Is There a Way to Promote Open Document Formats Instead of 'MS Office' Format? (theregister.com) 46
The Register looks at exactly why "It is practically impossible to move any non-trivial Word document out of MS Office to a non-MS suite and back again without it being more trouble than it's worth."
OOXML, developed by Microsoft and first standardized by Ecma in 2006, became the ISO/IEC 29500 standard in 2008 after a grueling and adversarial process. Microsoft pursued standardization because it has always been a standards-led organization dedicated to maximizing the options for its customers. Or because it had to at gunpoint, while vowing silently to follow the letter of the law but stymie its intent. You decide... The Document Foundation (TDF) which spends its days worrying about such things, reports that Microsoft has effectively broken the standard by sticking with a transitional version as its default rather than the cleaner Strict variant. The result is that what Microsoft software renders is what Microsoft wants to render, despite nominal compliance...
What we need is a test suite that can take any OOXML engine and test its compliance against what Microsoft is actually doing. That means the tooling wrapped around the spec has to account for proprietary dependencies that get smuggled in, such as fonts. It also means actively and continuously tracking the ground truth of Microsoft's evolving products and services. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it absolutely needs to be good enough. Compliant engines have to become good enough for a critical mass of users to coalesce around them.
In an earlier article The Document Foundation reminded all software users that they have a choice. "When an institution sends a letter formatted with a proprietary font, embedded in a proprietary format, produced by proprietary software, it is not communicating information but perpetuating a dependency."
"Digital sovereignty begins with the recognition that this is a choice: the file format is a choice, the font on the page is a choice, and the software is a choice."
What we need is a test suite that can take any OOXML engine and test its compliance against what Microsoft is actually doing. That means the tooling wrapped around the spec has to account for proprietary dependencies that get smuggled in, such as fonts. It also means actively and continuously tracking the ground truth of Microsoft's evolving products and services. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it absolutely needs to be good enough. Compliant engines have to become good enough for a critical mass of users to coalesce around them.
In an earlier article The Document Foundation reminded all software users that they have a choice. "When an institution sends a letter formatted with a proprietary font, embedded in a proprietary format, produced by proprietary software, it is not communicating information but perpetuating a dependency."
"Digital sovereignty begins with the recognition that this is a choice: the file format is a choice, the font on the page is a choice, and the software is a choice."
Ways to promote that? Just send it back (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone sends me something that's too big to paste I will have AI summarize it anyway. Because who has the time?
Re: Just send it back (Score:2)
It's a great way to lose your tax audit, a customer, a potential spouse, or a potential investor
Re: (Score:3)
I think the AI summary has me covered on all of those TBH
Re: Just send it back (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a whole business model built on proprietary standards. They encourage sharing documents in their own proprietary formats instead of open-standard ones, in order to lock people in. When someone sends you a Microsoft document, they don't care that you have to buy MS Office to read it properly. They are co-opted into the culture MS is trying to create, and they think you belong in it also. And if you don't want to be in it, you're a loser.
So tell me: who doesn't give a shit about whom?
PDF (Score:5, Informative)
This problem has been solved. PDF. I've never received a letter, or any correspondence from a company, institution, or school formatted as a Word or Excel document, and I don't know why anyone would send one in any other format.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: PDF (Score:4, Informative)
Re:PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
This problem has been solved. PDF
Although PDF is not well suited for collaboration, when you are sending the document with the expectation that they will modify it and send it back...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:PDF (Score:4, Interesting)
> I don't know why anyone would send one in any other format.
I'm told by attorneys that Office is nonnegotiable in Law.
Microsoft could probably raise the price to $500/mo and they'd get it.
Should a citizen be required to pay a creepy Redmond company to interact with the Courts?
It"s at least Unconstitutional in New Hampshire, likely other states as well.
Not that Courts themselves care about Unconstitutionality very often. Nor do they personally pay anything for Office. Empathy tends to be low.
But if one wants to make a decent argument that is a good one.
Re: (Score:1)
But if one wants to make a decent argument that is a good one.
Not really. Ten years ago many courts still required official documents to be sent in WordPerfect format. It was an open format, didn't have the problem of hidden text, hidden redactions, etc. that other documents contain. I remember we had to instill copies for our Attorneys and Paralegals.
Courts might have a preferred document format, but I doubt they can mandate all attachments must be .docx, pdf, or jpg.
Re:PDF (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: PDF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get sent Word and Excel documents at work. I've found that if I reply in ODF format, people just start using ODF without realizing it.
The only real issue is Excel programming, which isn't supported by ODF. There doesn't seem to be an open standard for spreadsheet macros or whatever they are called, and Excel uses some kind of BASIC variant that nothing else supports.
Re: (Score:2)
and I don't know why anyone would send one in any other format.
You must be confusing receiving a static text or a form to fill out, with receiving a file that actually needs to be edited. PDF solves a very different problem and isn't remotely suitable for many situations.
Re: (Score:1)
PDF has issues. I've seen PDFs that have custom fonts. This was done on purpose to prevent using the financial data that was in a table. The PDF rendered and printed fine but you can't copy-paste or import the data into another app. Copy-paste / import gives junk as the font only existed in the PDF. Had to use OCR to extract the data from the document.
It would need to happen through the government (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a political problem and one that requires politicians that are not openly corrupt like the current batch most countries have. Unfortunately corrupt politicians are often very good at being likeable because they have lots and lots of billionaire cash and there's all sorts of little ways to push people's buttons to get them to vote for them like moral panics (Google it if you don't know what that is).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you mean like have the government take over religion? The U.S. is slowly standardizing on the most morally corrupt and ethically challenged version pushed by the Evangelicals and Christian Right.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people want everyone to use an open standard. But not everyone thinks it's a good idea, including me. Why should the government intervene in an idea that isn't widely adopted? There is nothing inherently "better" about open standards that were created by the open source community, compared to open standards donated to the open source community by a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should the government intervene in an idea that isn't widely adopted?
It's not so much intervention as it is making things equally accessible for all parties. If the government demands documentation from me, then they should accept a format that any person can produce on any platform.
It's like religion: the government should not be in the business of promoting one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so how does the Microsoft Office standard not fit this description? You can make office documents on literally any platform that people are actually using (Windows, Mac, Chromebook, Linux, Android, iOS, any web browser), with completely free and open source software. So what's the problem?
Re: It would need to happen through the government (Score:3)
any public document from a government should be accessible for free.
typically these documents need to be available for decades. Open standard makes that easier.
There are off course drawbacks. Nothing is as boring as an aged standard that refuses to retire. But boring and government are a good match. For good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the Microsoft Office document format, not meet these requirements? Anyone can open Office documents, using free, open source software, on any platform.
Open source standards are no guarantee of longevity. Remember these formats? .sxi, .stw)
- OpenOffice.org XML (.sxw,
- Uniform Office Format (UOF)
- Unique Object Markup Language (UOML)
Open source is not a driver for long-term stability. Widespread adoption i, whether the format is originally proprietary or not.
Collaboration? (Score:5, Insightful)
Use The Open Standard (Score:2)
You should not use PDF. You should use the open standard, XPS. LOL!
Pragmatism (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you have to be a bit pragmatic about this sort of thing, and choose your battles.
Proprietary formats involve all sorts of risks, but when they are commonly used, it can be difficult to push a large group of people to change.
I'd suggest focussing on the document category. For documents which need to last a long time, you could propose a format that people are likely to be able to use in 10 or 20 years. I think that sort of reasoning will make sense to others.
But if you just send back a MS Word document because you are frustrated that it is not in a well thought out standard format, you are at risk of becoming an IT curmudgeon. The sender of the document, who might not know the ins and outs of file formats, but has been supplied a PC installed with MS Office, might, not unreasonably, consider your response to be unprofessional.
Re: (Score:3)
How about (Score:4, Insightful)
The TDF should sue microsoft for slander. Specifically, when you try to open an ODF in an M$ product, you get a screenfull of FUD claiming it's malware, designed to scare away any non-technical user. It's an open format; they could just display it and try to save it in their own format later. This suit won't cure the problem, but it's a good start.
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, when you try to open an ODF in an M$ product, you get a screenfull of FUD claiming it's malware, designed to scare away any non-technical user.
My version of MS Office 2016 doesn't give any alert when I open a sample copy of a .odt file, other than the standard yellow bar at the top stating it was downloaded from the web and is opening in read-only mode until I select to switch to editing mode. I can also save any file in .odt using Office 2016.
I can't verify what happens with the newer O365 versions because I refuse to "rent" my software from MS.
ODT is an open standard. If you open the file in a text editor you will see the first two letters are
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what the fuck you're talking about. I've never seen Office give a warning when opening ODF for any reason other than the ODF file was sourced from a non-network trusted source, or being read only and it applies exactly the same restrictions to their own doc and docx files. If you're talking about Protected View, maybe do some research into how that works, it applies to their own formats as well.
I literally just double checked this right now by opening an ODF on a current version of Word (from a M36
Use ODT and ODS (Score:5, Interesting)
In over 5 years, it has never been a problem. Office reads these files, and will happily save back to them.
Better yet, removing Office from our ecosystem has dramatically reduced costs both in Infrastructure and in ongoing maintenance.
If only we could remove Microsoft's aborted HTML variant monstrosity from emails sent by Outlook, my life would be fulfilled.
Marketing? (Score:2)
Not LibreOffice (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you want to move it back again? (Score:2)
Proton (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The compatibility layers you mention are functional workarounds to run an application on an OS for which it has no native release.
This article is about a carefully considered standard that lets anyone anywhere open a document on any device running any application. The story here is that the monopoly incumbent chose to shit all over that standard just cos, so I feel like you missed the point a little bit.
OOXML: a pseudo-standard that pretends to be open (Score:4, Informative)
“Since the very beginning of the standardisation process for Microsoft's Office Open XML - OOXML (hereinafter MS-OOXML), the FSFE has expressed serious doubts about whether MS-OOXML could be considered as open, if even, as a standard at all. The FSFE first raised the issue in the community and led the movement against the standardisation of MS-OOXML, following closely over the years the relevant developments. But why can MS-OOXML still not be considered an Open Standard, despite its approval by international standards organisations?”
The submitter asks how to *promote* open formats (Score:2)
Open formats are out there. OOXML is one. The problem is getting people to adopt the standard, not coming up with a standard.
Unfortunately, the answer to "how to promote" is well known: it takes money, lots of it. This is literally what advertising is about: promoting things.
This is why the mostly widely used variant of Linux is...Android.
The most widely used format for printed or printable content, is PDF (created and promoted by Adobe).
JSON was created by State Software.
SQL was created by IBM.
The list goe
Move to Amend (Score:2)
If we amend the Constitution of each nation to require mandatory prison time for publishing in a closed document format, only then will we properly unseat Microsoft's dominant format. Because there's no fighting the inertia. Not when there are no immediate negative consequences for using proprietary formats, and with short term pain when dealing with less popular but "open" formats.
not really (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure at least one entire department at MS is tasked with making sure people don't switch to other formats, that despite on-paper "open" XML it remains incompatible and no competitor software can flawlessly read and write it.
So no, unless you can hire a dozen people full-time to counter that, you don't have a chance to break through that.
Re: (Score:2)
Others can read and write OOXML .... but Microsoft doesn't follow it's own standard, so others get garbled versions as they do follow the standard as published
Let's not let the Document Foundation promote this (Score:2)
Open source has a promotion problem, mainly it's that it seems like promotional material is written by zealots rather than anyone producing a specific message that can actually resonate with end users. For example:
When an institution sends a letter formatted with a proprietary font, embedded in a proprietary format, produced by proprietary software, it is not communicating information but perpetuating a dependency.
No when I open that proprietary file I get the information inside it. As I don't subscribe to a culture war I have no opinion on the form of communication other than the most popular file type was in use.
It's precisely these stupid statements by the likes of the Document Foundation, EFF, OSI, and