RSSECMA to Begin Drafting XPS as Alternative Standard to PDF
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 29, 2007, 3:24 PM
A meeting of ECMA International Technical Committee 46 will be convened next month in Cambridge, to begin the drafting process for an independent specification for "XML Paper" or XPS - the typeset document standard created by Microsoft as an alternative to Adobe's PDF format.
The notice came silently, as a very short post on the organization's Web site. However, it immediately drew criticism from attorney Andrew Updegrove, who represents high-tech firms and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Linux Foundation.
In a statement to reporters this afternoon, Updegrove believes the fact that ECMA will probably submit its independent specification to the International Standards Organization as a complement to its already submitted specification for Office Open XML - Microsoft's current format for Office 2007 applications - is an indication that Microsoft intends to use XPS as leverage to push aside the competitive OpenDocument Format.
"This new submission provides the clearest evidence why ISO/IEC should reject OOXML," Updegrove writes, "rather than cooperate in perpetuating an ever-expanding document environment designed around a single vendor's products, stifling competition and innovation among multiple products."
Incidentally, XPS is seen as a competitor to PDF, which up until recently had no direct competition in the marketplace for portable, platform-agnostic digital documents either. Updegrove concedes Adobe did not cede control over PDF to a standards body until earlier this year, and perhaps a company questioning Adobe's legitimacy as de facto standard bearer for portable documents, could be empathized with.
"Be that as it may," Updegrove continues, "perpetuating one monopolistic market position after another seems wholly incompatible with the role of a global standards body, tasked with protecting the interests of all stakeholders. If OOXML, and now Microsoft XML Paper Specification, each sail through ECMA and are then adopted by ISO/IEC JTC1, then it may be time to wonder whether the time has come to declare 'game over' for open standards."
Microsoft had intentions on making saving to PDF and XPS formats features in Office 2007, but withdrew those features in response to concerns voiced by Adobe that Microsoft's placement of XPS in Office's menus gave it preferential treatment. Users may now download individual plug-ins for Office for the two formats.
Microsoft announced its intentions to submit XPS to ECMA for consideration last January, as part of its efforts to comply with European Commission requests that the company give more respect to the standards process. "In response to the Commission's concerns," reads a company statement that month, "the company has made fundamental changes to the licensing structure of the XPS fixed-format technology and has committed to submit the technology to an international standards body for adoption as an open industry standard."
I just heard about Mars
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/mars/
It's Adobe's XML ed PDF file format and it incorporates other XML standards like SVG. That already sounds better than XPS.
Score: 0
|Thanks, Scotch Moose.
The link is really useful.
I may be wrong, but I see one problem though. You will have to create an SVG file for every page in MARS documents. This may not work out very well if you have reports that have text and graphics and that span across multiple pages. You will have to keep track of each visible element (e.g. text fragment) vertical offset to decide if it is going to fit onto the page. Such algorithms can be quite complex and performance of the code may become an issue.
Another thing that I noticed is that it takes a while to open MARS files. Even 2-3 page documents. I hope, this is only a temporary issue because MARS project is in beta yet.
Score: 0
|See this site => http://www.amyuni.com/blog/?p=8 for a comparison of ODF, PDF and XPS.
Score: 0
|Wasn’t the purpose of a standards organization established to prevent the very thing Microsoft is doing between Ecma and ISO? Here's a simple example. While ODF was a [successful] candidate for an international standard, Microsoft "Win32" is not. It's a functional specification of how one vendor’s product works, and it is subject to change from release to release, under that vendor’s sole control. There is no need for ISO to specify how "Win32" should work; only for Microsoft to specify how it works.
You don’t suddenly want ISO turning around and blocking the next Windows release because the "Win32" specification changed in a way that had not been agreed to; you want Microsoft to go ahead and ship Windows when they are ready, with a manual to tell us how it works. Likewise Microsoft DirectX and .NET.
Why does anyone — much less Microsoft — think it’s any of ISO’s business how Microsoft want to drive printers (with XPS) or represent office productivity documents (with MS-OOXML)? Microsoft is not asking ISO for help in achieving consensus, nor offering their contribution as a starting point for discussion with independent experts from other businesses and public-sector interested parties, nor pointing out cases where existing ISO specifications could be enhanced. Microsoft is only asking ISO for a rubber stamp, and throwing cash and Redmond jobs at everyone who'll be a party to.
Microsoft has become the Rupert Murdoch of software. There are reports that Microsoft has been offering high-dollar jobs to national body members around the globe to vote for MS-OOXML. Enough have taken the money and are eager to return the favor with a YES vote in ISO. In the dozen largest countries, Microsoft has hired lobbyists (to force MS-OOXML onto governments) the way Imelda Marcos bought shoes. In the days before the wingnuts took control, we called that bribery, not lobbying. If you're a wingnut conservative, you'll love the new fascism and you'll enjoy paying the Microsoft tax to keep reading and opening your documents. For the rest of us, we'll use ODF and let Microsoft do whatever it wants with its "product specification."
Score: 0
|And why ODF is compared to Win32? Win32 was never intended to become an ISO standard anyway. And BTW, ISO standards are not set on stone, just like the ever-moving C++ ISO standard. Moving ISO standards are normal actually.
If WIn32 is an ISO standard, and Microsoft changes it in the new version, ISO will not stop the new version from being released. Changes will be submitted to ISO, and Microsoft can go their merry way.
If XPS become ISO standard, it will only benefits the consumers. Already Adobe scrambles and also wants to standardize PDF to compete, and that's a good thing. Choice and competition are always good. Same with ODF and OOXML.
Score: 0
|Whatever. Like anyone is going to forcefully replace PDF as a standard document format. Sure. And I'm Elvis. I can't find anyone using XPS. I deal with a LOT of companies in my business. Not one.
Score: 0
|Is it in "Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA" or "Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom"?
Score: 0
|Many software vendors would only appreciate the move.
Currently, there isn't an easy way to create PDF documents using standard programming tools without purchasing programming libraries to create such documents easier or without using third-party tools to build and convert files in other formats to PDF. Otherwise, the choice is to create code to generate the PDF file content, which may take lots of time. You can argue that there are free libraries available, but their use may not be an option. This can be dictated by project requirements and licensing issues.
There are other XML document formats (ODF/OpenOffice, DocBook, OOXML, etc.), but not all of them have been accepted as standards by large software consumers (Government, educational institutions, etc.), many of which are still using older software that does not have support for the new document formats (e.g. Office 2000, Acrobat Reader 6 and older). By the time they will be ready to upgrade, they may revise their policies and accept one or more new XML document standards.
I wonder, why Adobe has not created an xPdf format yet. And, if new version of the Acrobat products could support this format, Adobe could be ahead of the game. I don't see a good reason why Microsoft initiative is being objected. It is an option to move the technology a step forward. It should be up to the end user to accept it. If you were to buy a CRT, Plasma or an LCD TV, which one would you buy? The idea is the same here... to have a choice.
If XPS document schema is relatively simple and it is accepted as a standard and if XPS files can be used in the same ways as current PDF files are being used, it may also revolutionize software development world. And, I would be glad to accept the change.
Score: 0
|The PDF format is fully documented with free readers available on every platform. I see export to PDF as a file menu option in every word processing application, oh except from Microsoft. You can buy proprietary libraries if your boss has pointy hair, or down load Free Software libraries if your boss has a pony tail. And if you like to roll your own you can get complete specs from Adobe free to implement. And every machine, running any OS will display your PDF documents the same. If you need to make portable documents today PDF is far and above the best choice.
That said I have had to deal with PDF files and it is one nasty greasy hair ball of a file format. God help you if want to extract data, mine a collection of documents, or convert to an editable format. Maybe it is because PDF is supposed to be a final format but it is only suited for display and printing.
The open standard XML page description file format will be here someday. I don't care if comes from Adobe, Microsoft, Sun, IBM, or FSF as long as they all can and do produce programs that will fully interoperate.
Score: 0
|Yeah the problem with PDF is the format has become bas****ized, and people are attempting to convert PDF back to other formats... and running into numerous hassles.
Also, until version 8 of acrobat, no application validated PDF files, so there are probably millions of PDF's out there with small imperfections, which results in crashes, corruption, etc.
In short: PDF's are a mess in practice.
Score: 0
|Name one standard that isn't. Open or closed.
Look @ HTML, for example. How many browsers support it 100% without adding to it or messing with it? How many webpages are 100% in compliance?
Standards are great, but unless they are *strictly* controlled, it's all chaos anyway. Hell, even then, companies constantly fail to even stick to their own standards. Call it progress, call it, "hey, we should have done it this way instead"...whatever. Standards, as with rules, were meant to be broken. ;)
Score: 0
|"Name one standard that isn't. Open or closed."
ANSI X3.4-1986
ISO/IEC 646
ISO/IEC 10646
I know that's three. and I stopped myself. There are plenty more good, stable, and complete standards in use everyday in IT and every other field of engineering and manufacturing. And you should be thankful, without them you would know the real meaning of chaos.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Character sets.
Now *that's* funny.
Perhaps I should have specified standards that are a little less universal, eh (or even just a bit more involved?)?
Or perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Score: 0
|The OS community is free to submit a PDF replacement to ECMA if they have one.
Score: 0
|Anyone can. It's the beauty of free market. The freedom to choose, the freedom to market something you think is better, and the freedom to compete with others doing the same thing.
Score: 0
|And the freedom to get squished by the person with more money.
Score: 0
|...with the internet, that's not as easy to do as it used to be. Look at Google or Firefox, look at WinAMP or Foobar2000, look at OGG or AAC, or any number of other examples of products and formats that compete against 'The Big Guys" quite successfully.
Add to that the fact that a "standard" isn't a "product". That it doesn't require money to manufacture, and you've got a fairly level playing field.
Score: 0
|Toolie, you don't read the business section, I take it? If you did, you'd see how wrong you are. But then, knowledge is not a prerequisite for commenting for you, is it?
Score: 0
|Dude, if you have something to add to the conversation, go for it. If you just want to name-call and tell everyone they're wrong without the slightest attempt to back it up, go back to kindergarten where that sh*t flies.
Score: 0
|Would they like some cheese to go with that whine?
Score: 0
|