Analysts: Use Open XML, ODF only to make a statement
The Burton Group has published a refreshingly nonpartisan analysis of XML-based document standards and formats, recommending that large organizations use Microsoft's Open XML format over competing standards ODF in most cases.
The report, published on Monday and available for free, tries to cut through the highly charged political environment while recognizing the huge financial stake in document formats.
It concludes that organizations that already use Microsoft's Office should use the Office Open XML (OOXML) file formats which are the default in Office 2007.
The authors also predict that OOXML will gain significant market adoption, which will pose a greater competitive threat to most open-source vendors.
The OpenDocument Format, or ODF, will continue to have a market influence. ODF, which is the default file format of the open-source OpenOffice suite, has steadily seen growing interest from government customers concerned with long-term access to documents.
But Burton Group argues that choosing OpenOffice or ODF is done primarily as an anti-Microsoft move.
"For now ODF should be seen as more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection," according to the report.
ODF, developed at the U.S. standards group OASIS, is an ISO standard, a significant certification to government customers.
Microsoft is in the process of trying to gain ISO ratification for OOXML, which has been certified a standard at Ecma International, another standards body. An important technical resolution meeting is scheduled to take place in late February, which will influence whether OOXML becomes an ISO standard or not.
Caveat
The authors say that the vendor support for ODF--backed by Novell, IBM, and Sun Microsystems--is primarily a competitive strategy to loosen Microsoft's influence on XML-based documents. It says that Sun, which created the OpenOffice open-source project, continues to be the primary influence on technical development.
Microsoft, meanwhile, has created OOXML for its own financial gain but also because it knows that standards and interoperability are vital to its acceptance among government customers.
The study does offer one important caveat: Microsoft needs to live up to its commitments to make OOXML a standard that includes input from other vendors and customers.
"If Microsoft abuses standards initiatives, the market response will be swift and severe," the study predicts.
Meanwhile, attorney and ODF advocate Andrew Updegrove said that the announcement on Monday of another European Union antitrust investigation of Microsoft could jeapordize its OOXML standards bid. Part of the investigation looks at whether the company's file formats are "sufficiently interoperable" with competing products, like ODF, Updegrove notes in his blog.
Not supporting ODF natively--relying instead on third-party projects--could be viewed as insufficient, he said.
"By sticking exclusively with OOXML, Microsoft has been pursuing a high risk, high wire act ever since ODF was adopted by Massachusetts in 2005. Today, it appears that this strategy just (became) riskier," Updegrove wrote.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
Mostly users need to create simple documents with consistent style and minimal size. In this regard HTML is perfect for that.
If user has a freedom - like in Word - he will create consistent looking document, but if you will look inside the document - you will see that the way Word puts all this together does not make any sense - it is just a waste of bytes.
Even if I try to set styles in my Word document, and apply them nicely - after I export to HTML - it looks horrible.
What a piece of crap. I think they made it all too complicated...
- One is a true open standard, supported by a number of
companies and documented publicly and concisely.
- One is actually a proprietary format masquerading as an open
standard, backed by one monopolistic company. The only public
document describing it is over 6000 pages long and has multiple
references to private documents detailing a closed proprietary
format, which of course you can't see.
The choice is yours. Either save your critical documents in a
publicly documented format, knowing that if it should somehow
become obsolete in 10 years that you could look over the
documentation for the format and re-create it if needed, or pick
the format sponsored by the same company that recently locked
up all your old documents, claiming they were in a format that
was a security risk, knowing that *WHEN* they do it again there
is no way in hades that any team of developers could reconstruct
the document format using the "public documentation".
Forrest Gump said it best - stupid is as stupid does. When it
comes to the customers needs, M$ is as retarded as it gets.
When it comes to raping the public for greed, M$ is brilliant.
How can a "non-partisan" analysis ignore the fact that OOXML is, IIRC, 6000 pages long, and yet doesn't completely specify how to implement many tags?
> nonpartisan analysis of XML-based document
> standards and formats,
Really? Who paid the Burton Group to do this analysis? I highly doubt the Burton Group is some sort of charitable organization who did this report for the good of humankind.
It concludes that organizations that already use Microsoft's Office should use the Office Open XML (OOXML) file formats which are the default in Office 2007.
The authors also predict that OOXML will gain significant market adoption, which will pose a greater competitive threat to most open-source vendors..." Reading the subject line again; then, the re-engineered assumptions of "Office 2007" are that by this time Redmond's "ERR" Achilles Heels would have been history. ;-) M :-! M :-$ M :-) !
Funny thing. If you open a Word 2003 file in Word 2007, save it in OOXML format which is automatically zip compressed, then zip compress the original binary file from Word 2003, that compressed binary file is even smaller. Try it!
Does Burton know what it's talking about??? Is there any credibility to this report?
.doc versus .docx, for example. As an Excel user, I like that the .xlsx files are so much smaller than the .xls files, and since Excel does all the compression/decompression automatically, it doesn't even play into the equation.
So yes, they know EXACTLY what they are talking about.
If a format is good on its own merits, why would it need such heavy lobbying?
Often in fact the analyst are both lazy and stupid. Not willing to do the research and not having any real knowledge of the subject matter.
Other than that there work is usually top notch.
Because the complete standard is contained in ONE decently sized document.
OOXML's document is 10 times longer and references other documents, most of which are proprietary.
MS can change OOXML at any time. Haven't people learned that letting a company hold your data hostage is very bad idea yet?
ODF will always be readable. You won't want to pay a ransom fee to any company.
And the #1 reason: OOXML is not a standard by any legitimate definition of the word.
Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Red Hat, or anyone has to submit a request to ISO to change the spec. Anyone can, and I'm sure lots will after ISO certification.
- Non partisan group finds that Microsoft is a bunch of cat sniffers!
- by ralfthedog January 15, 2008 4:53 PM PST
- The non partisan, non profit research group RDFM (Rabid Dogs Fighting Microsoft) has found that MSOOXMLDXPQZZMAC is a completely useless standard that has far too many letters, and has no advantage over the long established ODF.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Measured Response!
- by Commander_Spock January 15, 2008 5:53 PM PST
- Substituting RDC-FF (Rapid Deployment Command-Federation Forces) for "RDFM (Rabid Dogs Fighting Microsoft)" whose creation was necessitated as the result of perceived deficiencies/limitations of computing technologies shipped from the the quadrant presently named as REDMOND. "Phase One" (Open Lotus SmartSuite) which commenced during StarDate 2005 was intended to create an awareness among RDC-FF with respect to the below attached intelligence data gathered during StarDate 1998:
- Like this
-
(23 Comments)"The only reason someone would use this standard is if they were a cat sniffer like Microsoft, or a cat sniffer wanabee."
_____________________
That was fun! I wonder if I can get someone to pay my new research group to prove that Coke is better than Pepsi?
On Federation Fleet's File.....
"As a point of reference here is an extract from a 1998 Lotus Development Corporation communication; Re: Concerning the issues with 1-2-3 that are talked about in the documentation you gave me, most of the issues are related to converting files between older and newer versions of product and converting documents between Lotus and Microsoft. Anytime a file is saved backwards or saved with an older file format than the format the file was created under, such as saving a 1-2-3 , 97 file for Windows 95 into a WK1 format for DOS, then naturally we are expected to loose certain features due to technology and features that are present now that were not present 8 - 10 years ago. Similarly, if we try to convert a file from Lotus into Excel or Excel into Lotus, due to differences in the products not every feature will be converted perfectly with the file filters that are available. Both Lotus and Microsoft create similar spreadsheet programs; however, there are several differences in both programs and these differences will remain to distinguish the products apart. We do try to design conversion filters that will allow as much of the file formats as possible to be exchanged and converted without disrupting the actual file design and format.
In one of your letters you made mention of the @IRR and @ERR functions in the 1-2-3 product. By design the @IRR (notably "absent" in Open Office) will calculate the Internal Rate of Return; where the @ERR is used in conjunction with other formulas, posted was an "ERR" showing an error was received in the calculations. As far as I can see in the program I cannot find an @ERR function that will allow us to calculate an Economic Rate of Return"
"Phase Two" - A Cloaking Maneuver (and The Issuing of General Orders) to commence immediately following General Caucus (Lotusphere 2008)
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/events/lotusphere2008/
Now, as the adrenalin levels rise in preparation for launch signals and while at present no confirmed targets have been identified; however, it appears that OS/2 Warp "Ship" News and Rumors has picked up distress signals with regards to a certain civilization (represented by the anomaly readings - ERROR@...#$%&^***@$~.....ERROR) suffering from "ERR" Achilles Heels.
TO BOLDLY GO AT WARP SPEED!
Commanders Spock and Data.