Home
Gary Edwards's Library tagged → View Popular
Microsoft planned to bury XML developer, says federal judge | The Industry Standard
Maybe the most informative article to date regarding the Microsoft-i4i "custom XML" patent infringement case. Greg Keizer is trying to dig into the trial records and judicial response. Looks like for Microsoft, it's business as usual.
excerpt: Microsoft knew of the patent held by i4i as early as 2001, but instead set out to make the Canadian developer's software "obsolete" by adding a feature to Word, according to court documents.
Aspose.Word for NET 5.3.0 (Windows), from Aspose Pty Ltd - Software Downloads - TechRepublic
Overview: Aspose.Word is a powerful .NET component that allows any .NET application to work with Microsoft Word documents without utilizing Microsoft Word and Office Automation. Aspose.Word supports a wide array of features including new document creation, document manipulation, powerful mail merge abilities, exporting to multiple formats (DOC, PDF & HTML) and much, much more. Aspose.Word is truly the most affordable, fastest, feature rich Word component on the market. Aspose.Word application programming interface (API) is powerful and easy to use at the same time. Classes, properties and method names are easy to remember and understand: for example, Document represents a Word document, DocumentBuilder is responsible for building a document dynamically, and so on. Although this guilde provides many code samples, intuitively understandable interface allows you create working document producing applications having minimal knowledge of C# or VB.NET and Microsoft Word features. $899
Compatibility Matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts
This document discusses the primary reason ODF failed in Massachusetts: compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment, and, the billions of binary documents in use by MSOffice bound workgroups and the business processes so important to them.
Compatibility matters: The Lessons of Massachusetts
Gary Edwards's List: Compatibility matters - The lessons of Massachusetts are many. Application level "compatibility" with existing MSOffice desktops and workgroups is vital. Format level "compatibility" with the legacy of billions of binary documents is vital. And "ecosystem" compatibility with the MSOffice productivity environment.
How Microsoft Ratted Itself Out Of Office | Michael Hickins | BNET
Another good article form Michael Hickins, this time linking the success of Google Wave to the success of Microsoft OOXML. Rob Weir jumps in to defend , well, i'm not sure. I did however respond.
Excerpt: Developers hoping to hitch a ride on Google’s Wave have discovered that Microsoft may have unwittingly helped them resolve the single greatest problem they needed to overcome in order to challenge the dominance of Office.
When Microsoft set out to create Office 2007 using a brand new code base — Office Open XML (OOXML) — it needed to accomplish two goals: make it compatible with all previous versions of Office, and have it accepted as a standard file format for productivity tools so that governments could continue using it while complying with rules forcing them to use standards-based software. .....
Depending on your perspective, either Microsoft has sowed the seeds of its own undoing, or international standards bodies succeeded in forcing Microsoft to open itself up. Either way, Microsoft has given away the key to compatibility with Office documents, allowing all comers to overcome the one barrier that has heretofore prevented customers from dumping Microsoft’s Office suite.
Markup's Dirty Little Secret - O'Reilly XML Blog
So remember, there are three kinds of fidelity: fidelity because the document has all the information used by the producing and receiving applications, fidelity because the applications have the same resources available to them, and fidelity because the producing and receiving applications have the same algorithms and defaults. When looking at the various claims (Len Bullard mentions Spy versus Spy) made by MS on Open XML and” fidelity”, and ODF people on “interoperability” we need to interpret them in the hard light of the Dirty Little Secret.
Governments and procurement projects need to be quite clear that whenever they insist on page fidelity, they are probably in fact locking themselves into one vendor’s tools, in which case it becomes a debate on features, quality, price, training, etc. In a limited sense, everything *except* interchangeability.
Martian Headsets - When the Problems with Standards Becomes the Standard Itself | Joel on Software
Joel takes on the difficult issues of standards and vendor specific implementations. This is a classic!
Breaking the Web: The Document War between HTML+ and OOXML
Microsoft to the world: Outlook's not broken and we aren't 'fixing' it!
Mary Jo has an interesting article over at ZDNet. She points out that Microsoft is refusing to restore support for HTML editing in Outlook. Instead, Microsoft intends on using the MSWord editor. I think that means a Microsoft desktop future based on Office OpenXML (OOXML). We shall see. But if this is the case, then i also think we are looking at how Microsoft will break the Web.
I've left an extensive comment to Mary Jo's article in the Talkback section, linked to above.
".... This is for all the marbles. The future of the Open
Web is at stake. If Microsoft is successful at carving
out and encoding an MS Web based on a document format
specific to their platforms, applications and services,
the Web will break. " <br>
"Looks like a plan to me."<br>
continued <a href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=66060&messageID=1242881">here</a>
ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for revisable office document formats
-
French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?
The plan has four parts:
"Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."
"Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."
"Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."
Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."
- garyedwards on 2007-09-25
-
AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
-
Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years.
Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
Linux News: Software: OpenDocument Foundation Abandons Namesake Format - Katherine Noyes
-
Soured Relationships
"What's happened is that there's just not a lot of interest in their approach, and that has resulted in a lot of souring of relationships on the part of the OpenDocument Foundation folks," Douglas Johnson, standards manager at Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA)
, told LinuxInsider.The about-face in support should not have a significant effect on the move toward open standards, Johnson added.
The OpenDocument Foundation's decision to support CDF, however, is puzzling, Johnson said.
'I'm Perplexed'
"It doesn't seem like a good fit," he explained. "It's not designed for this, so I'm perplexed at their desire to go in that direction."
Wizard of ODF: Interoperability barriers and the List Proposal Vote Deadline on Wednesday
marbux at his best.
-
this TC does not have the final word
on what goes into the ODF 1.2 spec. There is still the OASIS vote, the
JTC-1 vote, and the ISO final ballot, with a few other stops along the
way. There is also the market's response to what this TC does. Given
that no one on this TC has objected to my considerable efforts to
raise public concerns with Microsoft's ISO submission and some on this
TC have lambasted Microsoft for creating interoperability barriers,
why should this TC's members consider themselves exempt from warnings
that they have just fallen into precisely the kind of behavior we
routinely criticize when it's Microsoft that creates the
interoperability barriers. Especially when it's the end users who will
pay the price of the non-interoperability?
Denmark: OOXML vote won't affect public sector. ODF is too costly! | InfoWorld
-
Lebech said Denmark considers OOXML an open standard, regardless whether it is approved by the ISO. "It would be impossible
for us to use only ISO standards if we want to fulfill the goal of creating interoperability in the government sector," he
said.
The Danish Parliament also mandated that public agencies consider the cost of using open formats. One of the main reasons
OOXML was included is because Denmark is heavily dependent on document management systems that are integrated with Microsoft's
Office products, Lebech said.
Denmark also found that requiring agencies to only use ODF would have been too expensive, mostly because of the cost of converting
documents into ODF, Lebech said.
"We wouldn't have been able to only support ODF," Lebech said. "It wouldn't have been cost neutral."
Document Interoperability Initiative: Appendix H
Microsoft recently released their blueprint for implementing ISO 26300 (ODF 1.0 - dated May 1, 2005), and referenced this Web site. Appendix H is interesting in that it lists 13 of the 28 contributors sponsored by The OpenDocument Foundation. This contributor list contradicts the determined liars (er, editors) at Wikipedia who insist that The OpenDocument Foundation was two guys without a garage. The OpenDocument Foundation was founded in 2005 (shortly after OASIS approval of ODF 1.0) for the express purpose of balancing out the rapidly growing participation in the ODF technical committee of corporate contributors. IBM, Oracle, Novel, Intel and Adobe led a corporate wave joining the ODF TC following the May 2005 OASIS approval of ODF 1.0 and subsequent submission to ISO. The Foundation was set up to fund the participation of expert individuals representing both open source communities and groups interested in an Open Web future.
The OpenDocument Foundation breaks with OpenOffice ODF: Getting the (Share)Point About Document Formats [LWN.net] - Gly Moody
Good article from Glynn Moody explaining the OpenDocument Foundation's decision to drop OpenOffice ODF for HTML+. That date of this article is November 13th, 2007. The Foundations announcement comes after ISO members vote down OpenXML as an ISO standard. Microsoft however does not give up. They come back to ISO by responding in detail to every objection, pushing for a February 2008 BRM. Following the BRM, and contingent on Microsoft's promise to fix OpenXML, join the OASIS OpenOffice ODF work, and, support ODF 1.1 in MSOffice using a plug-in, ISO votes again. In March of 2008, ISO approves OpenXML.
In May of 2009, Microsoft releases an MSOffice plug-in fully compliant with ODF 1.1 (ISO 26300). Although conforming to and in full compliance with ODF 1.1, the world is shocked to learn that the interop between MSOffice ODF and OpenOffice ODF is worthless. Which is exactly what the Foundation had been arguing for years. ODF "compatibility, interop and compliance" had to be fixed prior to Microsoft's expected implementation!!!!! Otherwise, ODF would be shredded.
Told you so!
-
The OpenDocument Foundation was formed in 2005, with the mission "to
provide a conduit for funding and support for individual contributors to
participate in ODF development" at the standards body OASIS.
So, at a time when backing for the ODF format seems to be gaining in
strength around the world, eyebrows were naturally raised when Sam Hiser, the
Foundation's Vice President and Director of Business Affairs,
wrote on October 16 that it was no longer supporting ODF:
Classes of Fidelity for Document Applications - Rick Jellife
Rick Jellife weighs in on the OpenOffice ODF- MSOffice OpenXML interop embroglio. His take is to focus on <i>Classes of Fidelity</i>, providing us with a comparative table of fidelity categories. I wonder though if this über document processing approach is anywhere near consistent with the common sense meaning of <i>interoperability</i> to average end-users? IMHO, end-users interpret "<i>interoperability"</i> to mean that compliant applications can exchange documents without loss of information.
<i>"..... In my blog last year Is ODF the new RTF or the new .DOC? Can it be both? Do we need either? I raised the question of whether ODF would replace RTF or DOC. I think this issue has come back with a bang with the release of Office 2007 SP2, and I'd like to give another pointer to it for readers who missed it first time around.... </i>
<i>"...... OASIS ODF TC has some kind of conformance and testing wing at work, but it is not at all clear that they will deliver anything in this kind of area. Without targetting these classes, ODF's breezy conformance requirements means that ODF conforment software can deliver vastly different kinds of fidelity, yet still accord to the letter of the law (and, indeed, to the spirit of the ODF spec, which allows so many holes) which will cause frustration all-around....."</i>
Ouch!
In Office SP2, Microsoft manages to reduce interoperability | HoneyMonster Spells It Out
What mr. Weir and mr. Allison also don?t tell you is that controlling a standard is very much a competitive instrument. Imagine Microsoft extending Word or Excel with new capabilities (like tex-like layout rules, new graphics filters or new advanced mathematical functions). If the documents had to be saved in a format controlled by someone else, they could stall the standardization of these features until the product they support catches up. Or postpone the functions indefinitely effectively nixing the advantages. That is why Microsoft had to have a standard they could influence. That is why mr. Weir and mr. Allison are pushing ODF. While these standards now are the responsibilities of standards organizations (Oasis and Ecma for ODF and OOXML resp.), they are still very much driven by corporations with their own agendas. This is as true for ODF as it is for OOXML. That?s why we need both standards. We cannot afford corporate politics playing delaying games with our standards.
And whatever happened to the argument that a standard was important to retain document fidelity for the future? Wasn't the whole idea behind writing down the specification that the way documents render and behave would be defined by an open specification rather than an implementation (which is subject to change)? Or was that argument only valid when it could be used effectively against Word and Excel?
Double standards make me sick. Please face up to it. State that you expect Microsoft to adhere to ODF 1.2 once ratified. Until then quit trying to spin this as a defiency in MS Office. It is a failure in ODF. Owe up to it and get back to work! Please!
In Office SP2, Microsoft manages to reduce interoperability | TalkBack on ZDNet
<b>ODF is important. So What Went Wrong?</b>
Response to Jeremy Allison:
Having participated in a number of government
pilot studies, I must say that you are right;
government officials do care about ODF. They
really want it to work. But they also had
expectations that ODF simply wasn't designed
for.
What they expected ODF to be was an open
technology based on highly-structured XML
markup that was application, platform, and
vendor-independent, backward compatible,
universally interoperable, and importantly, Web
ready.
That is not ODF nor is it OOXML. In fact, the
closest thing we have for meeting these
expectations is an ajax-webkit style
HTML+ (HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JS
jQuery, etc.). ODF is highly structured, but it
is not application-independent. .....
Microsoft-led Forum Yields Tools for OOXML Interoperability - Business Center - PC World
Is there nothing that can cool the flames of this document war?
Interesting coverage of the recent OOXML Interoperability event in London (Monday). Real stuff not talk. Since Florian, Jason and i are working on an OpenWeb ready HTML+ layer riding over OOXML there are some things mentioned that look very interesting.
..."An Opera browser plug-in for Open XML Document Viewer v1.0 was released at the meeting; the tool provides direct translation for Open XML documents (.DOCX) to HTML, enabling access to Open XML documents from any platform with a Web browser, including mobile devices. The document-viewing software already includes a plug-in for Firefox, Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8...."
..."Microsoft and the other participants in Monday's forum also made available a beta of Apache POI 3.5, a Java API (application programming interface) to access information in the Open XML Format....."
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Introducing Rich Snippets
Google "Rich Snippets" is a new presentation of HTML snippets that applies Google's algorithms to highlight structured data embedded in web pages.
Rich Snippets give end-users convenient summary information about their search results at a glance. Google is currently supporting a very limited subset of data about <b>reviews and people</b>. When searching for a product or service, users can easily see reviews and ratings, and when searching for a person, they'll get help distinguishing between people with the same name. It's a simple change to the display of search results, yet our experiments have shown that users find the new data valuable.
For this to work though, both Web-masters and Web-workers have to annotate thier pages with structured data in a standard format. Google snippets supports microformats and RDFa. Existing Web data can be wrapped with some additional tags to accomplish this.
Notice that Google avoids mention of RDF and the W3C's vision of a "Semantic Web" where Web objects are fully described in machine readable semantics. Over at the WHATWG group, where work on HTML5 continues, Google's Ian Hickson has been fighting RDFa and the Semantic Web in what looks to be an effort to protect the infamous Google algorithms.
RDFa provides a means for Web-workers, knowledge-workers, line-of-business managers and document generating end-users to enrich their HTML+ with machine semantics. The idea being that the document experts creating Web content can best describe to search engine and content management machines the objects-of-information used. The google algorithms provide a proprietary semantics of this same content.
The best solution to the tsunami of conten the Web has wrought would be to combine end-user semantic expertise with Google algorithms. Let's hope Google stays the RDFa course and comes around to recognize the full potential of organizing the world's information with the input of content providers.
One thing the world desperately needs are powerful desktop editors capable of
Comment for Jesper on the Groklaw "Digging at those who tell the Truth" article
Lengthy response to Jesper's Groklaw comment. Groklaw rips apart Alex Brown, convenor of the ISO JS34 docuemnt standards group.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in ooxml
-
Interoperability and The Quest For A Universal File Format
Bookmarked pages related to...
Items: 11 | Visits: 238
Created by: Gary Edwards
-
Compatibility matters
The lessons of Massachusett...
Items: 6 | Visits: 10
Created by: Gary Edwards
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo