[odf-discuss] OOo OOXML filters
marbux at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 15:39:32 EST 2006
On 12/12/06, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera at zmsl.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 01:30 -0500, Lars D. Noodén wrote:
> .doc is more proprietary than MOOX.
I think there are very strong arguments that it's the other way
around. The Word formats were used only in a word processor. MOOX is
the new communications protocol for an entire stack of Microsoft
business processes software.
And it is a single-vendor, one-way format. See
<http://sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1145>. It features app-specific
bug work-arounds; hundreds of app-specific tags requiring reverse
engineering to replicate functions; and unspecified binary blobs,
e.g., Windows bitfields, DRM, OLE, macros, scripts, printer settings,
EOOXML is also only a partial specification. All of that ballyhooed
"compatibility" with the binary formats it includes is only for the
use of a single vendor's applications. Without the specifications for
the binary formats, the modified RTF intermediary format, and
documentation for the file conversion APIs (the link I gave you is
dated), ISO approval of EOOXML would be tantamount to the member
governments granting Microsoft a monopoly on converting its legacy
file formats to XML, extending its previous office productivity
software monopoly into the XML stack, i.e., SOA, SaaS, Web 2.0, etc.
I can see principled arguments both for and against OOo supporting
EOOXML and for and against various methods of doing so. But we should
not allow ourselves to be seduced by the word "open" in EOOXML's name
and in my opinion we can't just look at traditional office suites.
EOOXML is all about Microsoft monopolizing the emerging business
processes software market. There are good arguments for and against
playing into Microsoft's strategy by adding EOOXML support to ODF
It ain't a simple question of which office suite rules the future.
More information about the odf-discuss