| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)Posted Nov 28, 2005 1:42 UTC (Mon) by gjheydon (guest, #4209)Parent article: Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw)
it really looks like ms xml is just a copy of the binary doc format with xml tags instead any real thought into making things accessible.
They shouldn't really worry about trying to make to make it an ISO standard as no one in their right mind would consider using it.
(Log in to post comments)
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 3:58 UTC (Mon) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] as no one in their right mind would consider using it.I'd say, "They shouldn't really worry about trying to make to make it an ISO standard as most of the people in the world are using it already." I personally also prefere the ODT and LaTeX, but the question is, what is more of a standard: a thing that is in wide use(like it or not) or something that some bunch of whitecollar clerks have given their ceremonial blessing?"
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 4:39 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Is it actually in wide use yet? I was under the impression that the standard they're talking about submitting to ISO/whoever is the Office 12 format, which hasn't been released yet...and people are making noises about not switching because of the cost, incompatibility, etc., although people said that the last x times around too...
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 7:28 UTC (Mon) by dark (subscriber, #8483) [Link] "MS XML" sometimes refers to the Office 12 format and sometimes to the Office 2003 format (which is different). I think Microsoft is deliberately obscuring the difference, so that they can claim that their XML format is already in use.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 9:30 UTC (Mon) by OldRabbit (guest, #30886) [Link] This article compares ODF to the Microsoft Office Open XML format (.docx), sometimes abbreviated to MOOX. This is the format to be used in the forthcoming Office 12. The Office 2003 format has the extension .xml.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 13:29 UTC (Mon) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] The Office 2003 format has the extension .xml. Nobody can ever accuse Microsoft of missing a marketing opportunity. If the extension is .xml it must be XML.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 29, 2005 13:14 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] I'm sorry, I really don't mean to behave like a troll,But if history has shown us anything, it would be that Microsoft does whatever it damned well pleases.
If they want to call a .doc a .xml, they can. And no
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Nov 28, 2005 13:09 UTC (Mon) by danielc (guest, #34150) [Link] By that argument, OpenDocument is a lot more standard than MS XML. Right now OpenDocument is used by a lot of people (users of OpenOffice.org, and other applications). There are over 20 applications that either support it, or plan to support it soon:
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Applications/HomePage
By contrast, MS Office 12 XML is not even out. There is no current application that supports it. It's market share is 0%. Office 12 won't come out for a few months. In contrast, OpenDocument has a market share around 10% or so. Microsoft will have a hard time making people switch to Office 12, so take up of their format is likely to be very slow.
Cheers,
Never underestimate the power of the dark side Posted Nov 28, 2005 19:35 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] By contrast, MS Office 12 XML is not even out. There is no current application that supports it. It's market share is 0%.Microsoft has extensive experience in going from 0% to 95% of the market share in no time. Think of word processors and web browsers.
Never underestimate the power of the dark side Posted Nov 29, 2005 21:14 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Microsoft has extensive experience in going from 0% to 95% of the market share in no time. Think of word processors and web browsers. It took few years in all cases. And in both cases competitors were other proprietary progarms so freedom argument was never ever raised (Netscape opened browser code when was was already lost and unlike OpenOffice 2.0 this code was unsable. Yes, Microsoft is not beaten yet - but this is toughest challege to date.
Format Comparison Between ODF and MS XML (Groklaw) Posted Dec 4, 2005 16:24 UTC (Sun) by dps (subscriber, #5725) [Link] MS XML does not look very like the binary .doc format---where are the completely seperate pointers into the text that mark which bits are bold, italic, etc? It actually looks a lot easier to generate from a template than anything else you can edit in M$ office moudlo HTML.
My target format of choice is LaTeX with portions of plain TeX that goes way beyond Dr. Lamport's gnats and gnus are likely to have imagined. The current version of the editting angle is to apply one of the (commercial) PDF to M$ word conversion programs out there.
Human readability is important if you want to generate a document from a template and neither RTF nor open office scores well by this metric---I could not simply expand a template in either format such that the result did not crash openoffice. (I suspect exploit potential if you tickle whatever my results tickled in the right manner).
As an ISO standard M$ will have to drop some of its stipulations, like not using their documentation to design your own word processor format, not that anyone sane would want to do that anyway. Actually using the format as in memory format makes even less sense but is probably what M$ word does...
|
|||||||||||