What is Digg?104 Comments
- Danikar, on 12/15/2007, -6/+48Question for Microsoft, "You don't follow anyone else's standards, why should we follow your standards?"
- columb, on 12/15/2007, -12/+46***** OOXML!
- chrisOrbit, on 12/15/2007, -9/+35Microsoft or our current administration? Tough choice. I vote for the one who hasn't committed treason.
- Ap31r0n, on 12/15/2007, -6/+23Hello Microsoft PR rep.
Don't expect a warm welcome. - RLillySR, on 12/15/2007, -11/+27This is the Open Standard MS is sticking down our throats because its NOT open and they can only resort to corruption to get it threw ISO.
autoSpaceLikeWord95, footnoteLayoutLikeWW8, lineWrapLikeWord6, mwSmallCaps, shapeLayoutLikeWW8, suppressTopSpacingWP, truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6, uiCompat97To2003, useWord2002TableStyleRules, useWord97LineBreakRules, wpJustification and wpSpaceWidth. - andycr512, on 12/15/2007, -2/+17Through thick (Steve Ballmer) and thin (Windows security).
- Rubuntu, on 12/15/2007, -3/+17The Closed Office XML Contains:
Vector graphics: OOXML defines its own vector graphics XML—DrawingML. But the recognised standard for this, also recommended by W3C, is SVG. OOXML also includes Microsoft’s VML specification in contradiction to both SVG and DrawingML. VML was turned down as a W3C standard in 1999 in favour of SVG.
Objects: OOXML references Windows Metafiles and Enhanced Metafiles, both closed proprietary Microsoft formats.
Percentages: The OOXML standard is inconsistent within itself, as well as with recognized methods, of the representations of percentage values, which can be expressed as a decimal integer (Magnification Settings—2.15.1.95), as a code made up of an integer being the real percentage multiplied by 500 (Table Width Units—2.18.97) and a real percentage multiplied by 1000 (Generic Percentage Unit—5.1.12.41).
It is a great format for the self-proclaimed Dictator of the Desktop, software and now formats for only MS. .Docx is just a evolution of the proprietary format .doc. It is not an ISO, is closed to all. - phaed, on 12/15/2007, -5/+17Damn. Haven't I told you before that your presentation is so loud that people cant hear its message? Stop it with these generated comments. Write like a normal person, in sentences.
- diggrim, on 12/15/2007, -0/+11the problem is that documents which use those tags are un-openable in non-MS programs
- Bamborzled, on 12/15/2007, -2/+13***** PEOPLE WHO DON'T RTFA OR UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!1111111111111111111
"Geneva" here refers to ISO, not the Geneva Convention. I recommend you stay out of the technology section for about six months until you can learn to read article descriptions. - Phocion55, on 12/15/2007, -5/+15So what exactly happens when I want to implement "autoSpaceLikeWord95" ?
Am I supposed to do some reverse engineering and get sued by Microsoft? - capiCrimm, on 12/15/2007, -6/+16Either your trolling or a mindless shill, I can't decide.
- MarkKezner, on 12/15/2007, -2/+12OOXML is bad because it's part of a larger strategy to keep MS in contol of Office standards. The Idea is to make programming interpreters for OOXML difficult in order to downplay interoperability with other platforms.
Implementing OOXML is tedius due to cryptic design and overwhelming ammounts of poor documention. They made it intentionally very hard to understand beause that way only MS will hold the knowledge to make it work properly.
They put it under the false guise of "open" software in order to blur the line over whether other software developers have a fair chance to use the standard. Also although it's "Open" I believe it makes references to closed sources. That designing your implementation difficult because you don't know what those closed sources are doing.
ODF is better because it's a completely open standard that's easier to implement and just as feature-capable. As an added plus, it wasn't designed to submit users to vendor lock-in.
If a person's documents work well everywhere, it would be easier to switch to whatever OS you prefer. Thus if ODF gets adopted, more people will be able to switch to alternate OS's if they so choose. If alternate OS's have enough market share, companies will support those OS's with nice things like Support and Drivers, so the users benefit. - mliving, on 12/15/2007, -4/+13Embrace, extend, extinguish!
Popularity whether by fair market or monopoly is NOT a STANDARD.
MS' OOXML is not open nor is it completely and accurately documented. MS like the US oil companies see their end of days coming and they're only trying to extend their respective cabals until the bitter, expensive and CLOSED end.
The future is OPEN. Period! - Phocion55, on 12/15/2007, -4/+13The fact that this comment is getting dugg down is scary.
- etnu, on 12/15/2007, -0/+9An Open Standard that only one company has the legal right to fully implement (because they own the IP associated with all of the special case handlers for backwards compatibility with the .doc format) is not an open standard at all.
I'll buy Microsoft's ***** when they release all the patents around OOXML into the public domain. At that point the standards can compete purely on technical merit.
For those who don't already know, the reason why having an ISO standard here is important is because many countries, and most U.S. states, are currently creating legislation (or already have...) that mandates all public services use open standards for document purposes. Microsoft has to create a standard that at least appears to be open to satisfy those requirements. - Phocion55, on 12/15/2007, -3/+12You're right. It IS written there. Here's what it says:
"To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications."
Does this mean anything? - Rubuntu, on 12/15/2007, -13/+21---Warning About MICROSOFT'S XML Format--
People don’t appear to understand that OOXML is a different format. They don’t realize that using it implies getting new software and converting all their files to the new format. They don’t understand that basically only Microsoft is in a position to reliably perform this conversion because they are the only ones to really know what’s in their binary format, which they did not open
The Closed Office XML format is not a ISO standard. Get that Microsoft??? - inactive, on 12/15/2007, -18/+26Strangely, with Apple turning to newbs and google turning Evil, Microsoft seems like it's primed for a comeback on the 'reputation' front. Of course, they'll release another ***** operating system and erase any gains they make with the public.
- Phocion55, on 12/15/2007, -2/+10Ok. So here's autoSpaceLikeWord95:
"To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications." - EnderMB, on 12/15/2007, -4/+12I'm not too knowledgeable on this area, so can someone please answer these questions.
1. Why is adopting this so bad if it's an 'open' format? Being a technological giant, surely Microsoft should get a say somewhere in something?
2. How 'open' is OOXML going to be?
3. How would adoption of this genuinely affect users of non-Windows Operating Systems? - Stonekeeper, on 12/15/2007, -1/+8@Phocion55 - If i could dig you up 10 times i would. There are too many idiotic shills on this site who try to blind us. That's the damn specification! It ADMITS to being incomplete and unimplementable.
- zippy747, on 12/15/2007, -4/+11***** MICROSOFT!
- wassim2k, on 12/15/2007, -13/+20No, I want Linux/Apple fanboys with Ron Paul 2008 shirts to represent us.
- diggrim, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6ISO is about international standards = welfare of the society
- fluvio, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6ok i'm not supposed to implement it.
but M$ will.
so M$ OOXML will be a very very very little better then other OOXML implementations.
and that's not fair - flatfish, on 12/15/2007, -1/+7If you want to hear Roy discussing OpenXML download this podcast.
Judge for yourself
http://www.linux.com/feature/122470 - Jammerdelray, on 12/15/2007, -0/+6I would not let any company represent at Geneva
- Rubuntu, on 12/15/2007, -5/+11Wrong Chucra, they are backing out of thier promise to hand it over to ISO: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200712061 ...
You also wrong about easier to create third party software. You must be out of your mind if you think anyone can implment it. MS is not even using the ECMA spec< it can never be implemented it was not formated that way. And only MS can change OOXML when ever they want... it a continues chase...
Its about LOCKING YOU IN and MAKING YOU UPGRADE - schestowitz, on 12/15/2007, -30/+36They have already hijacked Portugal and Ireland, at the least.
Portugal will send Microsoft to the BRM
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft, as president of the Portuguese Technical Committee, is already
| controlling who will be at the BRM for Portugal. The Head of Delegation will
| be... Microsoft!
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-27501/portugal-will ...
Microsoft's Stephen McGibbon to represent Ireland at the BRM?
,----[ Quote ]
| There are rumors circulating in Ireland that Microsoft's Stephen McGibbon
| might be part of the Irish delegation to attend the BRM in Geneva. Microsoft
| is already controlling the Portuguese delegation, you can expect that they
| will control half of the table at Geneva. O'MyGod!
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-29606/microsoft-s-s ...
Microsoft has turned our ISO into a laughing stock. It's all corruption. - CBinParadise, on 12/15/2007, -1/+6OK let's make this simple. First, understand this is about ODF versus Microsoft's OOXML. ODF is an existing truly open standard that insures documents stored in its formats will be readable and writable without forcing you to buy any particular vendor's software. Microsoft has gamed the system by getting an inferior competing standard -- OOXML --- accepted by one national standards body. OOXML is essentially an XML dump of the old Office binary formats --- which would be fine if that meant that anybody other than MSFT could actually implement OOXML --- but some sneaky licensing terms prevent that. The only outfit in the world that can fully implement OOXML legally is MSFT itself. SO MSFT is trying to get an essentially proprietary closed standard adopted formally --- when there's already a perfectly good open alternative that's already achieved standard status.
MSFT's attempts to stuff ballot boxes to get OOXML adopted by the UN of standards bodies (the ISO) failed, but MSFT has not given up and is essentially trying to rig the appeal election.
Now to answer your questions:
1. OOXML is NOT an Open format --- don't 'be fooled by its name.
2. OOXML is not going to be open at all --- only MSFT owns all the licenses required to implement OOXML.
3. Adoption of OOXML as a standard would hurt non-Windows users because it would remove an excellent solution (ODF) that would allow ALL documents to be interchanged, regardless of vendor. - schestowitz, on 12/15/2007, -8/+13Do you work for Microsoft? A Microsoft partner? We've had a lot of them in Digg recently.
- omababy, on 12/15/2007, -3/+7quote "Can anyone give me one rational, non-emotional reason as to why Microsoft should be forced to adopt a standard developed by a competitor?"
This topic is not about forcing Microsoft or asking for that matter to support existing ISO standards.
quote "...why shouldn't they develop their own standards that best serve the interests of their customers?"
I don't think a monopoly could serve in the best interest of consumers, ever.
there is that non-emotional enough for you. - fluvio, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4Technical Distinctions of ODF and OOXML
http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/organizations/O ... - kprobst, on 12/15/2007, -5/+9You've become annoying.
- grumpyrain, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4There is nothing specifically wrong with Microsoft using OOXML. Technically speaking, it has some issues with locales and validating against its schema. But from a third party developers perspective, it is by far preferable to working with the sparsely document binary doc formats.
There are however issues that should prevent this standard from being ratified by ISO. There are a number of tags that have meaning that only Microsoft could correctly parse, like 'lineWrapLikeWord6'. Microsoft can not have its cake and eat it. Either OOXML is a proprietary format that only Word can correctly render, or it is an open format where third parties have every opportunity to render a given document identically. - burty89, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4"So where is the Open Office support for OpenXML?"
Here: http://download.novell.com/SummaryFree.jsp?buildid ...
And I'd hardly call having addon converters between the two formats (neither of which do the job perfectly) level terms. - schestowitz, on 12/15/2007, -9/+13Have you looked at more complex such files with binary extensions?
- grumpyrain, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4True.
But what excuse do they have for the undocumented Word tags? There is no reason why they could not document the lineWrapLikeWord6 tag (and several others). If they want this format ratified as an open format, then they must either remove those tags or document how they should be implemented. - fluvio, on 12/15/2007, -0/+4The countries in the page linked will send three delegates to represent them for the final ISO vote about OOXML.
The people of NoOOXML want to know if those people are Microsoft partners,
maybe to demonstrate that the vote was just not valid.
Read this to understand what I mean
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/08/31/Sweden-O ... - Gumboot, on 12/15/2007, -13/+16There is nothing in the linked page that backs up what you say. I visit digg to read the news, not some random persons opinion. Please link to an actual news article next time.
- Stonekeeper, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4Proof?
- inactive, on 12/15/2007, -2/+5@Chucara
"1) There are various arguement, but most of them sadly drown in anti-MS flaming. Personally, I'd prefer there to be only one standard."
Which is why OOXML makes no sense. It isn't open, nor is it standard.
"2) Despite what most MS haters say, if OOXML becomes an ISO standard, it will be as open as ODF. Microsoft will no longer maintain the standard, but it will be in the hands of a "neutral" organ."
HAHAHA.. MS needs to open it NOW. If they won't open it now, then screw them.
"3) In contrast to the closed .doc and .docs formats, it will be a step forward, as it will be easier to create third party software for an open format."
Why? - digudown, on 12/15/2007, -1/+4At the same time we should not allow MS to have any patents on th standard, so that anyone can freely implement it. I think ISO process will ensure that.
- Rubuntu, on 12/15/2007, -0/+3This plugins are a joke, the can do limited text convertion, add in tables, images or anything else and the converted file is a mess
- Realz, on 12/15/2007, -5/+8I'd rather let Britney Spears represent.
- Fergy, on 12/15/2007, -3/+5The reason Microsoft formats dominate the market is because they have the most popular Office suite. Part of the reason why the Office suite stays popular is because of the closed formats. Office is the only suite that is supposed to be 100% compatible with Microsoft formats. If Microsoft Office would support ODF as a file format it would have to compete purely on being better than the competition.
The first version of ODF was based on the file format of OpenOffice.org1. Then just like any legitimate standard organizations and corporations like Microsoft could comment on it and propose changes. Microsoft has been in the committee of ODF from the beginning but they only complained about it(probably to stall it).
After about 5 years of comments from thousands of organizations and corporations ODF finally became an ISO standard because of the majority vote. OpenOffice.org was the first Office suite to implement ODF in version 2 of OpenOffice.
The reason it would be easy to convert Microsofts binary formats to 'open' XML is because openXML has been made especially with that goal in mind. The openXML specification is 10x larger than ODF because it's full of 'make a table like word95 did it' whereas ODF didn't care about backwards compatibility. That's also the reason why anybody can implement ODF but openXML requires so much man-power that only big corporations would be able to implement it.
By the way, OpenOffice.org has really good support for existing documents so you can still open all your documents. - EEdesigner, on 12/15/2007, -2/+4I don't want Microsoft (the 70's GM of software) to represent me anywhere. The wife and I are enjoying our Microsoft free environment immensely. When I want to own something that has been copied and distorted, I'll use my fax.
- fluvio, on 12/15/2007, -0/+2if I say #1 is ok, you are allowed to say: "so, what's wrong with OOXML? it's the same thing!" and I have less arguments to say OOXML is defective. M$ has the strenght and the numbers to make deprecated features become de facto standards. we don't want this risk.
with option #2, no one can impose a de facto standard, because if you insert a non documented feature, you won't produce a standard document, so you'd better not inserting it. - djGentoo, on 12/16/2007, -1/+3Fduch has yet to reply to this one. What a hypocritical Fduchbag.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is