Microsoft Office 2007 to Support ODF - But Not OOXML

Andy Updegrove writes "About two hours ago, Microsoft announced that it will update Office 2007 to natively support ODF 1.1, but not to implement its own OOXML format. Not until Office 14 is released (no date given so far for that) will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version. Why will Microsoft do this after so many years of refusal? Perhaps because the only way it can deliver a product to government customers that meets an ISO/IEC document format standard is by finally taking the plunge, and supporting 'that other format.' Still, many questions remain, such as when this upgrade will actually be released, how good a job it will do, and whether the API Microsoft has said it will make available to permit developers to supply 'save to ODF' default plugins will be supported by a patent non-assertion promise allowing implementations under the GPL (the upgrade supplied by Microsoft will not allow ODF as the default setting)."

Embrace and Extend

Chances of it having several Microsoft-specific "add-ons" that are patent-encumbered and not supported by the actual ODF spec: Approaching 100%.

Wow

Not even they are going to implement it until the next full office release. You have to admit, that says a lot about the standard.

Re:Wow

Man, if I was a MS shareholder, I'd be fucking livid. OOXML supporting software won't be available for a long time, and after this move, all the people who care enough about using ISO supported standards are going to be entrenched in ODF.

Which means that all the administration costs, travel expenses, bribe money, etc that they spent to have the OOXML standard pushed through was just thrown away for nothing, even though they got what they were aiming for.

Talk about mismanagement. Hey Ballmer, why don't you try hitting yourself with the chair this time. Might knock some sense into you.

Re:Wow

Talk about mismanagement. Hey Ballmer, why don't you try hitting yourself with the chair this time. Might knock some sense into you.

Will this do?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7412417.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Typical Tactic

So, in case anyone was still thinking that OOXML being confirmed as a standard wasn't a bad thing...

And as far as supporting ODF goes, I'd applaud Microsoft for taking a step in the right direction if they weren't constantly declaring themselves the victors over Open Source. I only wonder how they'll spin this.

Re:Typical Tactic

I think they are begrudgingly supporting ODF since their customers are demanding it, but making the implementation just irritating enough (and, I would guess, incompatible with many features of Office) that users will be inclined to just work in docx (which OpenOffice and others cannot read perfectly, if at all).

Re:Typical Tactic

It could also back-fire. If users are required by business requirements to exchange files as ODF, and MS Office makes this difficult while OO.o makes it default, it's more incentive to switch.

Obviously Microsoft is counting on this to let them sell MS Office to governments as "ISO compatible" until they can properly implement the OOXML standard, while still trying to keep everyone using their proprietary formats. It's a risky gamble, and with Office 14 having no announced release date, not one I'd be comfortable making.

Victory

You can say all negative things you will about it, but this is a great victory for ODF.

Re:Victory

At least until we get into the extend and extinguish phases.

Re:Victory

Well they won't be able to call it ODF, but unless someone complains MSFt will anyways.

Sort of like how SCO still claims to own UNIX when the Open group owns the trademark, and Novell owns the copyrights.

Re:Victory

Nonsense, ODF has it written in the spec to allow proprietary extensions. MS can add whatever they want and still call it ODF.

Larger question

More to the point, how badly will they cripple the ODF support?

• Will ODF spreadsheets be functionally equivalent to CSV?
• Will ODF text be functionally equivalent to plain-text ASCII with line breaks?
• WIll ODF presentations be JPEG renderings?
• Will ODF import and export take hours?
• etc.

I've occasionally been accused of having an evil mind, but I'm sure that professionals given weeks or months can come up with better kneecapping plans than the above amateur hipshots.

Re:Larger question

I think what matters most is that MS has committed itself to providing ODF compliance, even if that is a bit limited way, by the end of the first quarter of 2009.

This means that businesses who have been delaying the normal computer upgrade cycle (sometimes for years) now have a clear pathway: they can immediately migrate to OpenOffice under existing WinXP licenses on new hardware, or they can jump directly to an enterprise Linux with OpenOffice. Either way, they can move forward knowing that before they have finished the rollout, the documents they are producing will be compliant with the Microsoft universe.

The timing of this is great for the USA economy. It is much less costly to do a major rollout in a slack period, and we can count on slack for the rest of 2008. It will be easier to hire the needed tech support people, and if the rollout involves moving to Linux, it can be done with a lot less expense in hardware than the cost forecasts of even last year. The time and cost for retraining staff can be more easily absorbed during the competitive lull. Then when the economy gets back on track in 2009, these companies will be very well positioned for fast and strong growth.

I applaud Microsoft for biting the bullet and coming out with this news now. Perhaps now USA IT departments can get out of these doldrum eddies and start making headway again.

OOXML is not an ISO standard

well - only if microsoft is able to buy their way through the standards process will anyone be able to buy an OOXML ISO-compliant version.

UKUUG is currently waiting on the UK judicial system to decide whether to do a judicial review of the British Standards Institute's recent decision to ratify OOXML.

clonking "comments" together in blocks of 100 for vote "yes no", towards the end of the (only) 5 day process, smells a bit fishy. especially as the comments weren't actually reviewed as having been actioned / corrected (in the 6,000 page document).

the BSI came up with something ridiculous like 900 comments on the 6,000 page document.

it's all incredibly fishy - long story. far too much to fit into one silly slashdot comment, so i'll stop.

Results for eggs

So I guess speaking Hungarian and throwing eggs at Steve Ballmer actually did pay off.

Re:Results for eggs

Throwing chairs might have yielded results faster.

Not embrace and extend, but embrace and squeeze

It may be that Microsoft is serious about supporting ODF, but I would not be surprised if it is somehow "crippled" or poorly implemented within the word processor and spreadsheet. Somehow I don't feel that you will be able to open an .odf made in Word with OpenOffice and there will be no "artifacts" or some loss of formatting, and vice versa of course. There are already issues with odf's opening across operating systems (usually a font issue causing discrepancy in formatting), and I am sure that Microsoft will use this opportunity to "make its case" for the "superiority" of its native format, whatever that format may be. If this will not be, it will be a most astute business move. Making their office suite cost less would be even better.

MS BJ's

Jeeeze you people are harsh!

I think that Microsoft could announce tomorrow that they are giving out free blow jobs to anyone who uses Linux. As soon as the first blowjob was given out, someone would find something negative about it.

Re:MS BJ's

But what if the hooker they hired kept biting your dick? That's not very pleasant...

Re:MS BJ's

or of them biting down and demanding to be paid to let go.

That's one way to achieve vendor lock-in.

Correction on "save to" capability

Kevin J. O'Brien, reporting in the International Herald Tribune [iht.com], reports that the ODF update will in fact permit users to "adjust Office 2007 settings to automatically save documents in the rival format." A knowledgeable source tells me that this report is likely to be accurate.

Andy

A bit misleading

The summary is a bit misleading. Current Office 2007 documents fail to validate as transitional OOXML because of some very minor differences. For example, the final standard changed an attribute value from "yes/no" to "true/false".

All major ODF implementations, including OpenOffice, fail to validate against ISO ODF 1.0 for similar reasons.

Thus, to make some big deal of Microsoft not immediately slipstreaming in an update to Office to 100% conform to OOXML, while ignoring the fact that OpenOffice still doesn't fully conform to ODF so long after ODF 1.0 was ratified is a bit hypocritical.

Re:Q: Will this signal the end of Excel dominance?

Very true but this is the foot in the door people have been waiting for. The problem I have always had was not opening up DOC docs but not being able to trust the ones I send from OO. Now that I know MS office can read ODF I can safely make and send them out with out worrying. Making ODF common is step one. Making DOC and XLS uncommon is step two. Making DOC and XLS so uncommon that people go through the hassle of converting them is step three.

Re:Sinking Ship.

They may be selling it like pancakes, but I have also seen an upsurge in dissatisfaction.
1) Why do I have to learn a new interface?
2) Why is user X not able to open my files. Why can't we open our shared files?
3) Why is our file corrupted.
This issue has become so great that department managers have been asking me if we can go to OpenOffice.
Current plan is to minimize purchases of systems with Office 2007 and switch to OO next year, after the new version with file sharing comes out.

Re:They walk on ice.

"Retail sales of Office products from January through June [2007] were roughly double those of Office 2003 during its first six months on the market and up 59.6 percent from Office sales for the first six months of [2006]" - Source [cnet.com]

Not exactly the failure you describe.