What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- pbryan, on 08/13/2008, -2/+42OOXML is not about interoperability with other vendors. Microsoft already achieved its mission with OOXML: governments worldwide will continue to license Microsoft Office because it supports a government-mandated "openly published" document format.
- Darkhacker, on 08/13/2008, -2/+24You are correct. MSOXML (Microsoft Office XML makes FAR more sense the the confusing OOXML name) was never intended to help other vendors. It's only purpose was so that customers could manipulate documents in .NET and do so faster and easier than it would to call Office macros. I remember watching a Channel 9 video where the Office developers were talking about customers having to run MS Office on servers. The whole point was to give developers an API to work with documents without having to go through Office for server based calculations. That was the original reason behind it's development. The whole standardization and open format claims were just an additional benefit.
- boot20, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6Way to astroturf MS!!! Go go go!
- jabberwolf, on 08/14/2008, -8/+2You do know that even ODF was about to abandon ODF as a failure back in October 2007.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
They were gonna go with CDF instead:
"Sam Hiser, vice president and director of business affairs at the OpenDocument Foundation, outlined why the group now thinks that CDF is a more viable universal format than ODF is. Foundation officials "have been displeased with the direction of ODF development this year," he wrote. "We find that ODF is not the open format with the open process we thought it was."
Hiser noted that the requirements for a universal file format include full compatibility with Microsoft Corp.'s Office formats, including Office Open XML, the new format that Microsoft created for its Office 2007 suite and that the software vendor is promoting as a rival standard to ODF. CDF meets that requirement better than ODF does, Hiser said in his blog posting.
- GruntboyX, on 08/13/2008, -2/+26As the article states, it is absolutely critical that OASIS and ODF supporters are willing to work with Microsoft to make ODF compatible with MS office. this will spur adoption of the format. However, if politics and technical religion get in the way it will only fragment document standards and make ODF less relavent. Also we will be left with microsoft extending its current binary formats.
We would be in a world of Microsoft and ODF instead of just ODF.- magus_melchior, on 08/13/2008, -1/+21As others have no doubt mentioned, the OASIS group also needs to ensure that Microsoft doesn't extend the ODF spec; it would be much better if Microsoft could suggest enhancements to the spec in a readable way so that the format and its implementations can improve.
- magus_melchior, on 08/13/2008, -0/+17That said, I'm not as optimistic as the IBM rep that Microsoft will so easily ditch Office XML, which it finagled through committee stuffing extensively to pass ISO standardization. Their partner companies will be wondering what the hell is going on at Microsoft that they would push for spec approval and then drop it afterwards.
- Atomic1fire, on 08/13/2008, -0/+13Any and all extensions should be made open and compatible.
if microsoft wants to suggest extensions, they should also be willing to assist projects to make these extensions possible for everyone. - mithrasinvictus, on 08/13/2008, -3/+15Embrace & extend & extinguish the competition is a game microsoft has played before. They need to be included in the discussion but it would be naive to think they can now be trusted to play nice because they said they would.
- tortov, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2As an XML-based format, there's a standard way for ODF to handle non-standard extensions: namespaces. If you actually look at a document saved by OpenOffice, you'll find that it's not all stuff defined in the ODF standard. There's some stuff in OOo specific namespaces, particularly in the settings.xml file. (Namespaces don't make the "embrace, extend, extinguish" problem go away, but they do mitigate it.)
- magus_melchior, on 08/13/2008, -1/+21As others have no doubt mentioned, the OASIS group also needs to ensure that Microsoft doesn't extend the ODF spec; it would be much better if Microsoft could suggest enhancements to the spec in a readable way so that the format and its implementations can improve.
- GhostFreeman, on 08/13/2008, -1/+43Microsoft will support ODF, but I seriously doubt they'll give OASIS an audience for the Office-only extensions.
Welcome to Phase 1: Embrace. We hope you enjoy your stay.- Sammi84, on 08/13/2008, -1/+19If anybody's curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_e ...
- UltimatrixmaN, on 08/13/2008, -11/+42Microsoft totally pissed in my milk with this 2007 .x__ format crap. Clients send me files in that proprietary M$ Format, teachers save files in that proprietary format, none can be opened with Open Office. It was a deliberate attempt by Microsoft to stifle any open competition between something as simple as a word document. I dig the legacy formats where I could just change a .txt to a .doc or the other way around.
Being forced to buy a program just to open text is retarded and just a deliberate attempt at pissing off more people to ensure they stay in the runnings. The only way to compete with free is to stifle freedom apparently.- JMSantos, on 08/13/2008, -8/+10pssst... change the extension to .zip.
- CCmachined, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2seriously, i doubt that works...
does it? - herrshuster, on 08/13/2008, -2/+3Yeah it works, but nowhere is your text in a human readable format
- acidandspatter, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2I don't know why you are getting dugg down. You're right, change the .docx to .zip, unpack normally and then a file your PC can read is in there.
- zwaldowski, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but then it's a fun folder of XML...
- CCmachined, on 08/13/2008, -3/+2seriously, i doubt that works...
- MavRevMatt, on 08/13/2008, -6/+8I hate it when teachers will post an assignment in a .doc file and now in a .xdoc file or whatever it is. It's ridiculous and I refuse to buy Office.
Even worse is when they insist on using a PDF when it could easily have been saved as a plain HTML page and Adobe Reader takes 4 and a half minutes to start up on a school computer.- srg13, on 08/14/2008, -2/+7You're complaining about PDF? Seriously, it's an awesome format - just get a better reader application.
- MavRevMatt, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1I do when possible. Evince on Linux, FoxIt on Windows. However if you could read I clearly said it was on school computers, which I can't install anything on. I'm sure other people have the same problem with IT lockdowns at work.
- Knet88, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2Foxit reader is fairly portable, I've run it from a USB drive on several occasions.
- bryan986, on 08/13/2008, -3/+19
- MavRevMatt, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1Thanks, useful to know until OO.org hits 3.0
- jay019, on 08/14/2008, -2/+2But you do need a Microsoft OS. Which is the problem. ***** buying windows just to read some crappy document.
- Fergy, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4A better solution would be to not accept docx and ask for pdf doc or odf.
- tech42er, on 08/13/2008, -0/+7I thought OOo had support for reading OOXML.
- SuperCheese, on 08/13/2008, -0/+6OpenOffice 3 (beta) has read/write support for it.
- feedmecereal, on 08/13/2008, -0/+8OpenOffice will support OOXML in version 3.0 but there is not support in the stable version yet.
- akhomerun, on 08/14/2008, -0/+2NeoOffice on Mac has pretty respectable OOXML support.
but why bother? everyone i know is still saving in the binary format. most people see no reason to switch to the new format when it offers no benefits to the end user except more headaches.
the other posters hit the nail on the head, microsoft made ooxml to keep their government customers. period.
- JMSantos, on 08/13/2008, -8/+10pssst... change the extension to .zip.
- 3242130193, on 08/13/2008, -10/+20I still don't trust Microsoft.
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/10/novell-poisons ...
>In particular, this cited article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202560,00.html
Pray that this isn't what happens. Best way to enforce ODF is to USE IT.- jabberwolf, on 08/14/2008, -10/+1You do know that even ODF was about to abandon ODF as a failure back in October 2007.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
They were gonna go with CDF instead.
Pray they go with a standard their own group wanted to throw away? No thank you!- zwaldowski, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1That's the wrong ODF, you *****.
- jabberwolf, on 08/14/2008, -10/+1You do know that even ODF was about to abandon ODF as a failure back in October 2007.
- epgui, on 08/13/2008, -4/+9hurra! =D
long live ODF! - thinman1189, on 08/13/2008, -7/+4Victory!
- colincornaby, on 08/13/2008, -0/+7Lemme preface this by saying I support ODF....
I doubt it. And simply for logistical reasons. In my speech class I'm taking this summer at a University students are constantly running into format related trouble. They have 2008 at home, they save in the 2008 formats, and then bring it into campus with 2004, and they can't run their documents (they don't have admin privs to install the converters).
One transition is painful enough. Microsoft isn't going to want to backpedal and drag their users through a second transition. - TomustPain, on 08/13/2008, -2/+0Cheezus! I didn't know anybody cared about XML standards! But I'm glad that someone does! I still don't understand why the consortium allows anyone that doesn't conform to one standard to launch and distribute software to millions of consumers that unwittingly robbed of the full web experience by these substandard applications. There should be a standard whereby any software programs that are distributed on a broad scale must comply with hyper text transfer protocol. The products should be tested so that all the representative hexidecimal values produce only one result; THE CORRECT AND DESIRED RESULT! If you want to add bells and whistles, that's fine, but no changes should be made to the accepted protocol standards!
- TomustPain, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0I feel obliged to apologize for this comment. I do realize that this article treats ISO's approval of Microsoft's OOXML, and that the organization's credibility is being called into question because of "procedural shortcuts" and the idea that if "the majority" wishes to permit shortcuts in the approval process it demonstrates a concern for politics rather than technical functionality.
I took the liberty to turn this into a rant about w3c permissiveness of some applications (which I will not name) that do not adhere to markup language conventions. Sorry, my bad!
- TomustPain, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0I feel obliged to apologize for this comment. I do realize that this article treats ISO's approval of Microsoft's OOXML, and that the organization's credibility is being called into question because of "procedural shortcuts" and the idea that if "the majority" wishes to permit shortcuts in the approval process it demonstrates a concern for politics rather than technical functionality.
- brettalton, on 08/13/2008, -0/+22So Microsoft isn't dropping OOXML (.docx) and picking up ODF (.odt) like the article suggests, but rather IBM thinking Microsoft will drop OOXML in favour of ODF? What fluff.
Listen to Sammi84 above when he linked you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_e ...- jcronkhite, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1What fluff is correct. After reading the article the title means nothing and has no weight. And for those people who don't read the article, they post things like "Victory!". Come on, really? Read!
- Stonekeeper, on 08/13/2008, -12/+7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a trap!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .,/ /|| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .’| |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : : - YodaJones, on 08/13/2008, -4/+5We just started a new standards organization called MYSO and ISO is not invited.
- scabbers, on 08/13/2008, -4/+5My idea of a real world standard document format is something that (however it was achieved) can be opened by the most users = compatibility mode .DOC.
If you need some fancy pants features only supported by the new formats, then it's probably a safe bet the people who need to open them can deal with it.- Atomic1fire, on 08/13/2008, -4/+6Or you can encourage openness so anyone can make software to open it, and as free or pricey as you want.
- scabbers, on 08/13/2008, -3/+5Yeah, if you were starting the whole concept of word processing at day one.
- Atomic1fire, on 08/13/2008, -4/+6Or you can encourage openness so anyone can make software to open it, and as free or pricey as you want.
- cmw72, on 08/13/2008, -0/+14Misleading title much?
FTA: "He is convinced that the industry will regard OOXML as a dead end, and that will force Microsoft to accept ODF." - mountainweb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+3Face it Microsoft is in the lead!
- cubicledrone, on 08/13/2008, -2/+5Does IE support CSS yet?
'nuff said- bejayel, on 08/14/2008, -5/+1Does firefox have a half decent javascript engine yet? (Seriously i dont know. i dont use it much because i like opera more)
- cubicledrone, on 08/14/2008, -3/+1Nobody has ever complained about Javascript on Firefox.
- cubicledrone, on 08/14/2008, -3/+1Nobody has ever complained about Javascript on Firefox.
- bejayel, on 08/14/2008, -5/+1Does firefox have a half decent javascript engine yet? (Seriously i dont know. i dont use it much because i like opera more)
- jabberwolf, on 08/14/2008, -6/+1You do know that even ODF was about to abandon ODF as a failure back in October 2007.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
They were gonna go with CDF instead:
"Sam Hiser, vice president and director of business affairs at the OpenDocument Foundation, outlined why the group now thinks that CDF is a more viable universal format than ODF is. Foundation officials "have been displeased with the direction of ODF development this year," he wrote. "We find that ODF is not the open format with the open process we thought it was."
Hiser noted that the requirements for a universal file format include full compatibility with Microsoft Corp.'s Office formats, including Office Open XML, the new format that Microsoft created for its Office 2007 suite and that the software vendor is promoting as a rival standard to ODF. CDF meets that requirement better than ODF does, Hiser said in his blog posting.- raynevandunem, on 08/14/2008, -0/+6Um, the ODF that you're referring to is the OpenDocument Foundation, which consisted of just three members; it closed up last year, and their website is now a link farm. http://opendocumentfoundation.us
The OpenDocument format is worked on by Sun and OASIS, not by the OpenDocument Foundation.- mrBitch, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3RE: "Um, the ODF that you're referring to is the OpenDocument Foundation, which consisted of just three members; it closed up last year, and their website is now a link farm."
You have to understand that jabber just does a quick Google to underline his pro MS stance.
jabber reads and understands very little of the info he posts up on digg - just take a look at his comment history :
http://digg.com/users/jabberwolf - jay019, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4@jabberwolf. lol, pwned.
- mrBitch, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1@jay019, jabberwolf pwned? that's nothing unusual - nothing to see here, just move along please. thank you.
- mrBitch, on 08/14/2008, -0/+3RE: "Um, the ODF that you're referring to is the OpenDocument Foundation, which consisted of just three members; it closed up last year, and their website is now a link farm."
- jejones, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4You might want to look at http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl ... for more info.
- raynevandunem, on 08/14/2008, -0/+6Um, the ODF that you're referring to is the OpenDocument Foundation, which consisted of just three members; it closed up last year, and their website is now a link farm. http://opendocumentfoundation.us
- jejones, on 08/14/2008, -0/+12"Microsoft will back ODF"? I think he left out three words: "stab", "in", and "the".
- zwaldowski, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1"Microsoft will stab in the back ODF?"
Like Yoda, you are acting.
- zwaldowski, on 08/15/2008, -0/+1"Microsoft will stab in the back ODF?"
- Manitoba7, on 08/14/2008, -0/+0Regardless which standard ends up winning the promise of XML is in its adaptability. How will we use XML-based documents. Recently, I attended a users conference in San Francisco. We looked at a tool that "ingests" OOXML, Open Office, and just about anything else you can think of (mif anyone?). Then allows you to output that ingested content in just about anyway you like. I believe that is the future of publishing. Safari U is using this tool know. It allows them to ingest all sorts of doc types and output it as AJAX, PDF, you name it.
- mrBitch, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2That's great, but I think they will have a few problems trying to open MS Office OXML docs.
Have you seen what MS Office OXML specs look like? There are whole chunks that say things like "This will behave in the same way that MS Word 97 currently deals with this tag and processes it"...
- mrBitch, on 08/14/2008, -1/+2That's great, but I think they will have a few problems trying to open MS Office OXML docs.
- WardOnTheWeb, on 08/14/2008, -0/+1"Sutor... is convinced that companies... are now capable of recognizing the value of interoperability."
When it comes to Microsoft, it's obvious that they have more interest in proprietary than interoperable technologies. That's the whole reason for OOXML in the first place; so they can maintain thought leadership in the software arena and force everyone to play by their rules. If they embrace interoperability to any degree, it will only be because failure to do so would ruin their sales.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is