A new FAQ page now available
OK, I'll admit its pretty lame that it's been almost two weeks since my last post. I've been pretty busy with non-OpenXML stuff at work as we just finished wrapping up the annual performance reviews so I had to focus on writing those up. We're also getting ready for some spec reviews so I wanted to make sure I was available to help with those. On the OpenXML side of things I've been spending time trying to sort through all the incoming comments from the ISO process.
I'll definitely have some upcoming posts that drill into the comments and I'll give my opinion on them, as there are a number of really good suggestions coming in. Even in TC45 we came up with a number of suggested fixes based on feedback we'd been hearing, as well as some mistakes we spotted over the past year.
Another thing I've been wanted to pull together but haven't had much time is an FAQ. Andrew Sayers had suggested this a couple of times and he even took the time to pull together an outline for me (thank you very much for that Andrew). So I cleaned it up a bit and it's now posted here: https://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/pages/faq.aspx
I'll try to work on it every couple weeks and fill in what's already listed. As new topics come up I'll also add them to the list.
-Brian
OpenXMLCommunity.org Quote of the Day:
Sega, SA – Guatemala
"We are specialized in software development using Microsoft Visual Studio.NET. In our development effort, we regularly faced with unstructured information and especially in generating this information. So we are convinced that introducing an open ECMA standard like Office Open XML will be very helpful for our customer and for us to. It will make it easier for our customer and us to generate process and archive this information. Office Open XML will make easier the processing of structured and unstructured information in a comprehensible and transparent manner."
- Emilio Molina – Development Department Manager
Comments
Anonymous
September 17, 2007
PingBack from http://msdnrss.thecoderblogs.com/2007/09/17/a-new-faq-page-now-available/Anonymous
September 17, 2007
There's a couple of broken links on the FAQ. ("a pretty straightforward reason" and "my original announcement that we were taking the format to ECMA")Anonymous
September 17, 2007
I'm not impressed by that faq. I'm not even sure it is a FAQ really.Anonymous
September 18, 2007
For the record the original idea was Ian Easson's, I just took it and ran with it. Brian, I'm very flattered to be mentioned by name in the FAQ, but it I suspect it'll become stylistically awkward as the FAQ matures (and my contribution becomes less of the whole). Therefore, I'd completely understand if you wanted to remove mention of me later on. Also as the FAQ matures, it might be worth putting it as a link in the sidebar inside "This Blog". hAl, Which questions that people frequently ask should be in there, and what sort of answers would you expect?- Andrew
Anonymous
September 18, 2007
The FAQ entry - "Why go to ISO? Even though Office Open XML was already an ECMA standard, we felt that there was value taking it on to the ISO. This was mainly because we had been asked to by various customers (mostly governments). They wanted to have our formats in the domain of the international community." may be wrong. This answer was attributed to Doug Mahugh: "Office is a USD$10 billion revenue generator for the company. When ODF was made an ISO standard, Microsoft had to react quickly as certain governments have procurement policies which prefer ISO standards. Ecma and OASIS are "international standards", but ISO is the international "Gold Standard". Microsoft therefore had to rush this standard through. Its a simple matter of commercial interests!" www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/09/microsoft-tech-.html Doesn't sound as if he believes governments were asking for it. Maybe he was misunderstood.Anonymous
September 18, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 18, 2007
Hi Brian Where do I report Office 2007 bugs? I've searched microsoft and msdn, googled for it and no luck so far. Thanks, Michael DaniloffAnonymous
September 18, 2007
Verrrrrry interrrrresting. Nice start on the FAQ. Gathers together some things I've forgotten.Anonymous
September 18, 2007
Michael, There are a couple options. You could just post the bug here in a comment (or anyone else on the Office team who's blogging), but there are also more official routes:
- Contact Microsoft product support. They may already have a workaround to the bug, and if not will make sure to route it through the proper channels.
- The is an Office feedback form here: http://feedback.office.microsoft.com I'm not sure on the actual process though for how information submitted there is routed.
Dennis, Other suggestions are defintely welcome! -Brian
Anonymous
September 18, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 19, 2007
Doug - OK. It's one of the downsides to connnectivity that's not complete. Seemed a bit too odd. At least in a ransom note with pasted letters one can see the paste. Not so in computer transmitted material. Brian, I don't recall Massachusetts as being an individual. The only individual I recall making a public statement on behalf of a small part of MA state government said he wanted ODF. Some legislators may have said they would only consider a standard approved by ISO - not the same as asking for MSO-XML to be a standard.Anonymous
September 19, 2007
The Netherlands.Anonymous
September 21, 2007
I mailed you some stuff on how to make it look more like a faq.Anonymous
September 21, 2007
An interesting addition to the faq would be a matrix of products that implement the various features of OOXML and the degree to which they have been implemented. If the goal of OOXML is actually to become a standard implemented by all, the matrix should be full of green squares. (fully implemented) The red (not implemented) and yellow (partially implemented) squares should be generating discussion in the ooxml community and on port 25 as to how they can be turned to green. David FarningAnonymous
September 22, 2007
It's not a FAQ; it's an IAF (Infrequently Asked FUD). And while I'm here and you 'softies are all off re-thinking your business model (such as quitting the software business with a colossal dividend and locking the doors), I will gloat on the tremendous victory of the EU ruling with a dance on your collective faces and say once more... "Oh beHAVE!"Anonymous
September 23, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 23, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 23, 2007
@Ben I was referring to the Ecma comments. And since Brian is a member of the Ecma TC I wondered about why they did not suggest improvement? Amusingly the Greece comments seems to be a copy of the groklaw comments suggesting it is nearly impossible to use xml tools on the bitmask item which is not really correct in itself. However another value representation would likely make XML use easier.Anonymous
September 24, 2007
hAl - Sorry, I get it now. I missed that. - BenAnonymous
September 24, 2007
BTW, the newest OOXML tag from Slashdot: <MultiplyLikeExcel2007> =850*77.1 </MultiplyLikeExcel2007> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=307215&cid=20738081Anonymous
September 24, 2007
n/a, HAHA. To quote another poster - OH BEHAVE!Anonymous
September 25, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 25, 2007
Check out how n/a is an idiot that does not recognize that the ISO that particular ballot failed because only 8 member voted which would never have sufficed in any scenario.Anonymous
September 25, 2007
hAl - Before the influx of new P-members, there were 16 P-members (afterwards there were 32) so 8 would have been sufficient, as more than 50% have to not vote in order to invalidate the vote. Of course, one could argue that some of the 16 who joined might have joined anyway, but if you simply go by the number who were members before this push started, n/a is absolutely correct.
- Ben
Anonymous
September 25, 2007
The comment has been removedAnonymous
September 25, 2007
@Ben There are now 38 P members in Sc34 Were there only 16 of them member in januari when OOXML was submitted ?Anonymous
September 25, 2007
hAl - I have seen the list of 38 elsewhere, but only 32 are listed as P-members for the ballot mentioned above. As for when the numbers in January, there were 15 as of February 22. See http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0817.htm for confirmation of that. At that time, this ballot would have passed. - BenAnonymous
September 26, 2007
@Ben That particular document does not seem correct. The JCT1/SC34 vote on Opendocument in may 2006 had 27 approval votes from P members. Unless there was some major ballot stuffing for the opendocument voting as well it seems unlikely that half a year later there were only 16 P-members left.Anonymous
September 28, 2007
Well I thought I would have time to work more on the FAQ the past couple weeks, but that was naive ofAnonymous
September 28, 2007
Well I thought I would have time to work more on the FAQ the past couple weeks, but that was naive ofAnonymous
October 01, 2007
Any particular reason my last two comments were not posted? There doesn't seem to be much controversial in either, and the latter tends to vindicate Microsoft to some extent in the whole debate with hAl. It just seems odd that they have gone missing.