Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

[Posted September 15, 2005 by cook]

eWeek looks at corporate opposition to the Massachusetts Open-Format Plan. "A proposal in Massachusetts to move computer networks onto an open-file format by January 2007 is sparking debate, as companies like Microsoft Corp, Adobe Systems Inc., Corel Corp., IBM and Sun Microsystems Inc. weigh in on the potential shift. Although the public has been invited to comment on an initial draft, available on the state government's Information Technology Division site, responses were solicited from the major tech companies. The letter getting the most attention is from Microsoft, which supplied a 15-page comment that was copied to the state's governor, Mitt Romney."

to post comments

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 17:12 UTC (Thu) by IdeaMagnate (subscriber, #12031) [Link] (3 responses)

"'We have substantial concerns ... with the definition of 'open formats' in the current proposal,' wrote Alan Yates, general manager at Microsoft. This definition, he noted, requires adoption of a single format for office documents throughout all state agencies, requiring deployment of a single office application technology."

If by "technology" Yates means "office suite", (I'm not sure how else to read it) I don't know how even MS could say something so clueless and inaccurate. The whole idea of open standards is that anyone with enough time and skill can implement them and that independent implementations will interoperate. Even requiring OO.o's native format would allow competing implementations, since it's an open and publically documented standard. I've generally come to expect higher-quality FUD from MS.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 19:59 UTC (Thu) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link]

"This definition, he noted, requires adoption of a single format for office documents throughout all state agencies"

Okay, I give up.
How many formats would Yates want MA to adopt? 2? 3? 10? 200?

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 20:50 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] (1 responses)

> single format for office documents

Yes, that is a concern. Imagine, for instance, if all documents on the web were done in the same format - one would need a single web technology deployed - a real tragedy. That's exactly why Microsoft invented IE - to spice things up a little bit, with another web format that nobody understands, which obviously lead to great progress.

With this one, I'm on Microsoft's side ;-) Bad standards, bad!

PS. Also, imagine the cost benefits of not needing to support the OpenDocument format (to Microsoft, that is ;-)

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 23, 2005 12:36 UTC (Fri) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link]

To play the Devil's advocate for minute...

While you are trying to be ironic, you have hit on a good
example of a place where multiple document formats can make sense.

What happens when you want to do something not supported by the document
standard you are using? For example, suppose that the standard was plain
text (ASCII), and you wanted to add colour.

The reason you have given a good example is that HTML, while good for
certain things, is not so great for others. When you need tight control
over where things appear when presented, other formats are better.
Something Massachusetts might want to do is update a form that people
fill out when applying for something, and then send the updated form to
all of their offices electronically. In this case, PDF would make more
sense than HTML.

There is such a thing as using the right tool for the job.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 17:44 UTC (Thu) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link] (7 responses)

I hope Massachusetts follows through. This decision could snowball and
destroy Microsoft's proprietary XML bullshit - a format which if not
stopped will lead to even *less* compatibility with their crap than
before.

Microsoft claims they won't support OpenDocument. I think they're
bluffing. I'm betting they already have OpenDocument support implemented
and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. The decision will likely come
down if they can't kill OpenDocument. They can still implement
OpenDocument in a generally buggy way to try and damage interoperability,
and they can certainly still play the three E's.

But the XML schema Microsoft has developed is a real danger to the
computing community, so I hope it dies.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 18:32 UTC (Thu) by thomask (guest, #17985) [Link] (2 responses)

"they can certainly still play the three E's."

maybe I'm the only one here who doesn't know what "the three E's" are, but could you play E for enlightenment for me, please?

Thanks.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 18:38 UTC (Thu) by meffie (guest, #3120) [Link]

3Es = embrace extend extinguish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 18:39 UTC (Thu) by eli (guest, #11265) [Link]

I had to pause a moment when I read that too, having not seen it
compressed that far. But anyway, I believe the "three E's" are Embrace,
Extend, Extinguish.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 0:41 UTC (Fri) by coolian (guest, #14818) [Link] (3 responses)

Actually, I believe that they cannot call it "Open Document Support" if it
doesn't pass a certain amount of tests the OASIS Foundation set up, for
just this type of occurrence. So, perhaps the triple-E will be a bit
harder to do this time...

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 0:48 UTC (Fri) by cventers (guest, #31465) [Link] (2 responses)

Let us hope then that the OASIS Foundation has the backing / balls to
enforce this rule.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 7:15 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I think, basically, all the OASIS group have to do is publish the DTD.

ANYBODY can then test a document to see whether it is well-formed and valid, and if MS-Office starts producing faulty documents then everyone will know where the blame lies.

It's a bit difficult for MS to do even the second E when any Tom, Dick or Harry can spot it. Especially as Mass. requirements are that the format should be stable and non-changing.

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 8:52 UTC (Fri) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Nope. You can be fully compliant with a DTD or Schema, but still position everything wrong when the document is viewed in your word processor.

Similarly, no amount of testing can guarantee 100% interoperability. That's like there could be an automated test that guarantees there are no bugs in your software. I'm sure whatever certification process OASIS has in place, a hundred well paid MS engineers can easily implement an Open Document filter that passes the tests but is useless for interoperability purposes.

links to comments?

Posted Sep 15, 2005 19:11 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] (3 responses)

Is the Microsoft letter available online anywhere? If so, a link would be appreciated.

FYI, here is a link to the Massachusetts draft standard and call for comments.

Here's where to find the comments

Posted Sep 15, 2005 19:58 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] (2 responses)

You can find the comments here (for now). Here are Microsoft's comments. There were also comments from Adobe, IBM, Sun, and Corel, though they were all positive.

Here's where to find the comments

Posted Sep 16, 2005 16:54 UTC (Fri) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link] (1 responses)

The MS letter (whilst making a pretty good case for those who don't believe open formats are intrinsically important, or do believe that 'MS Office XML' is open) contains at least one factual error:
"StarOffice, Openoffice.org, Koffice and IBM Workplace. In reality, these products are slight variations of the same StarOffice codebase."

I don't know about IBM Workplace, but I'm pretty sure that KOffice is entirely independent of the StarOffice code. Maybe it shares an OpenDocument importer? This rather undermines the claim they then go on to make about this format only being supported by one bit of software. It's at least 2.

They claim their XML format is open. (available for public use under pertpetual royalty-free, nondiscriminatory, terms, and is fully documented). Presumably MAs objection lies in their version of 'non-disciminatory'? Or are they worried about retrospective patent-infingement attacks?

Here's where to find the comments

Posted Sep 16, 2005 17:25 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

KOffice is not OOo-based, TextMaker is not OOo-based, AbiWord does not use OOo codebase...

Who knows - may be some code is actually shared, but so what ? MS is free to do so as well. At least we have four different independently developed projects (including "normal proprietary application, not that joke called free software") with support for OpenDocument format. Now how many office suites with support for MS's XML format ? I know of exactly one...

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 15, 2005 20:05 UTC (Thu) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link]

"In some ways, the debate around the draft may be just sound and fury, and ultimately signify nothing much being changed, noted Ian Campbell, president and chief executive of Massachusetts-based Nucleus Research."

That guy don't seem to be aware of how important open standards are...

Import/export OpenDocument in Word

Posted Sep 15, 2005 21:53 UTC (Thu) by seanyoung (subscriber, #28711) [Link] (2 responses)

Microsoft Word exposes a public API which allows you to convert to and from RTF. With such a converter, Microsoft Word would be yet another OpenDocument client. Possibly with conversion errors, so be it. Use OpenOffice if you want it done right.

The API is really quite simple. It is fed a filename and expected to output RTF or the reverse. I've been willing to do this but ripping out the rtf converters of OpenOffice seemed like a bitch.

I think this would be great for OpenDocument.

Import/export OpenDocument in Word

Posted Sep 15, 2005 22:02 UTC (Thu) by seanyoung (subscriber, #28711) [Link]

For clarity, the open file chooser and save dialog box would have an option for file type Open Document. I don't know about new versions of Word, but older versions even allow you to set the default file type.

Documentation is as usual scattered and incomplete, but nothing you wouldn't expect. I've written a test converter which worked -- at least, the output was always "Hello World!" in rtf. I should be able to find it if anyone is interested.

Import/export OpenDocument in Word

Posted Sep 16, 2005 4:11 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

I suggest you have a look at the object code for the converters supplied with Microsoft Word. You'll quickly see that the published API isn't the entire API, although the published API is probably enough to do the job. This is possibly because the published API originated with an old version of Word and hasn't been updated since .DOC became the dominant word processing format.

There is no public converter API for Excel or PowerPoint.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 13:57 UTC (Fri) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] (6 responses)

Microsoft makes a good point about the robustness of a standard though.

De jure standards work best when they evolve from robust de facto standards. The IETF embraced this idea from the beginning and I think it's the main reason why I like IETF standards and hate ISO standards.

Massachusetts should come up with a plan to just adopt today's de facto standard. Governments can appropriate property for the public good. I'm not sure how they'd do it, or what it would cost, but I'd like to see them try. The old MS Office formats were abysmal, but their new XML-based formats might be ok. OpenOffice is going to have to support the formats anyway. I'd love to see the government embrace, extend and extinguish Microsoft's file format monopoly.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 15:15 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (2 responses)

The standard is basically OOo 1.1's document format with minor chnages. It is being implemented in OOo 2 as well as in some other word processors now.

Had MS provided a good license for their format, their format might have been considered. But their license doesn't allow you much. So it could not be used as an open standard.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 5:26 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] (1 responses)

By what law could they actually enforce a license on a file format? Also, if they could do so, why haven't they already sued the developers of OpenOffice and other projects with import filters for their file formats?

I doubt that Microsoft's claims of having "intellectual property rights" over their file formats are no more true than, for example, SCO's claim to the ELF executable format.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 17, 2005 21:37 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]

s/no more/any more/

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 15:21 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link]

Ah, but the OASIS OpenDocument standard DID evolve from a de facto standard -- the OpenOffice.org document format. The OOo format has been around for a while, with millions of people using it, so it has demonstrated robustness.

The formats aren't quite identical, older versions of OOo don't handle the new OD format, but at least there has been a lot of practical experience with what went into the standard in the first place -- more than can be said for some standards. And there are already a number of other office apps implementing it, which is key to a robust standard. Implementation shakes out the inconsistencies and ambiguities.

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 16, 2005 17:38 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, but here IETF rules will declare OpenDocument format right choice. Hands down. It's quite simple, really.

MS's new format:
1. Robust, clever, open (or so Microsoft claims), but... never tested in practice.
2. There are only one codebase in development with promised support for this standard.

OpenDocument:
1. Open and works.
2. Has at least four independent implementations: AbiWord, KOffice, OOo and TextMaker

Conclusion ? Easy: we have working interoperable code on one side and a lot of hot air on the other side (noone can be sure if MS's XML will be interoperable: you need two independent implementations to claim that - it's IETF rule!). Let's concentrate on working code and leave hot air behind till at least two independent interoperable implementations will exist, shell we ?

Not all ISO-developed standards are bad (think C++, for example). Some are better, some are worse, but OpenDocument is clearly developed in IETF-like fashing...

Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)

Posted Sep 19, 2005 6:00 UTC (Mon) by Mithrandir (guest, #3031) [Link]

Not all ISO-developed standards are bad (think C++, for example)

I'm not exactly sure why I found this so funny...