The Contradictory Nature of OOXML

Andy Updegrove writes "the Microsoft Office XML-based format specification, OOXML, is now in the adoption queue at ISO/IEC. That process takes six months, and has two steps. During the first one-month step, any member may submit 'contradictions,' which means aspects in which a proposed standard conflicts with already adopted ISO/IEC standards and Directives. Those contradictions must then be 'resolved' (which does not necessarily mean eliminated), and these resolutions are then presented back to the members to consider during the five-month voting stage that follows. A month isn't very long to do a line-by-line analysis of a 6,000-page spec, but experts in the national standards bodies around the world are doing just that. What they are finding includes the use of proprietary, hard-wired elements rather than incorporation of available ISO/IEC standards; additional Microsoft technology that must be emulated (but is not covered by the Microsoft patent pledge); elements that can't be implemented without Microsoft technical assistance; dependencies on Windows itself; mandatory bugs; and more. And then there's also the fact that OOXML heavily overlaps ODF — a platform-independent, already-adopted ISO/IEC. It promises to be an interesting battle." And an anonymous reader adds word of the release, after 10 months of development, of Docvert 3.0, an open-source web service that converts DOC files to Oasis OpenDocument 1.0 (download the source here).

It promises to be an interesting battle

Ya, I'm on the edge of my seat. It will get adopted as a standard or it won't. Office will use it either way and anyone wanting to interoperate with Office will have to try to implement it as well.

Re:It promises to be an interesting battle

All true, but if it does get adopted as a standard, then MS can use this to ensure the continued use of MS Office by government agencies around the globe. If it doesn't get adopted, MS will be under pressure to provide a supported, native, OOD format.

Re:It promises to be an interesting battle

In my opinion there are two reasons Microsoft is trying to create their own standard: PR and government contracts. The PR aspect is obvious. The US government is Microsoft's largest customer (by far) and also the most likely to demand open document standards. Other governments will likely do the same long before corporations demand it. So Microsoft needs to have their own standard which they implement first in order to get the contracts.

They don't have to implement it correctly. They can claim support for a standard [msversus.org] for years without actually following it (e.g. CSS, Kerberos, etc.) and still get the contracts. They were actually involved in creating some CSS standards and still didn't follow them.

It's all about the money. Get the big contracts and nothing else matters.

Re:It promises to be an interesting battle

Can anybody implement for free?

No, because bits of it are patented (especially the "legacy compatibility" parts that basically just say "emulate old versions of Office").

Can MS get fined for saying they support the standard when in fact their software actually does not (ala, Java, CSS, HTML, Kerberos, and others).

In this case it won't matter, because the OOXML "standard" is effectively defined as "whatever MS Office does." In other words, MS basically documented Office's behavior down to the smallest detail, and submitted it to ECMA and now ISO.

Re:It promises to be an interesting battle

In other words, MS basically documented Office's behavior down to the smallest detail

They didn't even do that. A lot of the document states that when you encounter certain tags you will emulate a Office bug, but never specifies the details of that bug because that is "beyond the scope of the document". So even if you have the standards document, you can't fully implement the standard without getting all the old versions of Office and reverse engineering their behavior.

I originally read OOXML ...

as:

Object
Oriented
X
M
L

and whimpered at the thought...

Re:I originally read OOXML ...

That is exactly what I thought at first as well!

And i wonder how you could. Even just reading the the /. blurb makes it clear that the "standard" as proposed is non-implementable.

Please recommend compliance validation tools

One of the things that bugs me are these 'enormous specifications' that are inconsistent. What we need is not just a document, but the tools necessary to verify a generated file. Not just for valid XML, but for all the little microsofty-bits hidden inside.

--jeffk++

Re:Please recommend compliance validation tools

Microsoft isn't doing this for you silly! The whole intent is likely that it is *hard* for anyone to implement.

Describing exceptions doesn't make a standard.

Despite what Microsoft thinks and how they're been acting in the past with all their 'standards'; Describing all the exceptions doesn't make something a standard. Describing them in the context of a non-standardized environment, makes it even less so.

Although I'm quite sure that Microsoft really doesn't give a and will push this through as 'their' standard that everyone else will have to adhere to to be able to do anything with Mickyshaft generated content anyway.

Whether ISO approves of this or not is inconsequential, the only thing that matters is that M$ can now say: Look, we proposed a standard, it's not our fault 'they' think it's not good enough.

Re:Describing exceptions doesn't make a standard.

Whether ISO approves of this or not is inconsequential, the only thing that matters is that M$ can now say: Look, we proposed a standard, it's not our fault 'they' think it's not good enough.

It matters to governments, who are coming under increasing pressure to rationalize their MS Office upgrade cycle (and why they're not getting out, via standards)

But yeah it doesn't matter much to the private sector / industry.

Deja Vu Docvert

Way back before the web I worked in a Unix shop that was a development lab for a big multinational. Head office kept sending us e-mail with large MS Word attachments. We got tierd of having to go down to the library, where we kept the only PeeCee in the department, just to see what was in the attachment.

I solved the issue by writing a program that ran on a Windows PC (an old one that had been discarded and was gathering dust in the closet) that received SMTP mail, detached the Word attachment, started up Microsoft's Word Viewer to read the attachment, then "printed" it to a file in PDF format and finaly SMTP mailed it back to the sender.

From then on all we had to do was forward the email to the robot and wait for a readable version to bounce back. As I used Microsoft's own Word Viewer there were no problems whenever a new version of Word came out, I just downloaded the latest viewer :-)

Open XML is a transliteration

It's to be expected as Open XML is a straight transliteration of the DOC "dumps" to XML format.

I wonder how it ended this way: not enough time to properly develop and implement a more proper standard, or by design.

I feel it's both.

Re:Open XML is a transliteration

The design requirement of Microsoft's XML format was (obviously) that it be possible to convert existing Word documents to it without any loss. In order to do this, there must be a one-to-one mapping between the .DOC semantics and the OpenXML semantics.

The second design requirement was that the spec be developed and released quickly, before ODF had time to gain much traction. Between these two objectives, it's hardly surprising that it ended up the way it did...

Re:What, like... (Oops, forgot, no xml tags.)

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<microsoft_word_document>
(Content of .doc file)
</microsoft_word_document>

Re:Open XML is a transliteration

That's the reason for all the "render like WordPerfect 5.x" options that people have complained about, because they have to allow people to convert to the XML format and then convert back without reducing the document to an unreadable mess.

There is no reason I know of why the XML format cannot support all the features of Word and round trip, without relying on nasty hacks like this, it just takes more work. The problem with "Open"XML that I've seen is the concentrate entirely on supporting only the features of .doc files and their interactions with other programs to the exclusion of anything else. Rather than "render like WP 5.x" you need to define how WP 5.x renders that feature, then incorporate it into your conversion script in a way that makes sense in general for documents.

The whole format is built upon the assumption that only MS and Word will be using it and it is not designed to abstract word processing documents in general, but to kowtow to the eccentricities of Word.

The alternative is to not support roundtripping and then wait for slashdot headlines like "Users find that the new Office XML format mangles their documents".

No, the alternative is to do it right and build hacks like the ones you mention into the import and export routines, rather than embedding them, without any definition, into the format.

And the sad thing is...

...Some people think its fine that way. A friend of mine, quite pro-ms, told me that all those little strange things in the specification where normal to have backwards compatibility, and that reading the specification was a waste of time. Instead, he directed me towards a preview of Ms office 2007. Because for him, as for many more, what's important is the final product, the cuteness of the buttons, the way it works and displays its own format. Why bother using a free program that displays word documents badly, when Office is already perfect huh? I feel so misunderstood sometimes. What makes me sad is that they don't see the use of a clear straight-to-the-point format. Maybe only geeks can be horrified by this one.

Re:And the sad thing is...

I feel so misunderstood sometimes. What makes me sad is that they don't see the use of a clear straight-to-the-point format. Maybe only geeks can be horrified by this one.

The user cares only for the document he sees in print or on screen. The internal structure of the file interests him not at all.

Divy it up?

I wonder if you could get 60 people to review 100 pages each (or divide up chapters or sections in some logical manner). That may be feasible in 1 month. At least the glaring problems would be flagged. I have no idea how to organize this however.....

Objection!

Submitting contradictions?

Wait a minute, I know this! This is just Phoenix Wright!

For all the students out there

This is why we oldsters hate Microsoft. 25 YEARS of this.

Who needs OOXML...

...when you can have oo-mox? [memory-alpha.org]

Chris Mattern

Open Source community debugs MS code

So it looks like the Open Source community is now debugging Microsofts Document format. I am sure Microsoft does not itself know what is going on in here half the time and much of this document was generated by code scrappers looking for structures and interfaces.

Congrats to the world community but they should really submit a bill to Microsoft.

Yeah, that's a Microsoft product alright

"additional Microsoft technology that must be emulated (but is not covered by the Microsoft patent pledge); elements that can't be implemented without Microsoft technical assistance; dependencies on Windows itself; mandatory bugs; and more. And then there's also the fact that OOXML heavily overlaps ODF -- a platform-independent, already-adopted ISO/IEC."

Pretty much like everything they do.

Wait - where are the virus APIs? Did they leave those out?

Naah...

Gotta be there somewhere. Keep looking.

Now We'll Now...

...whether ISO has simply become a dumping ground for people simply wanting to market their stuff as standards (ECMA), or a real standards body.

As it is, there is not a snowball in hell's chance that OpenXML can become an ISO standard. It is simply a dump of the existing awful doc format into a nice incomprehensible 6000 page document, and it doesn't even use existing ISO standards. There's even a set group of banners and bullet points defined in there which can by no stretch of the imagination be called international.

I know Microsoft has managed to butter the ECMA up as their usual standards dumping ground, but I simply cannot see how they can get past the shortcomings in that article. To do so would be a huge amount of work (and Office 2007 is already using this format) and it would threaten their Office monopoly - which is what this obfuscation was about in the first place.

Is OOXML Truly Open Source

The biggest question to ask is not whether or not Microsoft provides access to the XML, nor whether Microsoft provides access to a schema, the question to ask is, "Is OOXML Truly Open Source?"

The biggest issue I have with the OOXML "standard" (and I use the word quite losely) is there are BLOB's (binary large objects) in the OOXML file created by Microsoft. In this BLOB is all the byte code used in the Macros, etc for the file in question (i.e. an Excel file). Since Microsoft has not provided proper instructions (whether it be a schema, or source code) to read the the BLOB containing this information, and how to intrupret this information, I doubt this will ever pass as a true ISO standard, nor be truly accepted as open source (not to mention marcos are still programmed using the Microsoft defined, and patented, VBA rather than using an open source standard such as JavaScript).

More info @ groklaw

Check out the article on Groklaw Searching for Openness in Microsoft's OOXML and Finding Contradictions [groklaw.net] for further comments. The article also has links to a couple of wiki pages with further comments.

ISO maybe, but never an IETF standard

Maybe they'll get an ISO standard, but I have the feeling that an IETF standard would be out of question. Look at the requirement for being just a "Draft standard" (see here [ietf.org]):

A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable implementations from different code bases have been developed, and for which sufficient successful operational experience has been obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.

Outside Office 2007, who would ever implement this "standard"?

Surprised?

If it's true, is anybody really surprised? This is MS after all.

There is a another analysis [groklaw.net] on groklaw.

hope not

here's too it not getting adopted and I hope they kick it back out on the proprietary horse it rode in on.

Hey guys, I've an idea

> there's also the fact that OOXML heavily overlaps ODF -- a platform-independent, already-adopted ISO/IEC.
Couldn't the Microsoft people use the existing standard instead? That way everyone would be able to communicate. Someone should call to let them know about it.

MS is not worried about the format's success!

They already know that everyone is locked-in to their proprietary Office formats. This XML "standard" is not created as a real product that Microsoft hopes to promote. That would be a conflict of interest. Instead, they want to make sure that it is a gigantic convoluted spec that no one can implement. It's designed as a distraction. They want the spec to leave you with a feeling of disgust for open XML formats because:
1. You'll go back to your works-good-enough-for-me Office formats you've already been using (e.g. Word Doc).
2. If you're the typical uneducated business person, you'll get confused between OOXML and ODF and falsely believe that ODF is that bloated mess of a spec you believe you heard about from your fresh-out-of-high-school IT guy. Well he knows about computers, so that ODF (OOXML? Open Office XML? XML? Open Document?) thing must be a bad idea.

Not many people know much about Open Office, even many supposed "techs" in many businesses (at least in the U.S.). Microsoft wants to take advantage of their greater mind-share to control public opinion through their usual tactics of FUD and confusion. They want to make sure that the reputation among developers of XML as being a bloated exchange medium will work in their favor by amplifying that perception thereby killing off ODF and any chance of the industry adopting a common format.

OOXML vs. ODF Deathmatch!

Wikipedia has a good doc outlining the difference between OOXML and ODF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDoc ument_and_Microsoft_XML_formats [wikipedia.org]

It may not be an ISO standard, but it's a heck of a lot better than the completely proprietary older formats.

How about a good "atta boy" for Microsoft at least? :)

Oasis OpenDocument

Why is this still being called Oasis OpenDocument? Have you already forgotten that it's an ISO standard [iso.org]?

Re:I'm shocked!

I'm shocked too, that someone using ad-hominem attacks would resort to anonymous posting. Amazing. This must be Slashdot.

The fact that Updegrove might have a vested interest in ODF succeeding doesn't detract from the OOXML proposed standard being a crock of shit.

The OOXML acronym

Does the OO mean "Object Orientated" or "Open Office"?

It means neither. OOXML is shorthand for Opaque and Obfuscated eXception-based Markup Language. However, Marketing rejected the longhand name for the format because it didn't test well in developer focus groups. However, marketing found the shorthand OOXML appealing because psychologists have said the roundness of the O's induces a sense of calmness. BillG liked it because legislators could make an (incorrect) association between OOXML and OpenOffice.org (often abbreviated OO.o), and he hopes the confusion could lead to the inadvertent acceptance of MS' pseudo-open file format in government.

So OOXML stays but it officially stands for about as much as DVD does, which is nothing (or whatever you want it to stand for--it is all about "personal freedom" after all, so OOXML stands for what means the most to you ;-).