digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at boycottnovell.com

Uh Oh! Microsoft Already Supports OpenDocument Format?

boycottnovell.com — Microsoft shoots itself in the foot by admitting that ODF support is doable and implicitly suggesting that OOXML is therefore redundant

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 19, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

78 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Phocion55, on 01/19/2008, -8/+55Doesn't everyone feel that this all could have been avoided if Microsoft actually helped in the formation of the ODF standard when they were asked to, instead of going off on their own to create a second "competing" standard?

    Textbook case of Microsoft setting the whole world back a few months just so they can make a dime.
  • Philluminati, on 01/19/2008, -9/+45The company would then implement the missing functionality that ODF doesn’t support. However, those extensions would be custom-designed and outside of the standard, which is counter to the idea of an open document standard, Knowlton said. “Disastrous? No. But definitely not preferable,” he said

    Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.

    He's wrong when he says “Disastrous? No. It actually is Disastrous! Microsoft will lock you in again. This is what they are trying to do. Why can't they drop the said functionality in question for the good of the standard? (like when you save to RTF is says some formatting may be lost).
  • SQLserver, on 01/19/2008, -6/+33Anything but OOXML.
  • Berkana, on 01/19/2008, -2/+26Another example is the "web core fonts" initiative that was started by and then abandoned by Microsoft. They started an initiative to create a nice collection of fonts that would come standard with web browsers so designers don't have to make images of text in fonts other than the 6 major fonts available on all computers (Times New Roman, Arial, Verdana, Georgia, Courier New, Trebuchet). Then they abandoned it because they thought standardizing the collection would empower other browser companies.

    Uncalculatable quantities of unnecessarily transfered data has been wasted on account of Microsoft's abandonment of the Web Core Fonts initiative. Every time a moderately interesting font other than the core 6 fonts is used, you can pretty much count on the web site using an image of the text; whereas the text itself would probably be only tens of bytes long, an image of the text in a non-standard font would weigh in at several kilobytes.
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -7/+25"Also, if individual governments mandate the use of ODF instead of Open XML, Microsoft would adapt, Knowlton said. The company would then implement the missing functionality that ODF doesn’t support. However, those extensions would be custom-designed and outside of the standard, which is counter to the idea of an open document standard, Knowlton said."

    I don't see the problem. If Microsoft extend ODF in such a way that it is no longer compatible with the ISO-approved ODF, then it those documents cannot be used by any organisations that insist on ODF. So that's no problem, it'll just be a format that can't be officially used, which will annoy home users.
    If they try and change the actual ISO standard, then that is perfectly good and OK, because they will need the support of other parties to do this. They certainly shouldn't "drop functionality", but agree a way of implementing this functionality (if anything in OOXML really is missing in ODF, and I've seen no evidence of that) with other people. That's what standards are for, no?
  • sirhomer, on 01/19/2008, -3/+18ODF predates OOXML, in fact, OOXML was developed as a "reaction" to ODF, especially governments mandating that ODF be used to preserve future government documents.
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -2/+15Because it effectively excludes everyone else from the market. OOXML is a huge, inconsistent standard that will take years to implement by anyone else. It's so vague and inconsistent in some areas that others who wish to implement the standard will have to reverse engineer Microsoft's implementation to do the right thing anyway. This is classic Microsoft behavior, they're doing the same thing in the Web standards workgroups.

    Microsoft wants is to keep its monopoly, it doesn't want an open software world where anyone can compete. This hurts *you* and *me*.
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -10/+23So, how does this shoot MS in the foot?
  • sirhomer, on 01/19/2008, -5/+17.NET is far less mature in Java, especially in the business logic department.
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -1/+12They did. ODF became an ISO standard almost two years ago. OOXML is the new, redundant kid on the block.
  • srg13, on 01/19/2008, -0/+8But you can get specifications for all OpenOffice's extentions, and see the source code of a working implementation - that's the difference.
  • ThatsUnpossible, on 01/19/2008, -3/+11You must be young if you don't understand how this is a threat. I know it's "hug bill gates" time on Digg with the recent Apple backlash, but Microsoft has paved a route to hell on "Gee, I don't see a problem with Microsoft extending this open format..."

    DOS comes to mind. Not a file format, but the same techniques applied to cement MS-DOS as THE DOS.

    I'll give you a hint where it becomes a problem. Microsoft supports ODF. People continue to use MS Office to create ODF docs. ODF becomes popular. MS Office becomes more popular since it will be "the best" at ODF editing. Then the extensions come in. Suddenly you need MS Office to have the best experience viewing, or to edit, the "new" ODF format they've created.
  • sybesis, on 01/19/2008, -5/+11lol yeah in your dream...java can go faster than native code if you use the server vm..
    And plus...java is available everywhere. Take that .net
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -2/+8What kind of extensions are you talking about? Actual extensions to the ODF format, or extensions to OpenOffice itself? Sources, please?
  • chris9902, on 01/19/2008, -5/+11don't try and question it. just let them have their 5 minutes.
  • sybesis, on 01/19/2008, -0/+6http://www.laboiteaprog.com/article-72-5-linux_ben ...

    here it...don't get me wrong but i never seen .net application faster than c++
  • mr5150, on 01/19/2008, -2/+7Adding to open source in order to locking it down in a very sneaky way to steal the technology and make it your own through proprietary code. This is nothing short of sinister and tantamount to hijacking. This should be denounced immediately and MS belted over the head with a huge stick for trying this stunt.
  • MarkKezner, on 01/19/2008, -3/+8Just because you can open the file doesn't mean you can parse and render it properly
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -4/+9not Microsoft, but a FORMER EMPLOYEE of Microsoft - its a HUGE difference...
    There should be a bury button to indicate word twisting...
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -2/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_ ...
  • Rubuntu, on 01/19/2008, -5/+9Sure they Microsoft sees the limitations, ODF does not provide them with Lock-ins, opportunities to add Sharepoint tags and other hidden APIs so it wont force you to upgrade.
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -2/+6Poorly. You can't expect any reasonably complex document to work like in Microsoft Office yet, and that will be a while still. The point of standards is to have several 100% interoperable implementations of them, and there will be only one complete OOXML implementation for years to come. That means people are forced to use Microsoft's products, and their monopoly remains.
  • FKnight, on 01/19/2008, -2/+5You might want to let Corel know that. They have a bunch of people that get paid a lot of money that seem to think they already did and have it in their productivity product. I got $12 says they read the spec, unlike most of the people who comment on it.
  • proficient, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4Outstanding.
  • potifar, on 01/19/2008, -1/+4Just like my comment. What sirhomer said.
  • init100, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3"Newsflash to all the fanboys, USERS DO NOT CARE whether a format is 'standard' or not."

    Depends on who those users are. Many governments have stated that they will require use of standardized formats in the future.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 01/19/2008, -0/+3You almost had yourself a digg until the last paragraph.
  • FKnight, on 01/20/2008, -0/+2The thing is, not even Microsoft cares about properly rendering Word 97 in Word 2007. So why would a third party developer bother trying? Especially when the spec specifically says that it should be considered deprecated.
  • Blafhert, on 01/20/2008, -0/+2Please don't get me started on Microsoft and web standards.
  • bangmalley, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2microsoft should just ditch the OOXML and implement ODF as the default format.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 01/19/2008, -2/+4'As much good and evil as every other company out there'
    Er... how many other software companies are convicted lawbreakers?
  • Fergy, on 01/19/2008, -2/+4The difference is that ODF is implemented by multiple programs that are opensource and OOXML isn't implemented in any program. The format Office 2007 produces looks a bit like OOXML but it isn't.
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -0/+2I'll give you a hint where the nature of ODF prevents it becoming a problem. Microsoft supports ODF. People continue to use MS Office to create ODF docs. ODF becomes popular. MS Office becomes more popular since it will be "the best" at ODF editing. Then the extensions come in. Microsoft's ODF documents are no longer compatible with the ISO standard. Suddenly you can't use MS Office to view, or to edit, documents if you are working for a company or organisation that mandates the use of ODF. Home users get caught in a mess where they're using an incompatible file format to large organisations.

    There's no way that Microsoft can change ODF on their own and still expect large organisations to use it. ODF that is not consistent with the ISO standard is not ODF at all.
  • coldpockets, on 01/19/2008, -5/+7I can't imagine someone could seriously use Java and then use .Net and not see benefits to .Net.
  • Philluminati, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Ease of use and consistency is the same in Java as it is in .NET.
  • WallyAnti, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1I am not a fanboy, I barely know what ODF is but I do care about standards indirectly because I have a brain that knows that standards mean I don't have to struggle with making microsoft's products recognize other's and vice versa. As Martha Stewart would say,"It's a good thing".
  • Archer007, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Call the EU.
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -4/+5OOXML has already been implemented by Apple.
  • Digg90210, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Sure, if you write crappy C++ code...
  • daveisfera, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2The C++ version in that case was horrible written and doing a lot of needless stuff that just made it run a lot slower. You can't expect a line-for-line translation between languages to give equivalent performance.
  • joepaterno, on 01/19/2008, -6/+7Why would anyone find it post worthy that the Microsoft "already supports OpenDocument". Of course they do. It's not rocket science. They probably implemented every rev of the proposed standard as it went along just to make sure they know where it stands. There's probably 3 different implementations laying around in various repositories. The reason MS doesn't like ODF isn't because it's hard to implement, but because (as they see it) there are limitations to it that make it unsuitable for > 1billion upgrade users.

  • chris9902, on 01/19/2008, -7/+8less mature is a good thing. .NET took everything good about Java and left the crap on the cutting room floor.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1The one problem being that Sun's 'promise not to sue' (over patents and stuff) only extends to standard-compliant implementations of ODF, so any extensions that the developer wasn't willing to give to the OpenDocument Foundation might start another round of lawsuits.
  • Philluminati, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1It's nothing to do with hating Microsoft.

    I like standards. I like to be able to run any office app of my choosing. I don't want to buy Office just because someone else uses it. Therefore I want everyone to use a standard format. ODF is a decent standard. OOXML, Microsoft's proposed implementation, CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED BY ANYONE ELSE. Therefore it is not a standard. It will not be approved a standard.
  • Philluminati, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1do you not agree that .Net has many distinct advantages over Java?

    yse and no. nothing ground breaking anyway.
  • lispmachine, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2You must be kidding the same way as M$ does by putting "open" in name of "standard" which is partially covered with trade secrets and pending patents. I see it a kind of black humor.
  • CarzorStelatis, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Nobody is saying they can't see the benefits of .NET, they're just saying they don't think .NET is 'better' than Java. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It's like cars. If you want to go off-road you need an SUV, whereas if you want to go fast you need a sports car. That doesn't mean that a sports car is 'better' than an SUV, or vice versa.
  • oriondr, on 01/19/2008, -1/+2Actually, yes you can parse and render it properly. I've done it. It's very straight forward.
  • andycr512, on 01/19/2008, -0/+1Before anyone jumps on me, I meant Word 97.
  • inactive, on 01/19/2008, -2/+3This is why I don't own MSFT, useless crap like this.
    This kind of bad management takes luster off any company that engages in it, for the simple reason they harm their
    customers. Another good example of this kind of management style is Apple, where they consistently run a bait and switch on most everything they do. This is why Apple will always just be a boutique operation (Hope you shorted these clowns like I did.).
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.