Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China's Open Document Format Fight

Posted by Zonk on Wed Aug 01, 2007 04:00 PM
from the open-docs-around-the-world dept.
Software Linux
eldavojohn writes "While there's been a lot of talk of the open document formats in the states, China is facing the same dilemma. A ZDNet blog examines the issue by pointing out they will most likely merge their current standard with either OOXML or ODF. The bulk of their post points out why OOXML shouldn't be ISO certified and is the biggest problem for Microsoft's standard: 'Another Standard, Microsoft does not support, is the specification RFC 3987, which defines UTF-8 capable Internet addresses. Consequently, OOXML does not support, to use Chinese characters within a Web address.' This would be problematic for many languages, not just Chinese."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

China's Open Document Format Fight 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • It's hard, to read submissions, when there, are so, many, commas.

    • Re:waytoomanycommas (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eddi3 (1046882) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @04:13PM (#20077687) Homepage Journal
      That was, at the very most, a half assed at humor. There are, in fact, ways to add, not only too many commas, but enough to make, say, your head, or mine, explode upon reading the sentence, phrase, etc.

      Not only that, but you can, unbelievably, even use lots of commas, while maintaining mostly, although maybe not entirely, correct punctuation.

      -Eddie

      • That was, at the very most, a half assed at humor. There are, in fact, ways to add, not only too many commas, but enough to make, say, your head, or mine, explode upon reading the sentence, phrase, etc.

        Not only that, but you can, unbelievably, even use lots of commas, while maintaining mostly, although maybe not entirely, correct punctuation./quote>

        For best results, imagine this read in a Shatner voice.
    • Yes, and it's very hard to read TFA with a stupid 'Take the survey now' popup plastered over it. I hate those.

  • Standards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaavaaguru (261551) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @04:10PM (#20077653) Homepage

    Another Standard, Microsoft does not support, is the specification RFC 3987, which defines UTF-8 capable Internet addresses


    This probably doesn't surprise many people here. Their mail client is also incapable of handling hyperlinks longer than around 78 characters, and their browser's not too great on the acid test.

    What Internet standards do they support properly?

    • What Internet standards do they support properly?


      Their implementation of TFTP is flawless :)

      Hint: The whole RFC is 2 pages long.
      • Their implementation of the underlying mechanism is flawed, as it cannot leap tall buildings in a single bound.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by kinko (82040)
      >> Another Standard, Microsoft does not support, is the specification RFC 3987, which defines UTF-8 capable Internet addresses

      > What Internet standards do they support properly?

      Why don't you read the RFC mentioned here (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt) and see who the author is. The problem is lots of legacy software and standards that expect all users to only use ascii.
      • So not even a case of not invented here, they simply don't support it at all?
        Or maybe they dont support it because it's openly documented but not widely used yet, preferring to create something closed and proprietary instead.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nevali (942731)
        E-mail gets wrapped--typically--by the receiving client. With format=flowed (which Outlook does support, kinda), it doesn't matter how long the lines you send are.

        78 characters is pretty much solely an issue with non-flowed plain-text e-mail, and the vast majority of clients out there send flowed mail by default (because it removes the hard limit altogether).
      • Putting angle brackets around URLs in e-mail makes most mail readers retain the user's ability to navigate to the URL by clicking on it. URLs like this (ignoring the spaces added by slashdot) work fine in things like Thunderbird and Apple Mail:

        This is covered by RFC 1738.
        • D'oh!, slashdot removed the contents of the angle brackets.

          I was meaning that URLs like this would still be clickable:

          <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& client=safari&rls=en&q=email+URL+78+OR+80+characte rs+RFC+angle+brackets&btnG=Search>
      • Microsoft will only implement standards if they have no other choice (TCP/IP etc), because a standard is already established. Where there is no existing standard, or the existing standard is new and not dominant in it's field they will try to create their own proprietary system instead, sometimes this technique fails (netbeui?) and sometimes it succeeds, but the end goal is always the same - to create lock-in.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by osu-neko (2604)

          Not to troll, but MySQL isn't the most diligent ANSI SQL follower either. If you're going to point fingers, make sure you're not in a pot/kettle scenario first.

          There exists an open-source application that doesn't follow a standard, therefore, Microsoft should not be criticized for not following the standard?

          Also, is the OP a MySQL developer? If not, he/she is neither the pot nor the kettle, but a third party fully justified in calling either one of them black.

          One assumes you are trolling, otherwise yo

  • Lazy implementation. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rizzo320 (911761) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @04:16PM (#20077721)
    Reading the analysis in the ZDNet Asia article, it's sounding more and more like Microsoft's OOXML was created for only two reasons. First, to quell the upsurge at the state government level the need for an "open document" format. Second, to force users into newer versions of Office that are compatible with the new "open standard". The standard Microsoft file formats (.doc, .xls, .ppt, etc) haven't major revisions in almost a decade. This allows users to continue using older versions of Office, rather then upgrade. Many of them have been reverse engineered for compatibility in non-Microsoft products. Remember, Microsoft has never profited with compatibility.

    If what the article is actually true, then, Microsoft might have a tough road ahead in the international community. Microsoft wants to control the format so they can lock-in the user. You can bet that even if this version of OOXML is certified, that, some revision or change down the road in another version of Office will break compatibility. Add in a lack of complete documentation (despite the 6000 pages already completed), and you have a recipe for continued vendor lock-in.

    I hope everyone sees through the Microsoft fog, and continues to develop the ODF format. If China decides to merge its format with ODF, its a step in the right direction.
    • Microsoft do profit from compatibility, compatibility with themselves and nothing else. They use proprietary protocols, formats etc, so that it's hard for third parties to be compatible with them, so customers have no choice but to use the microsoft offerings because their data and third party apps are being held to ransom.

      • What makes it a proprietary format is that it's so complicated that it's nigh-impossible to write a second complete implementation of it. This can be seen easily in the cases where they've put in undefined modes like "do margins like Word Perfect 1.1", but even without those things the "standard" is still an utter mess.

        Basically, for a format to be a legitimate standard, it needs to be possible for there to be multiple "perfect" implementations. That will never happen with OOXML.

  • February?!?!?!?!bruary (Score:4, Insightful)

    by overshoot (39700) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @04:23PM (#20077835)
    I realize that /. isn't intended for fast-breaking news, but TFM is from February and a Hell of a lot has happened since then.
  • We don't want to play with you.

  • Cannot Merge With OOXML (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @05:42PM (#20078749)

    they will most likely merge their current standard with either OOXML or ODF

    The tiniest bit of analysis will lead them to conclude that it is technically impossible to merge their format with OOXML, since OOXML is not adequately defined.

    • The tiniest bit of analysis will lead them to conclude that it is technically impossible to merge their format with OOXML, since OOXML is not adequately defined.
      Yeah, because everybody should stop at a tiny bit of analysis.

      Incidentally I just did a tiny bit of analysis on ODF and decided it shouldn't be used because it doesn't define formulae at all.

      • Re:Cannot Merge With OOXML (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Citizen of Earth (569446) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @07:06PM (#20079555)

        Yeah, because everybody should stop at a tiny bit of analysis.

        Yes, let's torture a figure of speech. Deeper analysis will reveal that not only is it technically impossible, it is also practically impossible, so there will only ever be one implementation of MSOXML.

        analysis on ODF and decided it shouldn't be used because it doesn't define formulae at all

        It is quite easy to extend a standard to include new things, and ODF 1.1 is well under way. However, it is practically impossible to remove broken stuff from a standard, so we would be stuck with the MSOXML dog's breakfast until Microsoft abandons it in five years.

        Incidentally, are you implying that you prefer MSOXML over ODF? Wow!

  • There is a reason RFC 3987 isn't widely supported; it's horrible.
    • " Europe is going to ODF?"

      Actually, people are going to ODF now because it's an actual ISO standard.

      OOXML ain't. If OOXML ever gets ISO cert, then the entire ISO is intellectually bankrupt and can't be trusted with even a screw thread standard.

      --
      BMO
          • Except ISO are still a standards body, i.e. a collection of minds, and you're one guy on Slashdot.

            The characterisation of them as 'corrupt and evil' because they have a job to do and they happen to disagree with Slashdot groupthink is the false assumption here, nothing to do with the actual spec at all.
            • Except ISO are still a standards body, i.e. a collection of minds, and you're one guy on Slashdot. The characterisation of them as 'corrupt and evil' because they have a job to do and they happen to disagree with Slashdot groupthink

              If your opinions are unpopular it's because they are ridiculous, not because you're smart and everyone else is stupid. :P
              • I would like to remind you that Slashdot is a corner of the internet inhabited by, well, geeks. If one subsect of a population with a mostly common viewpoint thinks you're unpopular, it's more likely to be social rather than smart :)

    • Unicode URLs (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bursch-X (458146) on Wednesday August 01 2007, @10:09PM (#20080983) Homepage
      utf-8 URLs never caught on in Japan, actually URLs never caught on here. You can see much more people typing "google" or even "" in the search box in their Yahoo (!) default landing page, than typing the URL google.com (BTW Yahoos market share here is overwhelming).

      Japanese just don't type URLs they use Yahoo for searching. Many don't even use bookmarks. They just search. It's probably because they have a hard time remembering foreign name URLs in Roman letters, which except for "design" purposes don't play much of a role in Japan. It's much easier to type a japanese search term into a search box than remembering an alphabet resemblance of the same as a URL (there are two main ways of transcribing Japanese into the latin alphabets and everyone is intermixing them, so there's much unclarity about the "proper" roman letter spelling of words).

      Even print advertisements nowadays, rather than putting the company URL in big letters, they tend to have a little graphic depicting a search box and a button and give you a Japanese search term you're supposed to put in your Yahoo or Google search box.

      • You can see much more people typing "google" or even "" in the search box in their Yahoo (!) default landing page, than typing the URL google.com. Japanese just don't type URLs they use Yahoo for searching. Many don't even use bookmarks. They just search.

        It's understandable with roman letters.. but I'm wondering, is this actually any different from the majority in the west? I don't think a japanese geek would search for Google on Yahoo any more than any other geek, while I can certainly imagine a lot of people using the search box for everything, regardless of culture.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Petaris (771874)

        Perhaps slightly off topic but they also use bar codes a lot, they can scan them with their cell phone and immediately be brought to that web site. You will see them on advertisements, websites, magazines, etc but they don't look like US style bar codes, they are square in shape and made up of lots of little squares inside. Cell phones are huge in Japan, they are used for everything and just walking around you see people typing away on them like crazy.

      • People input Chinese by either typing the pronunciation or certain encoding in alpha beta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_input_method s _for_computers [wikipedia.org] is a poor introduction of Chinese input method on wikipedia.

        One more thing is an input method developed my some of my friends recently, with this input method, only mouse is needed to write Chinese on a computer. You can download it at http://sbsrf.cn/ [sbsrf.cn] and try it.

        • One more thing is an input method developed my some of my friends recently, with this input method, only mouse is needed to write Chinese on a computer. You can download it at http://sbsrf.cn/ [sbsrf.cn] and try it.

          I seems to work by selecting components of the caracter, and then it gives options. All the characters in the app itself are garbled for me though, so can't say, although the menu looks fine. Is it any faster than typing though?

    • First, China is the most populous country in the world. Second, Japan, Korea and Vietnam also use Chinese characters.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cyfer2000 (548592)
        Singapore and Malaysia. If you look at a Chinese wikipedia page, you will find it gives you choice of displaying the page in "Mainland simplified Chinese", "Taiwan traditional Chinese", "Singapore-Malaysia simplified Chinese" and "Hongkong-Macao traditional Chinese".
          • What? Writing Chinese is illegal in Indonesia? When did that happen, why, how do they enforce it, and where can I find more information about this?
      • > Korea?

        In South Korea, the script they use is very unique - not like Chinese at all. ...furthermore, I've not seen them mix in Chinese like, say, the Japanese do (albeit traditional Chinese).

        • Korea stopped using Chineses script about 300 years ago, when the ruler decided that a simpler script would be easier to teach to peasants. This was later born out by the fact Korea enjoyed much higher literacy rates than China (and still does) after the decision. It was very unpopular with the court at the time, since Korea was known colloquially as 'Little China.' China was viewed as the most civilised country in the region, and Little China was a mark of respect. By stopping using the Chinese ideogra

        • Vietnam stopped using Chinese characters about 300 years ago. Yes, you still see them on temples, but pretty much everything else uses latin characters with tone marks.

          As TFS said, it affects more than just Chinese. The tone marks are also encapsulated in the UTF-8 and other Unicode standards. So, even European, Mid-East, SWA, and African languages are effected. This would be a major roadblock for the international community - especially those who use languages other than English.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mathfeel (937008)
      Chinese is just an example of non-Latin language. Even within Latin language, there are special accented character you can't use for URL...
    • Vitun anonyymi paskiainen. Sinänsä kyllä ihan hyvä idea, että englanninkielinen maailma voisi käpertyä omaan pikku verkkoonsa ja käyttää kunnon kaupallisia amerikkalaisia käyttiksiä ja palvoa sitä yhtä ainoaa jumalaa. Muu maailma saisi tyytyä johonkin säälittävään Linuxiin ja ajatella omilla säälittävillä aivoillaan.

      • Sinänsä kyllä ihan hyvä idea, että englanninkielinen maailma voisi käpertyä omaan pikku verkkoonsa ja käyttää kunnon kaupallisia amerikkalaisia käyttiksiä ja palvoa sitä yhtä ainoaa jumalaa. Muu maailma saisi tyytyä johonkin säälittävään Linuxiin ja ajatella omilla säälittävillä aivoillaan.
        Hyvin sanottu.. paitsi että purit trolliin..
    • And just yesterday, we read about the oncoming tidal wave of sub-$200 computers. In a poor country like China, these little gadgets should be way more popular than computers costing $1000, don't you think? There is no way that Microsoft will be able to dominate the sub-$200 market (and still make a decent profit). So I would say that the fight for software dominance in China has barely begun.
        • Ahem. You don't think Microsoft intends to keep the cheapie pricing indefinitely, do you? And even if they were dumb enough to do so, if Windows + Office were legally installable in the Eee at almost no cost, what could prevent a flood of these cheap machines from swamping the American market and seriously impacting Microsoft's Windows + Office revenues? Nothing. So of course Windows + Office will never be allowed on the cheap machines, inside or outside China.

          The $200 computers will be exclusively ru

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.