|
|
| What MS' Alan Yates Said About Convergence of ODF & Open XML |
 |
|
Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 04:47 PM EST
|
In the previous article, I suggested that since Microsoft's Alan Yates testified at the Massachusetts hearing that someday ODF and Microsoft's OpenXML will likely merge, that we set a date for that convergence. I thought it would be worth the time to record exactly what Mr. Yates said.
A reporter from The Boston Globe asked Mr. Yates a question, at approximately 1:46:55 in Dan Bricklin's audio tape of the event: The ODF standard already exists and it's ready to go basically. How long is it going to be before MS's Open XML standard is productized, ready to go so we can go out and use it? And Mr. Yates' answer:
Good questions. So, ODF originated from Sun's Star Office product, OpenOffice product, and started with a certain set of requirements. Microsoft's Open XML formats also started with a certain set of requirements, that were all based around making our millions of customers happy, basically, with the versions of Office they now have as well as with versions of Office in the future. So, very, very different design points.
I would say, in the future, some time, you know, at some point, there will be convergence. Convergence does happen over a period of time. Or there will be incorporation, there will be subsetting, supersetting. You know, the wireless standard, the A version merged into the B version, merged into the G version over a period of time to give better performance and functionality over a period of time.
Right now, Microsoft utterly must focus on delivering the goods for millions of customers and billions of documents to make that transition, this ugly, you know, messy transition right now that we're talking about from black box documents to Open XML centered documents. We think that the really great news is that ODF is open. Open XML is open. Both of us have a huge commitment to the developer community. Both of us are going to be working very hard on converters, on filters, on applications, on other software applications. Both of them are completely open to being replaced by the same technology, to having competitors displace the early competitor, if you will. So, good news, I think, on that front is that this problem will be solved in time. It is not an easy, sort of snap-your-fingers sort of problem. I'd question his statement that OpenXML is open, given the Ecma process, and the Microsoft terms, including extensions, but if convergence is the goal, and obviously it should be, instead of the Microsoft vision of one player killing off the other, as Mr. Yates and his Freudian slips hint at, would it not be more sensible, and to the Commonwealth's advantage, to just work together from the start and set a time frame for convergence? If the Commonwealth sets that as a goal, it could happen.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:02 PM EST |
| Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:04 PM EST |
| Please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:08 PM EST |
"Both of us are going to be working very hard on converters, on
filters, on applications, on other software applications...
So
WHEN will the filter for MSXML to ODF run on MS Office? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Asynchronous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:15 PM EST |
Sorry... I read this:
Good questions. So, ODF originated from
Sun's Star Office product, OpenOffice product, and started with a certain set of
requirements. Microsoft's Open XML formats also started with a certain set of
requirements, that were all based around making millions of dollars off our
customers...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Billions... - Authored by: Wol on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:15 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 05:20 PM EST |
After reading the comparison by Carrera et. al., where it's made clear that ODF
has the more rational design, why is there ANY desire to merge those formats?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wholeflaffer on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:01 PM EST |
Microsoft Spokesman =? U.S. President =? Congressman
Is it me, or am I hearing the same crapola from every direction? Lies that
sound as close to truths as necessary to gain the support of constituents...yet
months or years later turn out to be completely fabricated verbal diarrhea?
This country is swiftly becoming divided between the cynical "haves"
and the ignorant "have-nots". Not counting those that don't have half
as much as the have-nots have.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: enodo on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:16 PM EST |
One amusing point here is that he's all wrong about how the 802.11 standards
worked. First of all, 802.11a is a 5GHz standard, so it can't merge into b/g
which operate at 2.4GHz. Furthermore, b came out first, then a. g was simply an
extension of b, not a merger, so nothing ever came together in the way he's
describing.
What a joke.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11 )
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:20 PM EST |
| Of course, it must be done entirely on China's terms. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST |
Microsoft will not agree to convergence voluntarily, however publishing a
specification and then testing implementations against it might be more than
Microsoft can handle.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hsmyers on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST |
I'd suggest that the correct time scale for Yates/Microsoft's 'convergence' is
the same scale used for the heat death of the universe.
--hsm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 06:54 PM EST |
It all sounds like traditional "Embrace and extend" to me.
Ernest ter Kuile. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 07:44 PM EST |
Microsoft has no intention of merging any of it's products with anyone else's,
never has, never will. Ask the EU court about how well Microsoft lives up to
obligations it has been ORDERED to meet. Microsoft is currently refusing to
meet the demands of the EU court to provide meaningful documentation on it's
networking stack. If they can't open up even the tiny little bit that the EU is
demanding, how can you possibly think they will open up their Office formats in
any meaningful way. Microsoft has left itself so many 'outs' in the Office XML
standard that it clearly doesn't intend to honour the spirit of a standard. I
can't imagine a single CEO looking at the current state of Office XML and
actually committing resources to build on it. It just doesn't look like a wise
investment.
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 09:40 PM EST |
I think Mr. Yates is confused! I read "How long is it going to be before
MS's Open XML standard is productized, ready to go so we can go out and use
it?"
Did anyone see him answer it by actually giving a date or timeframe? Did the
next reporter ask him to answer the question?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Observer on Thursday, December 22 2005 @ 10:43 PM EST |
| I think that Microsoft really truly wants their OpenXML format ot be "open", but
in only one direction. I forget where it was, but I remember reading how
Microsoft wants their OpenXML to be format to be open in the sense that it
creates "added value" for their documents, as these documents carry more and
more real data, instead of simply human readable text. It struck me that they
are trying to build on the "network effect", where more and more applications
are able to consume the data contained in MS Office generated documents.
It increases the value of the generated documents, and hence the application
used to generate them.
The problem is that they still want to control the
generation of these documents, such that people become even more
dependent on Office for their interactions with other people and systems. They
still want to be the gate-keepers. ---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Select Star on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 03:02 AM EST |
"The ODF standard already exists and it's ready to go basically.
How long is it going to be before MS's Open XML standard is productized, ready
to go so we can go out and use it?" And Mr. Yates' answer: "Good
questions."
What I find amusing here is how he
does not answer the question at all: no estimated timeline about when the Open
XML standard is formally approved so that I can go out and truthfully market my
software as "ECMA Open XML compatible".
(Did I say "truthfully market"
there? Well... :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AlsoNickFortune on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 04:43 AM EST |
| Given that one format exists and the other is vapourware, all MS have to do to
achieve convergance is adopt ODF.
Job done, as simple as that.
Or to
look at it another way "He keeps saying that word. I don' think it means what he
thinks it means..." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eindgebruiker on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:01 AM EST |
Alan Yates:
"Good questions. So, ODF originated from Sun's Star
Office product, OpenOffice product, and started with a certain set of
requirements. Microsoft's Open XML formats also started with a certain set of
requirements, that were all based around making our millions of customers happy,
basically, with the versions of Office they now have as well as with versions of
Office in the future. So, very, very different design
points."
Interesting.
- Yates does not specify what ODF's
set of requirements were.
- Yates insinuates that ODF's
requirement was to not make millions of MS Office customers
happy.
- In fact the OASIS ODF TC has spent over a year to assure that
ODF is backward compatible with older MS Office (and other document)
formats.
This again leaves us with the question: Why MS Office XML?
To support versions of MS Office in the future? Sounds like recursive reasoning
to me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:20 AM EST |
... and he will talk the legs off your chair without giving an answer to the
question.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eindgebruiker on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 06:23 AM EST |
I propose usage of the term "Microsoft Open" instead of
"Open" where appropriate.
Something is Microsoft Open if it looks Open on the surface, but on closer look
contains such restrictions as to make it not Open in practice.
Example: Microsoft Open XML seems to have Open specifications but contains
closed binary components, among which a closed binary key, which is needed to
properly display the contents of a document. Microsoft Open XML may therefore be
considered Microsoft Open.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Microsoft Open" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 28 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:50 AM EST |
| All MS has to do to clean up the mess: open up the existing format. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST |
Paraphrasing then,
Eventually Open XML formats will be compatible like 802.11A and 802.11B
Well that’s something to look forward to
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 10:36 AM EST |
This has got to be one of the worst answers I have ever seen.
Why hasn't anyone noticed that he didn't even come close to answering the
question? If I were the reporter, I would have followed-up my question, by
repeating the same question again.
Who the heck cares about convergence if he can't even answer when the product
will be ready?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:04 AM EST |
The gazebo down by city hall is open. There are several directions to enter it
from. You can stand on it and look in all directions. It has a very nice view.
There's room for several people to be in it at once. It's truly nice.
A racoon trap can be opened at times too.
Of course they have some "very, very different design points."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 11:24 AM EST |
| Mr Yates seems to be struggling with colloquial American grammar: Grammar o th'American Lingo, I am
certainly struggling with his. Mr Yates is supposed to be (indeed is) a
representative of Microsoft (and quite a senior one), yet he is unable to
express himself in an honest and straightforward manner. Could this be because
he has nothing honest and straightforward to say? Would you buy a used car from
this man?
Mr Yates finds himself, I think, in an impossible position: he
cannot lie and he cannot tell the truth; on the other hand, he cannot keep
quiet. Result? Look at the three paragraphs. Introduction, he probably rehearsed
this, nice little bit of M$ FUD to confuse ODF with OO.org. Second
paragraph, obviously thought this one up in advance, helps to fill the time,
sounds relevant but isn't, above all it reveals nothing and commits M$ to
nothing. Final paragraph, oh! dear, he starts losing it now. Starts of by
telling M$ what they should do, then reveals that M$ does not actually
have any solutions, starts praising ODF. (ODF is Open is a tautology, Open XML
is Open is an oxymoron.) His final remarks, if they mean anything at all, seem
to be saying that he wishes this problem will go away.
Alan(UK) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 01:02 PM EST |
Yates says that they'll coverge or merge on the best solution, not on the best
solution that exists at an arbitrary date. That's the way that it should work;
ask Linus or Stallman. And please do try not to make me take Microsoft's side in
this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 23 2005 @ 02:43 PM EST |
| ... remember embrace,
extend and extinguish?
We really don't want MS anywhere close to ODF, if
we know what's good for us...
PS: I posted this on the last story too, but I
think it bears repeating.
PJ: I usually agree 100% with everything you
write, but I have to disagree on this one. I think that merging ODF and MS'
"standard" is a very bad idea. Unless, of course, you're just trying to call
their bluff.... ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2005 @ 07:54 AM EST |
Microsoft's MS-XML euphemistically named OpenXML is patently unsuitable for any
form of archiving or interoperability application. Why? Because the patent
covenants don't cover future revisions or any implementation that includes an
extension or feature bug fix. This means that within a year or two when
Microsoft's next forced upgrade cycle is due, a new incompatible version of
MS-XML will appear which noboby else can use. As such, Microsoft's MS-XML is no
better than Microsoft's current binary office formats for archiving and
interoperability, and indeed is much worse because it is patented by Microsoft,
which unlike the current secret which at least can be reverse engineered and
used by others, will be a legally enforced monopoly granted to Microsoft for
access to the data. For this reason alone MS-XML should not be a candidate
for archiving or accessibility requirements.
If you compare Microsoft's patent covenant with Sun's, Microsoft's intentions
for MS-XML become quite clear due to the way the patent covenant has been
carefully worded to exclude patent protection on extensions and future
revisions. The fact that Microsoft has taken out patents on MS-XML format is
another indication that Microsoft in tends to leverage them to ensure a
monopoly on office data access.
The key distinction between MS-XML and ODF is that whether or not MS-XML is
submitted to a standards body or not for rubber stamping, MX-XML remains a
PROPRIETARY STANDARD (in other words it is controlled and owned - quite
literally because of the patents - by one vendor). ODF by contrast is a VENDOR
NEUTRAL STANDARD, owned and controlled by nobody, and free for anybody to use in
any way without restriction for all revisions in perpetuity.
===========================================================
MEANING OF PROPRIETARY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary
Something proprietary is something exclusively owned by someone, often with
connotations that it is exclusive and cannot be used by other parties without
negotiations. It may specifically mean that something is covered by one or more
patents, as in proprietary technology. It can also mean that the copyright is
used in a way that restricts the users' freedoms.
Proprietary indicates that a party exercises private ownership, control or use
over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties.
Where a party holds or claims proprietary interests in relation to certain types
of property (eg. a creative literary work, or software), that property may also
be the subject of intellectual property law (eg. copyright or patents).
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.html
Privately owned and controlled. In the computer industry, proprietary is the
opposite of open. A proprietary design or technique is one that is owned by a
company. It also implies that the company has not divulged specifications that
would allow other companies to duplicate the product.
Increasingly, proprietary architectures are seen as a disadvantage. Consumers
prefer open and standardized architectures, which allow them to mix and match
products from different manufacturers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 24 2005 @ 10:52 AM EST |
I thought I read some where that IBM had decided to sit out the early stages of
the T45 work. Was I mistaken?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, December 25 2005 @ 05:21 AM EST |
I wish some journalist would get hit with a seriously
ginormous cluebat
and start asking questions about
Microsoft supporting current MS Works
products with MS
Office file format filters.
There I was,
working away in the CTLC (Community-based
Technology and Learning Centre -
Microsoft's phrase for
it) when this young woman came in with a baby, sat
down
and downloaded a file, her CV aka resume, from her
webmail, which she
then
sent off to the printer.
Page upon page of Gibberish
ensured
(an aside: Gibberish is
the language of a human
subspecies known as the Gibbers;
they taking advantage of positive
discimination, wind up
in positions of authority, whereupon they issue
screeds
and screeds of Gibberish, which is unknown to the ordinary
human
and places no small part in reducing said average
human to a state of mental
breakdown.)
owing to the
file being in MS Works WPS
format. I attempted to open
the file in MS Office 2K, but couldn't, owing
to MS Office
not supporting that file format.
MS Office 2K
did suggest that I needed to update MS
Office 2K to support the WPS file
format, which I tried to
do, but MS Office 2K would not be persuaded.
I asked the young woman what vintage her version of MS
Works was,
and she told me it was MS Works 2K.
It is events like this that
drive it home how
balkanized Microsoft's own development process is. It is
something like this that makes the ODF file format
standard mandatory, in
my eyes. The fact that Microsoft
cannot and it seems,
will not
play nice with Microsoft's own software of a somewhat
different division, is sufficient reason to adhere to
something that has
a much greater width and depth of
support than that that a mere monopoly can
give its own
"de facto Market-Blessed standards".
I
thought IBM was daft, downgrading its Personal
Computers when they came out,
because of the fear that the
PC would cannabalize its high-end mainframe and
minicomputer businesses. But for a company to stick it
hard and deep to
its customers - No, that goes waaaaaay
beyond daft.
Will
Microsoft put the source code of its future
Office
products in
GPL-escrow as surety that it won't do this
sort of shenanigan in future?
That's what I expect,
nay,
demand, now. I'm sick of being
shafted. ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 25 2005 @ 04:42 PM EST |
| I will be shocked if Microsoft XML is nothing more than a wrapper for
proprietary encrypted binary content. The reason they are embracing XML is
because it allows any content to be wrapped in tags. It does not have to be
readable. It just has to conform to the SGML basics.
Here is what is going
to happen. Microsoft XML will allow saving documents
in XML format. However,
proprietary encrypted binary content will be
unwriteable by other applications.
Sure APIs will be provided for reading but
not writing! It will probably start
with pictures, charts, and OLE objects but
will later extend to all content.
Remember their objection to ODF was "what
about binary content ...". This was
the clue that nothing has changed. This is
the same modus operandi that they
have used for two decades. We are open
but our intellectual property must be
protected.
This is just another embrace and extend campaign in a new
wrapper. Do not
be fooled by this deception. Convergence in MS speak means when
ODF is
absorbed in Microsoft XML not when both are truely interoperable. This
is just
the next incarnation of .doc format. It makes little difference what
default
format Office 12 outputs. The new deception is .xml an open standard
will
replace the vile proprietary format .doc.
Methinks, I see a new wolf
in sheep's clothing. Too bad so many sheep may
spot it too late, once again! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, December 26 2005 @ 06:57 AM EST |
I downloaded it from the pointer
at Brian
Jones' Bl
og.
I've downloaded the OASIS ODF standard
as well, and thought to
compare the two.
I was just looking at the Table of Contents
and noticed
the following in:
14.Shared Parts
14.2.1 ActiveX Control Binary Data part
14.2.2 ActiveX Control
Persistence part
15.XML Schema References
15.12
ActiveX Control Properties
ActiveX?!?!
What
has been one of MS Windows' most productive
security holes over the past
decade? And how is wrapping
ActiveX in XML going to cure that?
---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back
through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of
view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
