boo hoo. where is the "news" in this?

Is it that MS posted a letter?

Is it that MS is upset at IBM?

Is it that IBM is scheming to inflict pain on MS?

Where's the "news" in this?

"the company's Lotus Notes product only supports the ODF standard."

How could it support other standards?!

For how long does OOXML has been a "standard"? How many pages does it have? How much time it can take to code all that? Common!

"How many pages does it have?"

How many pages *should* it have? Hopefully you're smart enough not to say "smaller than it is now."

What do you want? Something that is woefully incomplete, missing so many important definitions that creating a supporting application is impossible by just reading the spec? That is what you get with other open document standards.

If you ask me, the OOXML spec is too short and in its self is missing some definitions. The ammount it's missing is *far* less than what is missing in the other open document spec.

Maybe you're under the delusion that one person should be able to write a complete and featureful office suite by themselves by reading a few hundred page "Open documents for dummies" book?

I could really give a s***e about what "standard" blotus jokes supports as far as documents go. It doesn't even correctly implement various and sundry email and related protocols. ...and hasn't for *years* ...and that's what it primarily exists to do. It is such a broken product that IIRC, IBM has an internal policy stating that email delivered to the public Internet shall not originate or pass through notes' systems.

Man, you really are just winging and flinging it here. Stop embarrassing yourself, please.

" IBM has an internal policy stating that email delivered to the public Internet shall not originate or pass through notes' systems."

That is a false statement. I work for IBM and send internet mail thru Notes systems everyday. The Open Document standard will lock users into Microsoft products. IBM supports the ODF because it is truly open source and it is not possible for 1 company to control it and create a monopoly.

As a former IBMer, your statement: "IBM has an internal policy stating that email delivered to the public Internet shall not originate or pass through notes' systems." is pure unadulterated bullsh!t!

But with your head up your posterior, I can understand your affinity for such excrement.

Microsoft is reeling in spin, and OXML is in real danger, which belies the desperate tone of this press release. The 1-month review process has been extended another three months by the ISO, given the endless number of contradictions found so far in OXML. Andy Updegrove sheds some light on what this means. Here is Australia's response (PDF).

Why they pick on IBM is funny. ODF was developed by a technical committee (TC) working within the OASIS consortium, not by any company, corporation, or vendor. Maybe because IBM has been blogging about the OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format and IBM has not been afraid to note — as did 20 of the 30 countries that make up the JTC1 — the contradictions in the OXML spec. In other words, not only is OXML incompatible with Microsoft's own formats, but Microsoft itself will not publish its actual OXML specification. Instead, they dumped all 7,000 pages of their OXML spec onto the JTC1, complete with misspellings and hilarious grammar mistakes, and said you have 30 days to review it. India, Europe, South America, Britain, China, several US states, and many others are now saying they want the open document format (ODF) for their governments and industry and they want Open standards. Microsoft is against both of those. And remember, we're talking about a standard here, for which we already have one approved by ISO: OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format.

Microsoft wants everyone to pay the "Microsoft tax"; that is, you don't get access to your data unless you PAY Microsoft first — either a monthly rental fee under their FlexGo initiative or pay for Microsoft Office. If Microsoft has its way, you will forever have to buy its software to read your documents, but even their own MCAN converter cannot convert OXML to ODF! Microsoft needs the "standard" label to get contracts for Office, but Microsoft doesn't really want interoperability (which would increase competition and drive down prices).

As Bob Sutor notes: "We're in the middle of the end game where vendors can expect to get international standardization for what are essentially technologies they control and uniquely fully implement." It's all about control people. Do you want to pay Microsoft to control your data at its whim, or do you want control over your copyrighted data? Meanwhile, Jonathan Schwartz has the best explanation of why ODF is so attractive to so many.

Funny how ODF had NO review at all in its ISO process... I say we let OOXML have the same advantage!

I wonder why IBM makes no mention of the many contradictions in ODF? In fact, contradictions are the least of the ODF camp's worries with the ammount of flat out ommisions that have been noted in that standard.

Why australia picks on OOXML is funny because all of their technical concerns have previously been refuted. Seems they're rather more concerned with laying on the beach anyway. Then again, who wouldn't be concerned about missing that. Haha ;)

I wonder why zridling makes no mention of the many glaring spelling/grammer mistakes in the ODF spec?

zridling also seems to be forgetting that Gnumric has had support for Spreadsheet ML for close to a year now and that there was an announcment from two rather large companies that Open Office will have native support for OOXML in the near future. Proprietary indeed...

I wonder what zridling does for work and for whom?

zridling is Zaine Ridling, otherwise a complete failure and unemployed bum (just ask my wife). More here. I make no money, have no job, and even my own mother doesn't talk about me.
________________________________________________
But I didn't find any errors and embarrassing mistakes in the OASIS OpenDocument Format Specification (SXW file); where did you? And while you're at it, please let us know what contradictions you find, too.

Also, ODF spent five years in its ISO development process. ISO is all about review! If by those "large companies" you mean MCAN (Microsoft-Clever Age-Novell), they are Microsoft-sponsored, i.e., paid for by Microsoft. However, I take it you mean Corel's WordPerfect and Novell's version of OpenOffice. That's a long ways off, and while even The OpenDocument Foundation is developing its own plugin for OXML, there's no rush as no one else is using OXML in their apps. All the various office apps are stuck on .doc at best. But the list for ODF office apps is growing by the month. Finally, unlike OXML, OpenDocument is freely available for any software maker to use and implement and does not favour any vendor over all the others.

With OXML, you get exactly one choice and you have to pay Microsoft for the privilege of writing and reading it faithfully. With ODF on the other hand, you can have endless choices, all free through an Open Standard. Which software you use doesn't matter, only the format that everyone can now read and share. Microsoft wants everyone to use Microsoft Office, whether they want to or not, to properly render their documents and access their own data. Face it, OXML is doomed because of Microsoft, not anyone else. ODF is the future, and the "Borg" days of Microsoft are coming to a close. Microsoft could have adhered to standards when creating OXML, instead it chose to reinvent the wheel and create its own. Blame Microsoft for that classic and oft-repeated mistake.

OXML is almost 7,000 pages long, and loaded with contradictions, which confuse you on how to write an app or plugin that will interoperate with it. ODF is a little over 600 pages and uses existing standards like W3C. If you're a developer, which one are you going to choose? The math looks pretty simple from where my unemployed butt is sitting.

Haha, touché.

You would think, but too bad most of it is just plain false. That you would apparently believe it at face value just goes to show, in general, the ammount of critical thinking and research that goes on around here.

I will gather the evidence, again, though it is getting truly tiring to do so over and over in this forum. It's almost always the exact same mis-guided religious assertions made by the ignorent. In fact, I've replied to Mr. Ridling before, countering pretty much exactly what he's said here with links and relevent quotes. He's either got a terrible memory or just ignores me. I post mainly to provide counterpoint to the other readers here so that they have something to read besides the religious rantings which are popular.

In particular it's rather humorous to keep seeing him say that it is somehow not free to implement the OOXML standard when I have posted direct links to the pdfs many times here at BN. I've also posted links to the Patent which covers ODF (which if you follow his logic would make ODF not free, lol)

Touché indeed!

"I wonder why IBM makes no mention of the many contradictions in ODF? In fact, contradictions are the least of the ODF camp's worries with the ammount of flat out ommisions that have been noted in that standard."

Ok name some contradictions.

If OXML is an open standard, then why doesn't Microsoft release its actual specification, rather than its published one? If they did that, Corel and Novell wouldn't need to spend a year (with Microsoft's direct help) to build a converter. How is another vendor reasonably expected to spend two years implementing the 7,000-page OXML spec for Microsoft's benefit! Let Microsoft build those converters — as they have tried and failed already with their ODF plugin for Word 2007. So no, it's not really an open specification at all.

You keep speaking of links, but I'm the only one of us who has backed up his statements with outside sources. You haven't "countered" anything I've said, except with your fantasy-based opinions.

The classic example of a standard is the fire hydrant and the fire hose. Because there is a standard when the firemen show up they know they can connect their hoses and fight the fire. Now imagine how things would be if there were “competing standards”, it would be the same as having no standard. There can be only one standard, and it has to be something that more than one vendor can implement.

EOXML is 6000 pages with references to undisclosed proprietary formats. It will never be fully implemented anywhere but in a Microsoft product. How does that provide choice, interoperability, or a platform for innovation?

ODF is already the ISO standard. It provides true interoperability, true competion between implementations, and multiple vendors are already innovating in that space. Microsoft just doesn't want to be one of them.

Yeah, but in your example, only firemen can use the fire hydrant. Now think of all the increased usage that fire hydrant can create - by also including a tap for those who want to use it for drinking water (humans or dogs), another tap for washing hands or cars or lawns... etc.

your example only says that one group can use that format - MS's views suggest that the option of usage be made to not just one group, but to everyone who chooses to access it.

That's okay, we can't all be the sharpest knife in the drawer.

When you have one standard you get interoperability, competition, and choice. When there are multiple “competing standards” you don't get any of the benefits of having a standard and your house burns down.

You may never be able to sip water from a fire hydrant. But if you want to build data-mining tools, indexed archives, or XSL transforms for a collection of documents in a standard format, you are going to need to have a single document standard, implementable, without secret proprietary extensions. You can build any document handling function you can imagine with ODF. No one but Microsoft can do anything with EOXML.

I find that there is no need for name calling. I simply don't agree with your points - I hope that is OK with you?

What secret and proprietary extensions can you show me in the OOXML spec?

Oh that's right, there aren't any! Thanks for playing. :)

While you're at it, reading the standards, perhaps you can show me where i might find the functional definition of how to render a document that contains this XML tag (taken from a segment leading office suite, saved in ODF format [angle brackets replaced by curly-braces]):

{config:config-item config:name="DoNotJustifyLinesWithManualBreak" config:type="boolean"}false{/config:config-item}

Don't look too long Mr. Moose, the definition is not there. Now how exactly am I supposed to render this document without the segment leading office suite?

If you simply address the actual points I made in my post instead of beating up on straw men you would earn a little respect.

Yes you're right, I will never spend any of my time reading a 6000+ page specification that I will never, thank goodness, be asked to implement. I have enormous respect for the thoughtful and capable people who review and comment on proposed international standards. Too bad they are all too busy to post comments on Beta News. They have put a lot of time and effort into documenting the problems with EOXML and a list of specific problems with the undocumented, secret, proprietary parts can be found here http://www.grokdoc.net/i...undisclosed_information If you have any sincere interest that document would be good place for you to learn a few things.

And if it is ODF you want to learn about you are in luck there too. There is more than one open source implementation. So there are answers readily available to any questions you might have about implementing that fully approved, compatible, ISO standard.

Only one has the right to use the fire hydrants but any companies can produces them and sell them to the Cities. So they can get good prices because they can choice where to buy.

If you prefer, think about your car's tires. How it would be if we had to buy GM tires for a GM car?

Rob Wier can answer that:
Check out the "Office" (File) > Save As menu in Office 2007. The first choice saves in the default format. This is configurable under "Excel Options," but by default this saves in the new Office Open XML (OXML) format, with an "xlsx" file extension. Then check the next one, the "Excel Macro-Enabled Workbook" option saves as an "xlsxm" extension. It is OXML plus proprietary Microsoft extensions. These extensions, in the form of binary blob called vbaProject.bin, represent the source code of the macros. This part of the format is not described in the OXML specification. It does not appear to be a compiled version of the macro. I could reload the document in Excel and restore the original text of my macro, including whitespace and comments. So source code appears to be stored, but in an opaque format that defied my attempts at deciphering it.

(What's so hard about storing a macro, guys? It's frickin' text. How could you you screw it up? )

This has some interesting consequences. It is effectively a container for source code that not only requires Office to run it, but requires Office to even read it. So you could have your intellectual property in the form of extensive macros that you have written, and if Microsoft one day decides that your copy of Office is not "genuine" you could effectively be locked out of your own source code.... The "Excel Binary Workbook" option caught me by surprise. This is not the legacy binary formats. This is not the new OXML. This is a new binary format, with an "xlsb" extension. Similar to OXML it has a Zip container file (the so-called Open Packaging Conventions container file format), but the payload consists (aside from a manifest) entirely binary files.

I can't tell if they are some proprietary binary mapping of the OXML XML, or whether this is an entirely new binary format unrelated to the XML format. In any case this format is entirely undocumented and is unreadable to anyone by Microsoft.... It is also interesting that Microsoft is positioning this format as the preferred one for performance and interoperability. The online help for Excel 2007 says: "In addition to the new XML-based file formats, Office Excel 2007 also introduces a binary version of the segmented compressed file format for large or complex workbooks. This file format, the Office Excel 2007 Binary (or BIFF12) file format (.xls), can be used for optimal performance and backward compatibility."

So what you're saying then is that, since you can't be bothered to read even relevent parts, you shouldn't make assertions about things of which you know very little and that gained only through third hand out of context sources? Hmmm, ok...

No, I haven't read either document in their entirety but i DO bother to look up relevent sections when I see some blogger spouting off about some problem in foo standard. And I certainly research before spouting off myself. I hope it is obvious that my rants contain not one bit of religious fervor, and only hard facts. If you won't read the standards how can you expect to be taken seriously?

You might think from my writings here that i am some MS shill or maybe some annoying twit who just can't seem to see "the truth." I actually used to be a huge fan of Open Office and cheered as wildly as anyone, or more even way back when when ODF made its first appearance. I've tried intoducing Open Office at work, more than many fans can say they've done Then one day I started reading about the little things that were missing in ODF... Like most other people I was suspicious. Unlike most other people I went and looked at the ODF standard and guess what, I saw that there are problems, deep seated and gaping problems. Also unlike most other people I am not content to sit and let these things go unnoticed. It is also fun to check out the money/power trail behind ODF...

Since you posted a link to the already well discussed, so called "proprietary" tags (I'm actually quite familiar with that groklaw page) I'll explain again... Every last one of those is there to preserve documents created by old versions of office or imported from some of its proprietary competiters. Office 2007 does not create those tags on new documents and neither should any other application. For example, versions of word prior to 2000 would misplace the page footer. Other applications should instead import the original, not the word 2007 imported copy. It is important to realize that if those tags are implemented, the document will be rendered *incorrectly* That is, in a way other than intended by the author of the document.

All the other points on that page have been refuted elsewhere. Most of them have to do with supporting international character sets. The retoric is truly gastly. Bitmasks? I guess they'd like to see increased compressing/decompressing times associated with a less efficient method of encoding. Not extensible? Their ignorance is galling. Add another bit. The bitmask thing and other arguments on that page really represent tradeoffs in manny cases. Is it harder to deal with bitmasks like they say? Definitely! But nothing yet is faster or more compact in the storage of settings. Which is better? If you're just a user, you would be stupid to say anything other than bitmasks because your use of the product will be easier and faster with them. The truth is that XML as a data storage format is about as inefficient as one can get. Sure you can compress it, but what about the overhead? Whatever, achademia has their head way up their collective a** sometimes...

You should really search around to see what exactly, these non-problems are and understand why. 'Going to jump off a cliff now and it's gonna be fun. Wanna follow?

Developing international specifications is a highly technical and specialized field and squabbling about the details is something you should clearly leave to those specialists. Firemen don't need to care about the engineering minutia, just that the couplings will fit and they can fight the fire.

I've never heard anyone claim ODF is 100 percent complete and perfect. If you are waiting for perfection in a specification I hope you exercise and eat right, because you will need to live a long time to see that.

What is important to government and business, and to me, is that there be one standard that can actually be implemented by more than one vendor. Perfection is not available just sufficiency. ODF is the only standard that provides what we really need: real choices between multiple vendor implementations; genuine interoperablity; and enough detail in the specification to render any kind of document you need, but perhaps not every insane convoluted edge case you can imagine.

IBM "led a global campaign"? Oh baloney... IBM's idea of a global campaign is some fancy commercials during a PGA event with a red curtain, and bilking governments over a tired brand, getting every dime for a name that's lost its luster.

Well! I guess this ends this debate!

Who better to know the meaning of "hypocritical" then those who have defined it by example.

And in addition, we learn that MS is the champion of "choice". I am curious as to how they define That word!?

I suspect it has something to do with the meaning of the word "is"...

use it if you want to...don't if you don't. Is it really that hard to understand? Set aside your MS hate and put some logic in that noggin.
MS has given one of it's supposed competition much support and yet people still do not realize. Do you know of who and what I refer to? It's not important I guess.

You, like I, are shouting into a very strong wind my friend.

The main issue is that MS did engage (just like IBM) in some very underhanded business practises for quite a long period of time. They've discovered (with help from opposing lawyers no doubt!) those practises were hurting more than helping their bottom line and have changed their tune.

Unfortunatly, most people are rather devoid of objective and constructive thought and just continue to knee jerk against these historical memories no matter what is in front of them.

Linux dude in 1997 (wailing tantrum): "Gawd, WTF doesn't M$ just document their darned office formats? It's useless and evil!"

Linux dude in 2007 (still in a wailing tantrum): "Gawd, WTF is the Office documentation so detailed and long? It's useless and evil!"

I gotta hand it to em, their mental energy is enviable

I rarely read intelligent posts such as this one that I fully agree with. I couldn't even have worded as well as you did, flake. Great post.

Hope you don't mean me. I've used Excel since the 80s and Word since version 1.0, and just bought my copy of Office 2007! ;-)

Besides, I'm not smart enough to be a Linux dude. Right now I'm in the wannabe/dual-boot stage.

"Set aside my MS hate?"

Get your head out of your @ss! And I am no Linux advocate. Although I recognize it as a viable and robust mid-range server platform.

I have no more hatred of MS then I do of any other party who behaves just like they have - and there are many!

I favor free competition. Period. And I am sick of ALL of the camps whining about the others instead of simply producing a better more compelling platform. And that includes nitwits like you who can't figure that out! Duh!!!

Competition to MS?

MS is the largest Mac developer, that hardly renders it a competitor of the Mac, although Apple's OSX is a competitor to MS Windows!

And MS owes just about everything it has accomplished to IBM and to other firms (many of which exist now only in terms of the legacy developments that have long since been absorbed by others).

And Linux owes just about everything they have done to UNIX and other predecessors from which they simply reverse engineered products and adapted others.

So tell us about the history of IT.
Its funny how the ancients keep stealing all of our 'new' inventions! Its obvious understanding isn't important to you!

you know a lot and am glad for it...but you miss some key things. I wish to take nothing away from anyone.

But to me, this is the essence of freedom. Sure some can say MS is doing whatever, but give the choice to consumers. You have people who prefer something over the other. You have formats that rise to become standards because consumers made them so.

As a consumer, don't let a conglomeration dictate to a corporation what you should or shouldn't use. That is a step to lesser freedom. That is my stance.

You know the history you've stated right? Now take a moment and think about all those formats...

call me a nitwit if you want...but why contradict your own statement? If you and others don't like Microsoft's format...then don't use it and it may fail and disappear. Or there is that fear that it would succeed and you would not want it to.

I came from a communistic country and I loathe anything like communism...your views have a sense of this to me. That is all...

MS's only problem is that they practiced the same capitalism EVERY other company did...but they did so in the dominant position.

When you aren't dominant, you can do as MS does and never be blamed for any of the same things.

funky politics in the world :D

Except for a few products which I have not determined will be used, I don't use it. And that IS my choice AND my responsibility!

But you obviously miss the point...and the historical precedent.

Microsoft has on several occasions posited an 'open solution' that is anything but open. Let's take Kerberos for instance. Already an open standard that was employed in many platforms, MS decides to enter into the Kerberos arena, develops an incompatible proprietary version of 'Kerberos', employs it and declares it open. Yup! Incompatible with everyone else! But MS thinks, gee, with our 93% market share, our incompatible variant will own the market and by brute force we can dominate. Except that all of the high-end 64 bit enterprise UNIX vendors shrugged and told them to take a hike. MS users are stuck with MS's Kerberos and the rest of the world eschewed it. By the way, MS is still using their phony Kerberos.

And this is exactly what they are trying to do now. By virtue of their owning a preponderance of the market currently with their proprietary formats, they think that they can simply upgrade their products with their new "open" standard which is tightly integrated with the remaining technology and simply continue on with a strategic market advantage over others.

Communism, huh. MS sounds just like the old Communist bosses who now call themselves democrats but who leverage their old connections to control the 'market' in the same but now 'open' manner! And the people are still the ones who suffer while they prosper! The more it changes, the more it stays the same!