Comments on: Office Open XML is an ISO standard: Now what?

Microsoft confirms Open XML has gained ISO ratification. Looking ahead, expect scrutiny of the standards process and minimal change in the marketplace.

[rcrusoe]

The next step . . .

is probably more well deserved scrutiny by the EU.

[cmwendy]

Next step - address untoward Armonk?

Jan van den Beld - the guy who brought seems to indicate that "other companies" should look in the mirror:

http://www.crn.com/software/207001046?_DARGS=/article/rating/showPoll.jhtml#community

[hellsyes]

I wish this was an April Fool's Joke

Sadly, it's not.

[hawkeyeaz1]

Happy April Fools!

After all, that is what the entire ISO process of MSOOXML 'standardization' is. And we will wait to see hwo closely Microsoft adheres to the 'standard'.

[Tony McCune]

Maybe the world takes over MS?

MS has been trying to take over the world for a while. Maybe it's the old Matrix scene where Neo jumps into the agent and takes it over. We've been holding off on dynamic transformation of OOXML presentations on DigitalChalk. Maybe this will break things loose on innovation with the risk reduced.

[ivorycruncher]

As I've said before...

Even open source needs competition to maintain a healthy level of innovation. One single set of office document formats would be wide open to bloat and stagnation. Having two fully open and competing sets of standard formats, each with its pros and cons, should keep things interesting. Whatever Microsoft's intentions are, they have at least attempted a step in the right direction. I'm sure further scrutiny will follow, and it should, given their track record. But I do think that good things will come from this. Maybe not today, or tomorrow, or even next week. But over the next year or two, things may start to get very interesting, especially if Microsoft makes even more moves towards being open.

I understand that the thought of the enemy trying to switch sides makes a lot of people sick and/or suspicious, but I think for the moment they should have the benefit of the doubt. This is a big first step, so let's just see where things go from here.

[mknopp]

What two fully open standards?

ivorycruncher, I completely agree that there should be some competition. What I have a contention with is that there actually are two fully open standards at this time, or even any time soon.

I am not an expert, but I have read several complaints, by supposed experts, that there are parts of the OOXML standard that are not open. That MS itself doesn't even conform to the "standard" OOXML because it plants many "old" binary parts into the XML which other vendors cannot emulate.

I, like many, do not have a problem with Microsoft seeking an ISO standard. What I have a problem with is the absolute abuse of the fast-tracking of this standard. The fast-track was never intended for this contentious of a standard, and should never be used for such. The very fact that it was, to me, pretty much discredits ECMA and ISO as a valuable standards body.

I believe that is what has really upset many people, at least that is what upset me.

[Commander_Spock]

Should not the "word" be....

"Having two fully open and (EQUIVALENT) instead of "competing sets of standard formats..."? ;-) !

[Dalkorian]

2?

Ivorycruncher earned the M$ kickback with the comment:

"Having two fully open and competing sets of standard formats,
each with its pros and cons, should keep things interesting."

Problem is there is *NOTHING* "open" about ooxml. It's 6,000
pages of legalese trying to hide the fact that it's a patent trap
that refers to multiple M$ proprietary standards. Tell me what's
open about that? It would *NEVER* have passed through the
normal channels, so M$ fast tracked it and shoved piles of
money onto everyone's lap to force it through so they could say
"see, we like open source!", right before they rape you to death.

Just because Satan is smiling, doesn't mean he's looking out for
YOUR best interests!

[ralfthedog]

"...bloat and stagnation."

"One single set of office document formats would be wide open to bloat and stagnation."

I can't comment on stagnation yet, however MSOOXML is quite probably the most bloated standard in the rather bloated history of the ISO.

[bluemist9999]

Perhaps it is, perhaps not

If the specification says anything like "Render this paragraph the same way Microsoft Word does", or makes any references to how Microsoft-specific products behave, it is not an open standard.

That is unless those product references themselves are an open standard. If, say, RTF is an open, ratified standard, the Microsoft standard may reference it and still remain open.

If, instead, the "standard" uses Microsoft program-specific commands, it's not an open standard, any more than it would be to say <RunApp type="RunThisLikeXP"> would be an open standard.

In this example, in theory, one could make an application "run like XP", but in practice, it would be so difficult, it would only be effectively implemented on Microsoft products.

Encapsulating proprietary methods of formatting into XML doesn't magically make them open.

If, on the other hand, Microsoft's standard only references other open standard format specifications, it is truly an open standard.

I don't know enough about the 6000 page standard to say either way.

[robvme]

Now we have a real standard based on W3C

I for one am glad that this has been established as a standard. For the Microsoft haters, you got what you want. An open standard. Open Document Format just doesn't cut it when it comes to the web. So we need a competing standard based on what many people use already. And because it is now a standard, it is governed by a third party. ODF was a OpenOffice only format and does not work well with the Compact Document Format whereas OpenOfficeXML creates a web and data consumable format. Today, it is a better format. Now, with two competing formats, there will be innovation and third party participation and who's to say what will come out of it next. At least now you have a choice.

[The_Decider]

In it not and OpenOffice format

Anyone can implement it anywhere, anytime.

It is a true standard, unlike OOXML which is not a standard by any rational definition.

[Commander_Spock]

The "terminology" issue - again!

Re: "So we need a competing standard based on what many people use already. And because it is now a standard, it is governed by a third party". "we need an (EQUIVALENT) standard (not) "a competing standard..." meaning that the thing will accomplish (give results) what was stated that it will - like when you board an aeroplane which has all the "tested parts" to take you on your journey.

Enjoy your "REDMOND" ride; and, we will see you and your family on the other side of the moon. ;-) !

[rdean]

Not really...

Unlike you, I have approached the subject with an open mind.

For instance, take your assertion that ODF is an OpenOffice only format. Several vendors, including Google and IBM, implement the format. The specification is open and implementable.

As far as CDF ("Compound Document Format") goes, Open XML is obviously going to be compatible with a format specifically developed to be backwards-compatible with Microsoft Office formats.

The problem with OOXML is not with its progenitor. The specification as proposed was filled with documented and serious holes (e.g., when does "1234" not equal "1234"? when it's actually "1233.9999"). In all the hubbub about the Ballot Resolution Meeting, there was little mention of the specifics of the resolutions and whether these problems have been addressed in an implementable fashion.

The only problem I have with the specification is that the length of the specification is going to make it hard to produce a compliant implementation. It will be also be hard to produce a certification test.

[jmdunys]

Innovation?

The buzz word from marketing. Sales language. But in reality, what innovation?

As for standards, multiple standards is an oxymoron. A standard is a standard is a standard.

For those traveling abroad, we know what the advocacy of 'multiple standards' mean: travel-kit for phone socket, travel-kit for electrical socket, transformer, multi-band mobile phone, etc. Each country or region talks about the benefits of its 'choice' of standard.

T-Base-10 is a standard, so is 802.11a, yet they did 'innovate' - build-on.

OOXML does NOT build on anything. It comes itself as a competitor to ODF. It does NOT enhance it, it is not compatible with it.

The worst part is the hypocrisy of all claiming that it's a fair competition. Microsoft REFUSED to, and HAS NOT, implemented proper native ODF format (although a standard) in their MsOffice suite. Their excuse is the worst example of cynical lying: "ODF is not rich enough". ODF already as rich or richer than the doc or xls format. ODF is open, so NOTHING can prevent Microsoft for implementing it.

We can see what Microsoft wants, make OOXML the de-facto standard for office document: all new MsOffice application will open/save documents in OOXML format by default; CIO's and lazy IT Managers will feel justified because of the 'standard' label, although Microsoft will change the specifications of OOXML on each release of their applications, and post (perhaps) their changes to the ISO for the others to play catch up (or post them much later, when competitors complain of compatibility issues).

Whether Microsoft's OOXML is a good set of specifications is not the point at this time. There WAS an existing standard that Microsoft NEVER implemented because it would put them on a playing field with everyone else, and they know they can't win on features (90% of users only use a maximum of 20% of Office features, which other applications out there have anyway) or justify the high cost of their suite.

Some people chose to forget the above to pinpoint some 'shortcomings' of ODF. Sorry but that doesn't add-up. ODF is not perfect, but standards evolve (as 802.11 did and still does). I have seen MANY web frameworks and applications that have ODF compatibility - whether natively or via plug-in, and more are coming every day.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory that says that Microsoft is besieged by hordes of competition-or-innovation-haters. It's actually the opposite and Microsoft has been found guilty of improper business conduct over and over again - and not just by Europe, and many people have grown distrustful of the company that claims to innovate or champion choice, yet stifle the innovating competitors by spiteful or illegal means.

All Microsoft need to do is walk the walk and talk the talk for a while, but unfortunately, as in the case of OOXML, it has chosen not to do so.

[Penguinisto]

Brain Death: It's not just for breakfast anymore.

1) W3C is not the ISO.

2) OOXML is not an open standard (look up "binary blobs" and get back to us).

3) OOXML is loaded to the gills with patent traps. This means that no one else can use it except MSFT and anyone who pays MSFT a ton of cash for the privilege.

Come back when you have at least some inkling of what you're talking about, 'kay?

/P

[t8]

Fooled again

Microsoft has fooled the world again. And on April Fools Day of all days.

Your all so dumb.

[The_Decider]

Only one thing left to do

Disband the ISO.

Its credibility is gone.

MS leaves nothing but destruction in its wake.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Sore losers?

Is that your answer to any situation that turns out in a way you don't approve of?

I don't like this any more than the next person, but it's done and trying to deny it won't make it go away.

Move on with your life.

[ancre007]

Free Software Foundation opinion worthless

Given the Free Software Foundation's huge anti-Microsoft bias, how can their so called 'legal analysis' be considered anything more than a marketing brochure furthering their anti-Redmond stance? CNET must report on objective opinions regarding such an important topic, not positions of people with a 30-foot axe to grind.

[Sumatra-Bosch]

Bias Does Not Invalidate Facts

In this instance any more than you can discount the testimony of the cops that searched Jeffrey Dahmer's refrigerator, just because they have a bias against cannibalism.

[aureolin]

Inaccurate Headline

The headline should read "Office Open XML is an ISO Standard: So What?"

[Dalkorian]

April Fools!

If this was an April Fools joke, I would feel better about it. But in
fact it doesn't seem to be, which means nothing more than the ISO
has been caught on the street corner prostituting itself. I hope they
at least enjoy the screwing that micro$loth is giving them!

[ralfthedog]

Please use the correct name.

It is not the ISO. The correct name is MSISO.

[jerrymacGP]

Micro$oft & Interoperability? what a joke!

Not being a computer scientist, much of this discussion is over
my head. But one user-level point that really amuses me is that
files created by Office 2007 apps, such as Word documents
(.docx), Excel spreadsheets (.xlsx), and PowerPoint (.pptx),
cannot be opened with older versions of Office, such as 2003. I
am currently taking a evening University class, and many of my
classmates have had trouble exchanging documents between
the "old Word" and the "new Word". But, my Apple iWork '08
applications (Pages, Keynote, and Numbers) will read all those
Office 2007 documents. Micro$oft has more interoperability with
one of its major competitors than with itself! And, iWork has also
maintained backwards-compatibility with the legacy AppleWorks
application.

There are certainly some really strange goings on down there in
Redmond, WA.

[Seaspray0]

Apple interoerability, an even worse joke.

"...such as Word documents (.docx), Excel spreadsheets (.xlsx), and PowerPoint (.pptx), cannot be opened with older versions of Office, such as 2003."

Wrong. Microsoft has released a patch which allows office 2000 and 2003 to open the office 2007 documents. Get your facts straight before you spurt lies. Also what you are complaining about is not backwards compatibility, but forwards compatiblity (an application of the past working with data from a newer revision). Microsoft has solved that issue. Can you say the same for every other application?

"...has also maintained backwards-compatibility with the legacy AppleWorks application."

I'll take your word for it. But I also remember the switch from OS9 to OSX is not backwards compatible. Applications written for OS9 do not work well with OSX. You of all people should not be bad mouthing when your favorite has done a worse job of compatibility.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Office Open XML is an ISO standard: Now what?

Wow...and I thought Apple set the standards with iWork ! LOL bwahahahaha.