So, MS agrees to continue with Office. What did Apple agree to? Not release "Numbers?"
At a time when Microsoft is trying to push .doc and other Office formats as standard formats, a major company supporting the existing standard format OpenDocument would not add much credibility to their case.
So Apple doesn't adopgt .odf and Microsoft continues to push .doc. Ingenious, really.
Apple agreed to providing technology on time to MS. What do you think that means? Has Apple been hindering the MacBU?
Of course, MS is probably in a crunch to finish Vista and needs all the OSX goodies as soon as possible so they can include it in their end of year release.
At a time when Microsoft is trying to push .doc and other Office formats as standard formats, a major company supporting the existing standard format OpenDocument would not add much credibility to their case.
So Apple doesn't adopgt .odf and Microsoft continues to push .doc. Ingenious, really.
You are right on there. Apple came out this autumn and spoke of its support for ms format, at about the time when Massachusetts was declaring for an open document format. Apple did not jump on that wagon, rather indicated support for ms as one standard. So these two must have been talking about this for a while. On the other hand, I suppose it is a good way for Apple's Pages to be simpatico with word, and to be able to export documents in a word doc format so that it works without much of a hitch, or is supposed to.
Frankly, I am for an open document format. I hope Apple comes round to supporting this, but for the time being, it seems like Apple has chosen to fellow with redmond. It would be interesting to be party to some of these discussions.
Frankly, I am for an open document format. I hope Apple comes round to supporting this, but for the time being, it seems like Apple has chosen to fellow with redmond. It would be interesting to be party to some of these discussions.
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely convinced that adopting the new open formats is the best way to go. I agree that, if we were back in the early 1980's and no one office suite dominated the market, the ideal solution would be to adopt an open format that everyone collaborated on.
However, given that it's 2006 and there is an office suite that dominates the market, it seems to me that the best course of action is the one that MS appears to be taking. Given the untold billions of dollars that individuals, corporations, and governments have invested in MS Office and its file formats, it seems unlikely that a new format would gain significant market share.* The ubiquity of the .xls, .ppt, and .doc formats lock users into office programs that provide compatibility with those formats. With the new XML formats coming with Office 12, MS appears to be working with the standards community to allow other developers access to its formats. The ubiquity of the formats should no longer hinders the adoption of other software.
I'm not blind to the possibility that MS will tweak their Office suite to ensure that MS Office remains the office suite of choice. But the reports that I have read seem to indicate that the standards will no longer be controlled solely by MS, but by the standards organization. Thus, iWork '07 could adopt the format standard and allow the seemless exchange of documents with MS Word users throughout the world. As a soon-to-be-practicing attorney, I will greatly appreciate the ability to exchange documents with other attorneys or submit filings to the court without having to email them from my Mac to a Windows PC, just to open the document and ensure that my formatting, styles, etc. do no get lost in translation.
* I think the Firefox analogy is instructive. Even though I would characterize its market penetration as wildly successful, I think that its market share is still less than 20% or so. While that is a monumental acheivement, it still leaves over 70% for IE. I recognize that there are differences in the situations, but I do think that the Firefox adoption rates illustrate the difficulty that a "new" technology faces when a market that is dominated by a pre-existing, albeit inferior, technology.
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely convinced that adopting the new open formats is the best way to go. I agree that, if we were back in the early 1980's and no one office suite dominated the market, the ideal solution would be to adopt an open format that everyone collaborated on.
There were no office suites in the early 1980's. That was a marketing invention about 10 years later.
Quote:
Originally posted by acollins
However, given that it's 2006 and there is an office suite that dominates the market, it seems to me that the best course of action is the one that MS appears to be taking. Given the untold billions of dollars that individuals, corporations, and governments have invested in MS Office and its file formats, it seems unlikely that a new format would gain significant market share.* The ubiquity of the .xls, .ppt, and .doc formats lock users into office programs that provide compatibility with those formats. With the new XML formats coming with Office 12, MS appears to be working with the standards community to allow other developers access to its formats. The ubiquity of the formats should no longer hinders the adoption of other software.
Microsoft's OpenXML is neither open nor XML. It is a proprietary hybrid of XML and binary formats. Other vendors can take it or leave it. I look for Microsoft to follow its Windows API model of public disclosure. If you remember, Microsoft leveraged private Windows APIs in its successful effort to eliminate Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as serious competitors.
Quote:
Originally posted by acollins
I'm not blind to the possibility that MS will tweak their Office suite to ensure that MS Office remains the office suite of choice. But the reports that I have read seem to indicate that the standards will no longer be controlled solely by MS, but by the standards organization. Thus, iWork '07 could adopt the format standard and allow the seemless exchange of documents with MS Word users throughout the world. As a soon-to-be-practicing attorney, I will greatly appreciate the ability to exchange documents with other attorneys or submit filings to the court without having to email them from my Mac to a Windows PC, just to open the document and ensure that my formatting, styles, etc. do no get lost in translation.
OpenDocument is controlled by a standards committee. OpenXML is controlled by Microsoft.
Quote:
Originally posted by acollins
* I think the Firefox analogy is instructive. Even though I would characterize its market penetration as wildly successful, I think that its market share is still less than 20% or so. While that is a monumental acheivement, it still leaves over 70% for IE. I recognize that there are differences in the situations, but I do think that the Firefox adoption rates illustrate the difficulty that a "new" technology faces when a market that is dominated by a pre-existing, albeit inferior, technology.
Firefox is an opensource, standards-compliant browser which was derived from another opensource, standards-compliant browser--Mozilla, now also known as Seamonkey. Microsoft does not even pretend that Internet Explorer is either opensource or standards-compliant. Therefore the relationship between Firefox and Internet Explorer is completely different from the relationship between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
So microsoft is really moving toward making their format open? That way Pages, or Claris Works(Apple Works) or Open Office or New Office, will be able to produce documents that are the same as Word produced. What will make Word needful to people then, more than other word processing programmes?
The one programme that ms has that strikes me, personally, as useful is excel. Word may be able to do all kinds of things, and I would not say that I will never get a copy of office. For one thing excel may have its uses that I can employ.
"ms appears to be working with the standards community"
Perhaps I am mistaken about the redmond giant corporation.
I just find it hard to believe that microsoft really wants to have its formats be truly open. It would be good for them if they did, but they would have to allow other software to be able to produce documents that are indistinguishable from Word. For years in libraries I used ms windos 95, 98, and started to use their stuff. I got out, and in to Macs. But I have not had to be in the office world, at least not using word.
What reports were you reading about standards that will be out of ms hands? I realise it is hard to recall every article you read, and where it was at.
Microsoft's format will not be open. The assumption is that by it being XML based it'll somehow be open. That sadly is not the case. Just as AAC can be wrapped in DRM, Microsoft's XML format will be "DRM'd" to that they maintain control of the format.
I'd recommend that attorney and other professionals send pdf to their clients. I'm trying to get my mother's practice on PDF. With the ver 7 reader you have the ability to password protect and annotate files right in the reader. Forcing people to pay a Microsoft "tax" to read files is in many cases a poor choice.
Apple has shown absolutely no guts at all in dealing with Microsoft. "Here's to the crazy ones" well that damn sure isn't Apple. Bill Gate's company pisses on Apple every chance they get and Steve begs for more. Redmond is trying very hard to break Apple's cash cow..yet any marginal threat to Office results in the need for agreements between the two companies?
Apple has indeed morphed into an Entertainment company. Ipods aren't indispensable.
Microsoft's format will not be open. The assumption is that by it being XML based it'll somehow be open. That sadly is not the case. Just as AAC can be wrapped in DRM, Microsoft's XML format will be "DRM'd" to that they maintain control of the format.
Except they are submitting it through a standards body and standards are required to be open or else they aren't standards.
I'll wait to see the final result but so far if Microsoft sticks to their word it will be an open format for anybody to implement. It will just be Microsoft designed. People need to remove the tin foil hats for a while.
There were no office suites in the early 1980's. That was a marketing invention about 10 years later.
That may be true (I was only born in 1980), but I don't think it's germane to the discussion of MS opening the file formats of the programs that constitute its office suite.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Microsoft's OpenXML is neither open nor XML. It is a proprietary hybrid of XML and binary formats. Other vendors can take it or leave it. I look for Microsoft to follow its Windows API model of public disclosure. If you remember, Microsoft leveraged private Windows APIs in its successful effort to eliminate Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as serious competitors.
OpenDocument is controlled by a standards committee. OpenXML is controlled by Microsoft.
I am unfamiliar with those specific incidences, but I am very much aware that MS has used the appearance of openness to further solidify its control over segments of the software market. Even its recent campaign of "openness" against the iPod and the iTMS evinces that tactic.
In this particular instance, however, I believe that there are some indications that openness may be more than a strategic ploy to further entrench itself. According to this blog post by one of the MS program managers who has been working on the upcoming Office 12 formats, the ECMA has been an integral part of the development of the formats. A number of large companies, both in and outside the technology industry, appear to be collaborating on the specification. I readily admit that the technical aspects of the format are far beyond my comprehension, but the general principles seem straightforward.
From the blog...
Quote:
The initial draft of the standard was submitted by Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the British Library, Essilor, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, NextPage Inc., Statoil ASA and Toshiba. This is going to be a really good group of folks to work with and from what I can tell the number of people participating will continue to grow.
Another advantage of basing the new formats on .doc, .xls, etc. rather than .odf is backwards compatibility. It may be a pipe dream, but the claim is that current MS Office documents will work with programs that are compliant with the new formats. This, I think, is very important. As a user, my interest is not in the format; my interest is in the program that I use to create the document. One of the advantages of being a Mac user is the interaction that I have with my computer - I honestly have no idea how iTunes works, but I love using it. The typical user just wants to be able to open a Mac-like program (like Pages or something from the OmniGroup) and produce a document that for all the world looks like it came from Office 12 on Windows Vista.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Firefox is an opensource, standards-compliant browser which was derived from another opensource, standards-compliant browser--Mozilla, now also known as Seamonkey. Microsoft does not even pretend that Internet Explorer is either opensource or standards-compliant. Therefore the relationship between Firefox and Internet Explorer is completely different from the relationship between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
I agree completely. I was not analogizing Firefox and IE to OpenDocument and OpenXML. I was pointing out the difficulty that a new -- and nearly universally recognized as superior -- technology can face when trying to enter a market dominated by an existing, ubiquitous technology. There are those who think that the internet is "Internet Explorer." Similarly, there are those who think that any text document is a Word document, or that any spreadsheet is an Excel spreadsheet. I think it would be fantastic if OpenOffice were to acheive the success that Firefox has. Realistically, however, I think it is unlikely that the "open" formats will be able to overcome the inertia of the existing file formats.
Microsoft cannot lie about their upcoming developments; it can keep secrets and refuse to disclose future plans, but it cannot make affirmatively misleading statements. A publicly traded company such as MS cannot make false statements via its managerial employees without legal consequences. Thus, when Brian Jones reports that he is working with the ECMA and numerous corporations on the new specification, I accept that as a factually accurate statement. It may very well be that I do not understand what is being done, or that the full implications of the proposal elude me. If so, I would appreciate it if someone on this board could bring the technical aspects of the discussion down to my level.
Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
What reports were you reading about standards that will be out of ms hands? I realize it is hard to recall every article you read, and where it was at.
I read this blog, which led me to this blog. There are lots of links in Brian Jones's blog that deal with the upcoming Office 12 formats.
Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
So microsoft is really moving toward making their format open? That way Pages, or Claris Works(Apple Works) or Open Office or New Office, will be able to produce documents that are the same as Word produced. What will make Word needful to people then, more than other word processing programmes?
My understanding is that yes, other word processors will be able to open Word documents. To my mind, that will make Word less needful because I could use a word processor that I liked more than Word (for example, Pages), but everyone else that I would send the file to would think it was made by Word.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Just as AAC can be wrapped in DRM, Microsoft's XML format will be "DRM'd" to that they maintain control of the format.
How is this possible if the ECMA - along with numerous other companies - are approving the specification? I don't mean this to be a flippant question, and I would genuinely appreciate a response: if the ECMA is following the development of the standard, how can MS still cripple it?
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'd recommend that attorney and other professionals send pdf to their clients. I'm trying to get my mother's practice on PDF. With the ver 7 reader you have the ability to password protect and annotate files right in the reader. Forcing people to pay a Microsoft "tax" to read files is in many cases a poor choice.
That's true, and PDF files work in a variety of instances. But in many other instances, they don't. Many courts have specific rules about formats for the electronic filing of documents. The federal courts, for example, still use Wordperfect. Many state courts have similar requirements about .doc files. Moreover, I don't think that the law is the only profession where PDF files aren't ideal or aren't practical in many situations. It isn't accurate in many instances to say that the use of such a file is imposing a Microsoft "tax" because of the ubiquity of the format. Were I to use an Appleworks file, that would impose an additional cost on the recipient because the file format is uncommon. I have yet to find a single instance in academia or the law (outside the federal courts) where the .doc format was not the standard. I recognize that my experience is anecdotal and not universally shared. But with such a high degree of market penetration, I can't help but think that my experience has been shared by many people in many professions.
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar
I'll wait to see the final result but so far if Microsoft sticks to their word it will be an open format for anybody to implement. It will just be Microsoft designed. People need to remove the tin foil hats for a while.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
So, MS agrees to continue with Office. What did Apple agree to? Not release "Numbers?"
At a time when Microsoft is trying to push .doc and other Office formats as standard formats, a major company supporting the existing standard format OpenDocument would not add much credibility to their case.
So Apple doesn't adopgt .odf and Microsoft continues to push .doc. Ingenious, really.
Of course, MS is probably in a crunch to finish Vista and needs all the OSX goodies as soon as possible so they can include it in their end of year release.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
....
So Apple doesn't adopgt .odf and Microsoft continues to push .doc. Ingenious, really.
OK. Just exactly how many .odf-compatible shipping apps are there? When they do ship, what makes you think that Apple won't support the format?
Originally posted by Mr. Me
OK. Just exactly how many .odf-compatible shipping apps are there? When they do ship, what makes you think that Apple won't support the format?
3.
OpenOffice.org
KOffice
AbiWord.
If they had any plans to support it - they would do it in iWork '06.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
At a time when Microsoft is trying to push .doc and other Office formats as standard formats, a major company supporting the existing standard format OpenDocument would not add much credibility to their case.
So Apple doesn't adopgt .odf and Microsoft continues to push .doc. Ingenious, really.
You are right on there. Apple came out this autumn and spoke of its support for ms format, at about the time when Massachusetts was declaring for an open document format. Apple did not jump on that wagon, rather indicated support for ms as one standard. So these two must have been talking about this for a while. On the other hand, I suppose it is a good way for Apple's Pages to be simpatico with word, and to be able to export documents in a word doc format so that it works without much of a hitch, or is supposed to.
Frankly, I am for an open document format. I hope Apple comes round to supporting this, but for the time being, it seems like Apple has chosen to fellow with redmond. It would be interesting to be party to some of these discussions.
Originally posted by NordicMan
Frankly, I am for an open document format. I hope Apple comes round to supporting this, but for the time being, it seems like Apple has chosen to fellow with redmond. It would be interesting to be party to some of these discussions.
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely convinced that adopting the new open formats is the best way to go. I agree that, if we were back in the early 1980's and no one office suite dominated the market, the ideal solution would be to adopt an open format that everyone collaborated on.
However, given that it's 2006 and there is an office suite that dominates the market, it seems to me that the best course of action is the one that MS appears to be taking. Given the untold billions of dollars that individuals, corporations, and governments have invested in MS Office and its file formats, it seems unlikely that a new format would gain significant market share.* The ubiquity of the .xls, .ppt, and .doc formats lock users into office programs that provide compatibility with those formats. With the new XML formats coming with Office 12, MS appears to be working with the standards community to allow other developers access to its formats. The ubiquity of the formats should no longer hinders the adoption of other software.
I'm not blind to the possibility that MS will tweak their Office suite to ensure that MS Office remains the office suite of choice. But the reports that I have read seem to indicate that the standards will no longer be controlled solely by MS, but by the standards organization. Thus, iWork '07 could adopt the format standard and allow the seemless exchange of documents with MS Word users throughout the world. As a soon-to-be-practicing attorney, I will greatly appreciate the ability to exchange documents with other attorneys or submit filings to the court without having to email them from my Mac to a Windows PC, just to open the document and ensure that my formatting, styles, etc. do no get lost in translation.
* I think the Firefox analogy is instructive. Even though I would characterize its market penetration as wildly successful, I think that its market share is still less than 20% or so. While that is a monumental acheivement, it still leaves over 70% for IE. I recognize that there are differences in the situations, but I do think that the Firefox adoption rates illustrate the difficulty that a "new" technology faces when a market that is dominated by a pre-existing, albeit inferior, technology.
Originally posted by acollins
I've been thinking about this, and I'm not entirely convinced that adopting the new open formats is the best way to go. I agree that, if we were back in the early 1980's and no one office suite dominated the market, the ideal solution would be to adopt an open format that everyone collaborated on.
There were no office suites in the early 1980's. That was a marketing invention about 10 years later.
Originally posted by acollins
However, given that it's 2006 and there is an office suite that dominates the market, it seems to me that the best course of action is the one that MS appears to be taking. Given the untold billions of dollars that individuals, corporations, and governments have invested in MS Office and its file formats, it seems unlikely that a new format would gain significant market share.* The ubiquity of the .xls, .ppt, and .doc formats lock users into office programs that provide compatibility with those formats. With the new XML formats coming with Office 12, MS appears to be working with the standards community to allow other developers access to its formats. The ubiquity of the formats should no longer hinders the adoption of other software.
Microsoft's OpenXML is neither open nor XML. It is a proprietary hybrid of XML and binary formats. Other vendors can take it or leave it. I look for Microsoft to follow its Windows API model of public disclosure. If you remember, Microsoft leveraged private Windows APIs in its successful effort to eliminate Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as serious competitors.
Originally posted by acollins
I'm not blind to the possibility that MS will tweak their Office suite to ensure that MS Office remains the office suite of choice. But the reports that I have read seem to indicate that the standards will no longer be controlled solely by MS, but by the standards organization. Thus, iWork '07 could adopt the format standard and allow the seemless exchange of documents with MS Word users throughout the world. As a soon-to-be-practicing attorney, I will greatly appreciate the ability to exchange documents with other attorneys or submit filings to the court without having to email them from my Mac to a Windows PC, just to open the document and ensure that my formatting, styles, etc. do no get lost in translation.
OpenDocument is controlled by a standards committee. OpenXML is controlled by Microsoft.
Originally posted by acollins
* I think the Firefox analogy is instructive. Even though I would characterize its market penetration as wildly successful, I think that its market share is still less than 20% or so. While that is a monumental acheivement, it still leaves over 70% for IE. I recognize that there are differences in the situations, but I do think that the Firefox adoption rates illustrate the difficulty that a "new" technology faces when a market that is dominated by a pre-existing, albeit inferior, technology.
Firefox is an opensource, standards-compliant browser which was derived from another opensource, standards-compliant browser--Mozilla, now also known as Seamonkey. Microsoft does not even pretend that Internet Explorer is either opensource or standards-compliant. Therefore the relationship between Firefox and Internet Explorer is completely different from the relationship between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
So microsoft is really moving toward making their format open? That way Pages, or Claris Works(Apple Works) or Open Office or New Office, will be able to produce documents that are the same as Word produced. What will make Word needful to people then, more than other word processing programmes?
The one programme that ms has that strikes me, personally, as useful is excel. Word may be able to do all kinds of things, and I would not say that I will never get a copy of office. For one thing excel may have its uses that I can employ.
"ms appears to be working with the standards community"
Perhaps I am mistaken about the redmond giant corporation.
I just find it hard to believe that microsoft really wants to have its formats be truly open. It would be good for them if they did, but they would have to allow other software to be able to produce documents that are indistinguishable from Word. For years in libraries I used ms windos 95, 98, and started to use their stuff. I got out, and in to Macs. But I have not had to be in the office world, at least not using word.
What reports were you reading about standards that will be out of ms hands? I realise it is hard to recall every article you read, and where it was at.
I'd recommend that attorney and other professionals send pdf to their clients. I'm trying to get my mother's practice on PDF. With the ver 7 reader you have the ability to password protect and annotate files right in the reader. Forcing people to pay a Microsoft "tax" to read files is in many cases a poor choice.
Apple has shown absolutely no guts at all in dealing with Microsoft. "Here's to the crazy ones" well that damn sure isn't Apple. Bill Gate's company pisses on Apple every chance they get and Steve begs for more. Redmond is trying very hard to break Apple's cash cow..yet any marginal threat to Office results in the need for agreements between the two companies?
Apple has indeed morphed into an Entertainment company. Ipods aren't indispensable.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Microsoft's format will not be open. The assumption is that by it being XML based it'll somehow be open. That sadly is not the case. Just as AAC can be wrapped in DRM, Microsoft's XML format will be "DRM'd" to that they maintain control of the format.
Except they are submitting it through a standards body and standards are required to be open or else they aren't standards.
I'll wait to see the final result but so far if Microsoft sticks to their word it will be an open format for anybody to implement. It will just be Microsoft designed. People need to remove the tin foil hats for a while.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
There were no office suites in the early 1980's. That was a marketing invention about 10 years later.
That may be true (I was only born in 1980), but I don't think it's germane to the discussion of MS opening the file formats of the programs that constitute its office suite.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Microsoft's OpenXML is neither open nor XML. It is a proprietary hybrid of XML and binary formats. Other vendors can take it or leave it. I look for Microsoft to follow its Windows API model of public disclosure. If you remember, Microsoft leveraged private Windows APIs in its successful effort to eliminate Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect as serious competitors.
OpenDocument is controlled by a standards committee. OpenXML is controlled by Microsoft.
I am unfamiliar with those specific incidences, but I am very much aware that MS has used the appearance of openness to further solidify its control over segments of the software market. Even its recent campaign of "openness" against the iPod and the iTMS evinces that tactic.
In this particular instance, however, I believe that there are some indications that openness may be more than a strategic ploy to further entrench itself. According to this blog post by one of the MS program managers who has been working on the upcoming Office 12 formats, the ECMA has been an integral part of the development of the formats. A number of large companies, both in and outside the technology industry, appear to be collaborating on the specification. I readily admit that the technical aspects of the format are far beyond my comprehension, but the general principles seem straightforward.
From the blog...
The initial draft of the standard was submitted by Apple, Barclays Capital, BP, the British Library, Essilor, Intel Corporation, Microsoft, NextPage Inc., Statoil ASA and Toshiba. This is going to be a really good group of folks to work with and from what I can tell the number of people participating will continue to grow.
Another advantage of basing the new formats on .doc, .xls, etc. rather than .odf is backwards compatibility. It may be a pipe dream, but the claim is that current MS Office documents will work with programs that are compliant with the new formats. This, I think, is very important. As a user, my interest is not in the format; my interest is in the program that I use to create the document. One of the advantages of being a Mac user is the interaction that I have with my computer - I honestly have no idea how iTunes works, but I love using it. The typical user just wants to be able to open a Mac-like program (like Pages or something from the OmniGroup) and produce a document that for all the world looks like it came from Office 12 on Windows Vista.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Firefox is an opensource, standards-compliant browser which was derived from another opensource, standards-compliant browser--Mozilla, now also known as Seamonkey. Microsoft does not even pretend that Internet Explorer is either opensource or standards-compliant. Therefore the relationship between Firefox and Internet Explorer is completely different from the relationship between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
I agree completely. I was not analogizing Firefox and IE to OpenDocument and OpenXML. I was pointing out the difficulty that a new -- and nearly universally recognized as superior -- technology can face when trying to enter a market dominated by an existing, ubiquitous technology. There are those who think that the internet is "Internet Explorer." Similarly, there are those who think that any text document is a Word document, or that any spreadsheet is an Excel spreadsheet. I think it would be fantastic if OpenOffice were to acheive the success that Firefox has. Realistically, however, I think it is unlikely that the "open" formats will be able to overcome the inertia of the existing file formats.
Microsoft cannot lie about their upcoming developments; it can keep secrets and refuse to disclose future plans, but it cannot make affirmatively misleading statements. A publicly traded company such as MS cannot make false statements via its managerial employees without legal consequences. Thus, when Brian Jones reports that he is working with the ECMA and numerous corporations on the new specification, I accept that as a factually accurate statement. It may very well be that I do not understand what is being done, or that the full implications of the proposal elude me. If so, I would appreciate it if someone on this board could bring the technical aspects of the discussion down to my level.
Originally posted by NordicMan
What reports were you reading about standards that will be out of ms hands? I realize it is hard to recall every article you read, and where it was at.
I read this blog, which led me to this blog. There are lots of links in Brian Jones's blog that deal with the upcoming Office 12 formats.
Originally posted by NordicMan
So microsoft is really moving toward making their format open? That way Pages, or Claris Works(Apple Works) or Open Office or New Office, will be able to produce documents that are the same as Word produced. What will make Word needful to people then, more than other word processing programmes?
My understanding is that yes, other word processors will be able to open Word documents. To my mind, that will make Word less needful because I could use a word processor that I liked more than Word (for example, Pages), but everyone else that I would send the file to would think it was made by Word.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Just as AAC can be wrapped in DRM, Microsoft's XML format will be "DRM'd" to that they maintain control of the format.
How is this possible if the ECMA - along with numerous other companies - are approving the specification? I don't mean this to be a flippant question, and I would genuinely appreciate a response: if the ECMA is following the development of the standard, how can MS still cripple it?
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'd recommend that attorney and other professionals send pdf to their clients. I'm trying to get my mother's practice on PDF. With the ver 7 reader you have the ability to password protect and annotate files right in the reader. Forcing people to pay a Microsoft "tax" to read files is in many cases a poor choice.
That's true, and PDF files work in a variety of instances. But in many other instances, they don't. Many courts have specific rules about formats for the electronic filing of documents. The federal courts, for example, still use Wordperfect. Many state courts have similar requirements about .doc files. Moreover, I don't think that the law is the only profession where PDF files aren't ideal or aren't practical in many situations. It isn't accurate in many instances to say that the use of such a file is imposing a Microsoft "tax" because of the ubiquity of the format. Were I to use an Appleworks file, that would impose an additional cost on the recipient because the file format is uncommon. I have yet to find a single instance in academia or the law (outside the federal courts) where the .doc format was not the standard. I recognize that my experience is anecdotal and not universally shared. But with such a high degree of market penetration, I can't help but think that my experience has been shared by many people in many professions.
Originally posted by Telomar
I'll wait to see the final result but so far if Microsoft sticks to their word it will be an open format for anybody to implement. It will just be Microsoft designed. People need to remove the tin foil hats for a while.
Well said.