| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft's XML: the New EBCDIC? | |
|
||
| Time: 17:26 EST/22:26 GMT | News Source: PC Magazine | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
don't blame a company for being annoyed when interlopers piggyback on its hard work. I was sympathetic toward AT&T years ago when it said that other ISPs should not be able to piggyback on its cable modem system. After all, AT&T built it out. With this in mind, let's look at Microsoft. Microsoft made Word a standard, so why should anyone else make money from that company's hard work?
Of course, Microsoft didn't actually invent the word processor, or the spreadsheet, or much of anything else. But still, it did the best job of gaining market control, and Microsoft built out Word. What bothers me is that most of Microsoft's development work with Word and other Office products seems focused on making life miserable for the competition rather than actually improving the product. Powerpoint is so tired it's becoming pathetic, for example.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 4/28/2003 6:55:31 PM |
| To read the whole article, click on the headline. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/28/2003 7:01:29 PM |
|
Sigh....
"Powerpoint is so tired it's becoming pathetic, for example." Works pretty well for me. Got any alternatives that do the job better? How is it tired? What do you mean by tired? Ever tried actually making a point instead of throwing out anti-MS lines that you know will get you points with many people? "Now the upcoming release of Office will be based on XML (eXtensible markup language)." Actually, the upcoming release has support for XML. It's not based on XML... and I'm not really sure what that would mean if it were. "Now we are seeing news stories that say Microsoft is actually focusing on XML as a semi-proprietary format that will have all the same bugaboos we have with the .DOC format." We're seeing that where? By definition, XML cannot be proprietary. XML is inherintly self-describing. Does this mean Microsoft might not publish documentation about the schema? Perhaps. But it will hardly be as difficult to parse or interop with as the .doc format. At any rate, this is 100% speculation. "Orlowski, writing about this in The Register..." Opps, looks like I can stop reading right there. If your source of information is The Register, you might as well shoot yourself now. "The format, with its embedded macros, is subject to unprotected virus attacks, because nobody outside Microsoft fully understands the format..." Bwhahahaha. Is that why every major virus scanner can't easily pick out macro viruses in Word docs? Oh wait, they can, and they do. So much for that theory. "Microsoft's idea of protection is those vague messages about macro dangers that you get when you click on some Word documents." You mean those warnings that say "If you don't know where this came from, don't enable macros, moron." What do you want them to say? "Why pay for Microsoft's products when your company doesn't need them, and the alternatives work just as well and are a lot cheaper?" Good question! With all the problems this guy describes, you would figure there should have been a mass exodus away from Office by now. But there hasn't been. Hmmm... maybe beacuse the alternatives don't work just as well and they're not actually cheaper? "Years ago, the company would have sent out a press release saying that Office XP wouldn't work with this product and could damage your computer." I assume this is a reference to the notorious message displayed to the user by early versions of Windows when Dr. Dos was used instead of MS DOS. The warning simply stated that Windows might not work on Dr. Dos, and to proceed at your own risk. Oh no! A company doesn't support a competing product?! Monopoly! Down with M$! Give me a break... Dvorak is clueless, as usual. |
| #3 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 4/28/2003 7:21:21 PM |
|
1. CrossOver Office Available Now for only $54.95
WordPad is free with Windows NotePad is free with Windows. And I am sure that you can find Office 2k somewhere dirt cheap. 2. What do I care about the inner working of word and it's native format XML or not if I get my desired results. 3. Inter-opt with what? Why do I care is MS doesn’t play nice with star office/open office or who ever? 4. Microsoft is actually focusing on XML as a semi-proprietary format that will have all the same bugaboos we have with the .DOC format What bugaboos? Basically, from the second paragraph on this became and anti-Microsoft rant. |
| #4 By 665 (64.126.91.172) at 4/28/2003 8:01:39 PM |
| #7, we just post the first paragraph or two of the article, we don't write recaps here. We try to get clips that have a direct relation to the headline, but sometimes we can't and it ends up looking a bit odd. |
| #5 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 4/28/2003 8:20:56 PM |
| It sounds as though some people do not understand what XML means. |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 4/28/2003 9:41:35 PM |
|
#5 - "not the case. this is some XML....'
Oh come on. We all know Microsoft isn't going to do that. It would be completely contrary to the whole point of using XML. To say you think they may do that means you're either dumb or playing dumb. (I'll assume the later.) "XML provides no quarentees. It enable interoperation, but it's a flexible tool and forced not a durn thing." Ok, point taken... but again, why would Microsoft even make the attempt to use XML if all they were going to do was enclose some binary formatting code inside a few tags. It doesn't make sense, and those that suggest otherwise are being disingenuous. |
| #7 By 2459 (24.170.151.19) at 4/29/2003 2:13:41 AM |
|
The question of Microsoft being open with their implementation of WordML is, again, a none issue.
If anyone wants the full documented schema as it is in its current beta form, they can either join the Office 2003 beta program, or acquire an Office 2003 beta kit through MSDN or the CPP program. The kit contains a Content Development Kit that gives detailed documentation on WordML's schema. Even without such documentation, as #10 said, the format is pretty clean and readable. The featureset of WordML parities that of the .doc format. Whatever's supported in .doc is supported in WordML. Word also accepts arbitrary schemas, so you can use whatever's best for your situation. The whole point of MS including XML support in Office is so that businesses can create structured documents that can be coded against, created programatically, and/or roundtripped throughout a business/group of businesses, reusing the same data in multiple views/scenarios/programs. XML support was offered, IIRC starting with Office 2000, due to customer feedback/demand. It has achieved full parity with .doc in the 2003 version. It serves no purpose to give the customer a requested feature on the basis of interop only to make the feature unusable. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 324 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:14:13 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
