de lcaza calls OOXML a "Superb Standard" 615
you-bet-it's-not-out-of-context writes "A blogger on KDE Developer's Journal has found an interesting post by Miguel de Icaza, the founder of GNOME and Mono, in a Google group dedicated to the discussion of his blog entries. Six days ago Miguel stated that 'OOXML is a superb standard and yet, it has been FUDed so badly by its competitors that serious people believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with it.' In the same post he says that to avoid patent problems over Silverlight, when using or developing Mono's implementation (known as Moonlight), i's best to 'get/download Moonlight from Novell which will include patent coverage.'"
Sounds like he's sold out (Score:3, Interesting)
First things first. (Score:2, Interesting)
any futher code (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there an opposite to FUD? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems he hasn't read about how you can "look but not touch" when it comes to the internal data. An expert in the Office format recently proved you could modify the xml in the new Office formats but Office would complain and not load it.
The fact that it's XML seems to only benefit the world in one way, it compresses nicer.
It's a wonderful spec (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, to put this in perspective: Jim Mason (of Oak Ridge National Laboratory) isn't on one side or the other, but has been doing document-format specifications for a looooong time -- he was, I believe, the founding chair of SC34 and had a hand in the creation of SGML. The dude knows documents, he knows standards, and when he writes
I'm inclined to take his word for it than Miguel's.Re:Nope (Score:1, Interesting)
When de Icaza talks about OOXML being "FUDed" to death, he's probably referring to this sort of ignorant thing. Bullet point evangelism seems to work quite well with the Slashdot/Digg crowds, which are amusingly enough the first ones to complain about Microsoft doing the same things to them.
I don't particularly cherish the idea of XML-based file formats. A binary one could have been well-documented and work a hell of a lot better, so I dislike both ODF and OOXML. But the level of stupidity in the "criticism" being leveled at OOXML is just ridiculous. Complete with "OMFG the 1.0 implementation as a BUG!!! Therefore the standard SUCKS!!!" detailed articles that include blatant misconceptions about how certain things work, ignorant points about the compatibility sections and the number of pages in the fucking document.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah, the standard is shit. Nobody can implement it the way that the creator can, by the creator's very design. It is defective by design, as the nutty FSF people like to say.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
The implications of this are that OOXML is considerably more expensive to implement because there aren't a lot of components to choose from (eg, compare the number of SVG serializers to DrawingML serializers). Building upon existing standards is a very important part of a good standard, I think (and so do the ISO)
Don't take my word for it though, both files are ZIPs of XML* so google for some files and see which one makes sense to you :)
[*] although it's recently been discovered that OOXML refers to OLE objects which are undocumented in OOXML and in Office '07 these are stored as binaries :( ODF and OOo have their own problems of course, but nothing complex like this.
Re:Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
then open a copy of Open Office 2.2* and create the same document
then give me stats on
1 file sizes both bundle size and unzipped tree size
2 actual readability of the payload file
and as a bonus in the OOXML file try to find "legacy tags" only the program importing a legacy file should give a [redacted] about how a legacy file is hacked
Even if it *was* a good standard... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, let's take a look at one company's deployment of Office 2007 to 25,000 workstations [robweir.com]. Oh, what's that? It's still crap? Figures.
Yes, the information should help people interoperate with Microsoft. But all the parts they're keeping from us are important. They want to control de facto standards and keep all other ISVs at second-tier status without having to make good products.
People would be better off with standards not controlled by any one company. Even if Microsoft were the most benevolent company in the world, there's no excuse for giving another company the power to hold your documents hostage in this day and age. And it's about time that people realized that, especially when Microsoft has intentionally perverted standards like ACPI to harm Linux [slated.org].
The PDF link above is just for proof. Here's a transcript of the PDF so you don't have to view it unless you don't believe me:
Gnumeric dev says OOXML easier than ODF (Score:3, Interesting)
I notice that in the very same Google Groups thread, Miguel makes a post [google.com] that refers to what Gnumeric dev Jody Goldberg has to say regarding ODF and OOXML [gnome.org].
According to Jody Goldberg's blog entry, implementing the fundamentals of OOXML took only a few days, and that implementing ODF "was significantly more difficult" than implementing OOXML. Jody also says, "ODF's model of 'chartness' didn't fit well with Gnumeric."
Is this not contrary to ODF proponents' claim that ODF is equally suitable for all word processors and spreadsheets to implement? That it doesn't favor any particular spreadsheet implementation (i.e. OO.o) over any other? That it was built from the ground up to be app-neutral, and that this is app-neutrality is a virtue that OOXML lacks (since OOXML of course favors MS Office)? What say you to Jody Goldberg?
Not that Novell or former-Novell employees think that OOXML is perfect. But I think Miguel has it right, for in that same Google Groups post, he writes,
(I'm guessing that the latter comment regarding persons whose business is at risk due to MS moving away from binary formats refers to often-quoted OOXML basher Stepen Rodriguez, who has been blasting/FUDing OOXML, but who has a business based on maintaining XL spreadheets in the old binary format.)
Re:OOXML. (Score:2, Interesting)
You can entertain it, but I never made the claim that Jody said it was a superb standard. Jody is addressing Rob Weir's criticism that "See! Gnumeric cant load it" when Gnumeric's support was written over two intercontinental flights (7-8 hours).
I never said that Jody endorsed OOXML as a great standard; I think its superb as far as standards go, but that is my opinion. I like red wine, hate white whine; I like Chomsky, hate Fox news; I like tacos, hate burritos; but that somehow does not make it to Slashdot.
Miguel.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Not if Microsoft keeps using it you can't.
Sure, you can ignore it if it comes up in a document, but if a user with little care or knowledge about such issues loads a document up that uses such a tag in (for example) OOo and their table doesn't look like it did in Word, they're probably going to think that OOo is at fault, and may make a decision to not use the alternative software in the future (or may go around telling everyone they know that said software sucks).
If Microsoft, the developer of the main product which generates these data files continues to use these tags, they become impossible to ignore without introducing rendering issues which will be sufficient to annoy potential users of alternative software.
Yes, purportedly these tags are only supposed to be used by Microsoft when converting documents in older Word formats -- but how many hundreds of millions of such documents exist out there? Quite a few, which seems to guarantee that these "ignorable" tags are going to occur quite frequently, and will impose sufficient differences on document rendering if they are ignored. So unless these optional tags are fully documented, why should anyone outside of Microsoft want to adopt this standard?
Standards aren't often perfect the first time around, but someone at Microsoft should have realized this, and should have prevented themselves from trying to fast-track this standard. The biggest problem is that there is the appearance that Microsoft was trying to pull a fast-one on the international standardization community with an incomplete, and highly imperfect standard that they wanted to rush to fruition for purely competitive (and not technical) reasons. With time and revision, OOXML may indeed be a fine standard, but as it stood at the point where they tried to ram it through the ISO, it had (and has) serious flaws.
In one of your other posts to this thread, you mention:
Here you admit that you've already seen first hand how incomplete standards can affect Open Source (and really any third-party) development. You had a problem with the lack of documentation, and pressured MS for more details to get your software working correctly. So why is it that you have an issue when others want to pressure MS into either rectifying other areas lacking proper documentation, or removing them from the standard altogether, in areas that matter to them?
Yaz.
Re:Novell is distributing concealed patent landmin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OOXML. (Score:3, Interesting)
Partisan or now, most of what I saw there was looked like real problems.
Am not sure that it "contradicts" it just does not support every other possible standard. It has its own thing for Math instead of MathML, big deal.
Well (from the document again), they use incorrect dates (the 1900 stuff) just to be compatible with "legacy software" and completely ignore SVG, MathML and other stuff. I mean, what's the point of having standards for that if every new thing ignores it.
So does ODF (if you are referring to the capability of embedding OLE objects for example, or Windows Metafiles, they are supported in both products, and neither one has full specifications for them).
I'm not sure about what ODF does, but in the worst case, if something's application-specific in ODF, you look it up in the OO.o source code and you can at least have a chance to understand how it's done. For things that are application-specific in OOXML, you're pretty much have to wait until Microsoft open's up the Office source code (I'm sure that'll happen any day now).
I will agree with you that having two is suboptimal, but we have to support them both *anyways*, so its not like its a big deal.
Can you remind me what is the point of standards bodies again? Rubber-stamping any de facto standard because "we have to support it anyways"? I don't think so.
Re:Riiiiiiiiight.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Try #2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny that you shy away from: "That's right. It's Microsoft's job to pay off officials, exert political pressure, and abuse due process to ensure that OOXML is forced into consumer hands before ODF catches hold."
Why should we be interested in furthering the goals of a convicted monopolist?
Re:Always been a MS Shill (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how good it is . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
OOXML could be the best thing since sliced bread, and I still wouldn't accept it. Not because I hate Microsoft; I most certainly do hate Microsoft, but I also recognize the technical contributions they've made to computing. I'd reject OOXML because Microsoft has ruined its (both OOXML's and Microsoft's own) credibility with its gaming of the standards process.
I'll set aside for the moment the problems I see in the draft as it is. If Microsoft believed its format was good enough to be an international standard--as opposed to simply a de facto "standard"--why did it then try to mislead ISO members around the world with demonstrably false information? Conversely, if Microsoft didn't think its format was good enough to be an international standard, why did it submit the format to ISO in the first place? And what will Microsoft do to make amends for its improper actions? (I'm not asking you for answers to these questions, but I suspect most people in the anti-OOXML camp will want satisfactory answers before they're willing to focus on the merits.)
I'm currently developing a collaboration system for a client which will (among other things) input and output spreadsheets in an XML-based file format. I was considering OOXML for a while, since its technical issues don't impact this particular application; but with the shenanigans Microsoft has pulled to try and force OOXML through ISO, I've settled on ODF. I simply can't support a company which engages in such unethical behavior.
Re:Read his latest comment . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
yes, lets all talk AC, it makes our conversation so much more unclear...
I find it hilarious that all the positive remarks on OOXML come from people who are employed by, or have business relations with Microsoft. I think this more than justifies most people's suspicion of Novel, and now you personally. Things are usually not black/white. Microsoft are not the Borg, Iran is not the source of all evil, and even terrorists love their children.
However, that does not mean it is not worth fighting against it. Novel, and you, choose to support technologies of a company with a long history of playing dirty. I am sorry but I think that is just a bad idea. Especially when alternatives exist. There is no reason (yet) to go implement this format. It will give excuses for people to use it, and there is a chance that MS at some point turns on alternative implementations. So why do it? If OOXML gets widely used at some point in the future, then people can think about implementing it. I rather fight for preventing that from happening.
I guess Novel at least things to get some money out of it. Well, that's nice, but that automatically will let them (and you) lose respect in the OSS community. So do not be so surprised at the post here. Some people will consider you morally corrupt, and you lose standing as a developer in their eyes. Others will think, perhaps rightfully, you blindly walked into a trap, and are being fooled by MS.
You misunderstand what is "asking the right questions". It is not about technology. Until everybody and his mom is on OSS, it is also about ideology. And many people believe it is just a bad choice to go with something "tainted" like OOXML. You can not win such argument on technical merits alone. Especially if there are many problems with the proposed standard, and if there is an approved alternative...
Also, as others have commented. You are not doing yourself a favor making comments as:
"but you are going to need some legal training and get a lot more depth before we can have a productive discussion."
It looks arrogant, and insulting.
Re:Foes of Miguel de Icaza (Score:2, Interesting)
Billly Gates (198444)
Developers! Develope (669541)
LOL PATENTS RULE LOL (903720)
Office Clippy (442751)
Steve Ballmer YEARGH (965544)
Re:Sounds like he's sold out (Score:4, Interesting)
I used to be very skeptical of Miguel, but I am tempted to believe he has it right...
Re:That statement proves it: (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody who would create an international standard with the intent that it is actually used by the public would have created a standard covering 6,000 pages. That is just ridiculous.
A "superb" standard would build on existing standards, like using standard XML (which is something you would really expect from something called OpenXML). It wouldn't introduce bugs in its date handling because some application (Excel) not using that standard has the bugs. If you read the comments from the British committee examining that "standard", it is completely riddled with errors big and small.
Now I wouldn't want to decide whether the problems come from some Microsoft evilness, or from this being a complete rush job (if you compare this to how long development of the C standard or C++ standard takes, where every single line is examined again or again), but this "standard" should never, ever have been put on the ISO fast track. Maybe in a few years time, if Microsoft has had time to fix all the problems.
For those who don't know: Usually introducing an ISO standard is a multi-stage process. The standard is suggested, then comments are collected, problems are fixed, again and again, until eventually the whole thing has the quality and the consensus that is required for an international standard and then it goes to the vote. This proposal has gone on the fast track, which should have been reserved for standards that have passed all the early stages. Like if there had been an industry wide consensus where everyone followed the same document, and then someone has the idea to turn this wide consensus into an official standard. It shouldn't be used for something thrown together quickly.
No, I don't think that Icaza could call this a "superb" standard unless he was paid to do it. Not that I blame him; I would do the same thing if you gave me enough money. This post here is my unpaid-for opinion, I'll write another one if anyone comes up with say a five digit number.
Re:no way it's really him (Score:2, Interesting)
So, the guy who started Ximian, the company that developed Evolution and main supporter of Gnome, not to mention Mono, one of the best projects for a cross-platform development tools, is trying to DESTROY open source in general . . . wow this is the more interesting conspirancy theory since the X Files show ended!
I know Miguel in person and I don't think he is a Microsoft fan boy. He just is not a fanatical and can acknowledge that Microsoft development tools are far better that any current open source alternative and that's why he is developing Mono, which if you haven't noticed is open source.
By the way, what have YOU done for the open source movement?
Re:Always been a MS Shill (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Novell is distributing concealed patent landmin (Score:3, Interesting)
As many people are quick to point out, Microsoft has more to lose by disclosing which of its many stupid patents the various pieces of software often refered to (rightly or wrongly) as Linux may be violating. If and when they release that list, then Miguel, and probably everyone else with half a brain, will be able to say whether or not their software is patent encumbered.
Only a Stallman type would say in advance that their code is not violating any patents. It's probably in the GPL somewhere.
Re:Novell is distributing concealed patent landmin (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been a defender of yours in the past (e.g. prior to Sun's dramatic liberalization of Java, I was advocating Mono as the least worst alternative), but this situation with Moonlight leaves me very uncomfortable. While the Mono patent policy seems sane, it seems the Moonlight policy means that Moonlight fails the "could you fork it?" acid test -- at least, forking Moonlight would mean knowingly assuming a patent liability with respect to Microsoft. That's a bit different from a project which has a less direct relationship with Microsoft IP.
Way off Topic, but please respond (Score:3, Interesting)
I see the flame fest continues, but could you please take a little time out and give me an answer to a question I have.
I've posted this in the past. I see a problem for us (humanity) in the future. We would like to be able to go to a digital world. As things stand now we can't. The reason is file formats.
Documents like birth and death certificates, property deeds, legal writs, treaty's etc. need to be available and readable for CENTURIES. File formats for the last 30 years or so change every 3 years. After two or at most 3 cycles, the format is no longer readable. That makes digital documents unacceptable. We need centuries for file retention, with full readability. We get a couple of years.
The only real contender right now is ASCII text. That file format has been with us for 50 years now, and continues to remain readable.
I work for a government body, with buildings. Permits are a matter of life safety. If we can't keep track of what is in a building, people die. There is still no substitute for paper records. They are the ONLY long term recourse we currently have. the great need is for a file format that can remain unchanged for centuries. (The best long term recording medium seems to be mud. Summarian records and literature from 5,000 years ago are still readable, if you know the language.)
we desperately need a real long term document format.
ODF tries to be that. I believe that the jury is still out on whether it can fulfill that need or not. OOXML seems to be too linked to a product that will continue to change. OOXML also has those digital blobs that will NEVER be human readable without the originating program. The standard will change radically in the next few years too. That renders it unusable for my needs.
Ideally, I'd like to have a file that would allow setting up forms that would be relatively easily for a human to read, and would explain itself adequately for document recreation. It needs to have this without having to have the originating program, or any other reference than the file itself. I need that for drawings too. It doesn't exist. Even for relatively easy things like forms and written reports it doesn't really exist.
*Shouldn't we all be pushing for standards that are independent of any product?* That seems to be the only way we'll get what we really need.
Maybe TeX? HTML showed promise for a while, but it keeps changing too. OOXML doesn't have what I need. I'm not at all sure that ODF does either.
Oh well, I guess paper is not going to go away.
Re:Read his latest comment . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps this is not true for spreadsheets though. It seems that open source support for most of XLS is excellent. It could very well be a different story for DOCX vs ODF text documents. Word processing is generally where the most attention gets paid.
It was a shock (Score:2, Interesting)
First I was shocked, then I believed that someone was pretending to be Miguel, but when checking his profile and all it seems as it really was Miguel saying this. I also had hard to imagine that he would have been paid by Microsoft to say this, so I really don't understand his motives.
Here in Sweden we are currently arguing with Klas Hammar, who is business area manager for Microsoft Sweden. Recently, in a a debate article [computersweden.idg.se] (7th Sept, in Swedish) he claimed that OOXML is "future safe" and in another article [www.dn.se] (today 11th of Sept, also Swedish), he says "one could ask why it shouldn't become a standard".
For him and others I collected the documents I had studied before the decision to reject OOXML and put them here [neurologic.se] (all in English). It is a collection of some documents from e.g. Google, Oracle, Spain FFII, Italian PLIO etc which very clearly describes the flaws of OOXML. This page could probably be useful for Miguel to read as well. This is not to compete with <NO>OOXML [oooxml.org], it is just to illustrate how we have come to this conclusion on our own.
We are not opposing OOXML by principle just because it's Microsoft, in fact we looked forward to the Microsoft XML format a few years ago, but that was before we understood how bad an "XML" specification could be designed. OOXML is a rough draft, nothing to take seriously as it appears now. I also have a blog entry about this [blogs.su.se] if you want to send me some comments. (I'm not a blogger, otherwise)