Microsoft today announced that it would update Microsoft Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Moreover, it would also join both the OASIS ODF working group as well as the ISO/IEC JTC1 working group that has control of the ISO/IEC version of ODF. Implementation of DIS 29500, the ISO/IEC JTC 1 version of OOXML that has still not been publicly released will await the release of Office 14, the ship date of which remains unannounced.
The same announcement reveals that Office 2007 will also support PDF 1.1, PDF/A and Microsoft's competing fixed-text format, called XML Paper Specification. XML Paper Specification is currently being prepared by Ecma for submission to ISO/IEC under the same "Fast-Track" process by which OOXML had been submitted for consideration and approval.
Yesterday afternoon was when I first began to hear news through the grapevine that Microsoft's Jason Matusow (director of corporate standards) and Doug Mahugh (senior product manager for Microsoft Office) would announce native support of ODF. later in the day, I started to get email from journalists who had been alerted that Microsoft would make a format-related announcement, and were trying to figure out what it would say. Now that the announcement has been made and the first press reports are beginning to surface, there may be more questions to ask about ODF support now than there were yesterday. In this blog entry I'll review what has been said, what has not, and what questions remain.
The first reporter to break the story, according to a Google search, was David Worthington, writing for Software Developer Times. Worthington also reported that Microsoft will also join ISO Technical Committee 171, the working group responsible for PDF, and also offer an API that developers can use to develop Office plug in converters that would permit users to select another format, such as ODF, as their desired default save format.
Worthington’s story includes quotes from Matusow and Mahugh that provide intriguing insights into how the decisions were made. After noting that saving to the OASIS ODF 1.1 format would now be possible, Worthington writes:
However, the company is not quick to embrace its own creation. Mahugh stated that Microsoft would not implement the final ISO version of OOXML until Office 14 ships at an unstated date in the future. This variant of OOXML was designated ISO/IEC 29500 at the time it was certified as an ISO International standard in April.
“One way to look at it is the prioritization of formats,” Mahugh explained. “We reach a point in time where we have to decide whether to continue to invest in a previous version [of Office] or to cut the cord and move forward.”
ODF support was a priority for Microsoft, Mahugh noted, adding that “real world” customers say that there is a pressing need for PDF [AU: ODF?] support. “At this point there are no products using [ISO/IEC 29500] in the marketplace.”
When will Microsoft support its own file format? Worthingon quotes Gartner Research’s Michael Silver on that question as follows:
“Customers that are expecting true document fidelity from XML-based, ISO-standard document formats will continue to be disappointed." Silver observed that the most compatible formats to use today are Microsoft’s legacy binaries, and he believes that Microsoft will be unlikely to convince customers to move to OOXML in the foreseeable future.
So what exactly does this all mean? Let’s start with what we still don’t know.
When will the ODF feature be available? We don’t know. I’ve heard through the grapevine that we might be looking at 6 – 9 months. A formal planned ship date would obviously be useful to receive. [Update: The press release posted later in the day to the Microsoft Web site (reproduced in full below) states that Service Pack 2 (SP2), which will include support of the additiona formats, is "scheduled for the first half of 2009."]
What will the source of the function be? There are two obvious possible sources. One would be the CleverAge open source project conversion code generated by the long-running project at Source Forge funded by Microsoft. The other would be internal development. While either is possible, in comparing notes with others there are indications that development work may have been ongoing for some time to enable this function.
Under what terms will the API be made available? Until Microsoft announces to the contrary, the most logical assumption would be Microsoft’s existing Open Specification Promise (OSP). That commitment is fine for proprietary vendors and non-commercial open source use, but incompatible with commercial open source products.
Finally, and most intriguingly, Why has this announcement been made now? Clearly, Microsoft could have provided native support at any time over the last several years. Office already supports dozens of formats, and the development work for a company of Microsoft’s size would be trivial. Until now, avoiding native support has helped limit the spread of ODF-compliant software, due to the fact that documents created using such products could not as easily be exchanged with ubiquitous Office users. And while several plugins have been available for some time, adding them requires effort to locate, download and configure. Individual users are not likely to go to the bother (or may not be sophisticated enough to do so), while enterprise CIOs have more than enough to deal with already, and would be unlikely to bother until a critical mass of requests for ODF capability had built up.
Once Office users can easily open, edit and reexport files that were originally created in ODF, however, there will be less business and social pressure against creating such files. Given the quality of open source office suites such as OpenOffice, the long-delayed advent of Linux on the desktop, support for ODF in other products such as WordPerfect, and government and open source community enthusiasm for ODF-compliant products, the frequency of ODF-based files popping up in the work flows of Office-based shops can now be expected to increase much more quickly.
So that still leaves the question, why now, especially since ISO/IEC JTC1 is one formality step away from adopting OOXML as DIS 29500? Here’s where the other part of the announcement comes in: Microsoft has decided that it will not attempt to implement DIS 29500 until Office 14, the arrival date for which remains in (at least public) limbo. What to do, then, about government customers that require an ISO/IEC approved product?
That’s a problem. Alex Brown, the Convenor of the Ballot Resolution Meeting for OOXML in Geneva in February, confirmed yesterday that Ecma delivered a revised specification to ISO on March 29, but that draft remains closeted behind ISO’s doors, despite the fact that the final voting period expired at the end of March, and now even the two month appeal period is rapidly reaching a close – this despite a requirement under the applicable Directives that the release of a final draft to National Bodies should have occurred weeks ago. Until the final draft is finalized and released, final programming work cannot begin to implement it.
So what can Microsoft do to meet its customers’ requirements? Notwithstanding the pedal to the floor pressure to push OOXML through the formal standards approval process, Microsoft will lack the ability to deliver a product that complies with an ISO/IEC-approved version OOXML for the indefinite future. Moreover, investigations by the European Commission are continuing regarding Microsoft’s practices, including its conduct during the adoption of OOXML.
The most it can do, therefore, is to provide native support to that other format – ODF. A silver lining is that any added appeal for Office 2007 will provide a welcome boost for a product that continues to lag Microsoft’s originally projected sales.
One possible flaw in the above reasoning is the fact that Microsoft has announced that it will support ODF 1.1, the current OASIS version, rather than DIS 26300, the ISO-adopted specification based on OASIS ODF 1.0. Presumably this is a reflection of the fact that ODF 1.1 will be the foundation for the next version of the ISO standard, as well as the practical reality that all other ODF products in the marketplace will be built to 1.1, due to the additional functionality that it supports. Presumably government users will be more interested in buying and being able to exchange documents created using the most useful products available, rather than those that are limited by the constraints of an already dated standards release. Suddenly, it appears, Microsoft has found that indeed its customers really do want usseful native ODF support – something that it had steadfastlly denied for years.
Regardless of the motivation, today’s announcement is indeed good news for everyone that believes in open document formats in general, and in ODF in particular. Once Office users can round trip documents with ODF users and vice versa, the frequency of that process should begin to increase. Hopefully, Microsoft’s years-long delay in agreeing to participate in the ODF working group will allow better interoperability as well over time.
All of which, for now, must remain on the "wait and see" list. Here’s what to watch for in the months ahead:
1. A release date for the service pack with ODF support and for the API.
2. Whether the API will be available as open source
3. More specifically, whether the API can be used in GPL situations
4. Reviews of how good a job the upgraded suite does in round tripping ODF-generated documents of all types (text, spreadsheet and presentation).
That’s all for now. I’ll update this entry as further facts become available.
Updated 5/21/08 3:45 PM EDT: Scott M. Fulton, III, who has followed the ODF – OOXML saga from the early days, has posted an article with additional details, based on interviews with Jason Matusow and Doug Mahugh, including the following:
Beginning with Office 2007 Service Pack 2 — which for the first time, Microsoft acknowledged this morning will be available during the first half of 2009 — users will be presented with an option, both during installation and through options settings, enabling them to choose ODF as the default save format for spreadsheets, documents, and presentations. In a remarkable move that also shows how much Adobe’s format has become an independent standard in its own right, PDF format will also be offered as an optional default, as well as Microsoft’s XML Paper Specification (XPS) portable format.
This goes many steps beyond the ability to export documents to what would be considered foreign formats. With one-time settings, users will be able to say their own native format is not Office Open XML, the current default format of Office 2007, but one of these three other formats instead. This puts Office in direct functional competition not only with distributors of the OpenOffice suite such as Novell and Sun, but with Adobe’s Acrobat Professional as well. Users will still be able to save in other formats, through a selection made from the Save as type combo box in the Save as dialog box.
The full story is here. Scott indicates that he will have more information to pass along shortly. See also the Microsoft press release, below.
For further blog entries on , click here
sign up for a free subscription to Standards Today today!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Microsoft Expands List of Formats Supported in Microsoft Office
Move enhances customer choice and interoperability with Microsoft’s flagship productivity suite.
REDMOND, Wash. — May 21, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. is offering customers greater choice and more flexibility among document formats, as well as creating additional opportunities for developer and competitors, by expanding the range of document formats supported in its flagship Office productivity suite.
The 2007 Microsoft Office system already provides support for 20 different document formats within Microsoft Office Word, Office Excel and Office PowerPoint. With the release of Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 (SP2) scheduled for the first half of 2009, the list will grow to include support for XML Paper Specification (XPS), Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.5, PDF/A and Open Document Format (ODF) v1.1.
When using SP2, customers will be able to open, edit and save documents using ODF and save documents into the XPS and PDF fixed formats from directly within the application without having to install any other code. It will also allow customers to set ODF as the default file format for Office 2007. To also provide ODF support for users of earlier versions of Microsoft Office (Office XP and Office 2003), Microsoft will continue to collaborate with the open source community in the ongoing development of the Open XML-ODF translator project on SourceForge.net.
In addition, Microsoft has defined a road map for its implementation of the newly ratified International Standard ISO/IEC 29500 (Office Open XML). IS29500, which was approved by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in March, is already substantially supported in Office 2007, and the company plans to update that support in the next major version release of the Microsoft Office system, code-named “Office 14.”
Consistent with its interoperability principles, in which the company committed to work with others toward robust, consistent and interoperable implementations across a broad range of widely deployed products, the company has also announced it will be an active participant in the future evolution of ODF, Open XML, XPS and PDF standards.
Microsoft will join the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) technical committee working on the next version of ODF and will take part in the ISO/IEC working group being formed to work on ODF maintenance. Microsoft employees will also take part in the ISO/IEC working group that is being formed to maintain Open XML and the ISO/IEC working group that is being formed to improve interoperability between these and other ISO/IEC-recognized document formats. The company will also be an active participant in the ongoing standardization and maintenance activities for XPS and PDF. It will also continue to work with the IT community to promote interoperability between document file formats, including Open XML and ODF, as well as Digital Accessible Information System (DAISY XML), the foundation of the globally accepted DAISY standard for reading and publishing navigable multimedia content.
Microsoft is also committed to providing Office customers with the ability to open, edit and save documents in the Chinese national document file format standard, Uniform Office Format (UOF). The company does so today by supporting the continued development of the UOF-Open XML translator project on SourceForge.net, and will take additional steps to promote the distribution and ease of use of the translator. As UOF develops and achieves market adoption in China, Microsoft will distribute support for this format with Office to its customers in China.
“We are committed to providing Office users with greater choice among document formats and enhanced interoperability between those formats and the applications that implement them,” said Chris Capossela, senior vice president for the Microsoft Business Division. “By increasing the openness of our products and participating actively in the development and maintenance of document format standards, we believe we can help create opportunities for developers and competitors, including members of the open source communities, to innovate and deliver new value for customers.”
Microsoft recognizes that customers care most about real-world interoperability in the marketplace, so the company is committed to continuing to engage the IT community to achieve that goal when it comes to document format standards. It will work with the Interoperability Executive Customer Council and other customers to identify the areas where document format interoperability matters most, and then collaborate with other vendors to achieve interoperability between their implementations of the formats that customers are using today. This work will continue to be carried out in the Interop Vendor Alliance (http://www.interopvendoralliance.org), the Document Interoperability Initiative (http://www.microsoft.com/interop), and a range of other interoperability labs and collaborative venues.
“Microsoft’s support for ODF in Office is a great step that enables customers to work with the document format that best meets their needs, and it enables interoperability in the marketplace,” said Roger Levy, senior vice president and general manager of Open Platform Solutions for Novell Inc. “Novell is proud to be an industry leader in cross-platform document interoperability through our work in the Document Interoperability Initiative, the Interop Vendor Alliance and with our direct collaboration with Microsoft in our Interoperability Lab. We look forward to continuing this work for the benefit of customers across the IT spectrum.”
“The demand for a document format that everyone can use is something I hear from our customers on a regular basis,” said John D. Head, framework manager at PSC Group LLC, a Chicago headquartered information-technology and professional services consulting firm. “I am very pleased that Microsoft is enabling Microsoft Office to support ODF directly from the software. This will allow us to develop solutions that create documents that can be edited by any user, regardless of what software or operating system they use. In a world where software companies want people to select one software package for their entire user base, the reality is that different user groups and types need options. Microsoft is now enabling users to make that choice. This is a very smart move by Microsoft, and one that lets the most important person — the customer — be the winner.”
This work on document formats is only one aspect of how Microsoft is delivering choice, interoperability and innovative solutions to the marketplace. Microsoft will continue to work with its customers and partners and the rest of the industry to continue advancing in the area. More information can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/interop.
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq “MSFT”) is the worldwide leader in software, services and solutions that help people and businesses realize their full potential.
Note to editors: If you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft, please visit the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass on Microsoft’s corporate information pages. Web links, telephone numbers and titles were correct at time of publication, but may since have changed. For additional assistance, journalists and analysts may contact Microsoft’s Rapid Response Team or other appropriate contacts listed at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/contactpr.mspx.
s/under the same PAS process by which OOXML/under the same fast-track process by which OOXML/
Overshoot,
Right you are. ODF was PAS. I’ll correct it now, and thanks.
Andy
My bet? Face saving. If they’d done it last year, it would have been perceived as a sign of weakness. A large part of Microsoft’s business is tied up in their ability to dictate to the industry, and that would have cost them — badly.
I’ll also go out on a limb and predict that ISO will publish the final IS-29500 very soon now, as in this week. Not coincidental.
My guess is that the important bit is MS joining OASIS and the ISO committee that deals with ODF. They were able to subvert ISO into shoving through the OOXML non-standard, and I bet they think that they can destroy ODF with the same techniques.
It’ll be interesting to see what this API will look like. Note that there is an API documented that allows this today (see ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/Softlib/MSLFILES/GC1039.EXE) and it has been used for various things (eg http://wincvt.sf.net/). Presumably the new API will deal with a higher-level XML schema conversion rather than generating RTF and using that to generate XML.
Minor grammar error. incites should be insights
Right you are, and thanks.
– Andy
I’m going to take a wait-and-see attitude. Currently OASIS – not ISO – is in effective control of ODF formats. Microsoft has already flooded ISO committees with their business partners and I saw on NOOOXML that the MS-influenced P-Members of ISO – having now voted in favor of OOXML – are dropping back to O-membership.
JTC1’s SC34 continues to push for control of the ODF specification and I continue to think that it is a VERY bad idea to allow ISO to control ODF since it would be to MS’s gain and the world’s loss to have their partners control the rival format and be in a position to destroy it.
I suspect this announcement is a smokescreen that allows MS to access a more controlling stake in ODF maintenance for purposes of destroying it while giving them time to get MSOOXML to a state where it *can* be implemented. Also, I think the latest revelations concerning their spreadsheet functions are extremely damaging to the reputation of MSOOXML and they’ll have to get those fixed before admitting they want to implement the DIS29500 ‘standard’. In the short term (2-3 years), there’s plenty they can do to delay actually complying with this announcement and to damage the ODF standard through implementation errors that make ODF look bad (poor spreadsheet interoperability would just be a replay of their poor translater effort – slow, buggy code that they could blame on the ODF specification. Perhaps they selected 1.1 because ODF spreadsheet formats will be introduced in ODF 1.2 and they do not want to admit that their Excel formulas have been broken so badly for so long or to give users a chance to compare the ‘legacy formula results’ with the ‘correct, ODF 1.2 formula results’.
Whatever their reasons, I’ve learned that MS never does anything that does not directly benefit their monopoly lock-in – and that includes a good-faith implementation of an open standard. I’m just not sure yet what form the ‘knife in the back’ is going to take – poor implementation ? Poor performance ? Deliberate spreadsheet incompatibility ? Patents on necessary formats ? Legal traps for GPL users that produce commercial code (such as OSP / Moonlight covenant / Mono covenant) ? More FUD from Mr. Ballmer that ODF vendors now owe Microsoft license fees for the MS IP in ODF ? Attempts to put patented / copyrighted / trademarked elements into the ODF spec so as to be able to demand royalties for each implementation ?
I’m not sure yet which way Microsoft will jump, but history says this ‘new commitment to openness’ is not real.
I sincerely hope that OASIS does not relinquish control of the ODF specification to ISO as a result of this announcement. I also hope the reason that ITTF/MIcrosoft has not released the specification is that the specification is to be pulled and nullified. Even if not, it’s clear that the revised specification *CANNOT* be implemented due to self-conflicting requirements. Perhaps this is also driving the MS announcement – by the time DIS29500 can be fixed through ISO, Office 14 will be due out….
I think it will be telling whether the ISO spec is ever released or not. If it is released, both ISO and IEC will have lost credibility with a large body of previous supporters. If it is not released, but instead killed due to procedural irregularities, ISO/IEC retain some credibility, but Microsoft and their supporters will lose big-time. This announcement sounds like the latter is about to happen.
I hope so.
I am absolutely confident that Microsoft will implement ODF every bit as well and interchangeably as it implemented HTML.
As to the choice of ODF 1.1 vs. 1.0, I read that as the latest step in Microsoft’s upgrading of the standards world from “irrelevant” to “takes a back seat to real-world implementations”. As a standards expert, I suspect you’re used to seeing standards in a leading role – how can you implement a standard before it exists? – whereas Microsoft seem to see it as trailing – how can you standardise a format before it exists? – which would explain the difference of approach between the communities.
– Andrew
I wonder why they decided to do this. New customer demand? A desire to appease the EU Commission? Perhaps some other reason?
This strikes me as analogous to the MS announcements of opening their binary formats and their publishing of their OSP just days before being hit with a record-breaking fine for non-conformance to EU court decisions and EU mandates on interoperability.
I suspect that within a week, we’ll know what the true driver of this ‘spontaneous’ MS decision was – whether the EU will be finding them guilty of vote tampering or whether the ISO itself (through ITTF) will be rejecting DIS29500 for irregularities or whether the published post-BRM version of OOXML is so self-contradictory that it impossible to write anything that complies.
This seems like a move I would expect MS to make in the event that OOXML had been rejected by ISO and they were faced with the fact that they have *NO* product that they can use to compete with ODF formats due to the fact that none of their products support any ISO format and WTO treaties effectively require members to follow ISO standards (in this ODF) whenever ISO standards exist (as ODF most certainly does).
I wonder if the handwriting has been on the wall for a while and may be one reason why Alex Brown & Rick Jelliffe were so eager to discredit ODF in their support of DIS29500 and Microsoft’s actions in general….
I do believe we must remain vigilent against MS attacking ODF from the inside in some form of Extend-Embrace-Extinguish attack utilizing their current Office Document Format market-share.
"I suspect that within a week, we’ll know what the true driver of this ‘spontaneous’ MS decision was …"
"This seems like a move I would expect MS to make in the event that OOXML had been rejected by ISO"
Anyone who is tempted to put too good a spin on this announcement – either in praise of M$ or in celebrating the bright future of ODF – should take note of this insightful comment.
Microsoft had to fight tooth and nail to force the OOXML specification through ISO, if they roll over now and act like a kitten just remember that if you get too close they will rip off your hand.
Hilarious! Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Rick Jelliffe
Embrace….the ODF.
Extend the ODF…a Gift to (L)users every where.,
for, say, best round trip fidelity w/ MS Office, vs best cross platform consistency where it counts.
Ext….
—-
to MS Shareholders:
If MS were to go truly Open, including sharepoint protocols, etc, they have the cash for development, technology, and relationships to own a very large slice of a MUCH MUCH larger market then just MSOffice.
They must put ISO back the way it was before they corrupted national organizations on a world wide scale.
All this really does is give MS an advantage in the sales department, since they can tell customers ‘see look how open we are, we’re going to support ODF and PDF’. So thus helping to convince the unconvinced that office 2007 is worth the money, and not to bother with that other free tool which isn’t what you really wanted anyway …
Although it is a slight slap in the face for their ooxml efforts (someone suggested something messy is going on there – I guess time will tell), and maybe it’s some indication that customers are finally biting into their profits with their unsatisfied demands – the announcement itself only serves microsofts interests, not anyone elses.
On Tuesday, New York State published a scathing rebuke of Microsoft’s format position and recommended use of ODF.
On Wednesday, Microsoft came out with this announcement.
The order in which these occurred is not coincidental, so if you are grasping at straws trying to figure out the timing, there is no need do so.
Look at: http://www.oft.state.ny.us/News/E-RecordsStudyAnnouncement.pdf
Microsoft has proven time and time again that it can buy sufficient US political pressure to force US states to any position it wants.
New York State recommendation on some future policy to be implemented and enforced through a political process rife with corruptible politicians is not near enough reason for MS to do turn-around of this magnitude.
There’s something really big at stake here…
I don’t see this happening for anything less than being locked out of *MAJOR* markets or for involuntary invalidation of their precious DIS29500 spec at the ISO.
This is the kind of announcement MS would make only after all other avenues have failed.
I’m expecting (for example) an announcement by the EU competition authority that all MS products be barred from the European market unless they start supporting ODF natively in MSOffice with a ‘save as ODF’ default capability.
Another possibility may be that ITTF releases the draft DiS29500 after concluding an investigation that has found MS guilty of tampering that has invalidated the ISO BRM, rendering the DIS29500 proposed standard a failed standard and leaving Microsoft with no product to sell against the ISO-approved ODF to be in compliance with WTO treaties and European laws.
A third possibility is that China has decided to merge UOF with ODF to produce truly interoperable office standard, and the combination of Brazil, India, various EU member nations and China with its ecostructure all deciding on ODF/UOF (and therefore non-interoperability with Microsoft’s OOXML) are finally tilting the balance against MSOOXML in the market place outside the US borders. Add to this the additional embarrassments of the MS spreadsheet mathmatical errors that continue to be exposed combined with the non-event known as Vista and even the US market may become shaky in its support of Excel and other MSOffice products. I think this option is unlikely as a scenario, but I guess it is possible.
Why not the obvious reason: it will help them sell products?
If you look at how MicroSoft works in this area in recent times, it allows its opponents to build up a momentum "MS is bad because it will never do X" then it does exactly X. This forces the business rivals to shift the goalposts, which just makes those rivals look foolish, shady or ingenuous for a time. And it gets the opponents who were not rivals on side. Repeat as necessary.
So "MS will never open up its formats". Then ECMA 367.
Next "MS will never support other people’s standards" Then the open source ODF converter.
Next "MS will never allow scrutiny and change." Then the ISO standardization process and the thousands of changes.
Next "If MS was serious about openness it would adopt ODF". Then this announcement.
And "MS has compromised ISO and ECMA, only OASIS is incorrupt." Again this announcement.
It is regular as clockwork. Pointing out a flaw niggles them for a while, but after they decide to make some change (and before its opponents become aware of it) the more that opponents harp on about some inadequacy only serves MS’ interests: it is in their interests to pop a bigger balloon than a smaller one. MS can (reasonably and smugly) say to their rivals "Why aren’t you rejoicing that you won?" Is it really so bad?
The logical next step, following this pattern, is that MS will join the DIGISTAN "organization". 🙂
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
> So "MS will never open up its formats". Then ECMA 367.
Perhaps you mean ECMA 376 ? This is not really open as it was not until after ECMA was in ISO that the OSP (still legally encombered and therefore not open) was published.
So….. Not a valid counter-example – try again.
> Next "MS will never support other people’s standards" Then the open source ODF converter.
Perhaps you did not notice that MS does not support this project – they only sponsor it (and the extent to which they do sponsor is is unspecified). I know that MS keeps pointing to it as an example of a ‘third-party implementation of OOXML, but since the converter utilizes internal MS2007 calls to actually do conversion, I’d have to say it’s far from independent. There’s a world of difference betweeen ‘supports’ and ‘sponsors’ since MS refused to make the necessary hooks available in MSOffice 2007 that this converter actually needed. Additionally, this converter is abymally slow (comparisons on Rob Weir’s blog) and only works for word documents.
So…. Not a valid counter-example – try again.
> Next "MS will never allow scrutiny and change." Then the ISO standardization process and the thousands of changes.
Perhaps you did not notice the comments from the BRM that any change proposal that would have resulted in a need to change Office2007 was stymied and ultimately rejected by ECMA and Microsoft ? Try Yoon Kit’s blog entries at OpenMalaysia.org.
So… Not a valid counter-example – try again.
> Next "If MS was serious about openness it would adopt ODF". Then this announcement.
Perhaps you did not notice that this is still talking about future tense and vaporware. This announcement means just as much as Microsofts announcements that Longhorn would ship in 2005 or that Longhorn (when it did ship) would contain WinFS – a completely revised database-oriented filesystem. Even the EU is doubting this announcement and I seriously doubt that this announcement will mean anything to anyone execpt as yet another instance of MS vaporware until working and truly interoperable ODF documents are being produced and round-tripped with OpenOffice.org, KDEOffice, Star Office, and IBM’s Symphony by Office 2007 in mid-2009.
So… Not a valid counter-example – try again.
> And "MS has compromised ISO and ECMA, only OASIS is incorrupt." Again this announcement.
Perhaps you’ve not noticed the many alarm bells ringing around the possibile attack vectors that MS could use to corrupt OASIS. OASIS should remain open, but on guard lest they face the same corruption and loss of credibility that ISO has suffered. Perhaps it’s escaped your notice that the Open Source authors are writing to the OASIS standards and treating ISO approval as more of an administrative detail, not really worth the effort to even acknowledge in any meaningful way. That tells me that ISO has become pretty irrelevant due to the MS corruption of that standards body. I don’t recall anyone saying that OASIS is incorrupt – but that MS has not yet corrupted it.
So… Not a valid counter-example – try again.
I’m disappointed in you Rick – you used to do so much better than this….
Except, Rick, Microsoft never does do "exactly this" whatever the "this" is. For example, they say they will have an "Open" format – but it’s not really open. They say they are making an Interoperability Pledge – except, the pledge isn’t offered to its GPL competitors. They say they will support OOXML-ODF translators — except, the translators suck and don’t work properly.
Now they say they will natively support ODF. If they follow their usual tactics, it will be some definitionally-strained Microsoft-perverted version of ODF, not the real ODF.
> This is not really open as it was not until after ECMA was in ISO that the OSP (still legally encombered and therefore not open) was published.
No, RANDz is a requirement of ECMA participation.
> Perhaps you did not notice that MS does not support this project – they only sponsor it
They pay for it, give technical support to it, and Promote it in URLs. In what way is that not "support"?
> Perhaps you did not notice the comments from the BRM that any change proposal that would have resulted in a need to change Office2007 was stymied and ultimately rejected by ECMA and Microsoft ? Try Yoon Kit’s blog entries at OpenMalaysia.org.
Perhaps you did not notice that a few trivial but incompatible changes did creep through anyway: in particular the change from "yes/no" to "true/false" in some instances. Alex Brown’s recent validation tests pointed this out: that while the number of changes were trivial, they are in some common cases. I worked with yk at the BRM, and it should be pointed out that changing the Excel formula language syntax has much greater ramifications for developers than merely changing the schema for OOXML.
> Perhaps you did not notice that this is still talking about future tense and vaporware.
Yes, and if you run the "vaporware" argument you will fall into exactly the trap I have identified. "Microsoft will never deliver" rant rant and then MS delivers and you look like an idiot. (No disrespect intended)
> Perhaps you’ve not noticed the many alarm bells ringing around the possibile attack vectors that MS could use to corrupt OASIS. OASIS should remain open, but on guard lest they face the same corruption and loss of credibility that ISO has suffered.
There has been *NO* corruption during the ISO process. Name one example of money actually changing hands to buy a vote from an official. Name one example of an official acting outside their powers. I have followed through every reported instance, and have not found anything with substance. What you find is hysterics, lies and sour grapes. Anytime someone makes a regrettable FUBAR decision it is ramped up into the intricate conspiracy theory. You find a lot of "We know MS does bad things to win, therefore any time MS wins we can assume it did something bad" which is just pathetic.
The trouble is that people use "open" as a euphemism for "anti-Microsoft": these people wouldn’t know open if they walked into a door. They don’t care anything about open really, it is just an excuse. Whenever they come into a genuinely open process (in which things are decided on technical issues, which means that no company’s viewpoint is automatically excluded from winning any argument) and it doesn’t result in "anti-Microsoft" result as defined by them, they have to try to tear down the process. I am sure the same people will tear down OASIS as soon as MS joins, even though it has been a consistent request of many that MS participate in ODF until now.
> Perhaps it’s escaped your notice that the Open Source authors are writing to the OASIS standards and treating ISO approval as more of an administrative detail, not really worth the effort to even acknowledge in any meaningful way. That tells me that ISO has become pretty irrelevant due to the MS corruption of that standards body. I don’t recall anyone saying that OASIS is incorrupt – but that MS has not yet corrupted it.
On corruption, see above.
On OASIS, they used ISO as a rubberstamp and did not submit ODF 1.1 for maintenance. Of course people will use ODF 1.1 since ODF 1.0 was inadequate. But you seem to have some idea that an ISO standard should be the latest and greatest necessarily: it is never the case that an ISO standard necessarily is the automatically preferable standard. It is similarly never the case that an OASIS or ECMA or W3C standard is automatically the preferable one.
> I’m disappointed in you Rick – you used to do so much better than this….
I am consequently disappointing people who demand that the world is one way, when it is in fact not that way from what I have experienced as a participant.
Read Patrick Durusau’s new posts on his site, they are really good.
Cheers
Rick
> They pay for it, give technical support to it, and Promote it in URLs. In what way is that not "support"?
Actually, Rick, they don’t add their precious IP. Whatever CleverAge or this Sourceforge project output, it will NOT give FOSS project access to MS patents needed to implement MS OOXML.
MS are distancing themselves from this project because they don’t want koffice, OO.o, or others, to be able to freely use the patented parts of OOXML. That is why there are no MS engineers working on the code.
(and to make sure it doesn’t work well, as was shown)
Before you start explaining the OSP to us from a XML expert’s view, I will say I am not interested.
Given that those educated and experienced in patent law told us that the OSP does NOT include GPL projects, and MS legal counsel have never spoken about OSP&GPL, I am not interested in the opinions of non-lawyers about the OSP. Only if MS legal counsel comes out and tells us authoratively that GPL projects are protected by the OSP, I will believe it.
Winter
> Of course people will use ODF 1.1 since ODF 1.0 was inadequate.
If ODF 1.0 was inadequate, what would make that MS OOXML? The mind boggles.
>On OASIS, they used ISO as a rubberstamp and did not submit ODF 1.1 for maintenance.
By the way, ODF 1.0 got an unanimous ISO vote after years of multi party work.
To compare that to the MS exclusive, 6000 page rush job called OOXML, which was further "discussed" behind closed doors (where are the minutes?) is disingenuous.
Calling the BRM successful and cordial after a dozen contributors left fuming with rage (and blogged about it) is also stretching the truth.
In short, as I wrote below, MS got you skinned and left to pick up the pieces. As you told us, you will not even have the consolidation that you have earned some money from it.
MS won’t use this precious standard, DIS29500, for the foreseeable future. There will also be no useful maintenance without any deployment. I see DIS29500 going the way of CSS in IE.
Basically, you have spent a few years of your life improving and defending something that will end up in the dustbin.
Winter
> Why not the obvious reason: it will help them sell products?
Because, besides the points the previous posters raised, it does not help sell product. It has the opposite effect.
Now it can be argued that it is safe to adopt ODF because Microsoft themselves endorse it. It can be argued that it is safe to use OpenOffice, Google docs and Lotus Symphony because the ODF format ensures interoperability with the Microsoft world. FOSS proponents are laughing at these ideas, but people who take Microsoft at their words will accept the argument. The official support of ODF makes it easier for risk averse managers that don’t understand tech but don’t want to pay the full cost of Office 2007 to jump to a no cost alternative. This is because once the file format incompatibility is out of the way, Office 2007 doesn’t bring much added value compared to the alternatives.
I do get the impression MS have skinned you for all you are worth. How to face those you attacked when life goes on?
You fight tooth and jail to defend MS OOXML and attack ODF. You magnify every perceived problem in ODF/OO.o/OASIS, and ridicule every flaw found in OOXML. You hurl horrible accusations towards those describing serious flaws in MS OOXML.
(http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/03/the_antiooxml_mob_need_to_lift.html)
According to you the BRM has resolved all open issues and OOXML is now a fully valid ISO standard. We are in for a new and better world.
(http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/05/what_to_do_now.html)
And now, at the end of May, we still have NO final DIS29500 text to implement. MS will not implement DIS29500 in the foreseeable future (as predicted). But MS will indeed support ODF 1.1 natively next year. And new serious errors in DIS29500 are found on a daily basis (eg, spreadsheet examples in DIS29500 were made up)
Your try to be reconciliatory now, in your latest blog posts, but you hardly wanted to acknowledge maddening errors in OOXML before. It doesn’t instill confidence if you claim ODF cannot represent OOXML (and vice versa) when it is a well known facts that the problems are with few exceptions on the OOXML side. Surely, the fact that Ecma and MS refused to add 2 (just two) tags to OOXML that would make lossless roundtrips possible speaks out more about their "interoperability" attitude than whatever their PR departments release. ODF was designed from the start to be compatible with MS Office formats, OOXML was not even designed.
And even NY state does not see two standards as efficient in any sane meaning. So why reconciliate?
One standard should go.
Winter
> I do get the impression MS have skinned you for all you are worth. How to face those you attacked when life goes on?
Ah, but then you live in a conspiratorial world where the only agendas are MS or anti-MS. This is why it is so difficult to fit in people who have different perspectives and priorities and timeframes.
> You fight tooth and jail to defend MS OOXML and attack ODF. You magnify every perceived problem in ODF/OO.o/OASIS, and ridicule every flaw found in OOXML. You hurl horrible accusations towards those describing serious flaws in MS OOXML.
(http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/03/the_antiooxml_mob_need_to_lift.html)
When have I attacked ODF qua ODF? I have consistently recommended it, for public government use. I have written several times that I believe the drivers for ODF exist independently for the drivers for OOXML: having a standard for the latter will not impact the progress of the former (and I believe the majority of participants in the BRM had this view too.) I have persistently attacked moral bankrupts who hurl libels of corruption and elaborate conspiracy theories around with no evidence. And don’t blame me that so many of the anti-DIS29500 were amateurish and unsustainable: do you think that no-one will actually look at them? So many of them were just a bad joke. Don’t blame me if I point out that there are precedents at ISO (including IS26300) and that looking at how things were handled before is a much better way to predict ISO behaviour than armchair theorizing. And don’t blame me if when some idiot makes an accusation against me, I try to defend myself. Who have I called corrupt? Who have I said takes bribes? (And if I have written things that are offensive in the order of calling someone a bribe-taker, I am happy to consider removing them. What are they?)
When I pointed out that the claims purporting to link ISO voting with corruption indexes was racist, I did not mention individuals but the claims. I know that some people got offended when I said their national bodies were parrots, where instead of making an independent review they merely followed and localized the talking points provided by a large corporation: if you don’t want to be called a parrot, stop squawking. That is not a horrible accusation, it is just an admonishing one. When I said that in my considered opinion a "No with comments vote" for DIS29500 was warranted for the initial ballot, I got nothing but insults and accusations, despite having multiple times including in various public international forums having commended the "No with comments" before. During the BRM I got (our Head of Delegation to ask the US Head of Delegation to get) wording put in to adopt ISO standard language: this results in more individual changes than any other participant and is presumably one of the reasons that ITTF has been held up: so I reject that I am not aware of flaws in OOXML.
In 2006 there were only a few hundred people who were experts in the ISO or JTC1 directives, and they knew precedent and the big picture. In 2007 we miraculously found the world was filled with thousands of experts who had never actually participated in a single ISO or JTC1 event, but who felt themselves qualified to make pronouncements on all sorts of subjects. 2008 may be going the same way.
> According to you the BRM has resolved all open issues and OOXML is now a fully valid ISO standard. We are in for a new and better world.
(http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2008/05/what_to_do_now.html)
Err, according to National Body vote, the open issues were resolved enough at the BRM for an accept result. But I certainly have not said that all issues are resolved: there are always more. Hence my emphasis on maintenance. By the way, you give that URL as if it has anything to do with your version of what I am saying, but it has nothing in it that says "the BRM has resolved all open issues". Don’t you care that there is little connection between what the world in your mind and the real world on this issue? I would much prefer to defend myself against things I have actually said rather than things that the fake Rick who occupies your mind says.
> And now, at the end of May, we still have NO final DIS29500 text to implement. MS will not implement DIS29500 in the foreseeable future (as predicted). But MS will indeed support ODF 1.1 natively next year. And new serious errors in DIS29500 are found on a daily basis (eg, spreadsheet examples in DIS29500 were made up)
One of the very different perspectives we have I think, is that I see the fight to get IS26300 and IS29500 standardized and improved (and, most importantly, their stakeholders at the table) as being a long-term process: ten years or more. I have long said that one of the primary users/beneficiaries of IS29500 would be the ODF TC. Sorry, but I don’t see OOXML as any kind of threat to ODF, nor ODF as any kind of threat to Office or OOXML. ODF never had the capability of being a Microsoft-buster: if having a common file format could do that, RTF or even .DOC would have sufficed.
> Your try to be reconciliatory now, in your latest blog posts, but you hardly wanted to acknowledge maddening errors in OOXML before. It doesn’t instill confidence if you claim ODF cannot represent OOXML (and vice versa) when it is a well known facts that the problems are with few exceptions on the OOXML side. Surely, the fact that Ecma and MS refused to add 2 (just two) tags to OOXML that would make lossless roundtrips possible speaks out more about their "interoperability" attitude than whatever their PR departments release. ODF was designed from the start to be compatible with MS Office formats, OOXML was not even designed.
Which are these two tags? OOXML already has an extension mechanism for handling foreign elements that is a superset of ODFs. (It was Part 5 of the Ecma spec.) Plus it has the "custom xml" tags. That you can say "it is a well known fact that the problems are with few exceptions on the OOXML side" shows an unproductive mentality, with respect: take an feature like SmartArt. There is no equivalent in ODF. To say that where format A has features that format B does not, therefore it is format B’s problem.
To say that "ODF was designed from the start to be compatible with MS Office formats" would be merely ignorant in someone else. You know better, you have been following this debate for a while.
It was not a formal part of ODF founding charter (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200211/msg00000.html) and the very first meeting decided "The TC agreed that transformability into potential Microsoft office XML formats could be sensible, but is not a formal requirement." (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200212/msg00003.html)
> And even NY state does not see two standards as efficient in any sane meaning. So why reconciliate?
Their argument seems naive to me, especially when applied outside the government procurement domain. What is optimal for an individual may be suboptimal for the market. It assumes substitutability of standards, which they are not in their current state. Already people are freaking out that MS will have to extend ODF in order to use it for a default format. And it is profoundly undemocratic: rather than (enabling) the market deciding which to adopt for various uses, we are supposed to trust some collection of greybeards and suits and hippies? Certainly life would be easier for all of us if there was never any competing technologies, but in fact this Stepford Wife utopia is mythical.
Standards need to support organic plurality: where each layer allows a multiplicity of alternatives at the next ,and technical/market forces (including specialist niche markets) drive adoption: I have been banging on about this for more than a decade now, including a public debate at WWW7 against a Microsoft representative (on the particular issue of XML Schemas in that case.) The mandated monolithic technology approach ensures stagnation.
The only way for ODF to succeed well is for it to be excellent technical quality, and for it to address the needs of all significant stakeholders. MS (and, more important, its user base) is such a stakeholder, like it or not. Standards can be used for making level playing-fields to a certain extent, but they don’t work for trust-busting: it is just trying to catch a greasy pig. The best way for ODF to get there is for MS to be at the table. I don’t particularly care if IS29500 never becomes the default file format for Office: the point is that Office should use a standard format that actually supports what it does, that what Office does is well-documented with even minimal RANDz licensing, and that MS and everyone is at the table. All this hysteria about OOXML has been so overwrought and misdirected, but the drivers for ODF and the drivers for OOXML are different and their co-existences is a very good thing.
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
>When have I attacked ODF qua ODF? I have consistently recommended it, for public government use. I have written several times that I believe the drivers for ODF exist independently for the drivers for OOXML: having a standard for the latter will not impact the progress of the former (and I believe the majority of participants in the BRM had this view too.)
Strange that so many educated people would have that strange idea. Is this because you guys only care about the standard and not if anyone really implement it faithfully?
Anyway I have seen you make plenty of lipservice confessions about the goodness of ODF…but always combined with plenty of rethorics about how lacking the review of ODF was. It is surrealistic world you paint when every fault of OOXML can be balanced with that ODF might have hidden faults that was not found due to insignificant review.
>Who have I called corrupt? Who have I said takes bribes?
Nobody that I am aware of. You have even flat out denied the possibility of that anyone could be corrupt. In fact you even suggested that it is forbidden to speak about the possibility before evidence has been presented.
Your argument seem to be that every NB joining the vote must be totally free of influence since the newcomers joined both sides. The problem is that the conclusion does not follow…the fact that newcomers joined both sides does in no way lessen the suspicion that some of the newcomers might not have reviewed the draft at all but just joined due to them being corrupt. The suspicion is very reasonable when we consider that a number of NBs participating voted for approval without comments in the september ballot. How could they possibly have preformed a review without finding any errors what so ever? How can you be so sure of the others NBs intrigity when about a third of the NBs even didn’t pretend to perform a real review of the draft?
> During the BRM I got (our Head of Delegation to ask the US Head of Delegation to get) wording put in to adopt ISO standard language: this results in more individual changes than any other participant and is presumably one of the reasons that ITTF has been held up: so I reject that I am not aware of flaws in OOXML.
Great, you have spotted some important flaws and ignored many more. In no way does the fact that you worked to correct flaws at the BRM prove that you really has addressed all the flaws and not chosen to ignore to evalute things that in truth are showstoppers.
>In 2006 there were only a few hundred people who were experts in the ISO or JTC1 directives, and they knew precedent and the big picture. In 2007 we miraculously found the world was filled with thousands of experts who had never actually participated in a single ISO or JTC1 event, but who felt themselves qualified to make pronouncements on all sorts of subjects. 2008 may be going the same way.
On the other hand the few hundred experts on ISO and JTC1 directives seem totally ignorant to the reality of implementing Microsoft "specifications" and Microsofts usual tactics in these matter. It might be that the few hundred experts are right about how ISO and JTC1 directives are, but that does not stop the rest of the world being right about Microsoft having fooled your group of standard "professionals*.
>Sorry, but I don’t see OOXML as any kind of threat to ODF, nor ODF as any kind of threat to Office or OOXML. ODF never had the capability of being a Microsoft-buster: if having a common file format could do that, RTF or even .DOC would have sufficed.
*OOXML is too flawed to ever matter in the real world so the effect of OOXML on ODF is at most delaying the struggle when people lose time on a format the never will be supported by Microsoft Office.
*ODF on the other hand is no threat to OOXML simply because Office probably never will be using the format. Expect Microsoft to present a new format with the next Office version that will be new default. ODF on the other hand is a serious threat to towards closed formats like RTF and DOC…that is why OOXML was introduced to make people chase smoke screens.
*As for RTF or DOC being common file format enough to break Micorsoft dominance…these formats never have been publically documented to enough degree to make them serve as open, every version of Office would add another RTF and DOC version. Evidence of the mess caused by this are that Microsoft itself could not use RTF (that is used as transitional format for the conversion) to make OOXML work on the Mac until 2008.
I am pretty sure you know this, but claim ignorance to be able to talk pro Microsoft speak.
>Which are these two tags? OOXML already has an extension mechanism for handling foreign elements that is a superset of ODFs. (It was Part 5 of the Ecma spec.) Plus it has the "custom xml" tags. That you can say "it is a well known fact that the problems are with few exceptions on the OOXML side" shows an unproductive mentality, with respect: take an feature like SmartArt. There is no equivalent in ODF. To say that where format A has features that format B does not, therefore it is format B’s problem.
Your argument is seriously biased and totally flaved. When talking about ODF capability you focus on that ODF have no native support for SmartArt, but when you talk about OOXML capability you ignore the native aspect and start talking about extensions to solve lack of native support. Maybe it is true that OOXML has more freedom about extensions, but the other side of that coin are that good flexilibility is providing enough freedomen and not more. Having many ways to define the same thing is not a matter of flexibility, but instead a way to make OOXML unreasonable to implement from scratch.
It is clear that Microsoft could add those tags if they care about compability. It also clear that Microsoft if they care about compability could release information about to implement SmartArt with a GPL compatibele license. In absence of positive steps taken in these areas it is obvious you are raising smoke screens are misdirecting people.
>It was not a formal part of ODF founding charter (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200211/msg00000.html) and the very first meeting decided "The TC agreed that transformability into potential Microsoft office XML formats could be sensible, but is not a formal requirement." (see http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200212/msg00003.html)
Pretty good idea with what is known about how Microsoft stay true to standards. It would be pretty dumb to force compability with something that Microsoft claims to do, we all know how badly Microsoft stay true to standards (look at html, CSS and etc if you are ignorant)
>The only way for ODF to succeed well is for it to be excellent technical quality, and for it to address the needs of all significant stakeholders. MS (and, more important, its user base) is such a stakeholder, like it or not.
It was Microsoft that left OASIS and we are very lucky that the public pressure from common people and governments are enough to force them back even with the flawed OOXML draft approved.
>I don’t particularly care if IS29500 never becomes the default file format for Office: the point is that Office should use a standard format that actually supports what it does, that what Office does is well-documented with even minimal RANDz licensing, and that MS and everyone is at the table.
Errh…maybe that is why your stance is so hopeless to comrehend for the rest of the world. People actually using the standards and suffering the consequences of Microsoft quality implementation care very much about the default file format of Office and if that format can be implemented completly by the GPL competetion. The problem is that the world need well-documented infromation about what Office really does, and people like you have given Microsoft a free pass to not comply but instead wrap things in angle braclets and maybe some time in future reveal the secret even while they have not commited to still be using OOXML by then.
>All this hysteria about OOXML has been so overwrought and misdirected, but the drivers for ODF and the drivers for OOXML are different and their co-existences is a very good thing.
That is pure opinion without any supporting argument. I totally fail to see the need for OOXML as separate standard.
>Why not the obvious reason: it will help them sell products?
Oh…you mean why they announce it? Of course they make the annoucement because they want to trick people into buying Office.
>If you look at how MicroSoft works in this area in recent times, it allows its opponents to build up a momentum "MS is bad because it will never do X" then it does exactly X. This forces the business rivals to shift the goalposts, which just makes those rivals look foolish, shady or ingenuous for a time. And it gets the opponents who were not rivals on side. Repeat as necessary.
Actually you are the one that is not pyaing attention. What Microsoft at every point of in time has done is to promise things that are vaporware but they never deliver.
>So "MS will never open up its formats". Then ECMA 367.
The demand is for Micrsoft to open their binary formats with documentation that is consistent and useful. In absence of such the demand is for a full mapping between binary formats and Ecma 376. Neither has been delivered so we are suffering from bait-and-switch. Microsoft promised an open format but nevered delivered something that allow saving all billions of binary documents.
>Next "MS will never support other people’s standards" Then the open source ODF converter.
There is a non working converter that all users report are useless in any normal company work flow. Seems awefully similar to bait-and-switch to me. That Microsoft disgarded the open source projects findings and rejected to add suggested tags to OOXML prove that Microsoft does not support the standard but instead their "funding" of the project is used purely as a smokescreen.
>Next "MS will never allow scrutiny and change." Then the ISO standardization process and the thousands of changes.
Scrutiny…was given enough time to happen at what point?
Change…happened for what degree of the issues?
Truth is that many people report that the Microsoft block at the BRM voted against all changes that would require change. Of course they failed in some cases to detect the change, but that is expected when we consider how badly engineered the OOXML format is.
>Next "If MS was serious about openness it would adopt ODF". Then this announcement.
Until we see ODF really adopted it is most likely pure vaporware. Additionally we suffer the risk that they will fail to follow the standard like they did with html, css and any other. It is great that Microsoft Office will recognize that there are ODF files so we can educate the users but means little to interoperability if Microsoft does their regular job.
>And "MS has compromised ISO and ECMA, only OASIS is incorrupt." Again this announcement.
The announcement seems quite consistent with Microsoft tactics…how could Microsoft stand that OASIS is not subjected to their manipulations?
Will Microsoft Office 2007 be next in the series?
Something to look forward to :-).
I can think of some questions I’d like answered.
It looks like Doug Mahugh answered your question about how this would be implemented. He said that Microsoft would continue to invest in the open source translator products "because they enable scenarios that our built-in ODF support in Office doesn’t address." So, that must mean there will be built-in ODF support. It also means it won’t be complete.
One thing you didn’t mention is that a couple of months ago, Doug said:
He also promised that version 1.0 would be out in May, 2008. A chart here shows them still being on target as of mid-April.
I can’t find anything from him that is more current than this, but I can’t believe that they would release a SDK that would be compliant with ISO/IEC 29500 without including that ability in Office itself. May is almost over and they haven’t released version 1.0 of the SDK yet.
Eric
One more thought:
I’m surprised that Microsoft didn’t decide to at least implement the Transitional parts of ISO/IEC 29500 in Office 2007. I didn’t expect them to actually implement the Strict conformance part in Office 2007, if ever, but based on Alex Brown saying that Office 2007 was already nearly compliant with the Transitional class, and no one contradicting him on that, it seemed that very little effort would have been needed to make those changes. So why not?
Eric