I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Through Standards New Zealand, we are one of the few countries objecting to a proposal to fast-track approval of Microsoft’s controversial Open XML file format.
NZ objects to Microsoft Open XML standard fast-track proposal
I haven’t really been across this but stumbled onto a (pro MS) summary from
Steve Clayton.
A comment lead me to the other side of the debate here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Criticism
My interpretation is that Microsoft took a fantastic (and surprising at the time) step of opening up the proprietary Office binary formats. We asked for this for many, many years. The final motivation I’m sure is the subject of lots of debate but opening them up is good. Very good.
This was a massive amount of work, and I’m sure not a clean sheet redesign (that it’s 6000 pages long is a good indicator). It’s probably therefore compromised (as mentioned in the wikipedia article) but the fact we can generate Office documents from a variety of formats is a very valuable thing.
I think the next step is that Microsoft thought, ‘well let’s get this ratified this as an official standard’. Then the fun began.
The fact is Office is a standard. The binary’s were a standard and Open XML format is a standard - if only because Office is so widely used.
Already tens of thousands of developers are building products over the Open XML Format. Here is a demo of pushing data to Excel from Xero. Another scenario might be generating 1000’s of invoices from a server and the print them using Word. Been wanting to do that for years.
Trying to fit all of the history of Word and Excel into an existing standard is an impossible task. Having two standards is a bit of extra work for those that have to publish into them, but that is not necessarily a big deal.
Of far more importance is that fact that Office files, the de-facto standard, are now open and useable. That is a good thing.
What do you think?
blog
I’ve been involved with OASIS as a member and co-wrote CIQ and UDDI standards. A collaborative effort may be slower, but produces a much better result. There were some really smart guys from IBM, MS, SAP. I leaned a lot from them. Writing a good standard is tough. MS Open Xml doesn’t come close enough to be an official standard.
At the end of the day, the fact that something has lable “standard” means nothing, really. People will be using Open Xml to generate all sorts of docos on the server regardless just because MS Office is popular enough.
6000 pages are better than a handful of pages on WordML in MSDN. I was generating MS Word and Excel docos on the server using XML years ago when everyone was buying components to generate native .doc and .xls. It took me ages to figure out all that application specific behavior. OpenXML is much better described, which is good.
I assume most people have no problem with the idea of ratification of a well established standard - but why should Microsoft be afforded the right to fast track their application? And is it really standard if it’s not had time to become well established?
I do, however, see problems with the ratification of this particular standard. An excellent summary I’ve read is Rob Weir’s parable: http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/standards-parable.html
His other posts on the subject are very interesting if you’re interested in open XML file formats.
In my experience, fast-tracking anything - with very few exceptions - leads to poor outcomes. Of course, i can be frustrating if one has a view.
BTW - bearing in mind a recent blog post on the correct use of apostrophes - are you sure it’s “binary’s” Rod? :O)
Oops, that’s “iT can be frustrating” …
The problem with MSXML is that it takes mindshare away from the “real” open document format (http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org/) - which is an ISO standard, has been independently implemented by many vendors and is by any measure the more technically sensible of the two (try this for size - http://old.opendocumentfellowship.org/Articles/FormatODFVsMSXML). A simple learning curve has proven time and time again to be a (the?) critical factor in the takeup of a new technology by developers … Active Desktop failed, RSS succeeded. ODF benefits all of us if it becomes widely adopted so, well, here’s hoping.
BTW, generating invoices from a server is probably best done by XMLPDF or the Ibex PDF generator (http://www.xmlpdf.com/). A world class software product made … in Khandallah.
Rod - thanks for the link and for stimulating the debate. it seems many are concerned with multiple standards and fast tracking and whilst I don’t propose to go in to Q&A mode here, I think your initial point about opening up something that is so widely used in the indstury to an open standard is the key here. it’s up to others like David as to which open doc format is the “real” one but it seems ironic that what Microsoft has been accused of for many years - restricting choice - is now what is being used to defend this discussion. Do people no longer want or need choice and has the demand for the office formats suddently evaporated now that Microsoft has agreed?
anyway, like I say…thanks for stimulating more debate
Steve
So I just posted some stuff about the Open XML work we’ve been doing recently.
http://www.syringe.net.nz/PermaLink,guid,7017ad33-059a-4797-a89e-25b8256268a4.aspx
My thoughts are as follows.
If you think that there is only going to be one “real” standard format you are utterly naieve. There will already are a number of common formats each with their own ecosystem of users and 3rd parties building out on that format. The obivous examples being PDF, ODF, Office (binary and OOXML), HTML, DXF need I go on. Some of these are standardized, some are not.
They key thing for me is that broad standardization reduces market dominance. By submitting OOXML to a standards body Microsoft are, to a large though not complete degree, relinquishing their control of that format. This means that the ISVs and Customers and Users of the format are not hostage to the whim of the ‘dominant’ vendor but rather can have confidence in the stability of the platform that they have chosen to develop against.
Well said Rod. When I read the objections to Open XML, I get very suspicious. It’s a no brainer that this should be standardised, seriously, what is the downside?
IBM and Sun are immediately suspect because they stand to gain commercially from Open XML not being an ISO standard.
The Linux/OSS fanatics are well known for opposing anything Microsoft wants, just on principle. Even though about 2 years ago they all seemed to be moaning that Microsoft WASN’T doing this. The irony!
Seems now like they are saying “Governments are gradually moving towards using standards. I don’t want them to have the choice to use Open XML. Why? I don’t like Microsoft.”
The “one standard” argument is just BS, there are so many areas where multiple standards are used. The “technical flaws” argument, seriously it’s well known that no one ever nitpicked over ODF like this, and the whole point of having a recognised standard is that it can be evolved. And of course the legacy compatibility will be harder to define, but that doesn’t reduce the huge value of current & future compatibility the tiniest bit.
But if you want to know why Standards NZ were opposed even before the debate started, you just need to have a look at the people influencing State Services Commission:
http://holloway.co.nz/can-other-vendors-implement-ooxml.html
Surprise! See “Full Disclosure” and “Other OOXL Comments”. It’s 3 open source developers, who exclusively quote the IBM party line. Not satisfied with persuading Government internally, they are even posting stuff in public in their own time.
Seriously doubt that Standards NZ is getting neutral advice from their own people.
Harry
Hi Harry,
It’s a pity I didn’t see your comments earlier so I could have responded to them.
Just to clarify your idea that I was involved in any SSC decision.
Aside from one single email (a link to a public mailing list review on Rick Jelliffe’s OOXML talk) which I never received a response to I haven’t been involved at all.
Just to make things even more transparent the single email was this,
“Yo, [name]!
Thought you might be interested in this review of one of Rick Jelliffes talks on OOXML,
http://lists.nzoss.org.nz/archives/openchat/ezmlm-cgi?mss:8570 (user: nzoss, password: nzoss)
.Matthew Cruickshank
http://docvert.org/”
I never received a reply to that email and that was the entire involvement that I had. Also prior to the Standards NZ meeting I had no knowledge of what the government agency position would be (not even whispers — I hoped they’d understand but I didn’t hear *anything*).
I have never received any money from anyone for writing this or joining the OOXML debate.
So I hope you now understand how involved I was. I can’t speak for Chris or Conal, however I do suggest you ask them.
I was the primary author of the document, and as you’ll see it does build upon existing research from Grokdoc, Microsoft, and IBM.
I choose not to build upon some arguments from IBM and Grokdoc material because I thought some were unfair (some bitmask arguments, for example).
The arguments that I did use are true, which I think is more important than who wrote them.
Because this is now an older story now on drury.net.nz you may wish to email me any comments you have to ensure I see them. If you want a response please keep your comments civil this time, and fact-based.