1
|
Last week Microsoft's OpenXML, the default format for MS Office 2007 documents, was approved by the standard body Ecma International, but if the thought of Microsoft creating an open, international standard for the good of consumers makes you laugh, you're not alone.
The Ecma approval was not unanimous, IBM cast a strong no vote and IBM vice-president for open source and standards, Bob Sutor, writes on his blog, "what the world needs today...is a real open standard versus a vendor-dictated spec that documents proprietary products via XML."
There is already an international standard for office documents. The format, known as Open Document Format (ODF), is XML-based and uses industry standard tools like SVG and MathML to render complex graphics and equations. Sutor says of the IBM vote, "ODF is about the future, OpenXML is about the past."
In spite of what its name might imply, Microsoft's OpenXML is not an open source spec like ODF. OpenXML will be licensed for free, but given the size of the spec (over 6000 pages) and the fact that it eschews industry standard tools in favor of proprietary Microsoft options, it can hardly be called "open."
Microsoft's move is a "me too" response to ODF. Only when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts put forth the proposal last year to change its default file format for state agencies to ODF, did Microsoft to submit Open XML as an alternative standard.
Microsoft's Alan Yates, General Manager of the Information Worker Division claims "the ODF format, however, is limited to the features of OpenOffice and StarOffice and would not satisfy most of our Microsoft Office customers today."
But Sam Hiser, Vice President and Director of Business Affairs at the OpenDocument Foundation, says "Microsoft is about 2 years behind ODF in its implementation of XML."
Microsoft's attempt to repackage the proprietary Word document format with XML trimmings has so far seen a cold reception in the marketplace. As John McCreesh, OpenOffice.org' Marketing Project Lead says, "The market told OpenOffice.org it needed a standard - the last thing it wants is two."
Competing standards have already wrecked havoc in the graphics field where competing SVG formats, one open source and one from Adobe, have left the marketplace with no complete implementations of Abode's SVG standard outside of Adobe Illustrator.
As McCreesh points out, "public administrations and regulated businesses were worried about meeting Freedom of Information requirements if documents were stored in a long-extinct proprietary data format."
The existence of two standards means double the work for Microsoft's competitors. Raju Vegesna of Zoho.com, a popular online office suite, says, "While we support standards, we also have to look at practicality." With Microsoft pushing OpenXML as a standard, Vegesna says Zoho will "have to support both formats and will do it going forward." At the same time, like most vendors, Zoho would prefer ODF, "if we were to choose a format, we will pick ODF" says Vegesna.
Novell, another office suite vendor, has announced that its version of OpenOffice.org will support Microsoft’s proprietary document format. Novell also plans to release the code to the open source community so that all versions of OpenOffice.org could support the MS format if they want.
OpenOffice.org's McCreesh says, "Novell have an excellent track record for feeding their enhancements to OpenOffice.org back to the community for the benefit of all users." He goes one to add that, "OpenOffice.org already supports a plethora of Microsoft proprietary file formats so adding one more for OpenXML would be no big deal."
In the end the marketplace may be the deciding factor. Hiser says "If one day we have two ISO standards that do roughly the same things, then the marketplace will decide between basically a very expensive solution set where most of the costs are hidden and a relatively inexpensive set which will have much more confidence associated with users' access."
***these numbers come from an ITwire article which I can't verify yet, but I'm looking into it.
Massachusetts's state officials have said the decision to go with ODF was based in part on a cost analysis that put Office 2007 upgrades at four times the price of an Open Office solution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quotes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Zoho:
Yes, we do plan to support both formats. While we support standards, we also have to look at practicality right? Microsoft has more than 80% (90%?) of the Office market share and they will push Microsoft OpenXML Doc format to be the standard. We will have to support both formats and will do it going forward. If we were to choose a format, we will pick ODF, but we will (have to) support both.
MS:
>>>>>>>> We support giving our customers more choice. The promise of XML
based formats as the ideal technology for data interoperability and
archiving is a vision we share with the proponents of the OpenDocument
Format (ODF). The ODF format, however, is limited to the features of
OpenOffice and StarOffice and would not satisfy most of our Microsoft
Office customers today. Yet, we do support interoperability with ODF
through the Open XML-ODF Translator project and did not oppose its
standardization or use by any organization. The richness of competitive
choices in the market is good for our customers and for the industry as
a whole.
Sam Hiser:
http://samhiser.blogspot.com/2005/12/ecma-rubber-stamps-ms-xml-proposal.html
I wrote this over a YEAR ago. Surprisingly, it's still germane.
The Ecma vote last week was expected and indicative of an ossified
coin-operated standards organization. A travesty of common sense, but one we
shrug off as par for the course.
Just having this discussion reflects the increased level of competition.
Microsoft's legacy formats give them a great ramp into whatever next thing
they are selling. Even if it's herring.
Any reasonable man on the street who reads the 6,000 page Ecma specification
would HAVE TO CONCLUDE that Microsoft has dumped their existing format
design into a just-add-water standards process. They were surprised and are
pretending to satisfy customer requirements (Massachusetts & EU). There's an
old Sicilian expression: Watch the hand, not the mouth.
Do you think OpenXML has a realistic chance at ISO approval? If it
does get approval do you think Microsoft's power in the industry will
allow it to position OpenXML as an alternative to ODF inspite of the
proprietary aspects of OpenXML?
>>>>>>>>John McCreesh
OpenOffice.org started down the road to open-standard file formats in
response to market pressure. For example, public administrations and
regulated businesses were worried about meeting Freedon of Information
requirements if documents were stored in a long-extinct proprietary data
format. To meet these market demands, OpenOffice.org believes:
* a specification must be owned and maintained by a recognised standards
body which is truly vendor neutral
* a specification must be capable of being adopted by any software vendor
without restrictions
* contributors must issue an irrevocable covenant not to enforce any of
their patents against any implementation of the specification
With these requirements in mind, OpenOffice.org helped steer the
OpenDocument Format first through OASIS and then to the OSI - the most
respected standards body - for ratification. OpenOffice.org software now
supports OpenDocument / ISO 26300 as its native file format.
OpenOffice.org encourages everyone (including Microsoft) to rally to this
standard. Naturally, OpenOffice.org was disappointed to see Microsoft
trying to play "me-too" with OpenXML (can we finally kill off the old
allegation that open-source projects are not innovators?). However,
OpenXML fails to pass the tests of being multi-vendor and free of
intellectual property encumbrances. Microsoft is a company with enormous
powers of influence, but it would be a sad day for users of office
software if this extended to persuading ISO to ratify a competing
'standard'. The market told OpenOffice.org it needed a standard - the last
thing it wants is two.
Novell has said they'll be adding OpenXML support to their version of
OO, does the main OO community have any plans to roll that code into
the OO.org version or are you opposed to multiple document formats?
(or would the MS licensing terms be a problem?)
Novell have an excellent track record for feeding their enhancements to
OpenOffice.org back to the community for the benefit of all users.
OpenOffice.org already supports a plethora of Microsoft proprietary file
formats so adding one more for OpenXML would be no big deal.
If ISO members define the purpose of MS Office Open XML as being different
than ODF, there's quite a good chance it will pass -- though you have to get
by that fastidious Japanese ISO team.
If it passes, MS Office OpenXML would get added to the procurement menus in
government. It would therefore be harder for CIOs to keep Vista and Office
2007 out of their agencies; although the cost of a full stack of eight
different Microsoft products, all of which are needed to get full XML
capabilities, would make the same CIO faint.
IT acquisition executives will need to earn their pay and make an educated
choice. Microsoft is about 2 years behind ODF in its implementation of XML.
Total cost will matter. ODF remains a hard-sell, but where were we a year
ago...no one had heard of us. I expect us to continue to outperform
expectations. There's no denying common sense.
|
