Microsoft Fails the Office XML Standards Test(adjb.net)
adjb.net
Microsoft Fails the Office XML Standards Test
http://www.adjb.net/post/Microsoft-Fails-the-Standards-Test.aspx
3 comments
No, he's saying it's unrealistic to expect Microsoft to actually conform to the standard that was passed i.e. that Microsoft are
institutionally incapable of playing well with others and we should all know that by now.
The first commenter seems to have fallen for the usual Microsoft standard-stalling tactic that has them claim that they can't implement any standard until it's all signed, sealed and delivered. If they actually gave a damn they could have seen the writing on the wall and done something about it well in time.
Rick Jellife (a well-known standards wonk, generally suspicious of anti-Microsoft sentiment, though like Alex Brown seems to now be disappointed that they've lived down to everyone's expectations) comments:
"I don't know why it is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to accept and generate Strict OOXML in Office 2010: they have had more than two years already. Most of the changes are trivial or systematic or were well in progress (e.g., VML had mostly been dropped for DrawingML by 2007) or would be features required for better support of ODF/Open Formula anyway."
The first commenter seems to have fallen for the usual Microsoft standard-stalling tactic that has them claim that they can't implement any standard until it's all signed, sealed and delivered. If they actually gave a damn they could have seen the writing on the wall and done something about it well in time.
Rick Jellife (a well-known standards wonk, generally suspicious of anti-Microsoft sentiment, though like Alex Brown seems to now be disappointed that they've lived down to everyone's expectations) comments:
"I don't know why it is unrealistic to expect Microsoft to accept and generate Strict OOXML in Office 2010: they have had more than two years already. Most of the changes are trivial or systematic or were well in progress (e.g., VML had mostly been dropped for DrawingML by 2007) or would be features required for better support of ODF/Open Formula anyway."
Thanks for clearing that up. On rereading it, you might be right that he meant it was unrealistic for anyone to think they'd actually do it - not that the timeframe was off.
Yep, lets all make assumptions on beta-quality code.
Firstly, Microsoft aren't the only ones who don't play well with others. Openoffice, Abiword, iWork and every other office suite on the planet uses its own formats.
Secondly, is OpenOffice OOXML 100% Strict compliant yet?
Finally, it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed, or a new feature isn't added. Developers often calculate an estimated time required for development in advance, and for all we know, perfect compliance with the standard now may have been pushed back because implementation would have forced other features to be dropped. From a business/development perspective, this often makes sense.
Next release if they aren't compliant with strict, then yes, its time to freakout. But from a business decision, it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard. And when applications sometimes do so, the end result is a mess, because the browsers then often need to support their broken standard, and the correct standard, or risk breaking compatibility with some websites.
Microsoft had no way of knowing exactly when the standard would be approved, or how many changes would be made. I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.
Firstly, Microsoft aren't the only ones who don't play well with others. Openoffice, Abiword, iWork and every other office suite on the planet uses its own formats.
Secondly, is OpenOffice OOXML 100% Strict compliant yet?
Finally, it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed, or a new feature isn't added. Developers often calculate an estimated time required for development in advance, and for all we know, perfect compliance with the standard now may have been pushed back because implementation would have forced other features to be dropped. From a business/development perspective, this often makes sense.
Next release if they aren't compliant with strict, then yes, its time to freakout. But from a business decision, it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard. And when applications sometimes do so, the end result is a mess, because the browsers then often need to support their broken standard, and the correct standard, or risk breaking compatibility with some websites.
Microsoft had no way of knowing exactly when the standard would be approved, or how many changes would be made. I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.
> Secondly, is OpenOffice OOXML 100% Strict compliant yet?
Is it possible at all to be functional and implement OOXML correctly at the same time?
> it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed
We could fix it, if Microsoft provided the source under a free license.
> it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard
How long can possibly take to write code that implements the standard they invented based on their shipping products?
> I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.
You are right. The subverted approval process offers such proof.
Is it possible at all to be functional and implement OOXML correctly at the same time?
> it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed
We could fix it, if Microsoft provided the source under a free license.
> it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard
How long can possibly take to write code that implements the standard they invented based on their shipping products?
> I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.
You are right. The subverted approval process offers such proof.
UPDATE: Looks like Openoffice doesn't support saving to OOXML anyway.
So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to their own standard. So, from one perspective, OpenOffice are trying to destroy standardisation too (they are trying to force people to use their own standard).
Really, the whole thing is a power struggle to become the dominant format anyway. Since their main competitors are doing dodgy stuff to help force people to move to their own standards, I'd say its hardly surprising Microsoft aren't willing to sacrifice functionality to help competitors.
If OpenOffice were serious about standardisation, they would add support for OOXML saving, but they haven't yet!
So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to their own standard. So, from one perspective, OpenOffice are trying to destroy standardisation too (they are trying to force people to use their own standard).
Really, the whole thing is a power struggle to become the dominant format anyway. Since their main competitors are doing dodgy stuff to help force people to move to their own standards, I'd say its hardly surprising Microsoft aren't willing to sacrifice functionality to help competitors.
If OpenOffice were serious about standardisation, they would add support for OOXML saving, but they haven't yet!
> So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to their own standard
"So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to the other open and pre-existing ISO standard."
There. Fixed for you.
"So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to the other open and pre-existing ISO standard."
There. Fixed for you.
ODF is the preexisting ISO standard that OpenOffice supports, and that's clearer and more open.
They also support older .doc files quite well.
By adding OOXML support they would shoot themselves in the foot, mostly because OOXML is neither a de facto nor a proper de jour standard.
So why help with "standardization"? Patches are welcome btw.
By adding OOXML support they would shoot themselves in the foot, mostly because OOXML is neither a de facto nor a proper de jour standard.
So why help with "standardization"? Patches are welcome btw.
maybe my memory has failed me but, didn't microsoft just get sued over supporting this not to long ago and had to change it or they would no longer be able to sale office?
they support odf now..which is a open standard. Also, the author should note that development of office 2010 had already started when these changes were asked for.
"the author" is Alex Brown, convener of the OOXML BRM. Some would argue that the only reason OOXML passed as an ISO standard is becuase of his actions in dismissing large numbers of issues. He's well aware of the facts of the matter.
For those not following the OOXML debacle you could imagine Alex Brown is to OOXML as Miguel de Icaza is to the .Net platform. He worked closely with Microsoft to try and turn their proprietary format/platform into an open standard (and got called a shill and worse for his efforts) and is now disappointed they've screwed it all up with their shady behaviour.
For those not following the OOXML debacle you could imagine Alex Brown is to OOXML as Miguel de Icaza is to the .Net platform. He worked closely with Microsoft to try and turn their proprietary format/platform into an open standard (and got called a shill and worse for his efforts) and is now disappointed they've screwed it all up with their shady behaviour.
That makes it seem a slightly larger issue than just the Office code.
Additionally, the comments mention that it's unreasonable for Office 2010 to support the Strict standard (timeframe), and the author then seems to agree somewhat.