Sean McBreen's WebLog

Dave,

Some good points and I see quite a few posts from you over on Rod's blog as well.

Hopefully I’ve addressed a number of those questions already.

I will answer a few of them but also point to a few key resources to help – this is probably not the right place to go deep on technical questions.  

Let me take Office 2007 support for ODF first up – Microsoft has announced support for an Open source project to do just this as an add-in for Office.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter

http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/multiple.aspx#key

One thing that should help resolve that concern (me stepping out of the technical debate) is the Open Letter re the standards process from Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/openxmliso.mspx

This clearly outlines that any issues in the spec that are feed back as comments with any standard body votes will be followed up.  This is an Ecma and Microsoft commitment.

On the errors front - standards do evolve and that vasy majority (all?) have a few errors in the first iteration.

The good news is we do have many people building on the standard today and making it work and testing it out well.  I like this post as an example:

http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/15/why-there-s-no-microsoft-in-open-xml.aspx

The ISO standardisation process is also giving a lot of good feedback in relation to the specification as well.

The intention is to absolutely fix the errors up.

In relation to the speed of standardisation, I think this is pretty common ODF has moved past its first version, I beleive that v1.1 was largely about ‘accessibility updates’ and 1.2 and 1.3 are in progress.  

To my knowledge ODF was also fast tracked.  

My personal point of view is that due to the fast pace that technology moves at you need to move/approve these standards quickly to allow innovation to keep a pace.  

As long as there is commitment to evolve a standard and address errors then approving them is the right thing to do.

We created the open file format in response to customer feedback - which also included the requirement for backward compatibility.  I'm 100% confident this was the right thing to do - I work for Microsoft so you could argue I would say that however.

Multiple formats exist everywhere today this is not about the need to have one, it's not about one being better than the other it's about the need to have open formats that are fit for purpose - Ecma Office Open XML is a great step forward in that regard.

Sean

Hi Dave,

Sorry I was out of the office yesterday for a board meeting for a local business inclubator.

I'll work on a reply to address each of these points and post it today.  Some of these are great questions - others I might struggle with ;)

Cheers,

Sean

This comment covers the key questions from Dave.

DAVE: Microsoft was involved in the OASIS committee which developed the official, approved ODF standard.  Why does Microsoft need to introduce a new, incompatible, needlessly complex "standard" of office documents when there already is one?  

SEAN: Users have always had choice among formats and should continue to enjoy this choice in the future.

Data formats have been around as long as computing. They reflect the varying capabilities and functions of different computing systems and have evolved as those computing systems have evolved. Punch cards were once commonplace, but you wouldn’t think to use them today. In the decades since their use, a wide range of formats (TXT, PDF, HTML, and DOC, to name a few) have become popular because they meet specific user needs and tap into new computing capabilities. The creation of XML-based document formats continues this evolution, and even within this category a number of formats are being developed, including ODF, Open XML and UOF. We should expect the creation of new formats in the future as technology evolves, and, as has always been the case, users should be able to choose the formats that work best for them.

As you will appreciate, Open XML and ODF are distinct formats that serve different user needs. It is important to appreciate that these are fundamentally different formats that meet different needs in the marketplace, and the standardisation and use of one does not preclude the standardisation and use of the other. ODF’s design may make it attractive to those users that are interested in a particular level of functionality in their productivity suite or developers who want to work with that format. Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality, the ability to integrate business data into their documents by defining their own document schema, or a format that was designed to be backwards compatible with existing documents. This is not to say that one is better than the other – just that they meet different needs in the marketplace. It is not unlike how some people wanting to travel from one place to another will choose an automobile and others will choose to fly. Both are modes of transportation but they are fundamentally different and serve different communities, just as ODF 1.0 and Open XML are both document formats, but are fundamentally different, meeting different needs among users.

The good news is that customers who want to work with multiple formats can do so now and into the future. If someone who works primarily with ODF 1.0 wants to work with Open XML-based documents, or vice versa, they can do so through translators, such as those that are being developed through open source community projects sponsored by Microsoft. A German national standards body (DIN) working group is defining how to translate between ODF 1.0 and Open XML to support interoperability between them. Microsoft is working with Chinese entities on another open source community translator project between Open XML and UOF. A growing list of companies, including Microsoft, Apple, Novell, Xandros, Linspire, TurboLinux, Corel and Dataviz (on the Palm operating system) recognise the desire of users of their software to work with multiple formats and are giving those users the tools they need to do so. In short, users will easily work with multiple formats.

Additional resources:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200501/msg00004.html

http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/multiple.aspx

DAVE: What justification does Microsoft provide for not improving the ODF standard to meet its requirements?  (see the link below)

SEAN: Microsoft has consistently supported choice, so it took no steps to hinder ISO/IEC’s ratification of ODF 1.0 and supported ODF 1.0’s addition to the American National Standards list. Microsoft will continue to support recognition of ODF 1.0 and other formats on such lists around the world as long as doing so in no way restricts choice among formats.

DAVE: As there are clearly no insurmountable technical issues in the way (given the degree to which ODF has been implemented up by other office packages) why doesn't Microsoft provide integrated ODF support on an equal basis with OOXML in MS Office 2007?  It already supports legacy Microsoft formats, HTML, RTF and various other formats on a more or less equal basis.  I would've thought, given the rise in use of ODF-based office packages that ODF compatibility would've been a major functional requirement for MS Office with or without OOXML.  I know, were I able to run Microsoft Office on Linux, I would demand ODF compatibility, as I have to interoperate with colleagues and clients using OpenOffice, KOffice, NeoOffice, Lotus Smartsuite, Wordperfect, etc. who prefer ODF as a document interchange format.

SEAN: To my knowledge, this has not been a significant customer request. We have a fully operational exporter plug-in for office available for download which I have linked to in the past.  The same is also true for PDF.

DAVE: Do you think it's appropriate for a standard to be approved before it's even got one working reference implementation?  What do you think about the comment by the Netherlands standards organisation who recommended that in future ISO require "two interoperable and independent full implementations prior to accepting a submission" in conjunction with their "No" vote for the fact tracking of OOXML?

Full comment (translated): "ISOC.nl recommends that the ISO procedures - and more specific the Fast Track procedure - be adapted significantly to better deal with controversial standards like DIS 29500/Office Open XML in order for ISO to maintain relevant. This includes demanding two interoperable and independent full implementations prior to accepting a submission for a Fast Track procedure."

SEAN: In my own opinion I’d agree - that the Standard gives a signal of stability before people develop a full implementation of it – this is one of the great benefits of passing on the stewardship of a standard. But to my knowledge there is still no product (outside Open Office) that fully implements all of the features of ODF either.

The usage of Open XML is expanding rapidly.  IT companies worldwide are increasingly choosing to work with the Ecma specification, and users are recognising the value that it brings to their operations. The new wave of computing driven by Open XML will not happen overnight, but it is off to a strong start and there is every reason to be optimistic about the positive impact it will have on computing in the future.  

In addition to having companies like Xandros and Linspire join the Open XML - ODF Translator project on sourceforge to contribute their expertise to the community, and declare their intention to distribute the translator technology to provide their users with the ability to work with Open XML documents, we’re also seeing a wide number of signs of broader industry adoption for the Ecma Open XML, such as in:

• OpenXMLCommunity.org and OpenXMLDevloper.org –In New Zealand, over 200 companies and individuals have demonstrated their support of Open XML mirroring support seen from customers and ISVs worldwide. As more Open XML solutions are developed, the Developer site is a resource where highly technical questions, ideas and solutions can be widely shared.
• Older versions of Office – As you all know, folks who have older versions of Office can download a free update that allows them to read and write the Open XML formats. While the downloads have only been available for about 6 months, they are already the 2nd most popular download on Microsoft.com (second only to IE 7). There are well over 4 million downloads to date.
• OpenOffice - Thanks to Novell, you can read and write the Open XML formats with OpenOffice. The Sun folks are also involved as they move from the XSLT approach to a more native support.
• WordPerfect - Corel has announced support for Open XML in an upcoming release of their office suite. (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=226)
• Palm OS – Documents To Go brings Open XML support to smartphone and PDA devices powered by the Palm operating system (http://www.dataviz.com/products/documentstogo/premium/index.html?redirect=hp_dxtg_palm)
• Mac – NeoOffice brings Open XML support to the mac (http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=117)
• MindMapping – Mindjet's MindManager allows you to follow the logical workflow of first brainstorming, then creating a document outline, and then writing you document. You can brainstorm your idea in MindManager, and then convert those into a wordProcessingML document. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2092894,00.asp)
• Novell – In addition to helping to create the Ecma Office Open XML formats as part of the technical committee overseeing their evolution, Novell has created an ODF-Open XML translator which they shipped with their recent release of the Novell edition of OpenOffice.org, enabling their customers to work with either format.  
• OpenXML Writer- The folks up at OpenXML.biz have built a free open source text editor called "OpenXML Writer" that allows you to edit WordprocessingML files. (http://www.openxml.biz/OpenXMLWriter.html)
• Gnumeric – Gnumeric is an open source spreadsheet application that was one of the first applications out there to show support for SpreadsheetML. (http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/)
• Web Development (PHP) – There is an open source project up on codeplex where they are creating a set of PHP classes which allow you to read and write SpreadsheetML files. (http://www.codeplex.com/PHPExcel)
• Java Developers – There is a project up on sourceforge where they are creating a set of Java APIs to make programming against the openxml formats much easier for Java developers. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openxml4j/)
• Data Reporting – In Monarch V.9.0 from Datawatch you have the ability to create reports of your data using SpreadsheetML (http://www.datawatch.com/datawatch/news.asp?display=detail&id=128)
• XML to PDF – Altsoft XML2PDF server 2007 supports the import of WordprocessingML files (http://www.theserverside.net/news/thread.tss?thread_id=43989)
• Word and Character Counting on Mac – Word Counter 2.2.1 is an application for Mac OS X, and it supports a variety of file formats, including WordprocessingML (http://osxfreeware.blogspot.com/2007/02/word-counter-221.html)
• Convert docx to simple html – The docx converter allows you to transform WordprocessingML documents into either plain text or simple html directly from their website. (http://docx-converter.com/)

DAVE: I agree that no standard can be error free, as something always sneaks through accidentally despite everyone's best effort to ensure otherwise.  I believe, however, that a proposed standard known to be significantly broken - as has been noted even by the standards bodies who have given a qualified "Yes" vote to OOXML - should be fixed *before* approval is given, not after.  What do you think?  Should a standard *known* to be broken be approved for consideration in the fast track process?  Doesn't that significantly compromise the whole concept of standards?

SEAN: To quote my colleague, Tom Robertson,

“The goal of standardization process, whether with Ecma International or ISO/IEC or another standards body, is to refine a specification to achieve a positive consensus around its formal adoption. As such, changes are commonplace, and reflective of the fact that no specification is perfect. With input received from technical experts around the world, the process is designed to improve and adapt the final resulting standard.”

Visit this link for the full letter: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/openxmliso.mspx

DAVE: OOXML supposedly provides backwards compatibility for older (still proprietary) MS Office file formats.  Why does that matter?  Why not simply document those older file formats as open standards?   Do they even need to be standardised if OOXML will supersede them anyway?  Businesses will still have to convert their legacy documents to ODF or OOXML.  What is easier about going to OOXML rather than using the freely available bulk conversion mechanisms made available in OpenOffice.org to convert them to ODF?   That's what I recommend to my customers who are migrating to ODF.

SEAN: Our customers have been very specific that this does matter and this was the opportunity to have a standard that embraced this feedback.

DAVE: What do you say about the high profile No votes from countries like the Netherlands, India, and Brazil, who have in some cases voted unanimously against OOXML's standardisation?  

SEAN: The process all geographies is largely confidential to those involved so I won’t comment on the process but I can direct you to a blog entry from Kyle McNabb of Forester where he asks folks to see through the motivations of specific companies and form their own opinions. Here's what he says about the main players:

• Microsoft Office 2007 needs OOXML.
• IBM has a vested interest NOT seeing OOXML adopted as an ISO standard.
• Without ODF as the leading standard, Sun and OpenOffice.org have little to stand on.

DAVE: Do you believe that Microsoft have acted ethically in the OOXML voting processes in other jurisdictions around the world?  I'm pleased to see, that the SNZ meeting was by all reports relatively uncontroversial, although I still don't see what was gained by calling in Jim Donovan at the last minute...  

SEAN: Again, the process in New Zealand and in other geographies is confidential to those involved so I won’t comment on the process but I do think it has been important for Standards New Zealand to ensure the greater business and New Zealand community is well represented in the discussion. And looking at my own blog and Rod’s blog the interest is very evident across the industry and the business community.

I personally believe Microsoft is very, very committed to improving the entire IT industry here in New Zealand.  I’m lucky enough to run a team of great people at Microsoft New Zealand whose goals are solely focused on building the local IT industry, customer satisfaction and other community outreach, as well as working closely with partners who are also committed to taking New Zealand’s software industry global.

I hope those answers have helped a little - it's taken a few minutes to write them up so sorry for the slow reply here.

Sean

Hi Dave,

As always I am open to your strongly-held views. And while we are disappointed this is just one step in the process and we look toward next year’s final decision.

Thank you to all who have offered their opinion on this blog. At the end of the day we should all be looking at what is right for New Zealand businesses and how we can best build a local IT industry that is competitive on the global stage.

Sean