Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 150 +-   Saving in OOXML Format Now Probably A Bad Idea on Wednesday January 23 2008, @03:44PM

Posted by Zonk on Wednesday January 23 2008, @03:44PM
from the good-idea-bad-idea dept.
microsoft
it
orlando writes "Much drama is unfolding prior to the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva, currently schedule for the end of February. After that there's a subsequent 30 day period while countries can still change their vote. As a result, Bob Sutor is recommending that saving your documents in OOXML format right now is probably about the riskiest thing you can do, if you are concerned with long term interoperability. At this point nobody has the vaguest idea what OOXML will look like in February, or even whether it will be in any sort of stable condition by the end of March. 'While we are talking about interoperability, who else do you think is going to provide long term complete support for this already-dead OOXML format that Microsoft Office 2007 uses today? Interoperability means that other applications can process the files fully and not just products from Microsoft. I would even go so far as to go back to those few OOXML files you have already created and create .doc, .ppt, and .xls versions of them for future use, if you want to make sure you can read them and you don't want to commit yourself to Microsoft's products for the rest of their lives.'"
story

Related Stories

RTF Vs. OOXML 141 comments
Submission: Saving in OOXML format considered harmful by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Saving in OOXML Format Now Probably A Bad Idea 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Future compatibility? What about now? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EggyToast (858951) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @03:52PM (#22158416) Homepage
    It's a bad idea anyway, regardless of your future data needs. I've already received a handful of .docx files in my job and have had to email the person back, asking them to save as an alternate format. And inevitably the response is "Oh right, I always forget that not everyone can open these files."

    Microsoft's done a crappy job introducing a crappy format, and only people on the latest office (or the ability to install the Windows-oriented Windows-installer for old Office for Windows) can even work with the files.

    • Let's just make one thing clear. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23 2008, @03:56PM (#22158486)
      No matter what is in the published specification ... the ONLY implementation of OOXML that will matter will be the "de facto" standard that is whatever Microsoft is shipping at that moment.

      You can be 100% compliant with the published spec ... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.

      • That's the point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tony (765) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:28PM (#22158990) Homepage Journal
        You can be 100% compliant with the published spec ... but if you aren't 100% compliant with what Microsoft apps produce, your product is not an option.

        You don't think Microsoft *planned* it this way, did you?

        The *only* reason Microsoft purchased... I mean, went through the IEEE standardization process was to fast-track to ISO. This is because places like Massachusetts were pondering passing resolutions that would require certain government agencies (in the case of Mass, the executive branch) to publish documents in a standard, open format. Microsoft, of course, fought that with money, lobbying, and disinformation (Microsoft's best weapons).

        By getting a rubber-stamp standard, Microsoft can continue doing exactly what they do now: locking in customers by creating the perception that theirs is the only office suite that can handle the "standard" correctly, making the other suites look inferior (despite the actual compliance of the other suites).

        Notice the timing of OOXML-- it happened just as OOo was beginning to render .doc formats exceptionally well. The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot.

        I don't know why Microsoft doesn't believe they can compete on merit alone. They almost *always* resort to market manipulation to maintain the upper hand. It'd be funny, if they weren't teabagging capitalism in the process.

        • Re:That's the point (Score:5, Interesting)

          by CSMatt (1175471) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:13PM (#22159744)

          The barrier to conversion to OOo was damned low. So, it was time to introduce another incompatible document format, which is what they have always done when the competition gets too hot.
          If it was low then, it's probably even lower now thanks to Ribbon. Given the choice between spending 5-15 minutes training employees to convert from Office 2003 to OpenOffice.org and spending 30+ minutes training employees to convert from Office 2003 to Office 2007, I know which suite I would deploy.

    • Re:Future compatibility? What about now? (Score:4, Informative)

      by KublaiKhan (522918) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @03:57PM (#22158518) Homepage Journal
      Not to mention that the various kinds of .doc are often problematic, when one party has a newer version of office (and has saved in said format) while the other party has not upgraded.

      The 'classics' are always best, anyway--because, frankly, if you need more formatting than some basic markup that would be covered by rtf or html, you ought be using something aimed more towards desktop publishing than word processing--and for that, you can use TeX or something.

      These fancy-schmancy formats are just feature creep, really, in my opinion. If you need clip art to say it, then perhaps you don't need to say it at all.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by norite (552330)
      Maybe you should send them files in .odt format, and when the inevitable reply comes back, saying that their latest and greatest version of word 2007 cannot open it, say "Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting, not everyone is using OpenOffice." Then email them the link to OpenOffice's download section ;)

      • Re:Future compatibility? What about now? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msuarezalvarez (667058) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:18PM (#22158826)

        You do not need to purchase anything to view them.

        Apart from the OS, of course.

      • Correct, but I'd rather teach people to use a format other people can readily use rather than require recipients to jump through hoops.

        The burden of sending a conveniently readable file lies with the sender. .doc may be proprietary but at least it meets the conveniently readable threshold, nearly any office software can handle .doc adequately.

        That said, I personally don't recommend sending .doc files for most inter-business communication. PDF is a lot more sensible in most (but not all) circumstances.

        This w
  • Dude, sorry. Everybody has a bad day once in a while, but that was nearly unparseable. Here-

    Much drama is unfolding prior to the OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting in Geneva, which is currently scheduled for the end of February. There is a subsequent 30 day period when countries can still change their vote. As a result, Bob Sutor is recommending that if you are concerned with long term interoperability, then saving your documents in OOXML format is probably about the riskiest thing you can do.

    At this point, no

    • That's being rather picky, I think. I know it isn't saying much, but I routinely see much worse from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post etc. Also, Slashdot tends to be a bit more niche-oriented while maintaining roughly the same timeliness, so the occasional rough grammar is to be expected, I'd think.
      • True, but you don't get a chance to correct CNN and those guys. And I did apologise, Zonk usually does an excellent job, at least he has on the stories I've submitted.
  • I don't recall any dire warnings that we should avoid saving in ODF at the late stages of its journey through the standardization process. Why is it suddenly an issue for OOXML?

    • Re:Did he say that about ODF before approval? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DaleGlass (1068434) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:12PM (#22158730) Homepage
      Probably because back when it was being approved, it already existed as a standard, and was already implemented by multiple applications.

      Unlike OOXML, ODF (or OASIS as IIRC it was referred to more often) was the main format for Open Office, and at least KDE was supporting it as well.

      The fact is, if MS suddenly drops OOXML, everybody else will instantly lose interest in it. Meanwhile ODF has wide adoption: You can open it with OpenOffice, AbiWord, KWord or a MS Office plugin, for instance.

    • Re:Did he say that about ODF before approval? (Score:5, Informative)

      by jhol13 (1087781) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:14PM (#22158766)
      The biggest difference is that ODF did not go through Fast Track, it went trough a long and tedious process in OASIS. Besides, OOo did not save to ODF before it was done deal in ISO.

      Then there is the problem that Office 2007 does not fully support the OOXML (so you cannot save to OOXML now, only OOXMLish).

      Furthermore Microsoft has clearly stated they will not follow ISO-OOXML - unless it does exactly what Microsoft wants it to do.

      So no matter what you do, your file will be outdated in a few years.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mingot (665080)
        The biggest difference is that ODF did not go through Fast Track, it went trough a long and tedious process in OASIS. Besides, OOo did not save to ODF before it was done deal in ISO.

        Wrong.

        Wikipedia Article on OASIS [wikipedia.org]

        And although the WP article does not mention it ODF actually got to skip the one month contradictory period that was required of OOXML. So this long and tedious process for ISO certification you're talking about . . . Didn't exist.

        Then there is the problem that Office 2007 does not f

  • Aw, c'mon (Score:5, Funny)

    by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:21PM (#22158880) Homepage Journal

    At this point nobody has the vaguest idea what OOXML will look like in February
    If this were Jeopardy, I'd ask Alex:
    "What is the most-linked image in /. history?"
  • I've started getting OOXML (docx) Word documents, which I've found take forever to convert using MS' own builting converter (2007 to 2003) and that the conversion frequently jacks-up the formatting, which doesn't bother me, but makes collabaration difficult, and I have to re-format the documents if we're in a crunch since my project lead is anal about asthetic things like that.

    <rant>If it were up to me, I'd do reports in plaintext (or if necessary, PDF)</rant>

  • Tagging (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raftpeople (844215) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:27PM (#22158966)
    A comment on tagging:
    "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" is pretty entertaining when used sparingly, like maybe on a story about a new robotic dentist. But when we are talking about document formats, I think it starts to lose that special something.

  • Use MS-OOXML and reduce confusion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nadaou (535365) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:27PM (#22158972) Homepage
    To reduce the (probably intended) market confusion over the pedigree of the format names, it would be nice if people used "MS-OOXML" to differentiate it from ODF and OpenOffice.

    [repost]
  • Sutor is correct that it's quite possible that the OOXML that comes out of ISO will not be compatible with the OOXML that Office currently saves. But do keep in mind that Sutor works for IBM and has long been a vocal opponent of OOXML.

    • Sutor is correct that it's quite possible that the OOXML that comes out of ISO will not be compatible with the OOXML that Office currently saves. But do keep in mind that Sutor works for IBM and has long been a vocal opponent of OOXML.

      Ah, so what you're saying is that he has an agenda... to tell the truth?

  • When the document specification is revised, the XML schema should also change. Older documents will then still be readable because an application has to use the older (non OSI approved) XML schema.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by guruevi (827432)
      Except that the current iteration of OOXML in Microsoft Office is not the OOXML that they submitted and changed throughout the ISO process. They implemented the 'old' OOXML and in the mean time they have deprecated lots of proprietary features that Office is actually using because nobody but Microsoft can implement those features (RenderLikeWord97 comes to mind).
    • You save something in OOXML today. The standard gets re-written in February. Now Microsoft has a problem. Everybody running Office 2007 is saving in a non-standard-conformant format. What to do?

      Windows Update to the rescue! So MS pushes out an update that patches Office. Now it saves in the real format, the one that came out of the February meeting...

      But now nobody's saved stuff can be read back in.

      But hey, that's all just hypothetical. Microsoft wouldn't be that stupid...

      Would they?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kjkeefe (581605)
      Seriously, can't we block these IP's already? I mean this is happening in ever story...
      • If you're going to reply to this crap, could you please at least take out the N-word in the subject?

        Thanks!

            • Re:Niggers still a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

              by KiloByte (825081) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @07:53PM (#22161696)

              The word in and of itself is upsetting to many people.
              And that's a problem with the people, not the word.
              Since we're not going to run out of idiots anytime soon, they will use the word just because it is perceived as offensive. The only solution is to stop being offended by it.

              The only way you can be offended by somebody (you or not) being called a nigger is if you yourself think that being a nigger is bad. Once you realize this, it's not an insult anymore. Heck, it's often used as a term of pride (that's bad too).

    • Re:"standard" vs "de facto standard" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by corsec67 (627446) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @04:59PM (#22159496) Homepage Journal
      People are trying to get laws passed that say that government documents must be saved in an open, documented format. If OOXML gets forked into the ISO version and the MS version, then MS loses there since they don't save in a documented format.

      One option for MS is to have a very hidden "save in ISO OOXML" switch that is hard to toggle, or only available in more expensive versions of office, with a converter between the MS and ISO versions of OOXML.

      If MS uses the ISO version of OOXML, then as you say, anyone could make an office suite that used that format, and MS would have to compete on something more than "everybody uses office".

      If it wasn't for those laws that people are trying to get passed, you would be completely correct.
    • There certainly is a moral obligation to support a standard that you've forced into existence. To force hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world to work to vet your proposed standard and then not support it is... uh... bad form...
    • And although it's a pain in the butt, we'll cope. OOo is already pretty good at reading MS proprietary files -- better than MS Office in some cases. Although I usually work in MS Office, I keep OOo on my computer as a recovery tool, because it will successfully read MS Office files that are too damaged for MS Office to read even in recovery mode. Yes, it would be better if OOXML didn't exist. Given that it exists, it would be better if it's not accepted as a standard. But even if it does get accepted as a s
      • Somebody - that people would trust to not be sending around viruses (Sun?, Google?) - ought to write a tiny downloadable app that will change your default format in Office 2007 back to .doc. Seriously, this .docx default is causing a lot of people problems, and not just ODF fans. You'd be surprised how many people can't figure out how to change the default. And without MS0 2007 as a reference, I can't walk some of the more literal users that end up asking through finding it in the entirely new menu syste

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by digitig (1056110)

          A nice little web link on google.com ("Are your friends complaining about not being able to open your Word 2007 documents? Fix it here") would do the trick.

          That could just link to OOo -- tell them to use that, instead :-)

          Yes, I know it's not a complete substitute -- I have to use MS Office because my customers require me to use forms with macros that OOo won't handle (they pay the piper, they call the tune) -- but it would be fine for most users.

          Oh, and of course, you'd still have to deal with the wrong default format. Drat, it was looking so promising...

    • Fear mongering on Slashdot again? I am all for standards but when it comes to thinks like file support, it doesn't really matter all that much. OOXML is here and it will be around a while. And in 10 years when you are trying to open your old files, there will still be filters to open OOXML files, just like we can still open a whole host of old and obscure file formats. Why in the world go through the trouble of converting all of your files already created using OOXML?

      For myself, I'm a pretty savvy comput

      • Re:This is crazy. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by webmaster404 (1148909) on Wednesday January 23 2008, @05:07PM (#22159652)
        I know that 5, 10, 20 years from now I would still be able to open the files, though I have no idea why I would want to.

        Or so you think. It seems that every MS "standard" is nothing more then just a memory dump of the product in question. For all we know, MS could release an Office 2007 Service Pack 1 that changes the format however could ignore all data on CDs/Flash drives when they update all the files. It doesn't help that chances are you are going to have to buy an Office 2009 to use the new OOXML format to even open newer OOXML files. The problem is MS is a company and a large one that doesn't care about stabbing its customers in the back to make a buck.

          • Re:This is crazy. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Monx (742514) <[moc.seitilibiss ... [ta] [hsalSxnoM]> on Thursday January 24 2008, @04:32AM (#22164756) Journal
            Why in the world would you want your data to expire? If it was worth creating, it should be readable for a long, long time. Imagine if all documents (books, carved tablets, etc.) faded away after 20 years. We'd have no history at all.

            Formats based on open standards guarantee that it is possible to write a reader from the spec no matter how long ago the document was created. I don't think there's a single legitimate argument against this.
Search
Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.