Modify Colors
Posts in File Formats
The Most Important Reason OOXML Should Be Defeated
More than any technical or political reason, the biggest reason we should hope that Microsoft’s new format, OOXML, is not standardized is simply that it is our best hope for finally achieving one standard document format.
For some time, the debate over OOXML has been going on. A while ago it was put on the fast track ISO approval process. Before it could become a standard, though, several countries filed complaints, stalling approval until those complaints can be resolved or discarded.
Most of the arguments thrown around have focused on the technical aspects and flaws of OOXML. The truth is, though, that the sooner everyone can standardize on a single format the better, and OOXML’s failure to become an ISO standard would be the fastest way to that.
Recently I was caught with three versions of a document to which I needed to make some small changes. I had a printed version, a version saved out of Microsoft Office 2007 (for the record, I made that document on someone else’s computer), and a version saved in the Open Document format (ODF). Unfortunately, where I was, I only had access to Microsoft Office 2003 and no ability to install software. In the end, I had to retype the document off of the printed version. This simply should not be necessary. If there was a single, universally supported document format, this problem would not have occurred. Really, a standard document format is in everyone’s interest, except possibly Microsoft’s.
So how would OOXML’s failiure as a standard lead to a single standard? Microsoft has already announced moves to incorporate ODF into future versions of Office. This is most likely a saftey net, in case OOXML is defeated. This certainly suggests that, if OOXML does in fact fail to receive ISO standardization, Microsoft is ready to adopt ODF. Once Microsoft has adopted ODF, already OpenOffice’s preferred format, other small players (such as Apple) will be quick to adopt it.
Is it possible to finally standardize on a single format if OOXML wins? Yes, it is, but it will likely take a lot longer and a lot more fighting. We have a chance to end this mess now, and we should take it. We should also realize that this does not in any way benefit only the open-source people. This benefits everyone. With Microsoft’s fairly recent release of Office 2007, which yet again changed the default save format, average consumers and even some of the computer illiterate are running up against the wall created by constantly changing, selectively supported file formats. We have a chance to end this entire problem now. Why wait?
How Does OpenOffice 3.0 Beta Handle Microsoft Office Files?
Like it or not, one of the most important features of any Microsoft Office alternative is being able to read Microsoft Office files. With the recently released OpenOffice 3.0 Beta adding support for importing Office 2007 (AKA OOXML, AKA .docx) files, I decided to test how it would handle files created in Microsoft Office 2007 saved in both .doc (the older version) and .docx (Microsoft’s new format.)
To do the test, I used three different files, one with basic formatting (highlighting, font size, bold, italics, underline, etc.), one with changes tracked, and one with charts and pictures and that sort of thing. Each file was also saved both in .doc and .docx. Overall, particularly for a beta, I was very impressed with how OpenOffice handled the files. As you might expect, there are really no deal-breakers on the .doc side. On the .docx side, there are, unfortunately, some, but these will, hopefully, be resolved soon. (Keep in mind, this is still a beta version.)
Problems I noticed with .doc (older, but still the most common) files:
- Formatting changes did not appear to import correctly. For example, if you are tracking changes in Office and you make a piece of text bold, the text will be bold in OpenOffice, but there will be no indication that that is a change.
- Bullets do not always display correctly. For example, in Office there might be a little check mark for a bullet, but in OpenOffice that check mark might be replaced by a box.
Problems I noticed in .docx (newer, but not widely adopted yet) files:
- Text does not always wrap to the next line at the same point. For example, if a line ended with the word “cat” in Office, it might end with a different word in OpenOffice.
- Changes are not correctly imported. For example, if you had changes tracked in Office, they do not show up in OpenOffice. Comments are there, but there are weirdly inserted into the body of the document and totally mess up the formatting. Hopefully this is just a bug in the beta.
- Word Art, charts, and elements of shapes do not work correctly/at all. For example, Word Art, shapes, charts, and other similar objects may not show up correctly or at all in OpenOffice.
- Bullets do not always display correctly. See above.
Yes, there are still some issues, particularly in the .docx format, but these may well be resolved before even 3.0 is shipped. To put things in perspective, I will be following this up with a look at how Office handles ODF files. Oh wait, I guess I will have to wait until 2009 to do that. At least they are doing it.
Is Microsoft Worried About the OOXML Appeal?
When I saw the headline “Brazil Appeals OOXML Too! Asks Approval Be Reconsidered” on LXer today (the full article is on Groklaw) and then saw that India had joined the appeal, too, the question in my mind (other than the “I guess when you bypass the process and essentially cheat you don’t win, Microsoft” one) was what is Microsoft thinking right now? Unfortunately, I don’t know and the few who do know what Microsoft is thinking will probably never tell anymore than the PR lines, but, luckily, there may be some clues.
Going back to before even South Africa appealed OOXML’s ISO approval, Microsoft announced that they would be supporting ODF natively in Office. Most of the speculation I saw suggested that the move was made due to pressures from the EU and from governments wanting ODF support for their own reasons. However, with the recent appeals from three countries, I suspect there may be a different reason.
Microsoft must have known from the second reports of foul play around OOXML approval appeared that there would be many who would fight against OOXML approval. Again, I come back to the question “what is Microsoft thinking right now?”
Suppose the people inside Microsoft decided that Microsoft had to seriously worry about OOXML losing ISO approval. What would Microsoft do? First, downplay ISO approval in the press and, second, prepare for a graceful transition if OOXML fails. What does the second part mean, well, since creating a new standard is out of the question short-term, they would have to adopt another ISO approved standard, for example ODF. See where I am going?
Perhaps Microsoft’s adoption of ODF did not, at least completely, come from outside pressure. Perhaps it came from people inside Microsoft worried about a graceful transition to another format if OOXML did not get ISO approval and was unable to catch on without it. And if Microsoft was worried even before any countries actually appealed the approval, they must be worried now. If they are, that might be the best indication of OOXML’s future, which is not looking good.
Of course, this is all speculation and there are many assumptions here, but it is worth keeping in mind that Microsoft may know more about the appeals that are coming in than we do, so it is worth watching their moves to try and predict the future of OOXML. In my opinion, it would be just fine if OOXML died as a standard and Microsoft adopted ODF. Then we get one universal, truly open format that everyone can use. This would help to break up the Microsoft monopoly without destroying the company and it would spark more competition.
If OOXML looses ISO approval, it looks like Microsoft may adopt ODF, and if Microsoft adopts ODF, everyone wins.
The More Who Take A Stand Against ISO The Better
If you have not already seen the news, the ISO (International Standards Organization) approved the OOXML format, despite numerous cases of what I would consider outright cheating. Just after that, Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu’s founder, said “it’s sad that the ISO was not willing to admit that its process was failing horribly,” according to ZDNet. While he said nothing that has not already been said, I am very happy to see Shuttleworth, a prominent technology person, bluntly state that he does not approve of what the ISO did.
Even if you are in favor of OOXML, I cannot imagine that anyone wants the ISO setting a precedent of ignoring blatant rule violations. If OOXML passed without cheating, fine. I would have no objection to that. If, however, cheating is reported and ignored, I do have a problem with that and that is what is happening.
The implications of letting this go without making the ISO either show that there was no cheating or admit that cheating did occur go beyond setting a precedent of allowing the rules to be broken. It also encourages Microsoft to continue their unfair practices.
We cannot afford to let this go. I am glad Mark Shuttleworth has taken a stand and I hope more prominent figures follow.
OOXML: Not A Standard By Any Definition of the Word
As I see it, there are two ways in which something can become a standard:
- By general consensus: people use it so other people use it and pretty soon it is a “standard,” even though it is not necessarily an “official” standard.
- It is declared to be a standard through some agreed upon process.
Although the ISO just approved OOXML as a standard, it is not a standard by either of these definitions.
By the first definition, OOXML would have to already be widely accepted and used. Although it is very difficult to scientifically prove that OOXML is not being used, but if it were truly a standard you would see most office documents in OOXML, which does not seem to be the case. I have only seen a very few of them in OOXML. So OOXML is not yet a standard by general consensus.
By the second definition, it would seem that OOXML is a standard, because the ISO says it is. Not so fast. I said it has to be a standard based on an agreed upon process. There is a process for ISO standardization (all the countries vote and if enough of them vote to approve the standard, it gets approved.) This process, however, was not followed. There have been many incidents of suspicious (to say the least) things going on during the process, including events that seem like 100% cheating. Unless it can be shown that the standardization process was fair, OOXML is not a standard by this definition either.
In conclusion, until OOXML is truly adopted by the majority of people (preferably not through Microsoft forcing it on them) or the ISO shows us the process was really fair, ISO standardization means nothing and OOXML is not a standard.
The Open Document Foundation recently stopped supporting the ODF file format in favor of W3C’s CDF file format and had now, just weeks later, closed with no explanation, according to Slashdot and Ars Technica.
The Obama campaign has a position statement on technology and innovation which contains the intriguing promise to make “government data available online in universally accessible formats.” It sounds like he is referring to a format such as ODF that can be read by open-source programs like Open Office. If this were true, it would put some more momentum into the open source movement, and chip away at the monopoly enjoyed by MicroSoft, and despised by the rest of us. Score one for the Obama campaign!
Linux Insider reports that the OpenDocument Foundation is adopting a new file format, CDF or Compound Document Format developed by W3C (The World Wide Web Consortium), to replace the ISO-approved ODF file format. The OpenDocument Foundation says that the ODF file format was not made to handle some things they would like it to do, so they are adopting the W3C’s CDF.