| 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 |
 |
Why the ODF vs. OOXML battle matters | |
|
||
| Time: 00:21 EST/05:21 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Mary Jo Foley writes: Hardly a week goes by without some new story on OpenDoc Format (ODF) vs. Office Open XML (OOXML) file-format wars grabbing headlines. This week, it's California is threatning to go the way of Massachusetts in decreeing that state agencies make ODF their document standard. Microsoft's GM of Standards and Interop Tom RobertsonI haven't been one to give the ODF vs. OOXML battle much attention. But since nearly every other tech blogger and journalist seemed to find the ODF vs. OOXML contest endlessly fascinating, I couldn't help but wonder if I was missing something. I had a chance to ask Tom Robertson, General Manager of Interoperability and Standards for Microsoft — someone who has a lot invested in the ODF vs. OOXML contest — a few questions regarding why folks should care about ODF and OOXML. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:38:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/1/2007 9:32:16 AM |
| It matters a great deal. Document preservation and interoperability demand an open format controlled by no one company, with no legal strings attached. MS can't stand a format they can't control and lock users in with, so they had to come up with their own (haha) *open* standard and then try to strong-arm/FUD their way into making it a standard. |
| #2 By 9589 (66.56.135.191) at 3/1/2007 11:31:05 AM |
|
Latch endlessly blathering about . . . nothing.
Go coffee boy! |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/1/2007 12:15:19 PM |
|
#2: A typically informative response from jd. YOU ROCK!
|
| #4 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/1/2007 12:38:20 PM |
|
Sun has patents on ODF. Adobe has patents on PDF.
The only reason OSS fanatics hate OpenXML is because it comes from Microsoft. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/1/2007 1:43:23 PM |
| #4: For once in your life, you're partly right. Nobody, not just FOSS people, wants MSXML because of MS' long history of screwing everyone to benefit itself. With MS, there is always a string attached. That's why everyone is so dubious about MSXML. Then there's the fact that MSXML has all kinds of crap for legacy Office support that nobody cares about, and couldn't implement if they wanted to because the spec is monstrously huge compared to ODF. What was it, 800 pages for ODF spec vs 6000 pages for MSXML? Ridiculous. |
| #6 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 3/1/2007 2:09:04 PM |
| Not to mention that the "crap for legacy Office support" is proprietary once you get below the XML tag itself, and therefore, no one but Microsoft could possibly fully impliment the OOXML format. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 3/1/2007 2:10:29 PM |
|
"the spec is monstrously huge compared to ODF"
ODF lacks many features that OpenXMl offers. I'm sure the spec for ASCII documents is much smaller than ODF. Should we use that to save our documents. OSS fanatics trot out the same old myths because they hate a little competition. They want OpenXML banned so feature comparisons can be done away with. One of the problem with the myth about problems with the size of the OpenXML spec is that both Novell and Corell have already announced they plan to impliment it. http://blogs.msdn.com/craig/archive/2006/12/05/novell-corel-supporting-open-xml.aspx |
| #8 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 3/1/2007 2:12:52 PM |
|
"no one but Microsoft could possibly fully impliment the OOXML format"
Except for Novell and Corel and anyone else who wants to. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/1/2007 2:27:55 PM |
| #7: The whole purpose of standards is to avoid competing technologies. You can't really be that dumb, can you? The only reason MS offered MSXML was to quasi-meet the open requirement with a format they could control. There is no good reason they couldn't just support ODF, other than their usual Machiavellian ones. ODF already supports binary data so your ASCII biffle is nonsense. MS has all the proprietary crap in MSXML to keep the lock-in going. ODF has no such lock-in, nor does it care about specific Microsoft proprietary formats. |
| #10 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/1/2007 4:47:00 PM |
|
"The whole purpose of standards is to avoid competing technologies."
Actually, it is to ensure stagnation if the "standard" is picked just because it has the word "open" in it. If 99% of the people are using Office, and some consortium of Microsoft haters decide to set "anything but Microsoft" as a "standard", the consumers lose. The only "lock-in" is in your brain. Hating Microsoft is locked in. OpenXML is an ECMA standard. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 3/1/2007 10:40:31 PM |
|
#10 "OpenXML is an ECMA standard."
ODF is an ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) standard. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/2/2007 8:09:31 AM |
|
#10: And as we've determined previously, ECMA is a rubber-stamp process for MS ot enter the ISO fast-track. Microsoft is paying Novell and Corel to implement MSXML to meet gov't requirements that the XML-based format be implemented by more than one vendor. Nobody wants to implement MS' 6,000 page long bloated format when they could get everything they need with ODF much simpler.
Why can't you answer my post with a rational response nstead of nonsense? Oh, that's right -- you can't because you are unable to answer my charges but still need to get the last word. |
| #13 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/2/2007 12:06:05 PM |
|
"ECMA is a rubber-stamp process for MS ot enter the ISO fast-track"
19 of 20 companies voted yes. IBM voted no because this is just a proxy war between IBM and Microsoft. The "open source movement" are just little proxy IBM pawns doing the bidding of a big corporation. The problem for ODF is that people can't get everything they need from a skimpy no feature specification written by some Microsoft haters. "Nobody wants to implement ..." Novell and Corel do. No matter what lies you tell, implimenting OpenXML is happening and can happen. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/2/2007 12:17:13 PM |
|
#13: MSXML will get smacked down by ISO. MS doesn't have enough cash to bribe its way into everything.
"19 of 20 companies voted yes." Yes, and like I said, ECMA is a rubber-stamp. The important group is ISO, and the member countries seem to have a long list of problems with MSXML. "a skimpy no feature specification written by some Microsoft haters." ODF was created by OASIS, of which MS is a member. So MS hates itself? That would put in in good company. "implimenting OpenXML is happening and can happen." We shall see. If ISO bogs MSXML down, possibly for years, nobody except MS' bought-off stooges will bother with it. MSXML is the Microsoft Bob of document formats. |
| #15 By 32132 (142.32.208.231) at 3/2/2007 2:48:02 PM |
|
Humor from Wikipedia:
"The OpenDocument ISO specification does not contain a defined formula language. This means that ISO conforming files do not have to be compatible [21]. OASIS is working on creating a standard formula language for use in future versions of the format." "The OpenDocument ISO specification does not allow for tables in presentations. This is being worked on for a later version of the OpenDocument specification, but was not included in the ISO submission version" "Different applications using ODF as a standard document format have different methods of providing macro/scripting capabilities. There is no macro language specified in ODF. It is arguable whether there should be or not ." "The ODF standard is insufficiently detailed, requiring excessive application specific namespace extensions to record document features. These application specific namespace extensions are not necessarily interoperable between ODF compliant applications." "Java applets are described as native objects in the OpenDocument specification (§9.3.4). This means any full implementations will require a java virtual machine present from within the application." "The Sun OpenDocument Patent Statement [25] applies to a future version of ODF only if Sun participates in development of that version. If Sun does not participate, then the assurance not seek to enforce any of its enforceable U.S. or foreign patents against any implementation will not apply." ODF is a joke. This post was edited by NotParker on Friday, March 02, 2007 at 15:45. |
| #16 By 12071 (124.168.205.173) at 3/3/2007 12:17:05 AM |
|
#15 Now go read the criticisms on Office "Open" XML:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML It shows the "standard" for what it really is, an inconsistent, inflexible, nonstandard specification literally littered with inconsistencies, omissions and stuff like autoSpaceLikeWord95 and lineWrapLikeWord6 that ignores all existing ISO, W3C and any other standards. Simply put, as far as open standards go, it is a joke! |
| #17 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 3/3/2007 10:22:11 AM |
|
It appears the criticisms of OpenXML center around inflexible which is normal whan you have 99% of the market and have to worry about backwards compatibility.
But the crticisims of OpenXML are trivial compared to the missing features in ODF that are "promised" sometime in the future. How can you have a spreadsheet or for that matter any kind of office document without a macro standard. Thats amazingly stupid!!!! If appears to me that all the criticisms of ODF are deal breakers while the criticisms of OpenXML are nit-picking. Besides, Sun can sue anyone implimenting the ODF spec just by dropping out of the development of future versions. Only idiots and OSS fanatics would overlook that one. This post was edited by NotParker on Saturday, March 03, 2007 at 11:46. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:38:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
