.
I've got another test for you. Write "Hello World" in both Word and Notepad, bold the text, center it, save the files, then compare the filesizes. Oh... right... plain text doesn't support that. I guess comparing them is pretty stupid then, huh?
-
#17 Posted by tiwaris on 23 Nov 2005 - 01:17
- I doubt if ISO will adopt it as a standard unless it is really capable of defining the standard for typeset documents. I would very much prefer that it is similar to latex, so that if I want, I should be able to open the file in text editor (like notepad) and edit it, exactly the way we can use latex. MS can develop a front-end the way they do for html (frontpage).
But given the weight behind office-12, I doube if it will actually be possible.
The company, which dominates the market for desktop productivity software, plans to hand over the technical specifications of Office 12 file formats to ECMA early next month. The technical committee is also being sponsored by Intel, Apple, NextPage and some European customers, including BP and the British Library.
The creation of a fully documented standard submission derived from the formats, called Microsoft Office Open XML, will likely take about a year, Microsoft executives said. Once Microsoft Office Open XML is recognized as an ECMA standard, the group of companies then intends to pursue standardization at ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, which is particularly influential among government customers.
What's new in Advanced Installer 3.4: