Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Votes to Add ODF to ANSI Standards List
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu May 17, 2007 12:57 PM
from the curiouser-and-curiouser dept.
from the curiouser-and-curiouser dept.
RzUpAnmsCwrds writes "In a puzzling move, Microsoft today voted to support the addition of the OpenDocument file formats to the American National Standards List. OpenDocument is used by many free-software office suites, including OpenOffice.org. Microsoft is still pushing its own Office Open XML format, which it hopes will also become an ANSI standard. Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF, or is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?"
Related Stories
[+]
OOXML Won't Get Fast-Track ISO Standardization 165 comments
realdodgeman writes "The International Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) recently held an internal poll to determine the position that the United States should take on Microsoft's request for Office Open XML (OOXML) approval. With eight votes in favor, seven against, and one abstention, the group was one vote short of the nine votes required for approving OOXLM ISO standardization. This will mean a huge slowdown to the standardization to the OOXML format. 'Given the controversial nature, relative complexity, and significant importance of the standard, the results of INCIT's vote is unsurprising. An INCITS technical committee also voted against fast-track OOXML approval last month prior to the executive board's vote. Further deliberation is clearly needed as well as further refinement of the format. It seems as though many of the organizations participating in the approval process are generally supportive of the standard itself, but are unwilling to voice unconditional support until their concerns are resolved. OOXML may be down, but it's certainly not out.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
My Name Is Bill (Score:5, Funny)
Come on, couldn't you see Ballmer playing Randy?
--Greg
Re:My Name Is Bill (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The same thing will happen with ODF as more word processors pick it up. Every word processor has its little 'extra' features for which a different file format has no support. As an example, ODF only supports an extremely simplistic way of 'tracked changes' th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My Name Is Bill (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if rtf was the default file type for saving in word everybody would be using it.
I just hope that ODF being standard kind of forces MS to have it as default filetype for file-save else it would just be a meaningless standard, seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So let's talk about poorly thought out responses, shall we?
Its Obvious (Score:2)
Publicity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Publicity? (Score:4, Insightful)
MS was scared by this, as Office wasn't designed around it, so they're trying to put themselves in a position where they can supply what the governments want AND fulfill legislative requirements. They've learned that from the ongoing EU dispute, imo.
The fact that they're still pushing for their own format just shows that they want to retain dominance in the office world, and perhaps regain complete monopoly of the office programs suite. However, it's going to be harder and harder, as OpenOffice will implement a way to read and write MS's XML format, since it HAS to be documented if MS intends to satisfy government customers.
It's a business move, nothing less! I just hope that OpenOffice will catch up on the feature list quickly (there's some basic stuff that OO's still missing) so that the decision really does come down to TCO for the IT managers, and then OO will truly shine, as there is no license fee, only support cost, and I'm guessing it'll be cheaper than MS Office support.
Just my $0.02 of opinion on this matter.
Parent
Not necessarily. (Score:3, Informative)
As can be seen with their current "standard", they can just cite "behave the same way as MS Word version X.y.z on OS a" and claim that it is "documented".
Since Microsoft is the only ones who REALLY know how that behaviour was implemented, they'll be the only one who can write a compleat implementation.
Just as the situat
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is the predominant supplier, and if other programs don't work with Office, MS will claim that it's "inferior" code, that the *other* programs don't follow standards, and the people in management will buy that BS because they've been dealing with MS for ever. It's sad, really, that we lack properly educated IT people. IT is not just about understanding machines, it's also understanding humans who try to sell you machines or software that runs on those m
*I* will trash OpenOffice.org; no need for MS Word (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, if you think it's due to MS Word that OOo looks bad, try this one on for size: a document saved as ".odt" with OpenOffice.org v2 for Linux (Kubuntu) is mangled when opened in OpenOffice.org v2 for Windows (Win2k). There was no MS Word involved anywhere.
This was a document for which formatting was important: I had designed a greeting card to be printed onto thick paper and folded into quarters, so positioning was critical. I did this on my Linux box, but the printer was hooked up to the wife's box, and she only wants Windows on it. I saved the file on Kubuntu, FISh'd it over to the Win2k box and opened it, and the text formatting had screwed up, spilling over onto the next page.
If OpenOffice.org can't standardize their own document formatting, what's the point having a standard like ODF in the first place? (I finally exported to PDF in order to get it onto the Win2k box without messing it up.)
I'm grateful to Sun for all the contributions they've made to Open Source, but I have to say, OOo is a steaming pile of crap.
Okay, that was a bit too blunt, and I'm glad they have an integrated office suite with spreadsheet, presentation application, I appreciate the work they've put into this, grateful that they distribute OOo under an Open Source license, etc. etc., so let me do my best to be more subtle.
Erm, er, OpenOffice is
Sorry. I tried.
Parent
Probably wouldn't have happended if it was close (Score:5, Insightful)
PR stunt. (Score:5, Insightful)
But still, as long as customers dont know the difference between interoperability and "microsoft compatibility" they win these games. Sad.
Peaceful Co-existence? Gimmeabreak! (Score:4, Insightful)
MS Open XML is NOT a standard.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Until each and every thing in the standard is properly defined and explained, it is not a standard.
Sheesh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even paranoids have real enemies (Score:3, Insightful)
This vote is good for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
This vote is good for Microsoft. It can work this way. With ODF on the list, and later with others like PDF on the list, plus their own OOXML added to the list, it can make the list itself look legitimate. Then they will argue that governments can meet their obligations for open documents by choosing any one format from the list, making it seem that OOXML will be at least as good a choice as ODF.
semantic retardation .. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is a "Standard [case.edu]
"Is Microsoft serious about supporting ODF", NO
"is this a merely a PR stunt to make Office Open XML look more like a legitimate standard?", YES
Red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't whether M$ supports a standard's adoption. They supported HTML but...
Remember: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
Plus, then they will "comply to open standards" removing a EU/Mass./Whoever-else objection to using their software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE, Firefox, and Opera all support XSLTProcessor. Safari is the odd man out, failing to support it at all.
It's disingenuous to say that FF, Opera and Safari are all pretty much equivilent and IE is the one with all the weird exceptions. In fact, it's more accurate to say Safari is the weird browser. Safari's javascript is at
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From the CSS selectors tests:
Firefox passes 357 tests
Safari passes 336 tests
IE7 passes 330 tests
Mysterious flying chair homicide in Seattle (Score:4, Funny)
This subject is boring (Score:3, Insightful)
a) develop compatibility to the standard.
b) develop MS-only standard enhancements/extensions.
c) Argue against ODF adoption in government because of deficiencies frozen into the standard.
d) Release an upgrade to office that contains document formatting features not available within the ODF standard.
Funny how MS gets an instant bad wrap (Score:3, Informative)
Possible reason for this: They have been around for thirty years, and in all that time, they have ALWAYS had a devious secret strategy to achieve world domination!
On with the speculation!
Obviously they're just doing this to make themselves look better when it comes time to vote for OOXML!
Re: (Score:2)
YES!
Wait, this is Slashdot.
YES!
Do I even need to ask this question, or do I just like to watch myself type?
YES!
So, I'm just gonna post now, and I suppose you'll see it as you refresh every 10 seconds awaiting responce. Please post back, as I'm refreshing every 10 seconds awaiting for responce too!
THANKS!
If Bill gave *me* all his money ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why would it be puzzling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Microsoft does stand in the way of ODF adoption, just not of it becoming a recognized and official standard. I can see some good reasons from a PR standpoint to go this route. With Microsoft, you have to be very careful with the word "standard." MS is all in favor of standardization. They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards. When most people think of a standard, they think of something like SAE bolt specifications; something anyone can make standardized for the purpose of allowing interoperability. Everyone can see the benefit of such a standard for the construction industries, manufacturers, and end users.
When MS talks about standards, however, they are more commonly referring to something where they are the sole gatekeeper, and often the sole creator of items that follow said "standard." OpenXML, for example, is not a "standard" in the same way ODF is and it sure doesn't bring end users the lion's share of the benefits normally associated with what we call an open standard. This is because of the application of patents, the ties to secret information, because it is copyrighted, and because MS has a monopoly in the desktop OS space, a "standard" from MS is not just a "standard" as it would be referred to in most other industries. You could call ISO 898, industry members believing there is room for more than one bolt standard, because that is what ISO 898 is, another standard equivalent to SAE. Saying, however, that OpenXML, is just another standard is misleading to the majority of people, because openXML and ODF are not equal, in terms of what sort of standardization benefits they bring to the industry.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
They fight tooth and nail against anything that gives users most the benefits of open standards.
I'm not sure what you me
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, unless there are things like "Specifies whether to layout footnotes as is done in Word 6.0/95 and Word 7.0/97" [rep.oio.dk], where the implementation to be copied is protected by copyright and, therefore, secret.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why would it be puzzling? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. I've followed this battle in pretty close detail. My observation is that Microsoft has only stood in the way of ODF being adopted to the exclusion of any other format. They seem to be perfectly happy with any case where ODF and other standards being allowed.
ODF is not supported by MS in Word natively. Thus, ODF adoption usually means MS is losing a sale. Further, it means it is easier for their customers to migrate away from MS Office. You really don't think MS is doing anything to stop people from moving to ODF. You don't think they're offering price cuts to stop migrations away from MSOffice to say Openffice and ODF?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I highly doubt your premise. Sure, Microsoft wants standards to benefit itself, but you claim that Microsoft is gainst anyone else benefitting from them.
Open standards traditionally bring certain benefits including:
All of these things are benefits MS would prefer their customers did not have, because MS is overwhelmingly the leader in the market, possibly (probably) to the extent of weilding monopoly influence in the word processor market.
Funny you should mention that. How many different standards are there for bolts? Several.
Umm, what is the point of your comment? You're just repeating exactly what I present an example of. The point is, when you talk about ISO and SAE standards for bolts, you're comparing similar items from the perspective of the industry and of the end user. When you're talking about ODF and and OpenXML you're talking about items that are very, very different in the benefits they bring to the industry and end user. Now it would probably be better for the industry and end user if either SAE or ISO won the war and was the only remaining standard for that type of bolt size, but it doesn't much matter which one from an objective perspective. Both would and currently do provide similar benefits. This is absolutely positively not the case when comparing ODF and OpenXML.
ODF is no more "open" than OXML is.
Yes, it is.
It too is covered by patents (and required a patent covenant by Sun, just like OXML).
The restrictions needed to get patent protection from Sun are the same as PDF from Adobe, you just have to follow the spec. That is not the case with MS. Technically, there is nothing stopping MS from releasing a new version of OpenXML and telling all current software vendors implementing it that they are no longer in compliance with the license since they implement the "old" version and shutting down each and every competitor. That is not the case with ODF.
It too is largely championed by a single organization (in this case Sun), with several other organizations involved.
No, ODF is currently implemented by software from dozens of companies and no one company can stop another from implementing the spec. So long as they are following the spec there is nothing Sun can do, including releasing a new version of the spec, to stop someone like the WrodPerfect team from implementing it.
BTW, the very definition of a patent means the information is not secret. You might want to re-evaluate your argument.
Those were separate list items. Note the comma. OpenXML is encumbered by patents that can still be brought to bear. Additionally, OpenXML is tied by trade secrets. Parts of the spec refer to trade secrets and copyrighted implementations of other works. For example, in some instances it refers to behavior "like Word version X" but since only MS has the source to Word version X and it is both copyrighted and a trade secret, no one else can fully implement that part of the spec.
Ok, then you should
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you aware that Word 2007 supports ODF? Not out of the box, but it's on the list of supported add-ons...
Yes. The thing is, the move to ODF is usually motivated by a desire for vendor choice in office suites, and that usually means someone has a pain point that is the current version of MSOffice not being the right fit for at least some applications within the organization. MS would rather those people stay MSOffice customers because that is in MS's best interest, even if it obviously is not in the customer's best interest.
Why would they do this?
First MS did not "do this" several plug-ins were developed by a third parties like
Since when? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is totally out of character for MS, though the only issue that I can see, is that now MS will be allowed to push through a number of mods that will allow their proprietary EE
Microsoft hasn't stood in the way of ODF at all??? (Score:5, Informative)
Then what the hell happened in Massachusetts wanted to switch to ODF?? Here's a long-winded citation: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/origi
No, they'll do what they already do with everything that's not a
Parent
Re:Why would it be puzzling? (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree. The purpose of standards is not to create something that everybody uses. Rather, it's to sufficiently document something such that anybody could use it. A diverse collection of competing standards is nothing new [wikipedia.org]. If one standard becomes dominance, there are nice efficiencies that you get, but it's not the purpose of standards -- it's just the gravy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a specification not a standard. I know that 'standards organizations' like ANSI and ISO make the arrogant assumption that they are defining standards but specifications they release are NOT standards unless they are actually adopted by the industry. The specifications these organizations release are supposedly developed by members of the industry who by participating are giving implicit agreement to adhere to the standa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's "the" standard webserver?
What's "the" standard OS?'
Yup, that would be why they aren't standards.
Re:Why would it be puzzling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead examples should be networking protocols, spoken/written language, mobile phone protocols, DVD formats etc. Things which are designed to convey information. These are all highly standardised.
Parent
Re:Why would it be puzzling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same with the OS. The OS should follow the standard POSIX calls (which Windows sorta manages to do), and so on.
As for programming languages.. well that's too broad. For particular languages, there are standards. There is a standard for C, there is a standard for C++, and so on.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1003.1c-1994 (real-time extensions and threads). Thus it had to be in Windows 3.0 or 3.1 because for years is at least two years and NT came out in 1993, which is too late.
And fork() is not that bad if done right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no standard web server, but there is a standard http protocol for processing web requests.
You seem to be confusing standards with implementations of standards, or software written as to take advantage of a known standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the standard hair color?
Oops, forgot the quotes, let's try that again.
What's "the" standard hair color?
What's "the" standard shape for snowflakes?
What's "the" standard DNA sequence?
That's better. It doesn't improve the argument though; listing things that don't need standards doesn't mean that standards are neither useful nor desirable in other areas.
What's "the" standard Shoe size?
Obviously there isn't one. But if you buy a pair of sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more tha
Re:Don't we have 2 http standards? 5 TCP/IP standa (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those distros and GUI's adopt standards that allow them to all interoperate and exchange information. A document format is a means of storing and conveying information. All means of storing and conveying information should be standardized. It makes sense to have different document creation applications but they should all store the results in the same format so that your preferred application is interoperable with mine.
Parent
Onus is on you. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm genuinely curious.
I've yet to see any compelling reasons to use OOXML, and there are a lot of compelling reasons in favor of ODF (open format, relatively simple spec, many existing implementations with open codebases, etc.) and none in favor of OOXML.
The only things I've ever seen in OOXML that don't exist in ODF are the 'Microsoft braindeath compatibility features'; the tags that say "Do spacing like Word 95!" and can only ever be implemented by Microsoft, b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OOXML mirrors the Microsoft Office Word 2007 word processor.
Each format has support for the respective features of each applications and either nothing or not a lot more.
If ODF doesn't support something, it's usually because OpenOffice.org doesn't support it. Two features I know of (because we discussed them in our implementation of the OpenDocument filter):
1. Tracked changes in OpenOffice.org are at a Word 97 level. ODF's support mirrors that.
2. Tables. Ope