"Holy crapula, Brian Jones just committed a Fox News ploy: declare victory in the midst of stunning defeat and rejection, and go home. Nice little rhetorical trick if you can get away with it. But not so fast, Brian. Has anyone else noticed the moratorium on OXML blog posts by Microsoft employees recently? Now you get a flood of silly posts about "choice," "compatibility," and "no format wars." A few of the ZDNet crowd is pushing OXML like crack dealers in their blogs, as if their jobs depended on Microsoft. (Oh wait, they do, don't they?) Problem is, there never was a format war because OXML is and will never be a universal ISO-certified file format. Game over. Microsoft lost. Two-thirds of the JTC1 nations rejected OXML outright due to its innumerable contradictions that were found in the first 30 days. Fast-tracking via Ecma didn't work as Microsoft planned. The review period was extended for an unprecedented 90 more days and so far Microsoft is flummoxed and silent in response to OXML's inherent flaws and weaknesses."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/m...eID=573775&start=-1

Groklaw: "The purpose of a standard is to have only one, so everyone can interoperate, so as to avoid two duplicative parallel tracks. Duh."

Don't believe Microsoft. This is just a ploy. They need people to believe we can live with two standards. One standard is all we need. Microsoft may have the majority of the Office formats out there, but that doesn't make it a standard. A standard is formal documentation approved by a council (many people/organizations), and anyone using that format has to have conformance (hopefully 100%). I vote Microsoft is free to use OpenXML, but not as a standard. If they want a standard, there is one to follow, ODF.

Format Wars? Holy Crap! Microsoft isn't compatible with itself. One version to the next. They don't want it to be they would loose revenue. Every time my company upgrades to the next version of M$ Office it breaks the Access Apps and all of the saved OLE Documents in our Work Control System. Don't tell me about their compatibility efforts there are none. When we used Word Perfect the formatting stayed backward compatible. Not the case with Word.

If Micro$oft were allowed to continue their dominance we would be in a world of hurt. Paying royalties to the Micr$oft God to allow us to read our own documents created in their proprietary formats. No, their actions speak loud and I don't like what I see nor hear. I for one am sick of paying homage to the Micr$oft Deity.

Nukem

Typical of Microsoft - too much boasting and s/w does not work. After install, I tried to convert a word DOC to ODT format using save as. All Word did wa to pop up a message saying that I needed to install Word 2007 Filters first. Whats this? I have Word 2003 and the install program correctly detected it as Word 2003 and installs fine.

Also, only ODT format is avail (but not working in Word). The Open spreadsheet, etc are NOT supported.

OpenXML will not be _Open_ until Microsoft removes the present and future patents on the 'template' portion of their implementation of OpenXML.

The only _Open_ format is ODF. Until MS Word supports the ODF format directly it cannot be said to support an _Open_ format.

For me the "war" is not necessarily ODF versus OOXML, but FREE versus CO$T.

It's a trap! It's obvious they're offering this plugin only to extend dominance of their standard. Once OOXML rules the world, they can take it away.

Some thoughts:
- did they give us a 64-bit version? we'll need this really soon for the upcoming transition. Oh, perhaps they don't want us to carry on with OOXML support when we migrate to 64-bit?
- where's the source? how can you claim to attempt to standarise something if you don't offer a free software implementation?

It will be over when we all agree that 1900 IS a leap year. It must be true, its in the OOXML standard.

This is kinda like saying Microsoft has lost the war, since they obviously had the lead previously.

We're waiting for the next version of Open Office. We see zero features in Office 2007 for our workflow, and we really don't want to retrain people on an interface change and pay a lot to do it!

If Microsoft set the default as ODF or OpenXML and depricated the DOC format, I'd smile.

So smile. In Office 2007, OpenXML is the default, and has deprecated the DOC format. They also have released a tool to do a mass conversion of all your old DOC format files to the new format.

Which just means you get the same interoperability problems than with DOC, but with another name.

Let's face it: Microsoft just wants to embrace, extend and extinguish. If they want to prove this is not true, I challenge them to make ODF their default.

ODF doesn't have half the functionality of OXML. It simply wouldn't meet the needs of the existing suite.

Sure, they could drop the 10% of the features that 99% of the population doesn't use, but what's the incentive?

The ODF committee followed an open process. There was a Microsoft representative who was part of that process (he only observed, but he was there). As such, if ODF lacks anything, it's MicroSoft's fault.

Given what's in the OOXML spec, I doubt Microsoft's ability to support it, let alone anyone else - they have tags to support legacy bugs from other companies' proprietary applications, and to support the embedding of other companies' proprietary files. It's also not well designed from an XML perspective - there are many tags that affect what follows them, rather than what they bound. In XML, if a tag affects other content, it should have an open and a close, and all the content it affects should be between those. OOXML doesn't do this. (Note that I use 'should' in the way standards frequently do - it's not something that causes OOXML to not be XML, rather it's only loosely considered to be XML.)

Given that ODF is an open format, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to point out exactly what features are missing, and work with the committee to extend ODF to handle those features. But they're not doing that, so it continues to be MicroSoft's fault.

The ODF committee followed an open process. There was a Microsoft representative who was part of that process (he only observed, but he was there). As such, if ODF lacks anything, it's MicroSoft's fault.

Since when is someone required to participate? Open doesn't = forced to contribute if you don't want to.

they have tags to support legacy bugs from other companies' proprietary applications, and to support the embedding of other companies' proprietary file/i]

Purely for the sake of compatibility. Something you'd all be whining about had they not put it in there. Your point?

[i]Given that ODF is an open format, it shouldn't be too difficult for them to point out exactly what features are missing, and work with the committee to extend ODF to handle those features. But they're not doing that, so it continues to be MicroSoft's fault.

Again, they are not required to, and why should they? Sure, if they wanted apps like OpenOffice to be functional copies of Office and thus lose *all* market share. Sorry, the shareholders would sue their asses off, and for good reason. That'd be one of the dumbest business moves in history.

Personally, I couldn't care less what format folks use out of preference. I just believe it's unrealistic at best to think it's a good idea to force any company to use, support, and market any other companies or organizations formats. As long as there are more than one format/app for that purpose out there, it's wholly up to the users.

For the last twenty years Microsoft has operated based on a single clear principal - eliminate competition.

Anybody who believes the statement by Brian Jones is ignorant of history, because there is not one scrap of evidence that Microsoft has changed its operational principal. This statement is simple a temporary retreat by Microsoft with a long term view to continue its campaign of eliminating the ODF OpenDocument Format.

There is no evidence to support your claim whatsoever. A director making the connection between extending a standard and making it difficult for others to compete (done ~ten years ago) does not equal "a single clear principal - eliminate competition".

The "operational principle" you speak of is made up by yourself.

Microsoft has consistently stated that it welcomes competition. There is visible evidence to support this, in particular their efforts to promote standardisation of IP and systems interoperability.

Microsoft will not survive without credible competition.

Microsoft will not survive without credible competition? Without competetion, its survival is guaranteed. You dont suppose Microsoft will just collapse on its own "weight"?

What one states, but one does, are two entirely different things.

If Microsoft welcomed competition, what was the whole antitrust trial about? You know, the one they were found guilty of anticompetitive behavior?
If Microsoft "Welcomes" competition, why not open a few of it's already used mass formats, like doc and XLS? Adobe has done it (PDF) and they reap the profits by providing the best tools for that format.
Microsoft also claims it does what is best for it's "customers," yet I haven't seen much improvement in Office for my needs in about 7 years. We've had to go elsewhere for workflow enhancements. So much so that we likely will abandon Microsoft eventually.

You say "why don't they open a few of it's already used mass formats...". You seem to be unaware that:

- Those formats like ".doc" WERE and ARE publically documented, despite numerous claims to the contrary by Microsoft haters. (You can download the documentation yourself, right now if you want!)
- Micrsoft has provided free tools to convert older format files (.doc, .xls) to the new Office formats
- Microsoft has provided free tools to allow versions of Office prior to Office 2007 to access the new formats
- The new formats are totally open, extremely well documented, unencumbered by patents, etc., are are under the control not of Microsoft but of an independent international standards committee (ECMA). You can download the format documentation yourself for free.

So, check your facts before you make a comment.

"Those formats like ".doc" WERE and ARE publically documented, despite numerous claims to the contrary by Microsoft haters. (You can download the documentation yourself, right now if you want!)"

Link Please.

"The new formats are totally open, extremely well documented, unencumbered by patents, etc., are are under the control not of Microsoft but of an independent international standards committee (ECMA). You can download the format documentation yourself for free."

This is already known to be false. Microsoft has even admitted they have patents regarding the OOXML format, and have extended licenses for those patents so long as you meet their criteria, which kind of prohibits certain kinds of programs (basically most FOSS programs) from being able to interoperate. It is also a 6,000+ page document and there are still a number of binary blobs dumped into the format that only Microsoft's Office knows how to use - that are NOT documented.

OOXML is a joke of a standard, and is Microsoft's way of doing their "embrace & extend" when it comes to having open standards.

"- Those formats like ".doc" WERE and ARE publically documented, despite numerous claims to the contrary by Microsoft haters. (You can download the documentation yourself, right now if you want!)"
No, they aren't. By documentation, I want full interopational translation with a 3rd party program. Microsoft has NEVER done this.

"- Micrsoft has provided free tools to convert older format files (.doc, .xls) to the new Office formats"
So what? The people I work with use the old format, it's been the format in use for close to 20 years, and we've built an infrastructure around it. Just because Microsoft wants us to move to it's ghetto "open" format doesn't mean we will.

"- Microsoft has provided free tools to allow versions of Office prior to Office 2007 to access the new formats"
Of course they have. There would be no adoption of the new format unless there was a guarantee people still running the old version could access it. This is fairly standard in software development and this changes nothing. The company would have to be batsh*t insane not to do this.

"- The new formats are totally open, extremely well documented, unencumbered by patents, etc., are are under the control not of Microsoft but of an independent international standards committee (ECMA). You can download the format documentation yourself for free."
They aren't "totally" open, and Temporal has it on the nail. The documentation alone seems written for the express desire to ever consider using this as an open format. Go standards committee. Meanwhile governments, U.S. states, etc, are moving to open office/*truly* open formats.

Tell me a single software niche in which Microsoft hasn't attempted to diverge from existing standard, impose their own, and make it difficult for competition to be compatible with them.

Kerberos, IE-HTML, DirectX, .DOC... there's a long history that teaches us what we can expect. If they're really in another direction now, then it's their responsability to actualy _do_ something to gain credibility.

> - Those formats like ".doc" WERE and ARE publically
> documented, despite numerous claims to the contrary by
> Microsoft haters. (You can download the documentation
> yourself, right now if you want!)

I once opened a .doc in OO and it didn't display right. You mean this is OO's fault? Oh, you mean the parser wasn't written by MS, it was someone else's code? When you actualy want to push a standard with honesty, the first thing you do is writing a sample implementation in non-copylefted license, so that everyone can grab it. Think of Ogg Vorbis for example, or X11.

lmao...

So if I were to start a business, and thought my ideas were better than the standards, I couldn't deviate form them because they're The Standards™?

That'd suck, considering one of the biggest reasons someone starts a new business is because they see the need for *change*.

As for allowing my competitors access to my formats, why? They're my competitors, not my partners. If I think my format is better than theirs, I sure as hell wouldn't want to just give it away.

To clarify a point then, Microsoft likely has other goals besides "eliminate competition;" however, they are willing to diverge from any standard anytime and keep their divergence secret. The justification is because they can make more money that way.

Their stuff could have been added within the framework of ODF. That they chose not to do so was because their goal is not interoperability (to reduce vendor lock-in control) as is the goal for ODF, but to maintain as much control as possible over any so-called "open" standard. Microsoft's standard was designed from the ground up to give an edge to one group, Microsoft corp. ODF was designed to a large extent to give control to one group, the end user. The latter also benefits any potential Microsoft competitor because it puts them on a more level playing field with Microsoft.

I think what makes Microsoft particularly a company whose products you want to avoid is the tremendous leverage they have built up. As the various antitrust trials have shown (as well as numerous lawsuits), Microsoft is very willing to exploit their leverage to stop competition. This is illegal in a lot of places, btw.

Also, it would be interesting to know why Microsoft doesn't reuse all of the standards that are open and currently exist in many places througout OOXML. Instead they redevelop the wheel using their terminology. While I understand that their newest standard is probably the closest to what they used in house for the .DOC&co formats, this is reason to shun their standard as a standard meant for interoperability. It's like if I come up with a set of rules that is different from every standard out there in say the electrical industry and then expect the world to stop building and designing their products as they always have in order to get the same functionality but using my books this time. This makes no sense from the point of view of market participants and keeping competition alive. That Microsoft gets away with it is because of their leverage and because it is much easier to start anew when you use software vs tangible stuff (eg, the converter from Doc to OOXML has no counterpart in the material world). Also, Microsoft currently sort of owns the office suite market. If they didn't, their standard would almost be guaranteed to go nowhere.

A major Microsoft motivation (as I see it) is for them to take the poll position on all their competitors who have been working together to come up with ODF, a standard for interoperability, and they would set the pace of the race because of their internal knowledge of (proprietary) secrets no one else has. Another equally important motivation is to make it easy to charge royalties on potential patent threats. ODF is free of this. See either of the following pages:
http://www.groklaw.net/a...story=20070123071154671
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections

Without a doubt Microsoft is not in a position to want to give up anything that isn't taken from them. On their way to maximizing profits they will continue to leverage everything they have to maintain the powerful monopolies so they can dictate as many terms as possible to the consumers. Maximize profits is the game they play arguably better than any existing company.

As a consumer, if Microsoft is maximizing their profits, if Microsoft is maximizing their hold on me, if they are dictating terms to our agreements that are greatly in their favor, then I have to consider myself psychotic to stay with them any longer than "necessary."

they are willing to diverge from any standard anytime and keep their divergence secret. The justification is because they can make more money that way.

So your problem with Microsoft is that they want to make money?

their goal is not interoperability (to reduce vendor lock-in control) as is the goal for ODF, but to maintain as much control as possible over any so-called "open" standard.

Right. Exactly. You nailed it. If anyone's going to change the format MS is using, it will be MS. They won't allow themselves to latch onto a format someone else could change on a whim, leaving them to play catch-up. Any company in the world wants to maintain control of the way they do things. Anything else puts your business in someone else's hands.

Interoperability is *great* for free software, Expecting it in commercial software does not make any business sense.

If you're starting a company, you're fine. If your changes to existing standards cause too many problems, people will prefer the standard to your implementation, simply because it works better.

Once you achieve market dominance, our laws require one to play nice. Microsoft doesn't. These laws were put in place to protect competition - if one company achieves such dominance that there are no other companies which compete with it, that company has no incentive to do anything more than maintain their position. Of course, the free software movement has shown that one can compete in the software arena without corporate backing - the cost of entry is insanely low.

The only reason that Microsoft still exists today as a single company is that there are still some old-time Microsoft competitors out there. If Apple had also gone bankrupt - which it didn't only because Microsoft had bailed them out a few years back when Apple was about to go under (I think this was a presence-of-mind manuever - there was anti-trust legal activity at the time, and Apple was their oldest still-existing competitor), and if a few other companies had ceased to be rather than having been bought out by other players several times (such as Word Perfect), no amount of White House support could have prevented Microsoft's sundering.

Last I checked, MicroSoft required an NDA to get their .doc format documents. Further, from those that I know who have accepted said NDA, they were incomplete. The terms of the NDA were such they felt they couldn't tell me anything more specific.

Now, I admit - I haven't checked lately. I don't deal with Microsoft except when I have to - I'd like to think I'm not crazy, and anyone who's watched how the company behaved from 1990-2000 would have to be insane to still do business with them. From what I've seen in the news since, they haven't changed. The only difference is that now they must at least claim to be open in order to continue to do business - but they appear to be fighting that at every turn.

That's all well and good, but since there are *ample* examples of competing formats out there none of it applies to the current situation.

Microsoft *was* a monopoly, which in and of itself, is not against the law. It's when they use their position in market-share to force other companies out of it that it becomes illegal. This is not the case here.

Alternatives exist. Consumers have a choice. If they don't want to use OXML, they can use an older format MS supports, download the ODF conversion filters, or use a different product.

>> So your problem with Microsoft is that they want to make money?

How Microsoft goes about their business is their decision. If Microsoft was not the monopolist (someone else was), Microsoft would most likely want open standards (to maximize their profits as a small fry).

So as a user, I can go with the monopolist that is trying to do what they do best to maximize their profits, or I can go with the rest of the industry that is doing what they do best (ie, based on their options) to maximize their profits. Naturally, I am going to go with the industry.

Then there is the added incentive that not everyone requires megaprofits as incentives to produce software. In particular, the various FLOSS products that continue to be free to acquire and come with source code so that anyone can clean up the dirty laundry are on the side of ODF. Guess what? I'm on the side of ODF.

Like I said, what Microsoft does is their choice, but with them making the choice to maximize their profits by insisting on lock-in, I make my choice quite easily to shun them for ODF-competition.

It's elementary. I have no problems maximizing my profits either.

>> They won't allow themselves to latch onto a format someone else could change on a whim, leaving them to play catch-up.

Not exactly. The only way this happens is if someone effectively monopolizes ODF. Because it is an open standard, the problem for Microsoft isn't that they would be playing catch-up. The "problem" for Microsoft is that they wouldn't start off with a huge lead on everyone else. Fair playing fields stink when you are accustomed to having it all.

>> Any company in the world wants to maintain control of the way they do things.

Yes, but unless you are God, you have to deal with reality, constraints, and compromises.. or at least that is typical of businesses.

>> Anything else puts your business in someone else's hands.

Then I guess everyone's business is in someone else's hands. .. like in the customer's perhaps (among other hands).

>> Interoperability is *great* for free software, Expecting it in commercial software does not make any business sense.

Yup. When Microsoft slips a little from their tower, they will fall all the way because anything less than virtually complete control is not worthwhile for them.

Writing software can be enjoyable (it's hard to explain this to someone that doesn't already see it... just like many people enjoy writing music or making movies or flying planes etc). Many people have found ways to make a living and yet contribute to Openoffice.org. Heck, many contribute as part of their daily work working for someone else, for themselves, or even for Uncle Sam. It's irrelevent whether or not Microsoft sees this. As a consumer, I want the very best deal I can get. I want the very decent free stuff that has lock-in built out. It gets no simpler than that. Too bad for Microsoft, but I am not going to pay and paint myself into a corner, with all my data in jeopardy, just so that Bill Gates and friends can feel that their jobs are bringing in the level of income they find acceptable. It's just not going to happen.

Instead of paying to get a base product only and further to then have my data be at the whims of Microsoft's future business goals, I'd rather get the base product for free and then pay to get something extra based on my own desires. That is how many open source people make their money, by serving me to add extra value to the base product in order to address my specific wishes. This is a superior end user offering than anything Microsoft has. Or at least these are my views. Feel free to buy Microsoft if you want.

[I didn't mean to neglect this thread and reply so late.]

As per download page the System Requirements are :
The OpenOffice.org OpenXML Translator requires the following versions of OpenOffice.org:

OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 or later Novell edition for Windows
OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 or later for SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 and openSUSE 10.1
OpenOffice_org-2.0 package for SUSE Linux 9.3 and 10.0
OpenOffice_org-2.0.4 package for openSUSE 10.2

Does this mean that the Translator will work only on Novell versions of OpenOffice ?

Define Irony…
Microsoft post compromises with competitors to promote standardization – 10 posts majority of which are complaints.
There is an article on BetaNews about security holes in Apple’s Quicktime – 1 post, not negative, just concern.

Realistically...
Microsoft has the majority of the market. Others saying they should conform to a standard when they are the standard in creating documents? Wow.

My thought is...
If you only use 10% of the features and don't understand the rest of what WXP/Vista/Office200x are doing in the background you will complain and complain. When you do finally understand even 20% of the rest, you will start to appreciate the products.

Hmmm...
I know you will hate me, but I wonder how people call Fox News out while watching MSNBC or CNN? I personally watch them all, I bet you can't say the same. But, you are probably one of those who claim the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Just to fill you in, truth only lies on one place, and it's not a measure between who is telling the truth and who is lying. If you think America is your enemy and freedom is really free, go somewhere else. I am sure you can go to a country where they do not broadcast foxnews. Now that is freedom! Especially when in your mind, conservative viewpoints should be minimized, at any cost.

Article age difference: 8 hours. :P

The complaints about Open XML are valid - ODF did everything necessary, but Microsoft had to introduce their own, proprietary 'open' format. Why?

To compare, security holes are so common now no-one really gets upset about them, particularly when they're in such a minor program as Quicktime. Every business needs to be concerned about document formats - Quicktime doesn't have that kind of importance.

Apples and oranges.

Age differenct, 8 hours... You took the time to hit back on this issue. Fair and balanced, I think not.

Really, you can't answer the question, "...had to introduce their own, proprietary 'open' format. Why?" MSO is much more complex than competitive products. Do you remember? 10% users need not apply. This issue is much, ODF plays well in a shared document environement using change handling and other things way off the 10% radar.

Are you really so unrealistic that you believe that Millions of machines with Quicktime (everyone with an iPod, iTunes, or downloaded a video to watch on their machine - and that is pretty much everyone) are not at risk? Go out to competitve products to MS and look (look means actually researching and not what you hear at the water cooler) how many patches for security fixes are in the latest version of Linux (pick your provider) and Apple's OS or even beter, pick a single piece of software on Millions of computers (iTunes or QuickTime).

Stop hating. It's sad. It's old.

Since you didn't read the Apple article, I will quote it for you...

"Each of the flaws could enable an attacker to create a malicious QuickTime file that, when run, executes arbitrary code and could lead to a full system compromise."

Read this part again, "full system compromise."
Read this part again, "full system compromise."
Read this part again, "full system compromise."

You just might be in Oz if instead of "full system compromise" you read, "There's no place like home." And if you happend to click your heals at the same time, maybe we should check behind the curtain to see who is pulling the strings.

"Stop hating. It's sad. It's old."

Personal now, is it? If anything is sad, it's that you cannot stay on-topic, and feel the need to justify your inaccurate claims and uninformed opinions with slander and personal attacks.

If that's all you have to offer, I, and I daresay most other Betanews readers are not interested in reading your ravings.

It might be worth also noting, that although Apple has a number of flaws in their software, including OSX, it would seem Microsoft is not the knight in shining armour you would make them out to be.

There are no less than 53 flaws in Windows Vista, after just over a month of public release. More to the point, and something MS cannot claim over Apple or the Linux community, the majority of these flaws remain unpatched:

http://www.vistasp1.net/

I am interested in his opinion, and for the record I agree with him.

There is far to much hate in this debate, and it colours everything.

Get over the hate and we might have a more objective debate. For example, I'm still waiting for debate of single industry standards for very complex problems. SVG, CSS etc etc. This topic however, is simply not allowed to be mentioned.

If we are going to compete with MS, we have to do better than insisting everything supports SVG.

>> Realistically...
>> Microsoft has the majority of the market. Others saying they should conform to a standard when they are the standard in creating documents? Wow.

I think the ODF side is saying that ODF is a document format that, unlike OOXML, is likely to result in competition and lower prices, more choices, etc, for the end user. Documents will be readable 50 years from now. OOXML has a lot of stuff whose documentation remains locked within Microsoft. It's a no brainer, if you value access to your data years into the future, to use ODF as the format for archiving.

This is a very simple thing. The problem is that Microsoft denies the above or at least tries to avoid that conversation.

Anyone is free to continue to buy Microsoft products.

>> My thought is...
>> If you only use 10% of the features and don't understand the rest of what WXP/Vista/Office200x are doing in the background you will complain and complain. When you do finally understand even 20% of the rest, you will start to appreciate the products.

That is exactly my thought with regards to Linux. My question to you is how did you figure out what Vista is doing if Microsoft releases almost no really serious documentation concerning what Vista is "really" doing?

>> Define Irony...
>> Microsoft post compromises with competitors to promote standardization -- 10 posts majority of which are complaints.
There is an article on BetaNews about security holes in Apple's Quicktime -- 1 post, not negative, just concern.

I guess more people challange Microsoft's statements than the security alert.

Well, I guess the point they are trying to get across is that, yeah sure you can end up with an infected/compromised system, and that is a bad thing, but that system can always be purged and re-installed. In the grand scheme of things, it is not as serious a matter as getting locked in by proprietary formats. It should be obvious from all the government departments around the world, and their movement from Microsoft Office (and especially the proprietary formats) to OpenOffice in general, and ODF specifically, that they are being concerned about having the ability to open/read/edit their documents fifteen years from now.

Holy crapula, Brian Jones just committed a Fox News ploy: declare victory in the midst of stunning defeat and rejection, and go home. Nice little rhetorical trick if you can get away with it. But not so fast, Brian. Has anyone else noticed the moratorium on OXML blog posts by Microsoft employees recently? Now you get a flood of silly posts about "choice," "compatibility," and "no format wars." A few of the ZDNet crowd is pushing OXML like crack dealers in their blogs, as if their jobs depended on Microsoft. (Oh wait, they do, don't they?) Problem is, there never was a format war because OXML is and will never be a universal ISO-certified file format. Game over. Microsoft lost. Two-thirds of the JTC1 nations rejected OXML outright due to its innumerable contradictions that were found in the first 30 days. Fast-tracking via Ecma didn't work as Microsoft planned. The review period was extended for an unprecedented 90 more days and so far Microsoft is flummoxed and silent in response to OXML's inherent flaws and weaknesses.

The OASIS OpenDocument (ODF) format is the winner, and from coast to coast, states from Massachusetts to Texas to California want ODF, period. Besides, the endless number of proprietary dependencies upon the OXML file format which cascade throughout their software stack — from IE7, Vista, Exchange/Sharepoint through SQL Server and GreatPlains/Dynamics made sure OXML was dead on arrival. Note the key word is compatibility according to Rob Wier, who writes with far better clarity than I could achieve on this subject:
________________________________________________
Compatibility. Better yet, True Compatibility. What is that? And what do you think the average user, or even the average CTO, thinks, when hearing these claims from Microsoft about 100% compatibility? Let's explore some scenarios and try to reverse-engineer Microsoft's meaning of "True compatibility."

Suppose you get a new, more powerful PC with more memory and upgraded graphics card and you upgrade to Vista and Office 2007. You create a new presentation in PowerPoint 2007 and save it in the new OOXML format. What can you do with it?

Can you exchange it with someone using Office on the Mac? Sorry, no. OOXML is not supported there. They will not be able to read your document.

Is this 100% compatibility?
What about Windows Mobile? Can I read my document there? Sorry, OOXML is not supported there either.

Is this 100% compatibility?
What about sending the file to your friends using SmartSuite, WordPerfect Office or OpenOffice, or KOffice? They all are able to read the legacy Microsoft formats, so surely a new format that is 100% compatible with the legacy formats should work here as well? Sorry, you are out of luck. None of these applications can read your OOXML presentation.

Is this 100% compatibility?
What about legacy versions of Microsoft Office? Can I simply send my OOXML file to a person using an old version of Office and have it load automatically? Sorry, older versions of Office do not understand OOXML. They must either upgrade to Office 2007 or download and install a converter.

Is this 100% compatibility?
I have Microsoft Access XP and an application built on it that imports data ranges from Excel files and imports them into data tables. Will it work with OOXML spreadsheets? Sorry, it will not. You need to upgrade to Access 2007 for this support.

Is this 100% compatibility?
What about other 3rd party applications that take Office files as input: statistical analysis, spreadsheet compilers, search engines, document viewers, etc. Will they work with OOXML files? No, until they update their software your OOXML documents will not work with software that expects the legacy binary formats.

Is this 100% compatibility?
Suppose I, as a software developer, takes the 6,039 page OOXML specification and write an application that can read and display OOXML perfectly. It will be hard work, but imagine I do it. Will I then be able to read the billions of legacy Office documents? Sorry, the answer is no. The ability to read and write OOXML does not give you the ability to read and write the legacy formats.

Is this 100% compatibility?
So, there it is. A don't know if we're any closer to finding out what “100% compatibility” means to Microsoft. But we certainly have found lot of things it doesn't mean.

A quick analogy. Suppose I designed a new DVD format, and standardized it and said it was 100% compatible with the existing DVD standard. What would consumers think this means? Would they think that the DVD's in the new format could play in legacy DVD players? Yes, I believe that would be the expectation based on the normal meaning of "100% compatible."

But what if I created a new DVD Player and said it supported a new DVD format, but also that the Player was 100% compatible with the legacy format. What would consumers think then? Would they expect that the new DVD's would play in older players? No, that is not implied. Would they expect that older DVD's could be played in the new Player? Yes, that is implied.

This is the essence of Microsoft's language game. The are confusing the format with the application. This is easy to do when your format is just a DNA sequence of your application. However, although Microsoft Office 2007, the application, may be able to read both OOXML and the legacy formats, the OOXML format itself is not compatible with any legacy application. None. The only way to get something to work with OOXML to write new code for it.

This is not what people expect when they hear these claims of OOXML being 100% compatible with legacy formats. — Rob Wier

Good lord.

Cutting and pasting is fine, but the entire blog post?

How's about posting just a summary and providing the link next time?

No offense, man, but that's like, 2 pages long.

I am at least consoled by the fact that you didn't post the follow-up comments as well.

Jeez, do you ever do anything but whine and moan? Address Nate's article or just shutup.

Wow...thats about as immature as you can get. You claim to be in your 40's but damn, you act like a freakin 5 year old. Grow up you child.

"Brian Jones just committed a Fox News ploy" This should tell you all you need to know about zridling. Throw enough irrelevant information into the mix and you stop discussing the facts.

what “100% compatibility” means to Microsoft
Did he ever think that perhaps in this context, "100% compatible" means that your old files con be converted to this format with no loss of data? I'm sorry but if a person thinks any completely new format is magically supported by 100% of software (including 7 year old software), the problem is not in the format.

So, will ODF magically work with Access XP?

The guy posts a tribute to his own inadequacy (in my honor) 2 clicks from his full name and email address, on the server at his place of work, no less. Armed with his full name a few more clicks gets you his home phone number and home address.

Good thing I'm not stupid crazy. One could do a lot with that information to make his life a living hell.

You give him *far* too much credit. The cutting and pasting was probably a stretch for him.

It is truly sad when someone like zriding is filled with so much hate for a company that they post something like this that is so riddled with errors and exaggerations it is not worth rebutting point-by-point. Get a life!

The main point of the 100% compatibility discussion is that adopting OOXML means an overhaul. New apps must be bought and tested, new code must be written, new a lot of things must be acquired in order to deal with the new "100% compatible" format. This all means lots of dollars to Microsoft and is a continuation of what they do every few years. With ODF, you can stay put with your applications until you find *you want* to upgrade (and OpenOffice.org is one option available that is free of cost if that is desireable), even if it is much after *Microsoft wants* you to upgrade.

For many companies it makes sense to have free quality readers for many employees, free office suites (to read and write easily) for most others, and keep the high-priced stuff only for those that really need it. This means that a lot of money can be saved if you have a large organization because you only need to acquire what you need from the vendor most suitable when you need it. That is ODF. That is not OOXML.

Here is a related link:
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/2110

I love my Doc's. ODF can eat my anus.

No, it can't. It's a file-format, not your sister. :p

When it's really over nobody will ever say "what format is that in?", or "Great! now just save that in a different file format.", again.

When it is all said and done, people will wonder why they need to upgrade yet again to a host of new (expensive) Microsoft products when the old stuff still works fine and there are so many other options out there that are less expensive and work and ...oh,oh, these other applications can't handle OOXML because it is still proprietary. Chucks!

It may be more cost-effective to simply politely ask your partners to save to ODF when exchanging documents so that you don't have to upgrade your entire software system.

If they get to ISO compliance.... well, let's look at IE7, and see how good Microsoft has been with standards. I don't see this as "over" quite yet.

Hey now be nice. It's over because Microsoft says it's over.

OK... so one side of the fight says its over, then its over? Nah not until all sides agree.

As it was said above, until one file type format is universal, this isn't over. Just because MS barks doesn't mean that its the truth. Maybe just their version of it.