Snarky Comments

re: Snarky Comments

Dennis E. Hamilton — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 02:51:53 GMT

Good, because I recommend you as an exemplar of level-headedness to my friends who want to know what the fuss is all about.

Of course, I don't have to be quite so polite: http://orcmid.com/blog/2007/02/latest-oox-odf-fud-spat-states-prepare.asp

re: Snarky Comments

Stephane Rodriguez — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:43:14 GMT

Jason said "The Open XML Translator is now in production, and delivers interoperability."

What do you mean to imply here? Do you mean that because this component is running on say ONE physical customer site, it is ready for mass consumption?

That is a gross mischaracterization of not just that case, but of software deployment principles in general.

It is quite possible that the component meets the needs of some customer. After all, it does not process air, right? But you cannot extrapolate to all customer needs out there, especially when on the one hand Microsoft themselves say that customers out there use 10% of MS Office products, all different 10%, on the other hand the list of supported features by this component is arbitrarily limited.

Who made that list?

re: Snarky Comments

Stephane Rodriguez — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:51:06 GMT

Jason said "The difference there has been that our motivations have always been rather transparent, we'd like to see broad adoption of Office."

No.

Back in 2000, in the WYSIWYG HTML era, Office 2000 shipped along with proprietary IE extensions (markup language, and a proprietary rendering run-time) known as V.M.L.

(that's perhaps the only time the Office product group worked with the IE product group in the whole history of Office.)

There is a BillG exhibit in the IOWA consumer case that mentions that MS Office "must be the only platform able to render Office documents, on top of Windows".

Hence VML. When creating HTML documents from Office 2000, the MSO semantics (proprietary) are translated into VML markup that only IE can render.

What you did, in the name of HTML standards, was probably because you cared about interoperability, right?

No wonder Office 2007 documents contain not just those VML parts (instead of DrawingML parts), but there are new VML parts introduced. Meaning that Microsoft does not intend to kill their old strategy by a long shot.

re: Snarky Comments

Zaine Ridling — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:18:50 GMT

Hey, at least you're in the game and contributing. Beyond control, it seems evident that many governments see ODF as an opportunity to save money. When you look at their terribly slow upgrade cycles (how many, e.g., are still stuck on Office 97?), you soon see how daunting the cost of converting their systems and data are. Add in a new file format, and they feel stunned in the face of sticker shock at the task.

re: Snarky Comments

JasonG — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:58:22 GMT

Hey, maybe the ODF supporters will stop posting snarky comments as well?

re: Snarky Comments

Ben Langhinrichs — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:26:02 GMT

I guess my one objection to the whole process by which the Office Open XML standard has been developed is that there was such resistance to suggestions and over-reliance on what seemed easiest for the current code to work. Even in places where it seems almost certain to come back to haunt Microsoft, the easy way was chosen.

As a small software developer, I don't "favor" ODF and "not favor" Office Open XML as much as I favor the approach taken in developing and modifying ODF. I wish that Microsoft could get together with OASIS and develop a comprehensive standard that would allow true interoperability and support for legacy documents. It would certainly be a lot easier than the current chore of developing for both ODF and OOXML, without a lot of rational explanation about why they shouldn't be made one.

So, aside from IBM's stake in the game, we independent software developers would be better off if you and IBM were to get off your high horses and work together. Then we could all serve our mutual customers better. At the moment, the ODF standard is a heck of a lot easier to support, so it will tend to "win" resources, but the Microsoft Office dominance means it forces us to develop for that too. It is just a pain in the neck, and doesn't lead me to feel all too happy with either side.

I really don't understand why Microsoft couldn't have just supported and extended ODF when it had a chance, but I guess that horse is out of the stable now.

re: Snarky Comments

Philip Storry — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:18:45 GMT

One quick suggestion - if you can, at least edit the previous entry to put a link to this post at the top of the page. Otherwise, the two entries stand pretty much alone to the casual passerby, and may not give the impression you wanted.

re: Snarky Comments

jasonmatusow — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:49:31 GMT

Got it Philip - I will make the change.

Ben, thank you for your comment. I can imagine that the clash of the titans, while good fodder for the media and the blogosphere, is painful for that smaller ISVs. I wish I could see a silver bullet in this, but I don't. Commercial interests in this one are very strong with literally billions of dollars in the mix. IBM does not want to go back and recode all the work they are doing on Notes to support OpenXML. Microsoft had already been going down the Open XML path (back in the pre-Office 2003 days). Also, the architectural decisions behind the two formats are very different (verbose vs. abbreviated XML etc.).

There is never an easy answer - and clearly self-interest by many parties is going to continue to push hard on the whole discussion. As Stephanie points out in her comment, factors of marketplace competition drive all of the participants.

The good news is that the underlying move to XML by most players is very strong. Interoperability is more of a design goal for everyone now than it has ever been. The trending is positive.

Jason

re: Snarky Comments

James Governor — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:27:42 GMT

heavy-handed tactics and rhetoric? i think its called corporate strategy isn't it? I am pretty sure I have seen some rhetoric from Microsoft in my time.

fwiw Jason I think you would gain even more credibility by linking to some non-Microsoft bloggers. Your blogroll is very whitebread. perhaps a link to Rick Jelliffe? ;-)

Just to be self-serving for a moment I do tend to think you could call out Stephen's blog. I know you read it and take it seriously.

re: Snarky Comments

jasonmatusow — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:30:29 GMT

James - thanks. Yes, you are right about the fact that I should be linked to many voices. I am bad about putting time into my blog and this is one of the things that is important for me to update. I take many people's blogs seriously - those from Redmonk more than most.

Yes - I agree completely about the rhetoric being about corporate strategy. That has been my point all along.

Jason

re: Snarky Comments

jasonmatusow — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:26:19 GMT

James - I added some folks that I like to read to my site. And yes, my site is very whitebread. <sigh>

Jason

re: Snarky Comments

Ben Langhinrichs — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 01:21:03 GMT

Jason - I would agree completely that the general trend towards XML formats is strongly positive, no matter how this particular skirmish turns out. - Ben