Comments

• Stephen Holmes

  2007-05-21 13:11:13

  But Novell supporting OOXML (or whatever it's called) makes OpenOffice.org code more interoperable and MSs lack of support for ODF makes it less interoperable. As OOXML is a public spec now, is there any fear of patent nonsense in the format space (although MS claim a number of yet-to-be-seen-or-proven Office patent infringements)?
  
  Is the real beef here just based on the fact that it's Novell supporting a Microsoft format rather than the solution in and of itself?

• shane

  2007-05-21 13:36:59

  There are, indeed, concerns regarding Microsoft's covenant in regards to OOXML.

  In short, Microsoft promises not to sue you for using the Microsoft Office Open XML formats in your software. But this promise only applies to patents Microsoft may have in the explicit parts of the Microsoft Office Open XML specification and which are described in detail there. It would not cover those parts essential to implementation which are merely referenced in the specification and lying outside the specification. See the language, "only the required portions of the...specification", emphasized below.
  
  [The terms "Covered Specification" and "Covered Implementation" are inconveniently not defined in the License or the Open Specification Promise. Microsoft has listed all the different standards specifications that are covered by its Open Specification Promise here. These specifications listed are specifications covered by the Open Specification Promise -- each one is a "Covered Specification". For a 3rd-party who uses a covered specification and implements the work in their own software, that software is a "Covered Implementation" if it adheres to Microsoft's strict rules of what can be safely implemented...and there's the rub.]
  
  We know of a great deal of Microsoft technology which does in fact contain patents and which lies outside the specification which would need to be implemented by such a 3rd-party for the formats to work. The Microsoft Office Open XML formats are therefore dependent upon a host of patented Microsoft technology.
  
  

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-05-22 19:28:56

  Ironically enough, 6000 pages is only a sample of what one needs to support editing, rendering, printing, saving in full-fidelity. The true specs is the actual code and is more like 600000 pages worth of specs.
  
  Implementing the binary formats in full fidelity was never achieved by someone out there. Never. It's akin to rewriting Office on your own, basically 10 years of work.
  
  And if someone did, he would be sued by Microsoft for implementing stuff that Microsoft licensed to others.
  
  In the meantime, Microsoft ships a couple new versions with plenty more undocumented coordinate systems and dirty hexa tricks. It's "Fire and motion".
  
  Disclaimer : I sell the most advanced Excel 2007 file generator to date. No wonder I know a thing or two about all what's missing in the public specs.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-05-23 01:24:37

  600,000 pages would be prone to error, no? I wonder how many inaccuracies exist in the pile of 6,000 pages. I doubt these anomalies will ever be spotted anyway.
  
  600,000 pages...
  
  Think about the innocent trees. Or a pile of DVDs...

• Stephane Rodriguez

  2007-05-23 04:34:05

  There are many typos, that's for sure.
  
  But again, most importantly there is all this is missing : - when an attribute is defined as a string, with no explanation on the internal coding of the string (aka hexa tricks, despite the fact that good XML design is supposed to avoid that in the first place) - how elements combine together to make something that works. A long alphabetic list of elements does not say anything about that. That's for one to reverse engineer. Years of work here.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-05-23 05:00:28

  Here is another set of photos:
  
  http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2007/05/putting_6039_pa.html
  
  Feel the presence. OOXML is a man in the room.