|
Looking for document interchange? Then watch out for those MS converters |
|
Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:02 PM EDT
|
Here's something interesting from Stephen Shankland, news that Sun Microsystems and RedFlag Chinese 2000 Software, a subsidiary of the Chinese Academy of Science, will work together to tailor OpenOffice.org for the Chinese market. RedFlag has a variation of OOo called RedOffice. You'll recall that Sun recently asked China to merge its Uniform Office Format with ODF. Microsoft later worked out a deal to create a translator between its competing OpenXML and UOF. But I think there is a difference between merging two formats and creating a translator. For one thing the Microsoft translators don't always work so well. Rob Weir has some screenshots showing how the Microsoft translator for ODF works in Microsoft Word, and it's scary bad.
First of all, because it's a converter and not part of what Word natively understands, you can't open an ODF document from the Open file. It is its own separate menu listing, which has endless annoying consequences, it turns out. You can't just double click on an ODF document, for example, and have it open in Word. You must choose the isolated and separate menu item just for ODF, and choose Open ODF. And Weir lists 12 things you normally expect to do with a document in Word that you can't do with an ODF document, like password protect it, post it to a SharePoint server or a web folder, set ODF as your default file format, send it by email and have the recipient click on it to open it. Take a look at the full list, and your jaw will drop. Here's the warning you get while your document is being converted from ODF, listing all the elements you might lose during conversion:
Weir explains what happens next: No option is given for disabling the above message from displaying. It should be noted that when converting from a legacy binary document to OOXML, Word gives a similar conversion warning dialog, but their version can be disabled by checking a "Do not ask me again" dialog.
Once loaded, the user will find that their document is no longer an ODF document. It has been automatically converted to a read-only OOXML DOCX file as the title bar reveals:
So any future operations the user performs on the document, such as mailing, saving, posting to a web server, etc., will be in OOXML format. The only way to get back to an ODF format file is to manually and explicitly go back to the Office menu, go to the ODF submenu and choose to save it to ODF format. At that point you will be presented a default name based on the DOCX temp file name, not the original name. In this case, it suggested “sampler_tmp1.odt”.
The “Save as ODF...” dialog will default to the directory last used to save a file, not necessarily the same as where your document was loaded from. So to save you must first navigate to your original document, select it and choose “yes” when warned about overwriting an existing document, and then the document is converted back into ODF format.
If you do further work on the document in Word, in that same session, and then want to save again, you must avoid the natural tendency to do a Control-S or to save the document when prompted when exiting Word. These methods all will lead to a Save As dialog, suggesting an OOXML format, which will prompt you to rename the document since it is read-only. But it will not offer you the choice of saving to ODF format. The only way to ensure that you are saving to ODF format is to use the above steps, going back to the ODF menu, etc.
You cannot create a new ODF document from scratch in Word. If you try to create a new document and save it to ODF format, you will get an error message, telling you that you must first save the document. You must save the document before you can save it? Yes, you must first save it to a temp file in a natively-supported format like DOC before you can save it as ODF.
That's how complicated it is if you access the file when you are already in Word. What if someone sends you a document in an email, asking you to edit it and send it back? There are six, count them, six unfriendly steps to do the job that Weir lists, whereas if it were an OOXML document, there are only three, double click on the attachment, edit, use send/email option in Word to send it back. In contrast, here's what you have to do if it's an ODF document:
1. Manually detach and save [to] your hard drive the ODF document from the email, since you will not be able to launch it directly into Word from your email client. Remember where you detached the document.
2. Manually launch Word, since you will not to get Word to launch by clicking on the ODF document you just detached.
3. From the ODF menu, choose to open the ODF document. Navigate to where you detached the emailed document and select it. Around 30 seconds later the document will be automatically converted to an read-only temporary OOXML document.
4. Make your editing changes.
5. Export the document back to ODF format using the ODF menu, either writing over the original file you extracted from the email, or to a new temporary file. Remember where you exported the ODF document to.
6. Go back to your email application and attach the ODF document. Shocking, isn't it? Who would use the ODF converter if they could avoid it? That wouldn't be the plan, would it? And of course many users will conclude that it's ODF that is "too hard" to use, whereas it's actually the converter making it unnecessarily hard. And that's not the only problem with converters.
For example, here's the latest on the Microsoft Office Open XML File Format Converter for the Mac, whose users have been patiently waiting for it to arrive for months: Beta release #1 of the Microsoft Office Open XML File Format Converter for Mac is now available for download. This is a stand-alone Macintosh application that converts .docx documents - that is, documents saved by Word 2007 for Windows in the Office Open XML file format - into rich text format (RTF) documents so that they can be automatically opened in either Word 2004 or Word v.X for Mac OS X.
With this free converter we passionately want to get you up and reading the new documents you are receiving. We do not, however, want to see you inadvertently mess up any critical documents you are working with. For that reason, only one-way (read only) conversion is supported in this beta. When sending documents back to colleagues and contacts, we recommend saving to the default .doc format from Mac Word (listed as "Word document" in the save dialog). Similarly, we continue to recommend that you advise friends and colleagues who use Office 2007 and collaborate regularly with Mac users to save their documents as a "Word/Excel/PowerPoint 97-2003 Document" (.doc, .xls, .ppt) to ensure that the files can be robustly shared across platforms while waiting for final availability of Office 2008 for Mac. What good is a one-way translator? If all you can do is read, then of course you have to save everything in Microsoft's formats "to ensure that files can be robustly shared across platforms" ... um, which platforms? Only Microsoft platforms? Linux exists. ODF exists. To half-translate and force people to use your formats to save a document is not good enough, if your goal is openness and ease of interoperability and longterm accessibility. If you are a government, how will you open those documents you saved in a proprietary format in fifty years, if Microsoft is no longer around? Isn't longterm storage an important goal of governments? If so, do you see the problem with converters?
Now, Microsoft will probably say that they'll improve the converters as soon as they can. But a converter will always be a converter. Why won't Microsoft just work with ODF, already an international standard, so we have one standard that can do everything for everyone? Let's face it. An external converter which is released on Microsoft's timetable, in the case of Mac users only after long months, isn't good enough for a standard, I don't think, because it keeps you dependent on one proprietary vendor, and one who so far isn't famous for openness. So how useful is a translator like that? Unless you are Microsoft, of course. Then it's perfect. What could be better than a translator that keeps everyone inside the Microsoft universe? But the whole point of XML is to be able to freely interchange documents, read, write and save, in any operating system. Keeping the goal clearly in mind helps to understand why some offerings are better than others.
Even if in the past an all-Microsoft solution might have made some pragmatic sense, it surely doesn't now. How will you interchange documents with China, since the country backs Linux and they surely will increasingly be sending you documents in formats that Microsoft doesn't handle so well? Yes, you'll have the ability to open older Microsoft documents, and that is important, but most of your business will involve current documents, isn't that so? I mention all this because the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is seeking comments on a proposal to adopt Office Open XML (Open XML) as an international open standard, based on what I believe is the mistaken idea that it will enable document sharing across platforms: More and more organizations around the world are interested in achieving document processing interoperability, and creating digital archives using open formats. Office Open XML provides a common open standard for word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that can be freely implemented across multiple applications and platforms. Does it? Which platforms? Which users? They might need to think about those Mac users, struggling to deal with documents they can only read but must save in a proprietary Microsoft format that not all Mac users even have.
I own a Mac laptop, and the first thing I did was remove all Microsoft products. I just didn't want any Microsoft software on my laptop for security reasons. If someone were to send me a Microsoft Office 2007 document and I was on my laptop, traveling for example, and I needed to save the document, what in the world would I do? Think about that situation, Canada, and you'll see the problem. And may I ask, if we have two competing international standards for the same thing, how will you synchronize them? Wouldn't you have to, if interoperability is the goal? But with these converters, Microsoft retains the ability to always be the first and the best by just delaying release for certain operating system users and making sure the converter doesn't actually work as well. Not that they'd do that deliberately, cough cough. But what if they did? Where's your protection? Isn't the whole point of a standard that everyone gets to use it equally and fairly? If you are talking about everyone being able to share documents, you need a format that people who don't use Microsoft products can also use, at the same level of functionality as everyone who does use Microsoft products. That means no downloading of external translators that the user must install himself. And it means that you are able to read, write, edit, and save everything natively. There are a lot of us who don't use Microsoft products. I think there will be many more, and not just in China. Of course, for some folks who use Microsoft exclusively and have no friends, relatives, or business associates who use anything else, this might not matter. For them, access to old versions of Microsoft Word may be all they need. But that isn't interoperability for all operating systems by a mile. Individuals are free to choose to use whatever they like using. But what about governments? Shouldn't they care about everyone, Linux and Mac users too? The goal is to make document interchange easy for everyone, not just Microsoft customers, I would assume, and to ensure longterm availability of documents. Can Microsoft do that for you with OpenXML converters? The only honest answer I can give you so far appears to be, no. And as long as that is the case, does OpenXML qualify as an international standard?
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
Make links clickable.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOX share price over $1.00 -- Bad News on the way? - Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- New filing in IBM case and huge SCOX volume - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- Dell Linux sales ... - Authored by: Toon Moene on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- Finnish court rules CSS protection used in DVDs “ineffective”. - Authored by: hawken on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- YouTube News picks answering the wrong question regarding YouTube - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- tux500 is ON -- #77 is in the race - Authored by: grouch on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:01 PM EDT
- Off Topic posts hear - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- John Hall / Doug Michels You Tube pick hearsay evidence? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Help please. - Authored by: warner on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT
- SCOX is up because investors have mistaken it for SCOR SA - Insurance. Price crash imminent - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- The Windows Embedded Project Acceleration Kit dunk - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT
- Off Topic posts hear - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Not sure weather this is off topic or not but I think it deservs it's own
thread.
Has any one recieved any feedbak from the UK government after signing the ODF
petition.
As I set it up and it closed 2 weeks ago I thaught I would at least get an email
saying somthing about the government supporting international standards.
But so far nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jslyster on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
PJ;
I'm Canadian, and I'd like to rattle the cage of the Canadian Council you
mentioned about OpenXML. Can you post some info about WHAT Canadian Council you
refer to?
J.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
PJ, you probably need to update the article to clarify that this is Microsoft's
ODF translator that is being reviewed. Sun's add-in for Word does a lot better -
particularly in integration.
I've downloaded it but not tried it out as I'll need to find a guinea pig
machine on which to install MS office.
A comparative review of the two translators would probably show that Microsoft
is hoping that their offering will make ODF look like the ugly sister - and in
many Microsoft-centric IT departments the Sun alternative might never be tried.
Mark H[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
I would suggest that since this is microsofts own translator, this is the kind
of thing that oasis needs to be aware of, i hope someone, or more than one will
inform them.
It clearly demonstartes how closed ms office really is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
... if needed.
---
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: billyskank on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
"Most people who are familiar with patents know it's not standard
operating procedure to list the patents," Markwith said. "The response of that
would be administratively impossible to keep up with."
From
News Picks: Microsoft
Too Busy To Name Linux Patents
Of course. That is because patents in
software are used by big players to keep new entrants and smaller competitors
out of the market. They cross-licence each other's patents, and they don't even
check which ones are being infringed.
It isn't about infringement. It is
a cartel.
--- It's not the software that's free; it's you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
They can convert to a Mickeysoft format, but they're absolutely horrible
at converting from a Mickeysoft format. Despite the fact that most
non-Mickeysoft formats are fully documented and open. Gee, I wonder why that
is.... Hence the well-deserved name "Mickeysoft". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
If ODF is mandated for a given situation, this sort of hostile interoperability
(from a former boss that coined the term 'hostile-cooperation') could hasten
MS-Office's decline. With ODF as any kind of standard at all, would you pay
$500 for an office suite that goes out of its way to be a pain to use or
download an international standard for free?
Just as XP helped Linux, MS-Office looks to be positioning itself to help
OpenOffice. (Despite the claims of a lot of MS fans, XP was a disgusting,
unreliable, temperamental piece of filth.)
mcinsand[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
...How good are Microsoft programmers? It has often been said that, whatever you
may think of the ethics of Microsoft as a company, Microsoft programmers are
among the best in the world. Maybe I actually thought that myself for a while.
It was difficult to argue the point in a casual, watercooler/coffee machine kind
of way because there is a substantial body of software from that company that
someone could point to and challenge you to say who has done better.
Now Microsoft has handed you that answer on a plate: MS programmers are among
the best on the planet! Then why is the ODF converter they wrote so amateurish?
MS Windows is so user friendly? Look at their ODF converter. MS engineers are
the masters of the user interface? Look at their ODF converter. Microsoft
understands the needs of the user? Just look at that abomination of an ODF
converter. Microsoft believes in interoperability? .... you get the idea.
Richard[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: prayforwind on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
I just linked to your article on the comments page. Your article here is
probably worth a thousand or more of our comments on their site.
You, Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman restore my faith in America (and it's
satellites including Canada) despite the antics of your current government.
---
jabber me: burySCO@jabber.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
"You cannot create a new ODF document from scratch in Word. If you try to
create a new document and save it to ODF format, you will get an error message,
telling you that you must first save the document. You must save the document
before you can save it? Yes, you must first save it to a temp file in a
natively-supported format like DOC before you can save it as ODF."
to ISO countries that are going vote on adopting microsoft xml format - this is
microsoft's idea of interoperability.
it is a one way bridge with them and always will be. it will never be two way.
please do not accept their xml format as standard - the world does not need a
6000 page standard that only one company could maybe fully implement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Tower of Babel - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:32 PM EDT |
brings back memories of what they did to users of Netscape on win98... they did
everything they could to keep making internet explorer the default browser so
that if you clicked on a link in a document or in an explorer window, ie would
open instead of the intended default browser...
they intended to beat users of other software into submission... so that they
would take the easy route
this is exactly the same behavior... there is absolutely no relevant reason why
the convertor couldn't have been properly integrated into the save menu and also
integrated so that .odt files would automatically open up in word via the
convertor... it's been made as deliberately awkward to use as possible. complete
with scary messages about potential lost formatting... the hooks are there in
office for this to have been done properly so that it would have been
transparent to the user and .odf would be a valid default format for saving
into.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
I think you meant B.A.D., as in Broken By Design.
The objective of this mess is to allow Microsoft to claim support of open
standards when selling their stuff to parties who require such, but also to make
the open standard support so difficult to use that everyone will give up and use
Microsoft's proprietary formats instead.
This is not a surprise. I think it's exactly what was expected.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: KhRyna72 on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT |
I don't know how else mentioned it, but they got 100+ comments starting from
may, 24. The proposal is available from 1th may, but they didn't get any
comments before the 24.
Up now, 2 "go ahead" comments, and 100+ against. I hope it will make a
difference.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:15 PM EDT |
We actually still have the same problem converting between 'punch-card' EBCDIC
and 'paper tape' ASCII.
Most of the conversion is straightforward. Letters, numbers, upper-case, spaces.
But things like curly brackets and square brackets are ambiguous.
Japanese characters needed a 'hack' to fit on punch-cards, and Chinese
characters don't go on punch-cards at all.
Sequence number in columns 73 to 80 ? Obvious for punch-card formats, pointless
for paper tape formats.
ODF and OOXML will never be perfectly inter-convertable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
PJ, Is WordPerfect still prevalent in the Legal community?
I heard anecdotal evidence that the legal community was one of the last to give
up WordPerfect because of its powerful features like automatic pleading creation
and such, and their vast library of documents in WordPerfect format.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- WordPerfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- WordPerfect - Authored by: PJ on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- WordPerfect - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 01:12 AM EDT
|
Authored by: sproggit on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
This isn't the first time that Microsoft has created a one-way converter in
order to be able to undermine competing software and technology.
In a sense, perhaps, the ODF community missed a trick here. Just as we have the
"Linux Standards Base" build, to which major distros are certified so
as users we can be assured of compatibility between versions, maybe we should
have included a "standards compliance test" for ODF converter
interoperability. With that - and a suitable set of demonstrably capable
alternatives [such as the KWord Converter and the OpenOffice Writer converter]
then it would have been readily simple to respond to this latest and inevitable
Microsoft move with a simple,
"Sorry, you failed again..." and move on.
Maybe it's time for ODF2?
But outside the specifics of this one particular dispute, this is not a new
tactic from Microsoft. It is, rather, yet another example of "Embrace,
Extend, Extinguish" - the trick they have used so well for too long now.
It's clear that no legislation is ever going to discourage them from this
behaviour. Firstly it would be hard to get any government to criminalize
incompetent programming, and, at the same time, if Microsoft want to build
defective software [even if it favours their own products] then it's unlikely
that any campaign-contribution-sponsored legislator is going to be persuaded
that any of this is fundamentally wrong.
Which brings me to the divide-and-conquer tactics that Microsoft have displayed
recently with their moves on Novell. It's clear to me that they are trying their
best to fracture and fragment the FOSS community. One of the best things about
ODF, from my perspective, was the fact that it actually brought open source
office tools closer together. It has enabled them all to band together [like a
fighting force] to take on Microsoft's dominance of the file format space.
So the best way to deal with or handle Microsoft when they play these silly
games is simply to give them a good stiff ignoring. Promote the ODF file format,
make darn sure than anything less than 100% 2-way file conversion capability is
defined as unacceptable in procurement contracts and then leave them be.
After all, how many times have you seen a vendor advertising a piece of software
and seen "Certified for use with Microsoft Windows" on the advert???
Maybe it's about time we had, "Certified 100% ODF compliant" as
well... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
..
Then watch out for those Monopoly converters.
They are more like enforcers. They enforce the Monopoly Party Line. They
continue to convert the helpless and ignorant to their monoculture. They come
in and join the pilgims that pray for openness, interoperability and standards
while they wear bomb-vests of betrayal. They lie. Their converters don't
convert. The programs don't interoperate. They propose a 7,000 page standard
that no one can implement, a standard that is not a standard.
They innovate lock-in and lock-out. Their spin doctors lie to your face. They
spin their conscience and then proclaim to the world that they want to promote
their open standard of interoperability when that is the last thing that they
want. So they obfuscate, innovate roadblock-obscurity and complexity, while
they proclaimn the opposite. It is not possible for any politician or
businessmen to face up to them.
"HP, Dell, Gateway and every other retailer recommends Monopoly
Vista." Of course they do. They have to say that to be permitted to make
money selling hardware. No one dare recommend anything else. It is a lie. It
is repeated endlessly to the masses. It is a mantra. It is brainwashing. It
reminds one daily of Monopoly power. One hopes it is not too late.
They determine who sells what hardware and software. The media is tied up too.
No one will confront the Chairman or the Chief. There is ad money they have to
worry about. There is charity money, too. BG won't have his feathers ruffled
on NPR. He will not be confronted on lies. "Why don't you implement
ODF?"
Would he ever candidly answer "That would hurt our business. We have to
destroy it." Imagine how much good it would do the world to have a
Standard, ODF or a truly open, implementable Monopoly one. Then the whole world
could play together. Technology would advance at relative light-speed.
Monopoly greed stands in the way. FUD, patent terror, false standards, lawyers,
enslavement of "partners", money, OOXML, political influence, ...the
politburo has innumerable weapons. "The imperial path is manifest. There
has not been such vistas since Rome."
The Monopoly sees standards and interoperability as being very simple:
MonopolyWare, hard and soft. One wonders if they are working on a deal with
Putin yet. That would be a fitting deal. They have a finger in every computer.
If they don't get their way, will they flick the switch?
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webmink on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
You might be interested in the full press
release about the
RedOffice announcement. It's about more than just
collaborating on the Chinese
version - it's a real boost for the OpenOffice.org
community.
The RedOffice developers have been a downstream-only version for
ages,
and this move sees them actually joining the OpenOffice.org community and
contributing their changes back upstream. More than that, they also are the
folks who implemented UOF in RedOffice, so having them in the community
bodes
well for the future. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: entre on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
After reading every word in this article and the respective posts it occurs to
me that no one should be surprised at this conversion process abortion by
Microsoft. My question is: Did anyone who reads this website expect any more
than this level of "compatibility"? I do not think so therefore, who
cares here on this website. It is a total waste of time with reader herein. Post
these efforts on sites that might make a difference. We here have all graduated
to true open standards!
ODF yes, ooxml or whatever the term is this week, NO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:11 AM EDT |
As an example that Microsoft can do nice(r) intergration if it wants to, you
should try opening a .docx (OpenXml) file in Word 2003.
I recived a .docx-file from a college and knowing that I had not installed the
latest version of MS Office, I tried to double click the attachment in Outlook
anyway. To my surprise a friendly dialog pops up, informing me that the file is
used Microsofts latests file format that my current version of Word doesn't
understand and ask me if I want to install a update (i.e. Word was already
associated with .docx-files and knew how to download the real converter, this
functionality might have been added by a minor update to word that don't need to
have been more than a few kilobytes). When I accept the update is downloaded,
installed and the document opens.
Of course the same experience could have be created for ODF files.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
The news from MS is that VBA is too hard to implement on the Mac so
starting with the next version of Office they are going to switch to Apple
Script.
Just think about this:
1) On Windows you do all your macros in VBA.
2) You send the file to Mac and none of the macros work.
3) You rewrite the macros in Apple Script.
4) You send the file back to Windows and none of the macros work.
Why is it that the OOo people can do VBA in OpenOffice and MS can't do it in
office. Even worse, the current version of Office supports VBA; so they
actually droping VBA support.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
What good is a one way translator? MS has this thing because they want you to
be able to convert a document to the ooxml format to verify it doesn't have any
virus. (Virus makes the doucument look corrupted.) Don't know what else makes
a document look corrupted, but whatever it is, if MS thinks there is a problem
with your document then forget it. They weren't worried about the old Mac
stuff, because if the word document had a virus and you got a buffer overflow,
the virus wouldn't run on the Mac. (Old Power PC chips don't execute them very
well for some reason.)
Recommendation: Trash MS Word!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
1. While the text says that the MS Word application will not be started by a
user double-clicking on a .odt document after merely installing the MS ODF
converter, if the user sets MS Word as the application to open .odt files using
the Tools : Folder Options : File Types in Windows Explorer, will MS Word with
the MS ODF converter then open a double-clicked .odt file?
2. Regardless of double-clicking, will the MS Word application with the MS ODF
converter installed correctly display a .odt file if the user drags the file's
icon to the Word application icon?
3. Similarly, if a Shortcut specifies the MS Word application with a .odt file
name as the parameter, will the converter-equipped application open the file?
(Note: I don't know for sure that this would work even with a .doc file, since
I don't have a copy of MS Word with which to try it.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Sunday, May 27 2007 @ 06:01 AM EDT |
That's what it sounds like.
For what it's worth, I've downloaded a
couple of files
called the OpenXML Writer, one a binary and the other the
source tree. They called it an Open Source project, but
until I asked, they
had no idea that they would have to
give an idea of what the license
was.
The binary won't run on MS Windows XP; the .csproj
and .sln files
won't load in MS Visual Studio 2005 C#.
I personally am starting to
think Microsoft's head
honchos have oversold the entire Microsoft Office Open
XML
aka ECMA 376 to their employees, and their poor programmers
are losing
faith in
the entire muddle. Meanwhile, people like Brian Jones are
pushing on
faithfully, trying to talk people into believing
that the whole thing isn't a
massive train wreck; and
people like minimsft's Who da'Punk are starting to
talk
about jumping.
Perhaps the best metaphor isn't the train wreck;
perhaps
it's the Hillbilly's Vasectomy. ;) --- 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|