What is Digg?57 Comments
- schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+50I posted this to Digg yesterday. Here's a more succinct story:
http://www.noooxml.org/petition
# already a standard ISO26300 named Open Document Format (ODF): a dual standard adds costs, uncertainty and confusion to industry, government and citizens;
# There is no provable implementation of the OOXML specification: Microsoft Office 2007 produces a special version of OOXML, not a file format which complies with the OOXML specification;
# There is information missing from the specification document, for example how to do a autoSpaceLikeWord95 or useWord97LineBreakRules;
# More than 10% of the examples mentioned in the proposed standard do not validate as XML;
# There is no guarantee that anybody can write software that fully or partially implements the OOXML specification without being liable to patent lawsuits or patent license fees by Microsoft;
# This format conflicts with existing ISO standards, such as ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times), ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages) or ISO/IEC 10118-3 (cryptographic hash);
# There is a bug in the spreadsheet file format which forbids any date before the year 1900: such bugs affect the OOXML specification as well as software applications like Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 and 2007.
# This standard proposal was not created by bringing together the experience and expertise of all interested parties (such as the producers, sellers, buyers, users and regulators), but by Microsoft alone. - bvdeenen, on 10/10/2007, -4/+49If you are not already convinced that Microsofts new OOXML should not become an ISO standard, you really should read this thorough analysis of some of the major problems with this format
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -3/+31In which THAT 50,000-word counter argument is destroyed by two sentences:
"Don't run from the real point: the only way to properly implement OOXML is to use MS Office. Any other method, and you can never implement the whole specification."
This fact is undeniable and inescapable. Office XML is just another monopoly enabler under the guise of being "open". - fryguy1013, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20historians maybe? what about a spreadsheet listing the battles of the civil war and listing casualties, should they be forced to use string instead of date?
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Agreed. Here's a nice, succinct report on the many flaws of Office XML. (Note: I refuse to use the word "open" with this, since it blatantly is not).
http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html - irieKEN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Anyone else get the feeling that Microsoft went out of their way to call it OOXML just to get the two 'O's that look like Open Office?
- cmdrNacho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13whats the point of having an open format thats supposed to be compatible when in reality its not compatible at all..
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Might have been more effective as a concise argument. I tend to agree with most of the points however.
- Area51mafia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Well it's actually called "Office Open XML".
So I'm going to say: yes. - neko, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12OOXML looks like they just took the existing binary .doc writer, and changed it to output text with pointy brackets around it instead. So it's "open" now. Big whoop. "autoSpaceLikeWord95" is a prime example of why this format should be thrown into the Recycle Bin.
- Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13For those still not convinced, just grab the first test Stephane points out and try it yourself in Excel 2007. I knew MS would shaft us with OOXML, but I didn't realise how messed up the format is until I read this article.
Defective-by-design indeed. - generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Are you saying that not even MSFT has implemented OOXML?
Now that is a new one. It's like...the polar opposite of "cross-platform". "Non-platform". - SiRwhilms, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10It's comforting to know that Rodriguez is not associated with any pro-MS or anti-MS asses.
- hoyanf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Think i'll go back to Lotus 123...
- Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Microsoft crammed this ***** format together in a hurry and wanted it approved in 30 days when the Open Office standard went through years of refinement to make it approved. 30 days and the documentation is 6000+ pages! Wow they really played a lot of cards to maintain bide their time and add to the confusion.
Plain and simple, they will not conform to an open document format that is tried and tested. - srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8iWork has read-only support of OOXML, because it's likely that people will want to open documents send to them from people using Office 2007... OpenOffice will probably have to support this too (although you'd seriously have to be stupid to save files in the format if you had a choice)
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"The fact that you can not, does not mean that real hackers or professionals can not."
LOL. Wow. You're right......I did miss that one......and I''m sorry I did.
Why the HELL would an "open" standard only be fully accessible to "hackers" and "professionals"? That's like saying the iPhone is "open" because specialized hackers unlocked certain features. A TRUE open standard can be accessed by ANYONE.
I'm sorry. Office XML is PURPOSELY obfuscated by Microsoft so people like you and I can't fully implement it without being locked into Microsoft Office. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Stéphane Rodriguez is a dude.
- generalloy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6All that money from MSFT to NOVL, Miguel's employer, is very soothing for Miguel.
- x2b4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Very insightful.
- Rudiger81, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Wow great article. These small problems in the format will later on become larger as we become reliant on them and hence should not be a standard format. And just because a program can open and export as a file format doesn't mean like or think it should be a standard. I use Windows but doesn't mean i like it, I loath it every second I'm on it.
- boffert, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Breaking news: posts by morons on Slashdot aren't worth the bits that represent them.
The analysis was accurate, thorough and technically sound. And highlights yet another example of MS trying to hide their monopolistic ways from the unsuspecting. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Is there another Slashdot?
On the Slashdot that I read, the comments were largely NOT about whether OOXML is screwed up, but arguing about HOW BADLY the OOXML format is tainted. - msgyrd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Plain and simple, they will not conform to an open document format that is tried and tested."
I'm not sure they're capable of creating standards compliant software to begin with. Is there any MS product that's standards compliant outside the realm of their own standards? MS software quality has been circling the drain for several years now. - FKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't tell people that OpenOffice supports OOXML and don't tell anyone that there's an ODF add on for Office. And certainly, please don't tell anyone that iWork supports OOXML as well. It is absolutely ESSENTIAL that we continue to spread the LIE that only Microsoft can implement OOXML. Get with the party line, buddy.
[/digg] - Wyzard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Office XML is PURPOSELY obfuscated by Microsoft so people like you and I can't fully implement it without being locked into Microsoft Office."
I think it's more likely that they just took their existing binary formats and mapped them directly to XML without bothering to clean them up, to minimize the amount of code rework that would need to be done on Office. - Justathought, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that Rodriguez has a good point. He is not saying that implementing OOXML in, say an in house solution is impossible. All he is saying is that implementing it is not intuitive, that implementing it is quite a bit more expensive than doing the same for ODF. I think that a way of illustrating it is with the difference in creating a program with assembly language and with Python. Both are doable, but one of those routes is prohibitively expensive for a small in house team. Likewise with ODF vs OOXML. For most developers, creating solutions using ODF will offer a lot of advantages, including reduced time to market, cleaner more maintainable code, etc.
Is this good enough reason not to make OOXML an ISO standard? Well, no, not in itself, but it should be a consideration. - joelevi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wow, add this to the latest Office 2007 Vulnerability (Excel Stores Data Connection Password in Plain Text) and OOXML isn't looking so good! http://digg.com/security/Office_2007_Vulnerability_Excel_Stores_Data_Connection_Password_in_Plain_T
- FKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What about posts on Slashdot from open source developers who have actually IMPLEMENTED the supposedly impossible to implement format?
- ClOlD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Wow, there are some SORE IT guys out there tonight second-guessing their resumes. Sorry, gents.
- pivovy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Stéphane != Stephanie (It wasn't a vagina after all)
- Justathought, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Would you care to explain what those steps would be?
- gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Stéphane.getGender() != "female";
returns true - JohnFlux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1OpenOffice supports OOXML?
- dolemite5005, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Neat.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Eeeeeeeewwww...
- lyricsru, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Wow great article.
http://www.lyrics-ru.com/tekct/eric-conrad/index.php
http://www.lyrics-ru.com/tekct/evans-blue/index.php - strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5How is that a counter point? It's meaningless.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Compelling? Not so much.
A number of this person's complaints have been shown to be hollow. Just read the posts on Slashdot. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1And yet everyone including Apple iWorks is supporting OOXML in favour of ODF.
- timzen81, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I was just getting ready to post my standard "can't we all just get along" comment for when it comes to open formats - but i like you point better, lets get over it and move on. Because as an added bonus, MS Office now has a plugin to support ODF so it has a chance (slightly less than fair i'll admit) to get into the main stream as well. So instead of complaining about a format that is not going away how about pushing ones preferred format on its own merits and not the supposed problems of its competition.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2ODF has exactly the same "problem": hack up the XML in an ODF document so that it no longer conforms to the ODF schema, and ODF applications won't like it. As Miguel and others pointed out, the example works fine if you actually follow the spec, and so do the edit correctly.
- akashra, on 10/10/2007, -13/+7Funny, but most of the 'flaws' he points out supposedly in OOXML don't seem to be flaws in the OOXML spec at all - they seem to be flaws in Microsoft Excel 2007.
Sure, some of his points are valid, but it certainly seems he's trying to take flaws in Excel and pass them off as flaws in OOXML. - NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1I trust miguel for some reason
- harlowsmonkeys, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3That will come as a great surprise to those who are implementing it, as Miguel pointed out in the comment immediately following the one you quote. How did you manage to overlook that one?
- estvir, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1You guys sound paranoid enough, no need to go to those extents. :o
- JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Guys, lets just cut through the ***** here. Regardless of wether guys like OOXML, it is the defacto standard now because Microsoft Office is the standard for office productivity applcations and every major "competitior" including iWork and OpenOffice supports it. ODF was a good idea and you guys won, you got Microsoft to get off it's collective ass and get rid of the proprietry binary formats so seriously, just shutup, you've already won.
- euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2Buried as disappointing. I thought it said Stephanie Rodriguez.
- xpose, on 10/10/2007, -20/+5"# There is a bug in the spreadsheet file format which forbids any date before the year 1900: such bugs affect the OOXML specification as well as software applications like Microsoft Excel 2000, XP, 2003 and 2007."
But who would create a file with the date before 1900? = -
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is