RSSMicrosoft Claims It's Format-Agnostic in Appeal to Chinese Office Users
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 21, 2007, 11:52 AM
A rapidly growing number of modern-era software users in an economically revitalized China has catapulted that country's own state-sponsored XML-based office file format, called Uniform Office Format, into world prominence in just a matter of a few months.
Now, in the wake of Sun Microsystems Chairman Scott McNealy's call to consider merging UOF with the other open-source format, ODF, Microsoft revealed yesterday (Monday morning Beijing time) that it had already launched a project with Beihang University to create an open-source, two-way translator between UOF and the Office 2007 Open XML file formats, just two weeks after McNealy's speech.
The project, whose homepage now appears on SourceForge.net, lists one of its primary goals as enabling Word 2007 and Word 2003 to read and write in UOF format. While UOF has application support for Chinese characters, as a format, it's not language-specific. So users in any country could conceivably adopt UOF as their format of choice.
In 2002, the Chinese government selected an application suite called RedOffice over Microsoft's, partly due to its support of an open XML file format - at that time, ODF. But the government then funded the creation of UOF not as an expansion or extension of ODF, as many reported, but as an outright replacement.
The foundations of both formats are quite different, and an argument exists for UOF's inherent superiority, specifically due to a more efficient and expedient way of encoding documents with multiple styles.
There are an estimated 18 million new desktop computer users in China every year, and RedOffice's shift to UOF support means the format is soon being elevated to global market contender status. A UOF / ODF converter project exists, though some say progress there may be too slow. If Microsoft intends to maintain its own contender status there, interoperability with UOF may be critically necessary.
With a Beijing University study listing a multitude of non-argumentative, yet persuasive reasons why UOF and ODF may be interoperable but could not merge, Microsoft's move may have a double-bonus effect for the company: It can be perceived as partnering with what might inevitably become the leading open-source format on the planet, while at the same time boxing its arch-rival ODF -- used by OpenOffice.net, one version of which is distributed by Sun -- into an unprecedented #3 position.
To that end, the company's "interoperability czar," Jean Paoli, sounded a format-agnostic tone in yesterday's announcement. "Everyone wants to use their data in slightly different ways," reads Paoli's prepared statement. "That's why we are enabling customers to pick from whatever format they want to use with their Office documents - whether it's ODF, Open XML, PDF, or new standards like UOF."
Last week, Microsoft voted in favor of ODF's ratification by the ANSI organization. In two weeks, at TechEd 2007 in Orlando, the company has scheduled to reveal more information about interoperability projects for its Ecma Open XML format.
So Microsoft wants to play Open Standards, only their idea of open standards is to buy their way onto national bodies, buy their standards approvals, and buy their influence into every market. Okay, you have money to burn and you're willing to defend Office 2007 to the ends of the earth.
But what is pathetic is the constant "Oh yeah!" game played so late after every move by OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format, Sun, IBM, Red Hat, et al., who already have plans to harmonize UOF and ODF. The ODF spec is 1/11th the size of the MS-OOXML spec. Which one do you think will be harmonized first? It wasn't long ago when Microsoft told Web Standards to go to Hades and to this date they still won't make IE standards-compliant. Microsoft alone stunted and stilted HTML's development through the sole power of marketshare, not quality.
Now they have a brick named MS-OOXML which with Office 2007 landed on the market with a giant thud. No one wants it. It's crippled by its legacy interdependencies and its blind loyalty to Microsoft-coded mistakes over the last three decades. And Microsoft is doing anything they can to say they'll create converters for everything out there. Only problem is, MS-OOXML cannot be converted, ever. Not even Office 2007 can convert an MS-OOXML-formatted document into .doc format with accuracy! Can't convert to mac. Can't convert to the universal ISO certified ODF. And to top it all off, you can only read and write MS-OOXML documents in the proprietary, commercial software written and sold by guess who — Microsoft!
Man, that's a good deal if you can swing it. But build your future on MS-OOXML and you'll be crying every time Microsoft demands payment to keep reading, writing, and accessing your own data. I WILL NEVER LET A CORPORATION, USING A PROPRIETARY FORMAT, HAVE CONTROL OVER MY DATA. Ever. If Microsoft gains ISO approval of MS-OOXML, look for all these various conversion efforts to evaporate into thin air. I only hope BetaNews will be there to document their "progress."
Score: 0
|Seems to be bit of trend with Microsoft. (see post below, sorry).
Its pretty much the same with Internet Explorer. Soons as other browsers like Firefox came along with tabbed browsing it was instantly on on the todo list for IE.
Simply pathetic.
I dont have Vista, nor do i expect acquiring one anytime soon, but im pretty sure MS paint still exists for Windows as the "default" image editing application. Why? It just makes Microsoft look like they dont even bother trying to improve. Is it just too much to include image editing capability that doesnt suck horse****.
Some of the aspects in Windows, like MS Paint, simply do not represent a picture of a company that generates billions (and billions) of dollars every year.
I dont need new image editing program. Ive been using various since MS-DOS (Deluxe Paint), which is better than MS Paint is now. This is about how Windows and Microsofts "image", or how they look. They dont bother spending a fraction of a fraction of the money they make to improve some of the abominations they include in their OS.
Sorry about that... :)
Score: 0
|I agree, MS should use Paint.NET, it's free and build using C#. Just wanted to add that...
Score: 0
|"but im pretty sure MS paint still exists for Windows as the "default" image editing application. Why?"
Why?? Because if they bundle anything nicer, they going to get SUE.
Score: 0
|Let's see. MS maintains a proprietary format for years, others tire of it and propose alternatives.
MS then shows up, fashionably late to the party and miraculously suggests an open standard based upon its format, but open to others if they want to conform. (All while Miraculously providing legacy support for their own proprietary products...)
Kerberos anyone?
Score: 0
|It's better than them *not* proposing their format as open.
You're screwed either way. It's going to win; it's better they win with it being open than closed.
Score: 0
|double post, sorry
Score: 0
|That's just it, though. Microsoft will continue to control and build MS-OOXML behind closed doors, with all of the work based on product and decisions in conference rooms in Redmond, which will be rubber-stamped by Ecma and ISO later.
Score: 0
|