ODF Offers MS Word Plugin to MA

Goalie_Ca writes "Groklaw just posted that the OpenDocument Foundation is offering Massachusetts a plugin that could 'allow Microsoft Office to easily open, render, and save to ODF files, and also allow translation of documents between Microsoft's binary (.doc, .xls, .ppt) or XML formats and ODF ... The testing has been extensive and thorough. As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts.'"

Don't worry

[suv4x4 (956391)]

Microsoft will make sure this plugin won't work well for a long time ;)

Re:Don't worry

[hotspotbloc (767418)]

Microsoft will make sure this plugin won't work well for a long time ;)

From the old days: "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run".

Re:Don't worry

[CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408)]

you're violating when you write a plugin for Office.

Not that Office invented the concept of plug-ins, but it probably is one of the most used targets for plug-ins there is. From CRM systems, advanced securities pricing models, Adobe Acrobat, etc, etc, etc, etc. There are TONs of plug-ins and MS explicitly built thier framework to encourage this.

Isn't that pretty much what the whole Open Doc format debate was about after all? While there may be technical ways to get through Microsoft's bullshit formats, the patent threats may make it illegal to do so.

Not an issue in this case. Just like Adobe's plug-ins which can convert and Office documents to thier format, this plug-in I'm sure won't even bother messing with the raw binary data. Just open the document in the Office application and then each application exposes a friendly API to be able to play with, convert, ect, etc the document all you want. No need to even consider the underlieing documents format (in fact would be quite silly to) just use the API provided.

Re:Don't worry

[amliebsch (724858)]

If this is written for the US government, remember that they are immune to patent claims.

I think you forgot a "not" in there somewhere.

35 USC 296. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents

(a) In general.
Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for infringement of a patent under section 271 [35 USC 271], or for any other violation under this title.

(b) Remedies.
In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any private entity. Such remedies include damages, interest, costs, and treble damages under section 284 [35 USC 284], attorney fees under section 285 [35 USC 285], and the additional remedy for infringement of design patents under section 289 [35 USC 289].

Sounds great...

[DaHat (247651)]

Sure there isn't the same victory for OSS in having them switch to OpenOffice as some would like, it instead shows that OSS can adapt as needed and allow the state to continue to use the same front end app and not have to deal with the cost and hassle of retraining countless workers with a new system.

At the same time though... this does conceivably give more power to Redmond as there is now less incentive for MA to leave the Windows/Office platform.

Re:Sounds great...

[by Anonymous Coward]

I thought the point was to eliminate a barrier to entry. So workers could use either, not be forced to use Word.

The desired effect would be to allow a gradual trasition that would be easier to swallow than a all-at-once changeover.

Re:Sounds great...

[OglinTatas (710589)]

I read it differently: This completely blows Microsoft's lame argument out of the water that MA considering ODF is unfair to the millions of people who already use MSOffice, because it is impossible to rewrite office to use this "crazy new format."

If a simple plugin can allow MSOffice to use ODF, there is then no argument whatsoever for MA to use Microsoft's proprietary formats, which really do shut out all non-Microsoft users.

Why MS should have supported ODF

[Rob Y. (110975)]

Not only does this plugin allow MS Office users to use ODF, it does it with their existing MS Office licenses. Microsoft's OpenXML would have required an Office upgrade in order to achieve interoperability. And if they had implemented ODF in the upcoming Office release, this plugin probably wouldn't have been written, so again, you'd have needed to buy an Office upgrade to play.

Now there's interoperability with no revenue stream for Microsoft. Nice going, MS.

Re:Sounds great...

[theguyfromsaturn (802938)]

I disagree. The idea behind an Open Format is that I can use the program that I choose to produce it. It would be ludicrous to pretend that most people aren't using Word today. We should be happy that this plugin exists as it makes it more likely that people will use ODF. Once ODF is well established, then people will see that they can choose whatever software they want to create such documents. In the long run it benefits the user and other office suites (not just OO.o)

Re:Sounds great...

[Vegard (11855)]

For me, it's not so much about getting everyone to use Open Source as to ensure that *I* have the freedom to use it, and still be a part of society (i.e be able to communicate with government etc).

It's definitely true that it's open STANDARDS that matter. There is, however, a large pitfall: Don't let vendors like Microsoft redefine what an open standard actually is. They tried a little while ago, with their previous office XML standard...

- Vegard

Hilarious!

[Vengeance (46019)]

Microsoft can't/won't provide interoperability tools, but the ODF (an organization with far more money, right?) is able to do it.

I love it.

Heh..

[the_skywise (189793)]

Embrace and Extend...

too easy?

[by Anonymous Coward]

As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts.

I've met plenty of people from Massachusetts. I can imagine the Accessibility add-ons would be crucial there.

This time with help from ODF,

[towsonu2003 (928663)]

Microsoft wins yet again:

FTFA: So, to Microsoft: never mind. You don't need to lift a finger.

Re:This time with help from ODF,

[chill (34294)]

Microsoft wins yet again.

No, this is not correct.

The Office division of Microsoft has long been one of their major profit centers. MS Office is also a bigger monopoly than Windows, having greater penetration in the market percentagewise. These facts stem from the ability to lock-in customers by holding their data hostage to a closed format.

This plug-in is a door to the world of non-MS Office products -- a way out, if you will. Yes, other office-type products exist, but none of them have gained serious traction because of the perceived lack of totally compatibility with MS .doc and .xls. This one will solve the .doc issue and, if widely distributed, have two effects:

1. It will increase the market share of non-MS Office products at the expense of MS Office;

2. It will cause Microsoft to lower the price of MS Office to compete, thus lowering their profits on what is widely rumored to be their LARGEST profit center, Office.

  -Charles

Let me see....

[by Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft built Word/Office with Plug-in support, did they not? In fact, they built their OS with every intention that other companies would offer services on their platform.

This foundation has decided to do so.

Kudos to them. They just proved that there is none of that so-called vendor lock-in.

Sure, it takes effort, but if you can be bothered to do it, it pays off.

Step program

[jbeaupre (752124)]

Can you feel it? It's the tide of inevitibility.

Why? The Catch 22 has been solved (we need MS vs. can't convert while using MS). And it's the bean counters that ultimately sway government decisions.

1) Plugin will be installed on gov pc's
2) Documents will be handled in ODF
3) Gov bean counters will be suggesting to managers everywhere they can save $XXXX if they use OpenOffice instead of MS Office

Re:Step program

[westlake (615356)]

Can you feel it? It's the tide of inevitibility

There is more to building a successful office suite than a choice of formats for storage, output and exchange.

Why isn't this available to everyone?

[IANAAC (692242)]

I'd be passing the plugin along to everyone I knew.

Seriously. I don't use MSOffice all that much, but have to constantly exchange .doc, .xls, etc. formats all the time with other people. For the most part, OO.o saves in these formats and opens in Office fine, as intended. Sometimes it doesn't though. If I could save in ODF format and include a plugin with the document itself, I would think that would be far more helpful in getting people to at least look at open source, rather than just pointing them to OO.o and saying "Install this".

Smart Move

[Tom (822)]

Very smart move. It allows the office workers to continue as if nothing had changed, for the moment. But when M$ comes knocking and tries to sell them an upgrade to Office200x, the answer will be "if we have to upgrade anyways, as you have just elaborately shown, then we'll upgrade to OpenOffice, thank you".

Especially if the new Office they release with Vista changes the interface considerably, and requires re-training anyways.

Of course, the next Office update will break the plugin. It'll be a cold day in hell before M$ can let this stand unchallenged.

That New Office Interface

[buckhead_buddy (186384)]

Tom wrote:

But when M$ comes knocking and tries to sell them an upgrade to Office200x, the answer will be "if we have to upgrade anyways, as you have just elaborately shown, then we'll upgrade to OpenOffice, thank you". Especially if the new Office they release with Vista changes the interface considerably, and requires re-training anyways.

On the topic of Office 2007's user interface, the recent promotional movie [microsoft.com] published on the Microsoft web site seems like they're trying especially hard in this next release to be different for the sake of being different. So hard that some of their innovative ideas may prove better in concept than implementation. Here were some of my thoughts on this 12 minute video.

• They've done away with cross-application familiarity by doing away with the menu bar. With one exception, they put everything in tab like toolbars at the top of the window called the "ribbon". The one exception is the Microsoft Office logo icon in the upper left corner of the screen that, when discovered you can click on, opens a menu with unimportant options like "Save" and "Open".
• The "ribbon" has some sets of checkbox buttons (for settings like applying bold and italic styles) but mostly it's littered with icon popup buttons where your choice causes an action to happen. There's text labels on some buttons but text is minimized as much as possible including removing keyboard shortcuts. Perhaps they've been placed in the "tooltips".
• Speaking of tooltips, the video touted that Microsoft has revolutionized tool tip technology by making them larger providing fuller explanations of what you're looking at. The demo looked suspiciously like Apple's horrible Balloon Help feature from System 7.1. This was useful for about the first five minutes of using an application but quickly became obtrusive and annoying. Unlike balloon help though, they they showed no way to turn these new "wordy" tool tips off.
• Can't find which button you're looking for in the ribbon? That's probably because it's contextual. If you drop a photo into word, a special toolbar appears that gives you options you can only see if the photo is selected. Or rather, you must see if the photo is selected. Now we're looking at the days of 1998 with OpenDoc that promised to give you custom options for your web browser embedded in your MacDraw document: any accidental context selection or de-selection will drive you crazy looking for options that don't apply. Additionally you have duplicate options that would apply to all contexts, but in different places of the ribbon.
• Big features like Footer, Header, and Cell Format have been reduced to action popup buttons with about a dozen Microsoft designed templates in each. There's an option for you to customize your header/footer/cell format, but that was apparently not demonstrated. Like the Microsoft clip art that came with Word For Windows I think you'll get pretty sick of seeing many of these templates pretty fast. Hopefully there's a way to add 3rd party templates instead of the Microsoft defaults, but the size of those popup menus just won't show more than a dozen or so options in a comprehensible way.
• Changes from those popup action buttons happen automatically. You don't even have to select the option, just hover over it in the menu and the change happens automatically. The demonstration of previewing changes to typeface and typestyle just seems easy. Apart from performance issues. Apart from making concepts like style sheets even more abstract. Apart from accidental selection issues. But you can't see your whole document at once so your hip red and grey Microsoft excel template may look fine on the selection you can see, but look awful on a part you can't see. This isn't a new problem with the new office, but it easier than ever to do now.
• They claim these new popup action icon buttons in the ribbon does away with the need for "Undo".

Open documents good

[DesertWolf0132 (718296)]

Currently my office runs on M$ Office 2k3. We could easily switch to OpenOffice save one luser who creates every one of his spreadsheets using M$ specific formatting that throws the OO conversion tool for a loop. I would switch the rest of us but we all have to be able to access his documents as he is the shop manager and he gets cranky when people don't read his crap. Had I been here when the network was set up in the first place this would be a M$ free shop as Linux has all of the tools these lusers need in a default workstation install. So I am going to sit here patiently waiting to move everyone to Linux immediately after we can get ODF translations for all of his crap. At least I can move the website to a Slack server soon (after I weed out the useless ASP code). IIS is killing me

I am Microsoft Certified, which is why I use Linux.

Re:So how the hell do we get the plugin?

[dominator (61418)]

From TFA:

Authored by: gary.edwards (of the Open Document Foundation) on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:15 AM EDT
Don't bother hunting for a download. It's not available. The ODF Plugin came
out of testing last week. I wish i could say we did this last night, but it's
been at least a year in development.

The first stop for the ODF Plugin will be Massachusetts, followed by the EU and
California.

...

Re:Yeah but WHICH VERSION of office?

[ratboy666 (104074)]

Given that the plugins do not work at the file format level (at least of the MS formats), but at the level of normal MS Office integration, I would imagine that the plugin will work across most current MS Office versions.

There are plenty of vendors that offer MS Office plugins that work across most versions, and the existence of these plugins is one of the reasons for the "MS Office lock-in". The plugins are NOT offered for other office suites (and this was one of MAs concerns; disability support plugins for MS Office that didn't translate well into other platforms).

The existence of these plugins makes MS Office a platform instead of simply a program. This plugin simply allows continued use of the platform where needed; yet allows competing product and platforms to coexist.

Note that conversion accuracy is no longer a concern: .doc &etc. files will be handled by the NATIVE application, and the ODF format is clearly defined. As long as ODF supports the feature set needed by the plugin (and, given the plugin can be made, it does), which must be reasonably feature complete, things will work.

Now, the plugin layer MUST be (reasonably) feature complete -- simply because if it is NOT, other plugins would suffer badly (eg. screen reader wouldn't be able to determine formatting, thus rendering difficulty to blind users of MS Office).

If you are paranoid about Microsoft, and think that the feature completeness of the plugin layer will or can be compromised -- that is very unlikely. Other plugins would also suffer, and government users would be forced to start looking at alternatives.

The existence of this plugin means that an ecosystem with both Microsoft and alternate vendors can be supported. Which is a good thing. Previously, the only way to use .doc (officially) on many Unix platforms was to use the limited Microsoft viewer. So this is a very good development.

I don't think it will hinder or improve MS Office sales at all, but it will make things possible that have been VERY difficult in the past.

I will start seeding the plugin as soon as I can!

Ratboy

Re:Critical Update

[sbrown123 (229895)]

I see less of this but rather Microsoft doing one of two things:

1) Embrace the plugin and create it as a standard feature of MS Office. Make sure this integration solution falls behind the standard and start including special Microsoft initiated ideas. When standards people complain about the new features, yell at them stating that the standard people are holding the product back from its true capabilities that customers keep demanding of Microsoft.

2) Include a warning message when loading or saving documents to special plugins that they may include viruses, have missing features, or that data may be lost. If people complain, Microsoft will state that feature X in Word is not in the standard.