A few interesting links

아티클
08/10/2007

Sorry for just posting links the past week or so. I haven't had much time to pull anything new together. Hopefully I'll have some more free time when I get back into the office next week.

Can anyone be objective about Open XML?

Great blog entry from Kyle McNabb of Forester where he drills into the real motivations behind some of the anti-OpenXML pressures you're seeing out there. 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:

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

Convert your paper documents into Open XML files

I was really excited earlier this week when I saw the news from Nuance Omni where they now have the ability to scan paper and recognize shapes, text, etc. and then generate an Open XML document out of it. This is really awesome. One of the great benefits of the Open XML formats is the capability it brings to long term archivability of documents. It's important that we can access these documents we are creating 100s or 1,000s of years in the future, regardless of what happens to Microsoft. That's why the stewardship of the Open XML formats by ISO could prove to be very valuable.

Now with this technology from Nuance Omni, archivists can scan existing print documents and store them as Open XML for future access. The British Library and the Library of Congress both served on TC45 and brought the perspective of long term archival into the standardization process.

More on Apple's Open XML functionality

Here is some interesting follow-up to the news of Apple's iWork supporting the OpenXML format. It looks like the anti-OpenXML folks are upset and have now started a petition to ask Apple to also support ODF (Apple currently supports OpenXML on the Mac as well as on the iPhone). Bob Sutor posted a link to the petition, and there was an interesting comment from Klaus-Dieter Naujok:

Guess Apple's market research has shown that there are more MS Office documents (old and new formats) around than there are ODF based documents. I am not at all surprised that they are supporting what is mostly used today and therefore needs to be imported into their iWork application. As an iWork user that receives clients documents which are all in MS formats, not ODF, I have no problem with their decision. As I see it, ODF may be the only International Standard for XML based Office formats, and may be technical superior to OOXML, but that is not what bean counters take into consideration. Bottom-line for any software company is what the product will need to support based on market penetration, not how good a competing standard maybe, especially if its usage is minor at this time. I am sure should ODF become the dominating used format, causing sales in iWork to drop, that Apple will support it.

I think this is probably what you would expect to see from any company. They will add functionality based on what their customers want.

-Brian

OpenXMLCommunity.org Quote of the Day:

Patheon, Inc - Canada

"As a leading publicly listed provider of drug development and manufacturing services to the international pharmaceutical industry Patheon relies on electronic documents for records management, government submissions and our internal policies. For drug development, all electronic submissions have to be in XML format as it is the defined approach for the FDA & Health Canada. Having OpenXML as an internationally recognized document standard would be very beneficial to us now and in the future. We look forward to OpenXML becoming another recognized international standard with ISO."

- Tom Ferguson

Comments

Anonymous
August 09, 2007
PingBack from http://msdnrss.thecoderblogs.com/2007/08/10/a-few-interesting-links/
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
I completely agree that people need to be more willing to learn about Office Open XML before they form their opinions, but I've been trying to learn for over a month now, and to be honest it's a lot harder than it ought to be. The Office team seems to have gone a different way to large parts of the community at several points in the past (e.g. we've discussed the DocBook vs. Office traditions of XML before). People like me haven't even heard Microsoft's arguments before now, we just absorbed the other position by osmosis, and can't imagine things being any other way. I realise you work very hard at getting your message across, but there's a large chunk of the population where you really need to go back to first principles if you want to talk usefully with them. But anyway, in my continuing quest to get a clue, I'd like to ask: in your opinion, what does Microsoft want from the ISO process? What does it stand to gain? What would a win look like? Obviously you're fulfilling a legitimate request from your customers, but for example, does Microsoft expect to enter niche markets springing up around the feet of the word processors? Could greater competition in word processors themselves bring some youthful vigour back into a maturing market?
- Andrew
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Wouldn't scanning and storing documents to PDF, a format known for layout preservation be better than OOXML where layout preservation is not guaranteed? It is likely the convertors will get better in the future, so why embalm the document content now? Instead, use a PDF overlay and, when the OCR process improves, reuse the PDF bitmap and re-OCR the document. The medical submissions use XML-schemas, not OOXML. Perhaps Tom Ferguson would be just as excited to learn that Word supports English and the FDA wants documents in English - a breakthrough?
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Dave S: Scanning and storing to PDF has been available for years now, from several vendors. If it works for your needs, fine. However, consider that PDF is not open, not a standard, not XML-based, and the file is not editible without proprietary software. None of this is the case with OOXML, which is open, standardized, XML-based, and editable by a growing number of pieces of software. It all comes down to what your needs are. Adding OOXML to the list of possible outputs from scanning only serves to widen the possible choices, and is therefore, in my opinion, a good thing.
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Dave S: Your comment about the FDA and Health Canada that "The medical submissions use XML-schemas, not OOXML" suggests that you are not clear on how XML works. An XML document is one that is compliant with an XML schema that is used to verify its compliance. So, OOXML documents are (by definition) XML documents which are compliant with the OOXML schema (as documented in the OOXML standard from ECMA). So, if someone sends an OOXML document to the FDA or Health Canada (or anywhere else, for that matter), they are sending a document in XML format, just as it says in the quote from Tom Ferguson.
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Andrew, It's hard with a blog (any blog) to bring someone up to date with all the discussions and explanations that have taken place over the last few years. When someone joins a blog for the first time, they are joining a long-standing discussion. In the case of this blog, they are also joining what is in effect a course on a specific set of Microsoft technologies and their business motivations. In due course, there will be books and formal courses. In the meantime, however, perhaps Brian could consider setting up a FAQ for new users, whose answers are just links to previous blog issues. For instance, a question like "Why did Microsoft submit OOXML to ECMA?" would have as its answer the link to the blog issue that discusses it.
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Ian, The FDA is looking for specific XML schemas. The Tim Ferguson quote gives the impression of a link between FDA required schemas and OOXML - a not yet existant link. www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/esubapp.htm specifies the use of eCTD. This link is to the eCTD format - estri.ich.org/ectd/eCTD_Specification_v3_2.pdf You'll note that the common file type for the narrative part of a conforming document is PDF, one of the graphics formats is PDF and only the structural part is XML. The eCTD specifically discourages non-common file types - xls, rtf, et al, to be used only on prior agreement, and then only for transition purposes. For ECG submissions there is the HL7 aECG XML format, which replaces the Phillips ECG XML format, so even for a singular use, XML formats are not simply interchangeable.
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Ian, If PDF is not open then it is interesting that solutions are available from multiple suppliers - unlike OOXML which is truly available from only one supplier. Practically, the documentation for most PDF formats has been available for a long time, without notable encumberance. It might not be open, but it hasn't been entirely closed either. Google finds a lot of PDF editors, some free. Not many OOXML editors are there? As to being a good thing - its rare that OCRs get everything correct. The best way to repair an OOXML file is to read it with the only OOXML editor, which can already read .doc files - a format long supported by the OCR software. This new output format doesn't really add a choice, it parallels an existing one. At least with the doc format, already supported, there are other editors that can be used.
Anonymous
August 10, 2007
Ian, A FAQ sounds like an excellent idea - Brian, why not put a link to it underneath "Email" in the "This Blog" section at the top of the sidebar? It wouldn't be that time-consuming if you just added questions to the FAQ as you replied to questions in future. That said, I'm not sure that it solves the problem I'm referring to on its own, as I don't think the issues I'm talking about have been addressed. My point is that people misunderstand OOXML not just because they've missed out on arguments from the last few years, but because they've missed out on arguments from decades ago. Think about it this way: if Microsoft proposed a standard that only worked on computers that used trinary instead of binary, or was designed to be implemented in a language that ditches functions for an elaborate GOTO-based system, you'd be horrified. It wouldn't help if they explained that it's what customers want or that feature X is the most efficient trinary algorithm - you'd probably just assume that Microsoft were being moronic and/or deceitful. In order to get you to understand (let alone agree), they would have to explain that trinary GOTO-based programming is a whole different model of computing, rather than just an abomination in a binary world, then discuss the practical advantages and disadvantages of trinary GOTO-based systems, compared to the only model of computing you've ever known.
- Andrew
Anonymous
August 11, 2007
Dave S., Open XML is available from several suppliers, including Apple. This information was posted in this blog this very same week! My spider sense tells me you are a troll. Now, can scanning to PDF preserve spreadsheet formulas?
Anonymous
August 11, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 11, 2007
Andrew, I meant that in this blog in the last few years, issues have been covered that include design decisions that go back to the beginning of WORD for DOS. So, a FAQ could cover things like why OOXML doesn't use other document structure approaches that may (or may not) be technically superior for their customers. As for a discussion about why Microsoft doesn't ditch everything it has ever done in the way of documents and start all over, it isn't going to happen. One of the main reasons that Microsoft succeeded is that it doesn't abandon its users; instead, it makes revolutionary changes, but one step (release) at a time, so that it doesn't get ahead of its users. Consider that it began down the XML road for Office a decade ago now, and that with each release it has taken the next step in the voyage.
Anonymous
August 11, 2007
If there's been blog posts that cover all the stuff I'm thinking of and I've just missed them, fair enough. A FAQ would be a good way of making that information more accessible - I think we're in agreement on that. I didn't mean to suggest that Microsoft should ditch everything it's done and start over - I agree that's implausible. My point is that there's a significant chunk of the population that can't understand Microsoft's position because they don't understand the fundamental ideas that it's based on. Explaining Office Open XML to that group means not just explaining each tag slowly and clearly, but starting from "what is trinary, and when should you use it instead of binary?". Again, a FAQ would be a good place to start there. Having said all of that, I'm not suggesting that everyone will immediately agree with Microsoft when things are properly explained to them, I'm just giving my thoughts about the steps that I'd like to see Brian take in order to let people form their own (informed) opinions.
- Andrew
Anonymous
August 11, 2007
Dave S: I checked out your statement that the FDA requires specific schemas. They say: "The following file formats should be used:

PDF for reports and forms
SAS XPORT (version 5) transport files (XPT) for datasets
ASCII text files (e.g., SAS program files, NONMEM control files) using txt for the file extension
XML for documents, data, and document information files
Stylesheets (XSL) and document type definition (DTD) for the XML document information files
Microsoft Word for draft labeling (because Microsoft Word can change, check our Web site for the current version)"

Anonymous
August 11, 2007
Still the patent uncertainty problems of OOXML remain. No one trusts the CNS or the OS-'promise'. Microsoft gave us Baker&McKenzie but it does not really cover the legal issues.
Anonymous
August 12, 2007
Ian, Your list of formats is from www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/esubapp.htm Looking at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm#electronic_submissions one sees somewhat differnt information. For product labeling they request SPL, a specific schema. For general submissions it is www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/2867fnl.pdf, which, in section III "WHAT FILE FORMATS SHOULD I USE FOR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS?" says PDF and SAS (not XML or OOXML) The eCTD says to use a specific XML schema for its structure. eCTD describes XML - "XML files are read by a parser found in Internet browsers." Which does not sound like OOXML at all.
Anonymous
August 12, 2007
Ian, I have seen many documents where the graphics of the original scan overlay the OCRed text. In many cases the text is incorrect, but that is only known because of the graphic. The Nuance page lists "searchable image" as one of the PDF outputs. It appears to be the same function as I mentioned but, if not, then it's called something else or Nuance is missing an important feature. OOXML support from Apple looks limited to importing. Apple does not generate OOXML, so it can not be referred to as an OOXML editor. Here's a link to a blog post on what MS is doing for their own OOXML support on the Mac: shebanation.com/2007/05/16/ooxml-and-the-mac-more-bad-news-from-microsoft/ The Microsoft Mac pages don't add much more. The Anonymous comment about PDF scans not preserving spreadsheet formulas is interesting. Perhaps OOXML has the ability to recognize information that's not on a page and make it appear.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
Dave S: I think your confusion about OOXML vs XML may be because OOXML documents are packaged as a ZIP file, i.e., using the Open Packaging Convention (OPC). Within that ZIP file are the actual XML files. The main one is called Document.xml. It is the XML document that follows the standard OOXML schema. (There are other XML files there that are also defined in the schema). To check this out yourself:

Generate or obtain a ".docx" file (for Word 2007)
Save it somewhere
Rename its file extension from ".docx" to ".zip"
Open the zip file
Double click on the Document.xml file The file opens in your internet browser. It has been parsed by your PC's XML parser, according to the standard OOXML schema, just as eCTD describes XML as quoted in your post. I hope this clears up any confusion. There is no proprietary or unusual thing going on here; it's all using XML and XML schemas, just as required by several bodies. That is why you are beginning to seee endorsements like the one originally quoted.

Anonymous
August 13, 2007
Content-Type: image/png Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAALIAAAA8CAMAAAD17hDyAAAAb1BMVEX/2AD///8AJv8AAAGYmJeP jo4AEn6jo6Oenp7Gxsatra3X19eKiYSpqam2tra5ubnBwcHS0tLLy8uEhISAgIO+vr6ysrLqyBXO zs6dlW3V1dMAAQz/LwBIV7hiap7Dr0Xhwh7RuC7XvCjKszb7+/szKEtCAAAD10lEQVR42u2WjXai MBCF7Y2irtjVigVKVfx5/2fcO3HsHBK0uvXs1lNugcAwufk6TUh7Tw+nDrlDPo88mby9zefzoihe qDE1o5bL5W/qmXp9ff0lmlJD0UjUVw2OSqnFYhKPoUPMKT/CWGQDqH9kH5ovaK7Ih8k9kRfZIeLl EPdAVnMi0w6A9wMNMUaMDKDVE+KKAbwrUohr1lbjiXOuFTmhrkZOxLzniVll0A80RFuVQUu0epKZ vBBmnJALQr7LyeP9RMwqu1ZkDpDcgFx4ZPiJgTmAF8BXmQ0dAXhkiCWZMQXoCWA0AnUGOfO4djwJ MZHJ7ArniFy5ajarKI/smVlsIvM6HCZETkZJP6GIzCsv1IInzQ0ZH1UmNGuAJVgENJAxnWIIlgEj sAyeGXSF/KQtyDwbyAR+ceNqTOpZxSpXJ+SERU6mCaucnJDJ3O8nA/LyTFhlMmcXkKklRM0qe2Tq CmTSShtW2SNXzrlzyFZlRaauR9a5HCLLZFNkf8TIyiq4MXI1djKXr0YeUE3kwpZf68Sw5RdPDEPm ESAfuX1TfCw/507IVmUhDidGYsjRxLCPnCEHy88+crb8tMr6kTNkUXY4/5FzRVVx+fFBq6wfucby GxLYkI/LT5ETmt+0leCqrWRyYSup4q3k+aatZKIb9uyeyHGNdYi5r7IN8DfIh+4/uQ75JyG7o57c Tbbutncm91Vks3lAZKfgeq93GvJX95Hkbyzdt+ahVw1H1l9HNndp9dBG3zZeaJBNmGQe7WEed0XW sSi1pjSuChEtXR/t8BcLm/X9kRs8Kg1RmhROpRg5NDLruyAbsR0BXHjE8yLufb7vnZFtiYSrz1EN RBcmNZEtHFh/263EPdru59wP3LB7D6YOuUPukDvkDvmbIucZkOW9Oo1zfBAIgoA/AQtYE+deI+Am 5DXyHGvrFdOdC/43ZCD3V+lWAqXcb7A+Bf3TaqvvmlXOU5SWIYE1b/SZD2xhplnGztJitSk1QdOi YXYZkObaRMjMLBk9mm+37ADUNVKj2+VY8V2ea9CLDWP1DtAMCfAX5Y0+p2ID7Sim7Kt2PkGyLa05 zEqaTJt4+dXlChtPp6c2VCMosqAezSbfZHHYSw3N8nK2VHff0yZEVp/PkDXwCfIadVuYCpEvZlP1 Zo21NheWn02MfY0y8C+xz5FaUCfGvjEakAPWY7ezjhGyZmtaMEwGP2m0AVo/ctsV9rb8dNJLUL3k XRpUWVeOBbYo9VnfWscAWbMjE83OSw+ljSF/7ZNDrfY9+QP9A90NebeWInQbdofcIXfIHXKH/EDI D6c/YgCDfQzBtPAAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
Ian said "It is not about legacy .DOC documents converted to OOXML" Unfortunately for you, it is EXACTLY the scope of OOXML. Microsoft claim is that OOXML is fully compatible with the legacy documents, it fully represent them. Ian said "It is about newly created OOXML documents, probably in Word" Again, you haven't learned for past discussions we've had. Haven't I showed one counter-example with VML for instance? VML is not specified in ECMA 376, it is merely described. Can you please me give an url of a third-party that implements VML? Ian said "You may have your own opinion about OOXML's suitability for this purpose" As a vendor, I have more than an opinion. Microsoft poor implementation choices (and lock-in strategy, for those naive enough to think Microsoft are good guys) have an impact on my daily work. Only because it is so poorly designed, poorly described, poorly implemented (tons of regressions : my customers have spreadsheets than open and render well in Excel 97/XP/2000/2003 and don't open and render well in Excel 2007). Ian said "avoid ad hominem attacks" It's Microsoft who is the aggressor here. Open your eyes. They have missed the opportunity to come up with something useful.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
@Stephane As macro's and OLE objects are not part of the specification they can be embedded as binaries. So what. That is the same with ODF. That format also does not specify macros or OLE objects. So any implementation of ODF can also add those binary elements to implement macros and OLE objects within it. And if Microsoft wants to add a ton of binaries to a format they can do that just as wel with ODF as with OOXML. That is their implementation descision. As long as it does not affect he OOXML information in the files that is not really a problem. Would you consider it better if Micrsoft adopted ODF and started adding those binary objects to ODF files ?? As that are implementation descisions you can complain that Microsoft should implement ooxml with less use of binaries. That however is not due to the format but to Microsofts way of implementation. As other implementations are not likely to use the same way of creating files Office will still have to deal with being compatible enough for other implementations to use and to be able to consume documents created by other implmentations.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
"As long as it does not affect he OOXML information in the files that is not really a problem." How can it not affect OOXML when you know that for VBA macros for instance, there are attributes such as "codename" which are saved and attached in worksheet parts themselves, and govern it back and forth ? This stuff is so poorly implemented there is no separation between the raw file format and application bits. Of course, anyone who has implement some of this stuff can also figure out that perhaps as much as 10% of XML attributes are application related, they have nothing to do with the data itself. Those application related values are used to pre-check boxes, or pre-select values in lists. It's 100% application stuff, and shall at least be taken out of ECMA 376, or at least made a separate part. I'm interested to know who you guys are. You talk a lot, but I still don't know on behalf of who or what company you are talking, and whether you have implemented any of this stuff.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
Ian said "before you come out with your out-of-context blasting" Hmm, who said "It is not about legacy .DOC documents converted to OOXML, which might possibly contain macros (and which thus are not covered by the OOXML spec.)." This is wrong. OOXML contains VBA macros, just that Microsoft merely references this stuff instead of specifying it. OOXML cannot NOT contain VBA macros otherwise their claim or "full backwards compatibility" goes under.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
The OOXML standard suports macros but there use is not required to generate or process an OOXML document. .docx, as discussed above doesn't include macros. Its .docxm counterpart does.
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 13, 2007
You're not being fair, least in my case. Quote: "It looks like the anti-OpenXML folks are upset and have now started a petition to ask Apple to also support ODF",and talking about Apple: "They will add functionality based on what their customers want." No, I'm not anti-OpenXML, I'm pro-ODF, and yes, I HAVE asked Apple for ODF support in their products, because I really do work with, and share, ODF files right now. Many people I know do so as well on an increasing frequency. This, and no what you wrote, is my point. Might I also place my doubts that Apple included Office Open XML support to iWork 08 now because of customer demand only, while supporting ODF in TextEdit/Leopard later this year: I see the reason for this behaviour more in playing nice with Microsoft, and having MS Office for Mac also in the future.
Anonymous
August 15, 2007
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
August 15, 2007
Hi Brian, This thread has gone a long way since it started, so I'd like to restate two important questions that have got a bit lost in the discussion: First, would you consider creating a FAQ or something like it, in order to collect all the posts on a particular topic, for newcomers to read in order to get caught up? Second, could you talk a bit about what Microsoft expects to gain from ISO standardisation? For example, does helping Gnumeric somehow help create a new market for MS Office to move into? (If you've answered this question before, please add it to the FAQ ;) These questions came from a discussion between Ian Easson and I (he deserves credit for the idea of a FAQ), and they're discussed in more detail further up the thread.
- Andrew
Anonymous
August 15, 2007
Brian, thanks. And my gripe is exactly vice versa, with people, or companies, who are suppressing or maybe even sabotaging the adoption and evolution of the existing ISO standard 26300. If Open Office XML, sorry, I'm always confusing this: Office Open XML delivers on its promises as truly open, broadly implementable, and technically sound format, I have no problems welcoming that on the other hand. -Darkalias
Anonymous
August 15, 2007
Andrew, How about you read previous posts on this blog and others and create a proposed FAQ? You'll be doing yourself, and us, a favour. To answer your second question, search for 'ISO' in Brian's blog. The first to read might be 'Thoughts on Open XML in ISO'.
Anonymous
August 15, 2007
Andrew Hilton, Thanks for the lead about searching for "ISO". That clears up a lot of my questions, although I'm still not sure how (for example) it's in Microsoft's interests to make Gnumeric a stronger competitor to MS Office. Is it just because it's a sign of a truly vibrant ecosystem around Office Open XML? Moving on to the idea of a FAQ. To be clear, when I talk about a FAQ, I'm referring to the original use of FAQs: saving everybody time by removing the need to write a new answer for every instance of a question that's asked frequently. The modern use of FAQs (a list of questions the author thinks everybody ought to be asking) went out of fashion because they serve the same purpose as every other form of documentation, and are a bit harder to read. By building up a classic-style FAQ as he's asked questions, Brian could give better answers in less time for common questions. I don't think it would work for me to build a modern-style FAQ on my own, but if Brian's would be prepared to accept suggestions, I'd be happy to go digging on the issues I'm interested in.
- Andrew Sayers
Anonymous
August 16, 2007
I'm heading out of town for a week, but will definitely look into building up an FAQ when I get some time. I'd appreciate your suggestions for the first set... :-) -Brian
Anonymous
August 16, 2007
Andrew, I missed you other question. For Microsoft, the main reason we voted in Ecma to take Open XML to ISO is that we had been asked to do so by various customers (mainly governments). They wanted to have our formats in the domain of the international community. In addition to that, recently we've seen IBM lobby governments to build policies requiring the use of only ISO standard formats. This is why they want to block Open XML from being an ISO standard, it doesn't fit in with their strategy for their Workplace product. http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/products/product4.nsf/wdocs/productivitytools -Brian
Anonymous
August 19, 2007
www.marketwatch.com/news/story/state-state-microsoft-responds-assault/story.aspx?guid=%7BC0D943C4-4ADC-471C-8F87-9181A4EC3E7B%7D And that Massachussetts thing. Isn't the legal term for a similar situation in a lawsuit "unclean hands?" I think the goverments would have been just as happy had the binary formats been well documented and put in the domain of the international community as, for example, there is likely little change to the Office 97 formats or application, et al, and there is no such limitation on Office 2007 or the not yet ISO MS-OOXM.
Anonymous
August 23, 2007
Welcome back Brian. Here are my suggestions for questions I'd like to see in a FAQ, as well as the style I'd like it to take, and in some cases even an outline of answers I'd like to see. Where I've given answers, they're mostly my take on your position, so I don't expect you to use them as anything more than inspiration. Reading through your old posts, there's one question I expect to be very uncommon, but which I'm dying to know the answer to: you said that short tag names are better because you parse tags with a trie. Why not just use a suffix tree and have names as long as your arm?
- Andrew <h3>About the site</h3> <h4>Who are you?</h4> <p>I'm Brian Jones, a program manager in Office. I've been working on the XML functionality and file formats in Office for about 6 years now.</p>  <h4>What topics are discussed here?</h4> <p>I mainly focus on XML in Office and the Open XML File Formats coming in the 2007 Microsoft Office system.</p>  <h4>What topics are not discussed here?</h4>  <h3> Why the name "Office Open XML"</h3> <p>We were originally going to call it "Microsoft Office Open XML", to make the difference clear between this and Microsoft Office's older XML formats. We dropped the word "Microsoft" when we decided to make it an international standard. This is much the same as the way OpenDocument Format used to be called "OpenOffice XML Format" before it was decided that it wasn't going to be tied to a single product.</p> <h3>Why isn't Office Open XML "proper" XML?</h3> <h4>Why doesn't it follow the XML's deeper design model?</h4> <p>There are some people who've played with other formats like HTML or DocBook that are curious why WordprocessingML doesn't use that same model as either of those formats, and there's actually <a href="http://brian_jones/archive/2007/07/11/wordprocessingml-document-model.aspx">a pretty straightforward reason</a>.</p> <h4>Why does it include non-XML metadata?</h4>  <h4>Why does Office Open XML look like previous Office formats, wrapped in angle brackets?</h4> <p>Because it works better that way. Office Open XML needs to be as compatible as possible with older versions of Microsoft Office's file formats, and the best way to do that is to use a format with a similar design model. Since there are several million Office documents for every developer that's ever worked on Microsoft Office, the only practical way of ensuring compatibility with that huge corpus is by making cautious, incremental changes. Angle brackets are the increment we're working on right now.</p>  <h3>Why create a standardized file format</h3>  <h4>Why not use ODF?</h4> <p>This is a topic I've been coming back to since I started this blog back in 2005. I've talked about <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/06/13/428655.aspx">how the two formats differ</a>, how we needed better support for <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/10/04/477127.aspx">formulas</a> and for <a href="brian_jones/archive/2006/07/20/673323.aspx">tables in presentations</a>, <a href="http://brian_jones/archive/2005/12/14/503642.aspx">design requirements that OpenDocument doesn't share</a> (<a href="http://brian_jones/archive/2006/05/24/605461.aspx">twice</a>), and political considerations about why Microsoft <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/07/14/666273.aspx">couldn't take a seat at OASIS</a>. The ODF folks have done some great work since I wrote those posts, and it looks like ODF 1.2 will solve many of the technical problems. However we , and anyway we still feel that ODF's design requirements are too different to Office Open XML's.</p> <h4>Why go to ECMA?</h4> <p>I covered this way back with <a href="http://brian_jones/archive/2005/11/21/495466.aspx">my original announcement that we were taking the format to ECMA</a>.</p> <h4>Why go to ISO?</h4> <p>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.</p> <h4>What is your answer to GrokDoc's <a href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections">Objections</a> to standardisation?</h4>  <h3>What can you tell me that will help me write better Office Open XML applications?</h3> <h4>What are the issues around licensing?</h4>  <h4>What guides are available?</h4>

다음을 통해 공유

A few interesting links

Can anyone be objective about Open XML?

Convert your paper documents into Open XML files

More on Apple's Open XML functionality

Comments

추가 리소스