Comments on: Office 2007 fails OOXML conformance test

Test shows that Word documents generated by today's version of Office 2007 don't conform to the Office Open XML standard under development by the ISO.
(By Peter Judge of ZDNet UK)

[`WarpKat]

For All Pro-MS'ers

Somehow, "we told you so," just doesn't quite
say it...

[KTLA_knew]

Told them what?

The standard MS submitted was changed during the process, as noted in the article. You'd have to be a mouth-breathing idiot to expect an appliation to conform to a standard that was not finalized until the end of the standard setting process. Frankly, I'm surprised at the lack of forethought on the part of the folks that thought a test was needed to confirm this. There was zero chance any app would conform to this essentailly new standard.

Granted, there ARE a lot of those mouth-breathers around these parts...It's what keeps us coming back!

[The_Decider]

Nobody can conform to this "standard"

It has too many errors, contradictions and dependencies on other documents.

Which is why it will never be a standard, regardless of how many ISO members Microsoft bribes.

[`WarpKat]

I only have one problem with this statement.

MSOOXML is already a standard.

Thanks, Norway!

[Phillep_H]

6000 pages?

LOL, nobody is going to conform to 6000 pages!

[Thomas, David]

Lost me at "It's a Standard"

Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Who gives a crap if Office
2007 does not "conform" to OOXML. OOXML is a quasi
proprietary binary, and xml formulation created to support
Microsoft enterprise solutions, and increase the publics
dependence on Microsoft. The fact that the current version
does not conform, means that you "might" get a version that
conforms in the future that everyone "must" buy.

Paying off a few people force it through a system to get a stamp
of approval does not make it a standard. Real world use, and
acceptance is what makes a standard. That means usage across
all platforms, and not in some meek manner.

[Thomas, David]

Let not anyone forget

Standards bodies were created to recognize, and ratify existing
protocols that were already widely used.

Don't let anyone believe for one second that staking a flag in the
ground, against the objection of all others, is NOT invalid. But
rather a bastardization of how the process was supposed to work.

[Commander_Spock]

Just to repeat; "It Is Not Going To Be Over...

... Until The (Fat) Lady Sings"

Re:
"Brown added that Microsoft has probably realized that there may be considerable commercial advantages to becoming a good citizen in the standards community.

"Actively working to make OOXML an internationally informed standard will help them to retain their considerable share of the desktop office space, as this removes objections to Office having a proprietary, vendor-controlled format," he said.

In future, Brown hopes to repeat the test to see if the open-source alternative to Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, conforms with the Open Source Initiative (OSI) version of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) document standard: ISO/IEC 26300.

He asked: "Will anyone be brave enough to predict what kind of result that exercise will have?"

How go the "i-n-t-e-r-o-p-e-r-a-b-i-l-i-t-y" issues (between Microsoft Office XXX and OpenOffice XXX...!!!

Read the subject line. ;-)

[Seaspray0]

Documents based on xml is a good idea

I still beleive that. After all, it conforms well with how web pages are built on the internet. But microsoft has made an absolute MESS of trying to do it right. If it was me, a few heads would roll in Redmond. Rule of thumb: If you're going to submit a standard, make sure your own software works with it.

[Commander_Spock]

Hi folks, Look who just showed up for the XML Party!

A big round of applause for "Seaspray0" :-) ; and, this is what he has said in part; "Microsoft has made an absolute MESS of trying to do it right. If it was me, a few heads would roll in Redmond. Rule of thumb: If you're going to submit a standard, make sure your own software works with it" Granted that the ISO is reported to have made changes to the proposed standards submitted by Microsoft... what was supposed to have been done in the first instance was for Microsoft to have sat down will all of the other companies (OEM) to iron out all the issues before the proposed standards were submitted; and, as this was not done, thus the situation we have today.

Enjoy the "ISO" XML Party "Seaspray0"! ;-)

[Ian Easson]

This is a non-story with a misleading title

Office 2007 was released more than a year an a half ago. It conforms 100% to the ECMA-376 version of OOXML, which was published about the same time as Office 2007.

What the story refers to as "OOXML" in the title is in fact the yet-to-be published IS 29500 standard, which will differ from ECMA-376 by about 1000 items.

There is no way any year-and-a-half-old software is going to conform to a yet-to-be-publsihed standard.

That is the non-story. That's all.

P.S. Micrsoft has pledged to make MS Office 100% compliant with IS 29500 as soon as possible. Their SDK for OOXML applications, which will be released in beta form in a few days, will be 100% compliant with IS 29500.

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Micrsoft has pledged to make MS Office 100% compliant...

... with IS 29500 as soon as possible. Their SDK for OOXML applications, which will be released in beta form in a few days, will be 100% compliant with IS 29500".

Also remember the following:

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"

So, when will the above "interoperability issues" (between Lotus 1-2-3, Lotus Symphony, Excel, OpenOffice's Calc...) be addressed by IBM, OpenOffice.org, Microsoft et al? :-(

[B.E2]

Their have had seven+ weeks to conform

Although you are correct in saying that their original Office 2007 couldn't support it. However Microsoft, has had over seven weeks (three weeks since it was approved) to update their products, to confirm to this standard.

How long does it take to update their current implementation to reflect the changes?

[ralfthedog]

"IS 29500 standard"

Question, is that the name or the page count?

[B.E2]

Let's stand up as a community....

... to protect existing standards and new standards, by requiring Microsoft to conform to the standard them selfs. If they don't, we spread the it, it's as simple as that. ISO as already stated that if Microsoft doesn't behave, it will cancel the standard. Also governments will shy away from Office if it doesn't conform (the reason why Microsoft created it in the first place)

It's up to us to make Microsoft confirm.

[B.E2]

Their've had seven+ weeks to conform

Although you are correct in saying that their original Office 2007 couldn't support it. However Microsoft, has had over seven weeks (three weeks since it was approved) to update their products, to confirm to this standard.

How long does it take to update their current implementation to reflect the changes?

[Commander_Spock]

Re: "Their've had seven+ weeks to conform"!

>>>"Although you are correct in saying that their original Office 2007 couldn't support it. However Microsoft, has had over seven weeks (three weeks since it was approved) to update their products, to confirm to this standard. How long does it take to update their current implementation to reflect the changes?"<<<< Who ever said that the Microsoft or the ISO are substitutes for the - "Illuminati" (the banking and financial systems around the world) where "data integrity" really counts! ;-)

http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm

[Jim Harmon]

We're MICROSOFT!

Standards? We don't need no stinking standards!!

[dmahugh]

what's the "story" here?

Peter, I don't think there's much of a story here: the final spec isn't even available yet, and Office 2007 shipped about a year and a half ago. More perspective here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2008/04/21/alex-brown-s-research-abiword-enhancements.aspx

[AppleSuxLeo]

Another Cnet FUD report...

Cnet , get a life.

[Commander_Spock]

"Cnet"....

... from all appearance does appear to be having a "good life" in publishing all the news articles that are fit for print (including this one). :-) What is the matter with you - Have you got some sort of "ERR Achilles Heel" to hide or something like that. LOL!

[irperez]

NO DUH!! They Changed the SPEC! What do you expect!?!?!

CNET is definitely biased against Microsoft and it shows with this article. CNET I've been a faithful reader for years. But lately its been articles like this that get under my skin. If it were any other company this wouldn't be news. OF COURSE THEY ARE NOT CONFORMANT. THEY HAD TO CHANGE THE SPEC TO PASS THE ISO!!! Now they have to update the software which they will. They did push to have the spec a standard, don't you think they would follow up. But this articles makes it seem like they might not. That would be dumb. Of course they are... CNET start writing articles that are more objective...

[JadedGamer]

Not changes but clarifications

Most of what is in the 2,000 extra pages submitted are clarifications on what stuff like "autoSpaceLikeWord95" actually means.

The POINT is that Office 2007 documents do not comply with either the ECMA spec initially submitted nor the amended spec that got rubber-stamped.

But you do serve your masters in Redmond well...

[TheSmellyMoa]

Of Course! That's the Whole Idea!

Nothing will be able to conform to it.

Be safe and use whatever MSFT is shipping.

Really? Why would anyone dream that MSFT would want an open spec that anyone could conform to?

You've been had world! You should have remembered the first rule of dealing with MSFT: if their mouths are moving, they're lying - and while you're listening to the lies your attention is being diverted while they burn down your house and kidnap your children.

[victoriarose620]

Hey, buddy, http://www.recovery-soft.com has a partition manager software which is

even better than PQ, not matter in function or price, why not have a try? You will

find it excellent and worthy!!!

partition manage, partition, computer partition manage, harddisk partition manage,

harddisk manage,620

[Krag13w]

Preved tut

[Krag13w]

Yes, that, of course, causes a lot of problems
<a href="http://hentaitown.net>hentai movies