Leveraging content in other formats

How to merge two or more Word 2003 or Word 2007 XML documents into one Word 2007 XML document.

Visual Studio Office Developer (VSOD) Support Team — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:32:23 GMT

Resolution ================ Step 1: Open a new Microsoft Word 2007 document and type A B C Save the document

The Easy Way to Assemble Multiple Word Documents

Brian Jones: Office Extensibility — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:16:54 GMT

One of the most common requests we hear related to word processing documents is the ability to merge

re: Leveraging content in other formats

Karl G — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:14:41 GMT

Lurker, I've never run across a groklaw article that didn't support IBM, but I only read when it gets linked from /. or other news aggregator. I don't think PJ is being paid by IBM or is in IBM's palm, but it wouldn't surprise me if she was.

As for the main point of this blog entry, I really don't understand why it's cool. If your destination processor can parse and translate foo format, which it seems it MUST be able to do in order for this to take place, why not just send it in foo format? Why wrap it in WordprocessingML?

The Rick Jelliffe story got me reading on this, and I've since read your, weir's, and Dare's entries on the subject. I'm inclined to agree with Dare: MS finds ODF lacking in features (reasonable) and OOXML is sprawling.

You've mentioned that both formats are extendable. I'm curious as to why you chose to invent a new standard rather than extend ODF -- since I think it was pretty stable before the OOXML standards effort was started -- with a couple namespaces (spreadsheet functions, legacy format support, etc), document those extensions, and work with the ODF folks to get your additions merged into ODF.

You'd still get linux fanbois accusuing you of embracing and extending, but that will always happen. It'd be more work for MS but from my perspective it looks like OOXML is an exercise in doing what's expedient for Microsoft instead of something that would make the least work for their customers and the rest of the software world. I don't begrudge MS in this and don't see nor do I see a plot to undermine IBM, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was.

re: Leveraging content in other formats

Lurker — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:40:38 GMT

Groklaw has absolutely no connection with IBM.

http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/groklaws-non-connection-to-ibm/

I´m surprised PJ is siding with IBM on this issue. She rarely does that.

re: Leveraging content in other formats

hAl — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:26:59 GMT

@Brian Thomas

The whole Groklaw site is mostly dedicated in supporting IBM in it's articles. It is hardly surprising people might consider it an IBM front.

The suggestions of Groklaw being a very one-sided IBM supporter are not originating from me but are to be found on other places on the internet as well.

The articles about the office formats regularly show direct citations from IBM bloggers and are always negative on OOXML and is never negative on ODF, where that format and the way it has proceded to ISO standards without being really complete should also warrant simular critisisms that are placed on OOXML.

That is of course ok for a blog but Groklaw is clearly making themselfs a target for critisism on being a very biased blog if they mostly write very one-sided articles.

(oh and btw, you should mayby tell Marbux that insulting me on blogs is not the way to discuss issues)

re: Leveraging content in other formats

Brian Thomas — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:28:24 GMT

Shame on IBM for being so antagonistically competitive. What did you ever do to them, anyway?

There is a characteristic Microsoft way of looking at things that is strikingly similar to that of the abusive spouse or substance abuser - one that takes reality as most people see it and completely inverts it.

Just as when Massachusetts insists on a file format that for the first time in decades offers hope that other office software vendors than Microsoft can get the state's business, Alan Yates cries foul, saying that Microsoft is being "shut out", now when Rob Weir and Bob Sutor point out egregious violations of both the letter and the spirit of the ISO/IEC standards rules, you turn on the innuendo machine, crying that big bad IBM is trying to stop you.

You latched on uncritically to hAl's speculation that IBM were somehow behind the Groklaw effort (which he didn't even explain, let alone substantiate) and ran with it, as though it were fact, using it - in a wonderfully classic abuser's twist of reality - to paint yourself as the victim of "competitive antagonistic" tactics, as though the reader could not Get the Facts(tm) such as are currently being reported out of the Comes v. Microsoft trial.

I'll give you a hint. Dan Bricklin doesn't work for IBM. Andy Updegrove doesn't work for IBM. Bruce Schneier doesn't work for IBM. Neither do Peter Gutmann, Pamela Jones (whatever you and Darl McBride may say), Marbux or I. And we all want very much to stop this farcical "standard" that is unquestionably technically inferior and whose transparent purpose is to perpetuate and shore up the illegal monopoly which you have been tried and found guilty of creating and maintaining in courts throughout the world.

Realize that the world is now able to see that the emperor is indeed naked, and that all your talk just emphasizes your unrelenting intent to continue to deceive and manipulate us into quiescing to your hegemonious lust. You are like Saruman unmasked; like the Great and Terrible OZ after Toto pulled back the curtain on his control booth.

In your position, I'd just shut up, and look for another job while I could.

re: Leveraging content in other formats

I'm Brian Jones — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:47:02 GMT

hAl,

Thanks for pointing that out. IBM has taken a very odd way to approach here. It's basically saying "hey we don't like this and want to block it, help us find ways to make that happen."

That's a very competitive antagonistic approach.

Adam,

Check out Part 4 of the spec which is a much more detailed reference. You'll see in section 2.17.3.1 that there is a very detailed description of altChunks. In there, it clearly states that:

"If an application cannot process external content of the content type specified by the targeted part, then it should ignore the specified alternate content but continue to process the file. If possible, it should also provide some indication that unknown content was not imported."

-Brian

re: Leveraging content in other formats

hAl — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:59:20 GMT

It seems IBM has also done another donation to Groklaw or something as it is now also trying to aid in the IBM effort to try to move the discussion for ISO certification.

re: Leveraging content in other formats

Adam — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:02:20 GMT

"there is nothing in the spec that says others need to understand it."

Apart from the words "A WordprocessingML consumer shall treat the contents of such legacy text files as if they were formatted using equivalent WordprocessingML [...]" you mean.

"a truly conforming producer isn't allowed to create these things."

No, but that doesn't mean that a WordproceccingML consumer won't be presented with them. In which case, the standard requires that it "*shall* treat the contents of such legacy text files as if they were formatted using equivalent WordprocessingML [...]"

"I think we did a poor job of explaining that there is no requirement to consume alternate chunks."

I think that's an understatement - I think you *did* add a requirement (possibly unintentionally) to consume alternate chunks. This is a standard now. It's been accepted by Ecma. I realise that MS's position on standards is to treat them as guidelines instead of rules, but not everyone else does it that way. While MS's implementors may be fine with a verbal "oh, it's not really meant that way, don't worry about it", that's not good enough for other people.

You (or Ecma) need to *fix* the spec. Or at least take the first step and issue a Defect Report.

Given that MOOXML was ratified at 20x the speed of other specs, I'd expect a roughly equivalent rise in the defect density compared with other specs. This is not meant to disparage the people doing the work; I'm sure if they were given an equivalent amount of time to do the work that they'd have got on other specs, they'd have caught more problems. Given that they were skimming it though...

Of course, given also that MOOXML is more than 6x as long as most other specs, I'd again expect at least an equivalent rise in the total number of defects in this spec than most others. (This may be conservative; a lot of defects in other specs are internal inconsistencies between different sections. As the number of pages goes up, the possible combinations of sections will rise more along the lines of the length squared)

Taken together, my guess is that this spec, due to its nature alone (length and speed of writing) will be more than 100x as buggy as most other specs. Don't you think it be wise to let this one mature for at least a couple more years (e.g. at least until the first Technical Corrigendum, and possibly until a beta of the next version of Word after that has implemented the TC) before it goes further down the standards path? (e.g. to ISO).

Open XML Links

Doug Mahugh — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:39:39 GMT

Here are a few links to recent news of interest to Open XML developers ... Package Explorer Update. The