I see a lot of confusion between standards and file formats. With common formats as opposed to actual standards and also proprietary closed source formats and open source formats. Not to get into the confusion of applications vs file format.
A small list may help.

A few closed source applications that have closed source formats (although some have been reverse engineered):
Ms Word/ word doc file
Wordperfect/word perfect file
Adobe Acrobat/pdf (portable document format)
*adobe has shared much about the pdf but the fact is that they control this format. It is not really an open standard.

Open source Applications/formats:
Open Office/opendocument
various/rich text
various/xml
various/html

Keep in mind that the only ones of these that actually have standards associated with them (an arbitrary source of information that is maintained to precisely define what these files should be like) are the open source formats.

So to say that the Word document is a standard is false. It is not and cannot be unless the source is known and agreed to. Opendoc is a standard (or at least is approaching that status) and many applications can produce it.

Just like with many other things (anyone remember Java runtime environment) Microsoft is peddling their version of it (Open XML) which will be supported by Office and they will most likely bend the standard to make sure that their application is "more" compatible with the standard that their competitors. If you don't believe me just look at their track record on compatibility. I am just waiting for the other shoe to drop that outlines the impact when longhorn's database aware file system is taken into account. The inclusion of data and metadata into office documents is going to make use of this. I also see tie-ins to live communications server.

I agree with the Jones' point that MS is most likely trying to slow down opendocument to give their competing format a better chance. That is really in keeping with MS and their tactics to date than engaging in an open dialogue to promulgate standards based file formats. They could have done it years ago but it suited their purpose to keep it closed to make sure you had to buy office if you wanted to use Word documents. Proprietary software is their core belief. I don't see them changing their tune now.

Why don't they just take odf or support it? Why do they fight again a stupid lobby war that just wastes ressources.

Notinventedhere style document format battling.

Because then whiners would complain that they're taking ODF and "expanding" it beyond the standards and that they can't come up with their own innovative format.

Microsoft is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't figure in technology. If they support things, they always have an "agenda"... if they don't support things, they're anti-competitive. If they use other ideas for consistency, they're accused of "copying" everyone's ideas, but if they come up with their own (like in Office 12's interface) they are criticized for going beyond what's "normal".

It is very hypocritical, and so I don't blame Microsoft or any other business for doing what it takes for them to be the most successful... even at some expense.

I hope you didn't support them as they violated the law to gain their monopoly status. How about that grass roots campaign they paid for that ended up sending the AGs letters from dead folks in support of Microsoft? Did you support that?

http://www.usatoday.com/...3-microsoft-letters.htm

heh

;-)

The list of applications supporting OpenDocument is much bigger as stated in the article :

http://en.wikipedia.org/...supporting_OpenDocument

"Microsoft's format counts some 39 official supporters that constitute the Open XML Formats Developer Group. Among its supporters are Intel, Apple and Toshiba."

Yeah, I know it's old news--but I still find it funny that Apple is supporting MS so much. You know: the Apple iTunes work on the 360 but presumedly not the PS3, they now support their OpenXML format, it seems they are not siding with the EU against MS--they could actually be one of Microsoft's biggest supporters, and we may just not know it yet.

Its not funny at all.

MS gives money to Apple yearly, to the tune of hundreds of millions. they have a staff of 150 programmers that are dedicated to developing Apple applications..

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are 25+ childhood friends... So its not a surprise at all. In fact its a collision course, that I predicted about 10 years ago Microsoft will buy Apple.

So, its news to you, but for those of us that have heard this before and know the true story, its par for the course.

"Microsoft will buy Apple"

I bet they are already working on it, but it probably wouldn't get past the FTC (in any one of a dozen countries) so unless a new OS emerges and takes the world by storm creating competition outside of those two companies I suspect it won't happen.

Bill Gates has owned a substantial chunk of Apple for quite some time now.

In 1997 Bill Gates bought $150 million worth of Apple stock, which is now valued at over a billion dollars. -from money.cnn.com

At least I wouldn't have to listen to people whining about how much Microsoft copies Apple then! :)

HAHA!

I really hope that Vista is as pleasant to use as OSX. (I have the betas, but I have yet to install any of them.)

They are looking for something that just isn't there.

On the surface, this looks like MS is trying to sway the votes to go for Office. But they are JOINING the committee, not TAKING over control of the group.

So, how much influence do you think they will have? Personally, we have an open office format, its called Word. WE have been this way since Word Perfect couldn't keep up with Windows years ago.. everyone adopted Word. Now if we have to switch, we ALL have to feel the affects of yet another standard, how does this solve anything? That new standard, whatever it is, will then become some other world wide format, which we have to get a reader for, get converters for, and everytime we send documents back and fourth, we have to save/as from Word, or whatever, and save it, then open it, make changes in Word, save/as again.. Its a huge fiasco.

People are just not going to adopt something that makes extra work. We have enough to worry about than to worry about IF someone can open the document. Word readers are freely available. I know what's going on, this group wants to wrest control away from MS, and give THEM control over a format.. that's whats going on. They THINK MS has influence over the format, and it will affect people's decisions to use Word over something else.

I got news for you, its already in place. It works fine. Does anyone have any complaints about NOT being able to send documents all over the world?

Fine, we don't like Word as a standard. Great.

What's wrong with HTML? What's wrong with PDF? What's wrong with RTF, for open's sake! Do we REALLY need another format to keep track of?

We all have viewers. Open a document/picture viewer sometime. Look at ALL the formats they supports, its rediculous to the point of insane, with all the formats we have NOW, and they want another one?

Fine, we can use something else that's readily available.. We have text, we have so many other formats the Word (and other documents programs) can already use.. We don't NEED to create another one.

Are you saying you want to stick with the binary Word file format, no OpenXML or ODF?

Many people want to keep their documents in an XML based format. That way they can search, transform, and read their data now and in the future.

So XML documents are coming no matter how loudly you rant. The only question is will it be an open consortium developed standard or an extensible propritary standard.

Well what's interesting is the new office 2007 DOES support XML, so there you go.. Again, I am not ranting, I am saying, we dont' need another format, everything is here. We need to convince the group, we HAVE the formats we need.

Between HTML and RTF. Besides, who really can tell the difference in XML based formats. ALL people care about is that they can exchange documents with friends/family. They don't give a flip about searching, transforming.. you can do that via the viewer/native program anyway..

> ALL people care about is that they can exchange documents with friends/family. They don't give a flip about searching, transforming..

No, that's all YOU care about.

Governments and businesses care quite a bit about keeping documents useful for a long time.
And now that ODF is available we do have all the formats we need.

You might not be able to tell the difference between XML formats, but 100 years from now documents in an standard format will be readable while documents formatted with proprietary extensions will not.

I don't know what market you are in, but ask your mother, ask your sister, ask your priest, if they know anything other than they can open a document and that it prints, I will be *very* surprised.

So no, its not ME. People want to send/receive documents that's it. Maybe you are looking beyond something that's not there, but the general public wants to send a document and have someone else open it.. They can care less about HOW that is accomplished.

Making people learn something new, isn't going to be an easy task.

If you don't know what's wrong with HTML, then maybe you shouldn't be suggesting it. HTML was never intended for layout or for presentation. It has no structure. Don't even bother mentioning tables. Tables are only for marking up tabular data (e.g., calendars, spreadhseets, charts, schedules). XHTML, at least, is HTML in a XML format and therefore has the strengths of both. You then can use CSS and/or XSD for stylesheets.

Word as a standard? Which version? MS has changed the format for Word documents in every version. That's not a standard. That's unstable.

One of the person on the board of directors where I work doesn't have Office on her computer and won't get it. She does has WordPerfect. She can't open the Word documents my coworkers keep sending her. Word as a standard isn't going to help her.

Sure, MS might claim that they're using XML. However, trying to read their code is a headache in waiting (not long in waiting, either). MS didn't bother making their code easy to understand. I've made XML, XSD, and XSL files before and after looking at MS's code, I'm not happy with them.

"HTML was never intended for layout or for presentation." What, exactly, WAS it intended for if not for layout? I'm pretty sure that web page layout is, in fact, layout... or else I've been doing my job all wrong for years.

It was intended to bring the power of hypertext to text. Support for images came later. You impose a psuedo-layout, however, a HTML document tells you little about the structure of it. Data has very little logical connection to the structure of the file and content and presentation are not separated. Have you read any books on XHTML or XML, especially on the differences between them and HTML?