Is OOXML the better standard?
No, it is not in my opinion. But I think that is what Microsoft now tries to make us public authorities think. I know about the facts behind the scenes. I know that this company declines real support for ODF by doing something strange, not aiming at real interoperability, but at a Microsoft implementation of ODF, not compatible with others. So they, as worldwide market leader, can proof the insufficiency of ODF. And they have the solution for us. Use OOXML instead. It implements every function Microsoft Office does. And the next step is, that other interested implementations should improve their products to implement everything OOXML does. Really simple, isn’t it?
I fear that this argumentation (OOXML is the better standard) is very persuasive for all the public authorities who don’t know facts behind. They see that there’s a really open standard, everyone is talking about (ODF). And that everyone wants Microsoft to implement this standard, although they had an own “open” standard OOXML. Now they implement this unliked “alien” standard and nothing wents fine. So the conclusion seems to be consecutive, that the standard is the problem. If saved as OOXML (from Microsoft Office) everything is OK. They are the market leader worldwide and almost everyone uses their product (despite some dissidents). And then, Microsoft is again the leader on everything, Office products, exchange standards and so on.
It is the right time to rise up against this behavior. Again and again. They had not learnt the lesson. We need real interoperability, not controlled by one vendor, but discussed and implemented by many competitive products. Let’s discuss what action can be taken to get closer to real interoperability.
22. Mai 2009 um 18:10
After all the politics, I think it is a little sad to call Open XML ‘open’. It is a lot more open to me than ODF.
– it is all standardized, unlike ODF
– legacy attributes are documented, unlike ODF
– there are public implementer notes for the main implementation, unlike ODF
How is ODF more open then? Especially from the developer perspective, I find Open XML a lot more open than ODF. (and a better standard, but that’s another story
Wouter
22. Mai 2009 um 21:10
Wouter,
maybe it’s enough for you to be dependent to one single vendor. That’s fine. For me that is no option. I’d like to have a choice.
Of course, as you write, all is standardized. OOXML standardizes to Microsoft behaviour of software and tries to tighten users again to one implementation of one vendor. All others should rebuild Microsoft Office or let it – and stay away from the market – Microsoft’s market.
Who needs legacy attributes? Afaik OOXML lists a lot of them, but doesn’t define them. “Compatibility with old Microsoft formats” is the reason. OK. Staying dependent to one vendor again.
Yes, using free software you don’t need extra public implementer notes, because the implementation as whole is free. That’s one basic priciple of free software.
For me ODF has been build from the scratch to fulfill the most needed requirements. And now it’s an ongoing process to improve the standard step by step to some more needed features. It’s a completely open process, everyone – also Microsoft – can take part.
On the other side, OOXML is designed to map all, needed and unneccessary, functions of the product of one single vendor. With the only aim to sell more products, because the vendor could participate in procurements in the future, when an open standard is required.
So everyone can choose between being dependent on them or trying to get the control over wisdom back from industry to people.
23. Mai 2009 um 21:04
Here’s a question for you. Using only the standard, and not having to reverse engineer anyone elses code, which standard is more likely to result in fully interoperable files? ODF or OOXML?
I think the fact is, OOXML is a more fully specified standard, and like it or not, there are far fewer ways for apps to comply with the standard and not be interoperable. ODF has so many holes in it that require app vendors to develop ad-hoc interoperability methods that it’s ridiculous.
The sad part, is that this is what the ODF proponents accused OOXML of requiring, yet ODF is far worse. At least the parts of OOXML that aren’t specieid were “deprecated” portions that are not supposed to be used, and optional.
23. Mai 2009 um 21:17
My answer to your question is simple: I don’t know any implementation of OOXML, not even Microsoft managed to implement this so called open standard. It’s much too complex to do so and they realize this. So at the moment there no discussion about interoperable OOXML files, because there’s nothing to talk about.
On the other side there’s ODF for years now and Microsoft is invited to improve the really needed thing, fitting holes everyone needs – not to reinvent vendor specific complex monsters.
Btw, I don’t like anonymous posts.
24. Mai 2009 um 9:47
[...] is what Microsoft might try next (when the damage it has caused is [...]
25. Mai 2009 um 8:40
Come on,
the lenghts Microsoft had to go in standardization bullying its ‘open’ standard through the ISO procedures speaks volumes. When you have to rely on Trinidad-Tobago and Lebanon to get your standard approved, I don’t think that’s a mark of excellence (just standardization-wise, nothing against these countries btw)
@NobodyReal “More fully specified standard” – haha – I guess you are right- maybe it’s because Microsoft ignored prety much every other pre-existing standard (SVG etc) to bring in its own proprietary stuff.
28. Mai 2009 um 18:26
You: OOXML standardizes to Microsoft behaviour
Yup, OOXML standardizes to MS Office behavior indeed. Similarly, ODF standardizes on Open Office. How is that different? You hit a good point though. The point is that there is a need for various standards since they all do unique things. How else is there a marketplace for more than one office productivity application. If there is only one format which defines all behaviors, then no application can have value added features that drive a marketplace, but we are all left conforming to the basics.
You: Who needs legacy attributes?
We all do, if you care about the existing corpus of documents that need conversion. At least Open XML defines them, whereas ODF does not. Does this mean Open Office has no legacy attributes, well, no it doesn’t. It does mean that implementors of ODF have no knowledge of these attributes without decompiling applications (or looking at the equally verbose source code). That sucks!
You: using free software you don’t need extra public implementer notes
Saying that free software does not need implementor notes is totally and unequivically wrong and IMHO a really silly thing to believe. How am I as a developer going to look in the source code of Open Office what a legacy attribute does? I know. I will not ever do that, since that code is so verbose that I’ll probably never figure it out anyway. Free software or not, doesn’t matter. We need implementor notes across the board.
You: For me ODF has been build from the scratch to fulfill the most needed requirements
For the rest of the world, ODF is based on an existing application called Open Office. An application which has a longer history than that name. Where have you been living?
28. Mai 2009 um 18:45
You:I don’t know any implementation of OOXML
There are far more uses of the Open XML document format than building a office productivity suite. Most of us build server based processing applications. And for me Open XML was not complex at all. I have no prior experience but was quite able to write a decent book about it anyway. How is that overly complex? For me Open XML is less complex. For instance in the standard not allowing mixed content. Much better for developers.
28. Mai 2009 um 19:31
Ich glaube die Sache ist ganz einfach: Ohne Drohkulisse und echten kommerziellen Druck oder Regulierung gibt es kein Entgegenkommen bei der Interoperabilität. Das bedeutet auch, dass ODF derzeit den Interessierten mehr Macht gibt, und somit der richtige Hebel ist.
Beschaffung sollte von Marktakteuren strategischer angegangen werden. Auf EU und nationaler Ebene müsste mehr getan werden in der Verwaltung für Interoperabilität und die digitale Unabhängigkeit Europas. IDABC hat demonstriert, was passiert, wenn man moderat vorprescht. Offene Dokumentformate ist aber kein Thema für das eine einzige untergeordnete Planstelle ausreicht. Hier muss eine sauber abgeschirmte Koordinierungsarbeit geleistet werden, was ggf. auch Mitarbeit in den Standardgremien und andereren Kapazitätsaufwuchs einschließt. Im Prinzip würde es schon genügen, wenn man die Akteure aus Drittstaaten in Europa vor die Tür setzt und neue lauterkeitsrechtliche Sanktionen für den Schutz der Standardisierung kodifiziert.
28. Mai 2009 um 19:51
Wouter, I accept you as someone bound to or paid by Microsoft. That’s OK. We’re living in a free world and if they let you post their opinions, fine.
“The point is that there is a need for various standards since they all do unique things. How else is there a marketplace for more than one office productivity application. If there is only one format which defines all behaviors, then no application can have value added features that drive a marketplace”
Sorry, but this is exactly what’s the wrong way. Yes, we need a competition of products, but no, we don’t need competing standards. “Standard” means for me, that everyone can build on the absolutely minimum required features, defined by the standard. Not a standard to implement every feature you can think about. Maybe the solution is, that Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org should have an option to deactivate all functions not implemented by ODF for the users?
“For the rest of the world, ODF is based on an existing application called Open Office. An application which has a longer history than that name. Where have you been living?”
Afaik OpenOffice.org was the first product which implemented ODF. There have been own XML formats used by OpenOffice.org in the past. Not OpenOffice.org invented the standard. And the answer to your question: I live in Munich for 31 years now.
“There are far more uses of the Open XML document format than building a office productivity suite.”
Who needs a file exchange format bound singularily to Microsoft Office (that means only available if you’re using Microsoft Windows!)? You? Then you force your customers to buy Microsoft licenses? Congratulations. For public authorities that’s in contrary to European Competition Policy, as statet by Commissioner Kroes last year. So OOXML won’t be an option for all of them. But I think Microsoft is aware of that.
28. Mai 2009 um 20:11
Lol. Paid by Microsoft. NOT! I am payed by my customers, in both the corporate world and in government.
So you say yes to competing products, no to standardizing how these products save stuff. Basically, the end result would be a standard which defines ‘extensibility’ points, which will remain undocumented since each application uses their own things. How else will they be able to save their unique features in the file format? Take SmartArt graphics. Unique to MS Office. How would you like to see this represented in ODF? In a block?
By the way. Open XML is not bound to the Windows platform. Take the iPhone. It has support for Open XML, but not ODF. How is that possible with this standard being so bound to Microsoft? Apple was able to do it. Can’t you?
I force no-one. EU also does not care about using closed source software. They care about software getting the job done. When, and only when, both open and closed source applications provide the same level of solution capabilities will open source be choses (sounds smart doesn’t it?) They do care that documents created in whatever application can be read in the future. Which for both ODF and Open XML is the case. Open XML a little better, because it actually defines everything and does not choose to leave vital bits out like change tracking or formulas. ODF already has interoperability issues right now. How will that move into the future? I know, it won’t!
28. Mai 2009 um 20:26
“There are far more uses of the Open XML document format than building a office productivity suite.â€
Care to back that up with facts, Wouter? And please be precise. Do you mean the OOXML as defined by ECMA 376? Or the IS29500?
If you want to compare apples and apples, you need to stick to IS29500. So how many implementations of IS29500 exist? Hint: None.
Jan
28. Mai 2009 um 21:19
“Take the iPhone. It has support for Open XML, but not ODF.”
Well, I think the iPhone has support for Microsoft files, like .doc, .xls and .ppt. Maybe there’s a deal between Apple and Microsoft, nothing more. One thing that should be changed on a way to openess.
“I force no-one. EU also does not care about using closed source software. They care about software getting the job done.”
That’s wrong. The operation level has to run daily business, yes. But the policy level has to decide on which base the future will be build up. And the poilicy filed Microsoft a penalty of 1.7 billion Euro and has two more investigations right now. That’s the difference. Policy changes, but in the long-term.
28. Mai 2009 um 21:41
Jan,
Back up with facts that more people than productivity suite implementors need the specification of the documents they are trying to automate? Eh…
I personally used the standard to implement workflow activities, Package Explorer, validation tools, processing apps and a few more things. Does that count too?
28. Mai 2009 um 21:47
Hmmm. This discussion has died a little. I don’t know about deals between Apple and Microsoft. Don’t care either. I see support for A, where there is no support for B. The rest is ‘whatever’.
And on those penalties. They were not filed against Microsoft for building Open XML, or for supporting ODF. How is it relevant? Microsoft is a big company.
28. Mai 2009 um 22:16
“And on those penalties. They were not filed against Microsoft for building Open XML, or for supporting ODF. How is it relevant? Microsoft is a big company.”
That’s it. And this big company, the market monopolist, tries to dominate and control the world-wide office exchange standard format by getting an own self-controlled standard through standardization bodies like a war. You really mean that’s right? You really mean that OOXML is just a standard? No, it’s a weapon, an uncontrolled weapon in the hands of a company running amok if there’s no policy regulation on that topic.
I started this discussion because I don’t want a future, where one big company dictates everything – the last ten years are enough for me. And it’s time for change, now. Not only in America, but also in Europe. In my opinion OOXML is no alternative. Everyone claiming this doesn’t believe in freedom, but in blind dependence. If it’s OK for you, then fine. I vote for competition, I want to have a choice and I will live in a world controlled by people, not by companies or their share holders.
28. Mai 2009 um 23:40
It seems to me that there are about as many actual implementations of IS 26300 (based on a modification of ODF 1.0) as there are of IS 29500. Actually, because IS 29500 grandfathers ECMA 376 almost completely in its transitional schema, I suggest that there is a more complete IS 29500 implementation at this time than there has ever been for IS 26300.
To say there is no implementation of IS 29500 is to use a yardstick by which there is no implementation of ISO 1.x whatsoever.
29. Mai 2009 um 2:00
“And on those penalties. They were not filed against Microsoft for building Open XML, or for supporting ODF. How is it relevant? Microsoft is a big company.”
Competition is indeed good, and the public sector has to use his powers to sustain the pressure for more openness and ultimately better solutions/offerings.
If the dominant company deliberately obstructs competition it will run into competition law problems but they are on a different level. Competition authorities are not the nannies of the market players, and I find it despicable what lack of respect is expressed towards these institutions. The take deterrent action when its too late, but sometimes even their measures may not be deterrent enough and may be neutralised or compromised by lobbying.
The current market dependencies in Europe are a result of regulatory lazyness and ultimately threaten national security. To overcome dependencies and prevent them in the future Europe requires stronger interoperability measures in the future and exactly this is about to happen. Both soft law, like procurement guidelines, and competition enforcement measures.
Procurement strategy is key. Governments and companies understand that you have to support alternatives. OpenOffice 3.1 may not be on par yet for some users. It is no huge investment for a government to dump 50 or 500 Mio Eur on the product and thus make a big pro-competitive difference and there are flanking measures as ODF embracement by the public sector. Asus demonstrated how a Linux strategy pays commercially off. Government procurement agencies understand that you have to invest in market openness, strategically and tactical to get better procurement conditions. Sure, we find a string free rider effect of pro-competition measures. And Asus demonstrated how a Linux strategy pays commercially off.
Ironically Wouter benefits very much from the commercial interest to keep Pandora’s box closed for the dominant vendor. So he shouldn’t be too passionate about it but better keep an eye on the return of interoperability investment for him.
30. Mai 2009 um 11:10
[...] agent of Microsoft. Despite many of yesterday’s ODF-hostile remarks from him in Twitter, he denies having a direct relationship when he writes: Lol. Paid by Microsoft. NOT! I am payed by my customers, in both the corporate [...]
20. Juli 2009 um 11:04
[...] http://www.floschi.info/2009/05/is-ooxml-the-better-standard/ [...]