|
|
| When Would You Use OOXML and When ODF? -- What is OOXML For? |
 |
|
Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:01 PM EDT
|
Can anyone tell me what OOXML is for, other than for opening legacy Microsoft documents? What else is it for? When would you choose OOXML and when would you choose ODF, if you were, let's say, a government or a government agency? ISO Directives, Part 2 "Rules for the
structure and drafting of International Standards" [PDF], section 6.2.1 reminds us that standards are voluntary, not requirements, for you and me.
But governments are in a different category. They can tell their employees what they can and can't use, what the entity will, or will not, use and in what circumstances. So when would you use ODF and when would you use OOXML in that sphere? I figured ISO should know. For ISO/IEC 29500 (formerly known as OOXML) the scope statement reads like this:
ISO/IEC 29500 defines a set of XML vocabularies for representing
word-processing documents, spreadsheets and
presentations. On the one hand, the goal of ISO/IEC 29500 is to be capable
of faithfully representing the preexisting
corpus of word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations that
had been produced by the
Microsoft Office applications (from Microsoft Office 97 to Microsoft
Office 2008, inclusive) at the date of the
creation of ISO/IEC 29500. It also specifies requirements for Office Open
XML consumers and producers. On the
other hand, the goal is to facilitate extensibility and interoperability
by enabling implementations by multiple
vendors and on multiple platforms. So, it's for the legacy documents, but it's also to "facilitate extensibility and interoperability by enabling implementations by multiple vendors and on multiple platforms." If interoperability is the goal, and for governments it is, does extensibility get in your way? What exactly does that last part mean? I understand in the commercial space what it would mean, but what about for governmental entities? When would you use ODF and when OOXML?
Ecma, when justifying the need for two standards in 2007, in view of the fact that ODF was already in existence, said this [PDF]:Although OpenXML and ODF are both intended to describe office documents,
each is designed to satisfy different user requirements. OpenXML has been
designed to be capable of faithfully representing the majority of existing
office documents in form and functionality. It is designed to replace
existing binary document formats with easily accessible, open formats to
meet a wide variety of user needs, formats which capture
identical information yet are extensively documented, and can be
implemented on a wide variety of operating systems and devices.
OK. So I get the legacy part. I always thought that ODF could do all that, if Microsoft would only have let it, but even if you accept that we really needed another standard for opening Microsoft legacy documents, is that all it's for? If not, what else is it for? It mentions interoperability but ODF does that too. What would you want OOXML for, instead of ODF, if interoperability is your goal?
I asked Alex Brown, convenor of the OOXML BRM, who is still trying to get it to actually work in the real world, when you would use OOXML (DS5900), which is now an American standard, and when would you choose ODF? Here's his answer:
It depends who "you" are. But for small software companies such as the
one I work in, we'd choose OOXML (or its forebears) when the customer is using
legacy MS binary stuff, or states they are using MS Office 2007 and an XML
software solution needs to support that.
We'd use (or I'd use) ODF when the customer was cool with that. I tend to prefer
using ODF because it's simpler to work with as XML, especially for simpler
documents. But it's "just stuff" at the end of the day, just another
XML flavour...
The reality is, at least in the UK, Germany and the US - where my customers are,
that the vast majority of users want to use (or are used to using, or have to
use) MS Office in its old, current and future versions, and so XML processing
toolchains will need to work with their documents.
That may of course change, but there is a clear anticipated market requirement
right NOW for OOXML -- which explains why most of the major IT markets on this
planet voted in favour of it, I should think.
- Alex I think there are other reasons, obviously, why they voted the way they did, but that didn't answer my real question, because he answered as to when *his* commercial company would choose one or the other. But what if you are a government or governmental agency? The idea of open standards in that space has to do with access, now and into the future, and interoperability. Then when would you choose one over the other in that noncommercial space? Rick Jelliffe recently said that OOXML "is fundamentally intended to document a format for a pre-existing technology and feature set of recent proprietary systems." Gulp. How is that a proper purpose for an "open" standard?
Well, leave that aside for the moment. Let's assume that you are a government or an agency and you really want to make sure all citizens can access documents and interface with them, including GNU/Linux users and Microsoft users? Then when would you use one or the other? And what if you had noticed that in the past Microsoft sometimes extended standards, like HTML, and then its monopoly position ensured that no one using the unextended standard could function properly any more, and you see that OOXML allows for proprietary, undocumented extensions. How would a government ensure that couldn't happen with open formats for documents? Does Microsoft's Sharepoint work with ODF or will we be shut out of that if we use GNU/Linux? If the latter, what good is OOXML or ODF? Even if you can put ODF documents into Sharepoint, what happens to the openness if they are stored in a proprietary container? Avoidance of lock-in is the goal, is it not? For us little people, I mean. I know Microsoft doesn't share my heart's desires. The whole point, or one of them, of ODF and OOXML, was supposed to be making sure our kids and grandkids can access our documents someday without any proprietary barriers. But is Sharepoint a proprietary barrier, as Matt Asay has been telling us for years now, and still is? If so, if you are a governmental entity that cares about true interoperability and open standards, what do you do about that?
Let's suppose it is Microsoft's goal to ensure it controls the Internet via Sharepoint, just for the sake of the discussion. Now what? What if you are a government or governmental agency? How do you ensure that future generations have access to today's documents? Which format would you use and when? Would they have to block Sharepoint in some way to reach their goal of openness? Or what?
Here's a presentation from Microsoft back when they were first explaining why there needed to be an OOXML. It's titled Ecma TC45 - Office Open XML Formats. I see on pages 7-9 several uses contemplated, beyond just opening legacy Microsoft documents, but which of them would apply to a government?
A Vision being realized
* The XML Dream – Changing the world of Information -
Data Interoperability at a universal scale
-
Databases, Connectivity, Services, Workflow, Documents
- Unified Vision - Documents and Data
- XML Community, SGML Community, ISO
- Charles Goldfarb, Jon Bozak, Tim Berners Lee, Many others
Microsoft Confidential
* Strategic Industry Alignment XML & XML Web Services standards
* Remove barriers to enable data interoperability e.g. across Documents & Servers
* Enabler for Mobile Devices, Multiple Form Factors
* Enable new scenarios - Document and Data intertwined
Shared service oriented architecture
(fx http, XML, SOAP, WSDL, UDDI)
XML Strategy
Built –by design– for Interoperability
Documents
Imagine a World of XML Documents
* Data access via spreadsheets, documents, presentations
* Backend LOB systems focused on integration via XML
* Content in formats drive everyday business processes
* More useful web services applications
* Millions of developers
* Smart workflow management
* Powerful content management
* Auditing, tracking, regulatory requirements
* Interoperability across groups, divisions, companies, products
* Public records maintenance
* Preservation of our written digital Heritage
A wide set of interests
A wide set of users
* Industry (e.g. Oil, Optics, Aeronautics)
* Service (e.g. Banking, …)
* Digital Archival (e.g. Libraries, Public Records)
* Software & Services (e.g. Vendors, Integrators)
* Regulatory Information (e.g. Governments)
* Various sizes of organizations (multinationals, medium or small businesses, individuals)
Obviously, you can see lots of commercial uses in their vision. But my question is more focused. Let's also assume that your goal is to make sure no one is unable to communicate equally with the governmental agencies no matter what operating system he or she uses. When would you use each? I know, of course, that the solution is for Microsoft to simply publish the specifications of their legacy formats, so ODF can natively do whatever OOXML can do, but hardy har to that dream. I know that won't happen, unless someone makes them. That's the elephant in the room, I'd posit. So *now* what will work, given a proprietary determination to avoid simple technical solutions? What is the best possible solution, given the restraints? Can anyone out there explain this to me? Microsoft folk? Anyone?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
| If needed, to assist PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Please try to make clickies where appropriate, and remember that preview is your
friend.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple sued over bogus legal threats - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Senuti ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 07:10 PM EDT
- Microsoft bob - Authored by: N_au on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Almost On Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 12:49 AM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 05:48 AM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 06:48 AM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 09:21 AM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: deck2 on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- Baffled - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 06:12 PM EDT
- Another indicator that Microsoft is in trouble. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 08:09 AM EDT
- Sort of Off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- Dr. Tanenbaum gets a grant - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- SeMinix? - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- SeMinix? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- SeMinix? - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 04:31 PM EDT
- Ignorance asks... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 10:49 AM EDT
- Spy versus spy - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 11:40 PM EDT
- UK government helps Phorm? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- Want to break Google CAPTCHA? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 05:20 AM EDT
- new HP laptop with optional SUSE linux - Authored by: IANALitj on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 09:02 AM EDT
- Steve Jobs SEC deposition - Authored by: emacsuser on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 10:44 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
It would be most helpful if you could indicate which Groklaw newspick item you
are referring to in the title of your post. Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
| I will kick off the discussion by suggesting that the entire purpose of OOXML
was to spoil uptake of ODF, a proper standard which the Monopoly does not
control. Note that I said was, as OOXML would seem to have negligible
uptake, and be doomed in the long term. Specifically, I do not use OOXML, but
I do use ODF and the legacy Word/Excel formats. ODF seems to me to work far
better when you have compound documents, typically pieces of spreadsheet
embedded in a document. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
So, it's for the legacy documents,...
Not
really. Legacy documents are actually in a totally different format. This OOXML
definition would presumably allow an application to
convert legacy documents into an equivalent document in an XML
based format.
The way things are now, only MS can perform the conversion
due to the undocumented, and possibly patented, pre-existing formats. And even
with the ISO standard, no one can perform that conversion, not even MS, because
of the errors, inconsistencies, and omissions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DebianUser on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
I don't think ODF really has much to do with the ability of
StarOffice/OpenOffice to handle legacy documents.
It interacts to the extent that certain structures are required to represent
the appearance of legacy documents, but the process of handling the binary
formats is done by a set of filter modules that do as well as they can with
little documentation and a lot of experience. The fact that this is a very hard
project accounts for the occurrence of MS Office documents that get a bit bent
out of shape going through the filter. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
I use ODF & PDF whenever possible and older MS Office formats when
necessary. I don't see any compelling need to use OOXML. I also encourage
others to use OpenOffice.org or the Sun ODF plugin, so that they can work with
ODF documents.
---
This LAN is your LAN, this LAN is my LAN...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
As far as I can see, the sole purpose of the OOXML standard is so that MS can
say that Office is standards based. For those government agencies that care to
look no further, MS will probably have a sale. I believe that MS hopes those
agencies will be as plentiful as countries willing to vote Yes on the standard.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
In trying to select a file format, it seems there should be two primary goals.
The first would be the ability to read the electronic file at some undetermined
time in the distant future (e.g. 30 or so years from now). Assuming technology
may change, one would prefer a solution with enough information available so a
"reader" could be reconstructed to open the file, given the necessary
technical expertise to access the standard and create a program. Basically, if
all current word processing programs no longer existed and you came across a
circa 2009 file, could you find enough info about the standard to reconstruct a
word processor(or filter) that could open the file. At the present time, most
of what I'm aware of is focused on approval of the PDF/A format for archival
purposes.
The second issue would be the ability of the government agency's users (i.e.
taxpayers) to be able to read the file without incurring any additional cost.
Basically, someone shouldn't have to go out and buy some piece of software in
order to read a government file. Those even mildly cognizant of this seem to
use PDF for this purpose since there are many free (and multi-platform) readers
available.
I suspect that in most cases, even if there is some attention being paid to
these issues, they frequently get trumped by internal business requirements
(which basically translates to, everyone else uses MS Office so I'm going to as
well).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 05:16 PM EDT |
There may be something usefull on tha stack of telefone lists that is OOXML. But
until somebody goes out and implement it, I guess it won't be usefull for
anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
As far as I can understand, it is all the binary blobs in OOXML so for things
like windows metafiles, visio drawings, and the dozens of other brain-damaged
formats embedded in earlier versions of office, instead of converting to some
ISO or other standard (PNG, TIFF, SVG, maybe PDF), they can just add an XML tag
for the blob and encode it in base-64 or something and leave the legacy junk
as-is.
It defeats the purpose since all this junk isn't part of OOXML, but the
bait-and-switch seems to be part of the reason for OOXML.
Someone or some group needs to come up with a full and accurate implementation
of an OOXML viewer (or convert to PDF or similar) exactly as the spec says it
should AND NOT ONE BIT MORE.
Then put the output of whatever through it and see what it looks like. If there
are a bunch of boxes saying "EXTRANEOUS LEGACY FORMAT" in red, then
they should stop using whatever is generating it.
Converting to ODF means doing the conversion. (There might be some way to have
X generate a PDF then check a converted ODF to PDF to check the fidelity). If
the media isn't external and linked, or somehow embedded, it is converted into
something open.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
I wouldn't use OOXML out of preference for text documents, but for spreadsheets
it's much easier to use, and it's very common to create those types of files
from databases/etc.
At the end of the day, it depends where the data is going though. The format is
irrelevant, because they're basically equivalent. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
I always use ODF. I'll use OOXML when:
1) it is not dictated by Microsoft,
2) it can pass the standards process with out the help of Microsoft's dishonest,
disingenuous, and illegal activities,
3) it is truly open.
Until then, I have no need for OOXML and would not recommend anyone use it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
Only justified.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Why even ask the question? It's very straight forward.
Would anyone want to risk hard earned hours of creating documents by trusting
MS?
A company engaged in unlawful business methods since Bill Gates started out, a
company to trust?
I think not.
Anyones best investment right now, specially in recession times, is to go
through the somewhat painful exercise of converting legacy MS formats to
ODF&PDF. Coming out of the recession, you'd be happier and richer, having
slipped out of monopoly lock-in.
If you don't mind paying the extortion bent monopoly, and think that
white-collar crime is not a biggie, go ahead, waste your life locked to MS.
I'm living a MS-free life and that's why I'm a -
/Happy Ubuntu user
p.s. Specially happy now, with 9.04. Man, it's snappy! Great performance
improvement! d.s.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 07:43 PM EDT |
You choose OOXML for new documents when you want to extend proprietary lock-in
to XML documents. This is extremely undesirable and defeats the purpose of XML
but most people will do it anyway because they are sheep.
You choose ODF when you want interoperability with everyone on every platform.
This is highly desirable but no one will do it because they don't know how.
The flavour of a government and the ways it chooses to exercise it's power can
change considerably between governments. Witness Bush vs Obama. In the Canadian
system the departments that exist can change from one government to the next so
any document system must be extremely flexible. Generally products with lock-in
are not flexible so OOXML fails on that count. Things that are complicated are
also not flexible so OOXML fails there too. Things that are patent encumbered
are not flexible, OOXML fails there.
Things that are open, simple, free, unencumbered by patents and available from
many suppliers are flexible and ideal for use in government. For all these
reasons I find it hard to believe that any competent government would decide to
use OOXML for document retention. On the other hand, political interference can
dictate what is used but it would be an uphill battle.
Outside of political interference it is difficult to believe that any competent
government would decide to adopt OOXML for document retention. It simply isn't
the right tool for that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
| Given that OpenOffice is better at working with legacy MS Office file formats
(and non-MS formats such as WordPerfect) than current versions of MS office, ODF
is probably the best choice if you're intending to work with an old archive of
files.
Since ODF is a much cleaner XML implementation and has multiple
implementations (including plugins for MS Office), this is probably a much
better choice if you're looking for wide access, portability and ability to be
used with XML tools.
OOXML is most useful if you're looking for
compatibility with non-existant implementations. Microsoft's (non)use of this
standard should be looked on as exemplary. ---
Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CraigAgain on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
. . . by trying to come up with as many bona fide uses for OOXML as possible.
First . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . Okay, so far I got nuthin.'
---
Don't change your dreams to fit reality. Change reality to fit your dreams.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Short answer: when you're an organization that (by law or policy decree)
must use an international standard as your default document format and
you don't want to change from Microsoft Office as your standard office suite.
This is OOXML's intended use, and it's perfectly suited for it.
For any
other uses, ODF is probably a better choice. As XML it's got a cleaner,
easier-to-deal-with schema, and it's usable by a wider range of software with
fewer interoperability glitches. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 27 2009 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
"...when the customer is using legacy MS binary stuff, or states they are
using MS Office 2007..."
There you have it, OOXML is so you can have interoperability between MS
documents and MS documents. Well, at least it will be when (if) MS gets around
to implementing it. And after you run their conversion utility.
What more could you ask for in an "open" format?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:21 AM EDT |
Never OOXML, always ODF.
We pimary use PDF for communication with outside world, internally we use
whatever we like and since we don't have MS Office 2007 / 2008 we don't use
OOXML (which btw. is not the ISO 29500 OOXML).
My personal advice is: Do not use OOXML before Microsoft implements ISO 29500,
if you do you will end with documents that only can be read properly by MS
Office 2007.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:28 AM EDT |
| In the Powerpoint PJ cited, Microsoft lists the following exact reasons to use
OOXML:
1. Guarantee continuous use of the existing base of Microsoft
Office documents without losing any of the functionalities.
2. Document all
the options, properties, formatting, layout and other information of the
existing Microsoft Office document base using the W3C XML 1.0 language.
3.
Guarantee interoperability by enabling standard-based XML 1.0 tools to create,
read and write files conforming to the standardized file format.
4. Support
the needs of governments and businesses to archive and preserve documents using
an Open Standardized Format.
5. Enable standard transformations using W3C
XSLT (or similar techniques) to extract or repurpose information from the file
format.
6. Support integration of custom defined schemas.
Let's see
some serious commentary on whether these are valid uses or not. And is there
anything in the above that OOXML can do which ODF is incapable of? I'll give it
a start:
1. Guarantee continuous use of the existing base of Microsoft
Office documents without losing any of the functionalities.
Is this
really true? I thought OOXML does a pretty crappy job of converting Microsoft
binary documents.
2. Document all the options, properties, formatting,
layout and other information of the existing Microsoft Office document base
using the W3C XML 1.0 language.
What is the need for this? Governments
only archive a tiny percentage of their documents. And can't PDF or PDF/A do
this?
3. Guarantee interoperability by enabling standard-based XML 1.0
tools to create, read and write files conforming to the standardized file
format.
Guarantee interoperability with what? Other OOXML files? This
reason is incomprehensible. If anything, doesn't having a second XML-based
document file magnify non-interoperability and force everyone to do extra work
trying to make sure ODF and OOXML files translate each other?
4. Support
the needs of governments and businesses to archive and preserve documents using
an Open Standardized Format.
Isn't ODF an "open standardized format"?
Isn't a Microsoft binary document an open standardized format now that its specs
are public? Why couldn't just these two types of formats (plus PDF) be
archived?
"5. Enable standard transformations using W3C XSLT (or similar
techniques) to extract or repurpose information from the file
format."
There are easier ways to extract data from Microsoft binary
files than by converting them first to a new XML format, aren't
there?
"6. Support integration of custom defined schemas."
Once
and for all, is this Microsoft approach of using custom schemas a valid
approach, or not? Most XML experts would argue this is a nightmare approach
needlessly increasing complexity. Are there better approaches? What does ODF
use, Namespaces or something?
Come on Groklawrians, let's see you rise to
the challenge on this one. The above are the exact reasons Microsoft says OOXML
is needed and these are what it should be used for. So, are these reasons
valid, or not? Can you refute Microsoft's list? If not, then I guess there is
a need for OOXML in the marketplace. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 02:12 AM EDT |
I believe the primary use case for OOXML is to be able to tab into the existing
monopoly of Microsoft Office - without loosing data, formatting and
functionality.
Do note that this has nothing to do with liking one more
than the other. It is a simply assessment of which "hammer is bigger" to bring
down the monopoly.
Jesper Lund Stocholm
idippedut.dk
JTC1/SC34 WG4
PS:
Pamela, what happened to creation of my account on Groklaw?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
| Wrong question! So I will answer my own.
First, I will point out the error
in the question. It is not possible to use OOXML and probably never will
be.
Now a brief saunter through what we know. The legacy formats are just
popped into an OOXML wrapper. It's like putting a hieroglyphic writing into a
Fedex parcel when you are the only one with the Rosetta Stone to decode it. Just
because you understand how the wrapper works does not mean that you will be able
to make sense of the enclosed hieroglyphs. So, even if you pop a legacy
Microsoft document into the OOXML wrapper, you will still need the very latest
version of Microsoft Office to look at the contents and you may not succeed even
then.
Now to my question,
When Would You Employ OOXML and
When ODF? -- What is OOXML For?
You would employ ODF when you
wanted to create and edit documents in an xml-based format that can be shared
with millions of other people around the globe. Because it is fully defined in
the ISO standard, it has the potential to be viewable and editable on many
different computer platforms and applications whilst still maintaining the
intended layout. Because it is xml-based, many text processing programs, like
search and text file analysis programs, can be used on the file to view, add or
change the contents. You might note that this is not possible on, for instance,
the xml spreadsheets from the latest Microsoft Office suite.
You would
employ OOXML when you wanted to make prospective clients believe the
following,
Because it is an international standard, the documents will work
on many platforms and many programs and you can be sure all the companies you do
business with will be able to use them.
Because it is an international
xml-based standard, you will always be able to recover the content even when the
latest version of Microsoft Office no longer supports that version.
Because
the format is a published international standard it makes legacy Microsoft
documents available to view and edit even if you are not a user of the very
latest Microsoft Office suite.
You would employ OOXML to lock companies,
world-wide, into your proprietary and partially closed format thus forcing them
to continually upgrade their Microsoft Office suites to keep them
supported.
You would employ OOXML to threaten other software creators with
undeclared software patents should they produce a competing product especially
if it could decipher OOXML-like document formats.
You would employ OOXML to
force businesses and governments to upgrade their office suites when the upgrade
is less effective for them than their existing suite.
You would employ OOXML
to get countries and companies with a policy to employ international standards
to buy your office suite which is designed to obviate the impact on your company
of customers using international standards.
You know, reading the answers
back to myself sounds like a horrendous rant, but I went out of my way not to
use emotive language. I'm sure that should tell me
something.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 07:28 AM EDT |
What is OOXML for?
OOXML is an attempt to preserve the MS
Office monopoly.
Microsoft Office is said to generate roughly half of
Microsoft's revenue (of about $60 billion per year) and roughly half of
Microsoft's profits (of about $17 billion per year). So the MS Office
monopoly is worth roughly $8.5 billion more, per year, to Microsoft than it
is currently spending on marketing efforts. And Microsoft's marketing
expenditure is huge: its last annual report shows it is spending about twice as
much on selling and marketing than on software development.
In a world in
which software-purchasing decisions were rational, that $8.5 billion per
year would fall to about $80 million/year, assuming that as many as 1% of
Microsoft Excel users have foolishly made themselves dependent on Excel-specific
formulas and VB scripts. Alternative software that meets the needs of the other
99% of Microsoft Office costs nothing.
To protect the (roughly) $8.4
billion of excess profit, it would be rational for a corporation that was
motivated solely by profit (without any ethical restraints) to spend up to
$8 billion more per year on buying helpful influence and legislation,
including but not limited to "campaign donations", subornation of public
officials, bribery of influential people in standards organizations,
under-the-table deals with executives of large corporations, etc and, last but
not least, covering up those activities thoroughly.
We don't know how
much money Microsoft is spending on those activities today. But it could afford
to increase that expenditure by up to $8 billion per year.
$8
billion per year is lot of money.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
When would I use OOXML? When forced to by someone else.
I'm using OO.o here at home and I have no plans to switch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
Dear Dough Mahugh...
PJ has raised a very valid point; once all the marketing hype has been peeled
off, what is the rationale for using OOXML.
It is a fairly simple question and one that you, more than most, is in a
position to answer.
I look forward to your answer
Tom
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emacsuser on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
"On the other hand, the goal is to facilitate extensibility and
interoperability by enabling implementations by multiple vendors and on multiple
platforms"
What it's for is to continually 'extend' the formats so
as the other developers will continually have to play catchup and thereby keep
control of the specs.
"OSS projects have been able to gain a
foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly
commoditized, simple
protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new
protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- In other words - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
PJ,
Please let me explain my answer of "Never".
OOXML is a document standard intended to document the Microsoft current
products. However currently Microsoft does not have a product that meets the
existing OOXML standard.
Further, OOXML does not document the new Microsoft products, using XML.
Office 2007 does not meet this standard, because OOXML was not intended to
document the newest version of their software.
To the best of my knowledge, there is currently no product anywhere that
actually meets the OOXML standard.
When opening .doc files, I currently use OpenOffice.org. The version I have
will not open .docx files. For those, to read them I use Google docs. In the
event I will again have an employment position using Microsoft Office, I will be
using a product that does not meet the OOXML standard.
I have yet to see any OOXML validation test for any product. It is way to
early for such a validation test to exist.
I hold in high regard those individuals who are actually trying to build a
product they can document as meeting the OOXML standard. They have an
incredibly difficult task before them.
Respectfully,
Out of work and using tools that are available in order to get by.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sgtrock on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 11:42 AM EDT |
You've fallen for classic misdirection by Microsoft. You
asked:
Can anyone tell me what OOXML is for, other than for opening
legacy Microsoft documents?
What everyone in the debate seems to
have forgotten is that OOXML cannot open legacy Microsoft documents and never
will. An _application_ can open a file format when the _application_
understands the file format. Therefore, OOXML will _never_ open .DOC, .XLS,
.PPT, etc. An application which can open OOXML can also be designed to open
those legacy formats.
Hmmm... Gee, ya think maybe we could do the same thing
with an application capable of opening ODF docs? Maybe there's even a vendor or
six out there who does that today! :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Benanov on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
A company that starts fresh will probably want to use ODF. It's a lot cleaner
and a lot easier to process.
Someone who's upgrading existing binary-only MSO documents will probably want to
keep OOXML.
However, there's no better time to re-evaulate things than a necessitated format
switch. Doesn't make it any less painful, but sometimes you need to blow the
dust off and see what's changed since that document was created.
---
--BK
FSF Member, gNewSense user, Ubuntu user
That popping sound you hear is just a paradigm shifting without a clutch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
Q: When Would You Use OOXML?
A: At the moment, you can't. At least, not until Alex Brown "fixes"
OOXML so it describes the past, present and future-moving-target design aspects
of various versions and flavours of Microsoft's Office software. Good luck with
that. It will take more than just dumping the help files.
Q: When Would You Use ODF?
A: Any time you want, like right now, or tomorrow, or in 30 years' time to
update a document you modified last year, for instance.
Q: What is OOXML For?
A: Only Microsoft knows all the answers to that one, but being an open standard
suitable for all comers to save, archive and exchange documents that others will
be able to subsequently use isn't really one of them. I think the unstated
answers Microsoft knows of mostly boil down to: $.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
Q: when would you use OOXML ?
A: only when bribed to by M$; or when you are too stupid to know any better.
Sorry if anyone finds the above offensive, but it's the truth.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 28 2009 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
You all seem to be forgetting that the vast majority of document &
spreadsheet creating users use MS Office and, since most of the people they work
with also use MS Office, they are going to be using OOXML. So long as MS Office
doesn't open ODF by default, and you are wanting to send these people editable
documents, it means you'll be using OOXML too. Short sighted? Yes, but it's also
short sighted thinking these people care enough about document formats to behave
any differently. Theoretical arguments don't change the facts on the ground.
Remember Betamax? Technically superior and yet ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Reality - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 05 2009 @ 03:55 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
PJ, I think the answer to your question is best phrased
as a list of
questions. All of these questions come
after you've decided what to do
with all that legacy
.doc and .xlx and .ppt data:
- What sorts of
data do I plan to express?
- Can ODF express each one well? Can
OOXML?
- Which applications are my data creators and my data
consumers most
familiar with?
- Which applications have all the features we want?
- Of the
above applications, how many support ODF? How
many support OOXML?
- Do we
plan to programmatically search or manipulate the
data? If yes, lets get some
developer input here.
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. In
short,
I don't think there is some simple answer which can be
expressed as a
rule of thumb - not yet anyway. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
Who out there is using the features of Microsoft XML to good effect?
And what would you say is the best advantage you have found thus far in using
it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 29 2009 @ 07:18 AM EDT |
If you're sitting on a huge archive of .doc, .xls and .ppt files that you
seriously want to preserve for the ages, then you should convert them to OOXML
and ODF and PDF and plain text and save all the
images as uncompressed TIFF. Storage is cheap. Or don't bother: lots of people
won't so there will be plenty of demand for .doc conversion services in the
future.
If, however, you're trying to decide what format to use for
new files then the legacy compatibility of OOXML is irrelevant, so you're
free to try and predict the future.
My cynical view: given the track record
on file compatability, whatever format you choose, 20 years from now you'll be
pleasantly surprised if you can extract the raw, unformatted text from your old
files.
Or, there's always LaTeX :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 07 2009 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
As a small/mid-sized company we often need larger partners (Microsoft or Oracle
or Accenture, etc) to partner with when we go for large contracts.
This, IMHO, is why *all* microsoft technologies survive - not ust their document
formats.
When they say "use SQL Server" we use it regardless of if it's
marginally worse technologically than Oracle and worse financially than
Postgres.
When they say "use IIS and dotnet" we use it despite it taking twice
as long to develop as a php or rails or python solution would.
When they say "use OOXML" we'll use it so long as thats what it takes
to keep their lobbyists pushing our partnership.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
