Office 2013 to support Strict Open XML and ODF 1.2 formats

Microsoft has already announced that the new version of Word in the upcoming Office 2013 will support the opening and editing of PDF document files for the first time in the history of Word. Today, Microsoft announced that Office 2013 will add two more new document formats to the mix.

In a post on the company's Office Next blog, Microsoft confirmed that Office 2013 will support Strict Open XML. While Office 2010 could open and read Strict Open XML files, Office 2013 will allow users to write in that format for the first time.

Office 2013 will also support Open Document Format (ODF) 1.2. The previous version was supported by Office 2007 SP2 and the 1.2 standard was formally adopted by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards in January. Microsoft states:

The most significant improvement in ODF 1.2 is the specification of Open Formula to standardize formulas for spreadsheets. Excel 2013 provides very complete support for Open Formula. The new Office also supports XAdES digital signatures, added in ODF 1.2.

Microsoft says that the additions of these new document formats for Office 2013 will give its users " ... more options for sharing, collaborating, and archiving office documents."

Source: Office Next blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

RIM CEO currently uses a Blackberry 10 phone

Next Story

Mann vs Machine coming to Team Fortress 2 on August 15th

21 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Microsoft finally has grown up and embraced other standards, even though it may not always agree with these bodies, at least it shows willingness to support them. That's a winner in my book, and that's also why I will continue to use their prducts

That's certainly good news. Glad to see Microsoft positioning Office more as a platform for consumption and creation of content regardless of where it's coming from or going to.

It's good that Microsoft is supporting ODF, but why didn't they just use that instead of creating yet another competing format (OXML).

Pretty much everything now is ODF standardised, and governments around the world are mandating its use. That's the reason why Office is supporting it. Regardless, it's good news for users.

simplezz said,
It's good that Microsoft is supporting ODF, but why didn't they just use that instead of creating yet another competing format (OXML).

Pretty much everything now is ODF standardised, and governments around the world are mandating its use. That's the reason why Office is supporting it. Regardless, it's good news for users.

Because Microsoft requires round trip compatibility as well as a format that can handle all the features/formatting etc. that Microsoft Office uses - ODF for all its strengths (and I do love it dearly, I'd love to see it replace RTF in the future) it is written based around what OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice is capable of doing and the features it has rather than it being some sort of universal format. One thing to remember BTW is that OOXML has been standardised already by the ECMA which made some pretty major changes to the specification hence the reason it has taken Microsoft until now to bring their OOXML implementation in line with the open standard.

simplezz said,
It's good that Microsoft is supporting ODF, but why didn't they just use that instead of creating yet another competing format (OXML).

Pretty much everything now is ODF standardised, and governments around the world are mandating its use. That's the reason why Office is supporting it. Regardless, it's good news for users.


Next time you have access to Office, try creating an ODF file. Then look at how many icons are grayed out in the Ribbon because ODF doesn't support them.

Aethec said,

Next time you have access to Office, try creating an ODF file. Then look at how many icons are grayed out in the Ribbon because ODF doesn't support them.

And ODF 1.2 is actually an improvement over ODF 1.0.

ODF 1.0 did not even have a spreadsheet formula specification, for crying out loud. Microsoft implemented ODF 1.0 in Office 2010 without any formula support. This immediately triggered loud cries from the anti-Microsoft crowd -- yet it satisfied all the government requirements for ODF support. Well, gee, if you wanted to force Microsoft to include formulas, maybe you should've put it in the specification! They're just doing what the specification tells them to do.

OOXML had a formula specification from day 1. And yet, IBM's campaign to discredit OOXML claimed that Microsoft deliberately underspecified OOXML to make it impossible for other companies to implement it.

Seriously, you cannot make this stuff up.

Aethec said,

Next time you have access to Office, try creating an ODF file. Then look at how many icons are grayed out in the Ribbon because ODF doesn't support them.

Keep in mind that this is ODF 1.1. What I'm wondering: how many are grayed out for ODF 1.2?

I've made a parser to interpret a very small part of document formats. It was very complicated to do for OOXML, but very simple for ODF.
I realize that I used only a fraction of the possibilities, but it does make me wonder if OOXML is overly complex. How much of those thousands of pages of specifications are useful extras compared to ODF, and how much are overhead?

TomJones said,
And yet, IBM's campaign to discredit OOXML claimed that Microsoft deliberately underspecified OOXML to make it impossible for other companies to implement it.

IIRC the criticism was about the OOXML specification being astoundingly thick and complex, yet lacking several specific implementation details where a proprietary undocumented specifications from previous DOC specs were referenced instead.

There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

Feritas said,
There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

He didn't call the *users* Neanderthals - he called most of the *distributions* Neanderthals.

Feritas said,
There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

lol

PGHammer said,

He didn't call the *users* Neanderthals - he called most of the *distributions* Neanderthals.

It didn't read that way to me.

Feritas said,
There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

Linux is not a user, and it's not an OS either. It's a kernel. So he was referring to the kernel as Neanderthal.

Feritas said,
There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

You take life way too seriously.

Feritas said,
There are many things you can call Linux users, but insulting their intelligence by calling them Neanderthals seems hypocritically uninformed.

So you are complaining about someone questioning the intelligence of Linux users, but you can't figure out the commenting system.

nohone said,

So you are complaining about someone questioning the intelligence of Linux users, but you can't figure out the commenting system.

I would say it was more of a snarky comment, just like yours. I should thank you though. You inspired me to complete a 30 minute online course on how to respond to comments on the internet, including skills such as typing into the correct box after clicking reply. Thank you sir. If I ever meet you in real life, I will give you a big sloppy kiss. Tongue or no tongue, your choice.

Feritas said,
I would say it was more of a snarky comment, just like yours. I should thank you though. You inspired me to complete a 30 minute online course on how to respond to comments on the internet, including skills such as typing into the correct box after clicking reply. Thank you sir. If I ever meet you in real life, I will give you a big sloppy kiss. Tongue or no tongue, your choice.

Hey, no problem. Anything to help my fellow human being be a better person. And I will take the no tongue option, in fact a firm handshake will be plenty.