[odf-discuss] Miguel on OXML
alex at stratagia.co.uk
Thu Feb 1 05:49:21 EST 2007
Pamela Jones wrote:
> He answers Miguel ably.
That's slightly in the eye of the beholder; I think he misses many of
Miguel's points (particularly, what Miguel said on formulas has been
Rob's final point is very strong though:
"The resulting standard of OOXML on top of OOXML (sic) would be
smaller, simpler, higher quality and more interoperable than the
mess that we'll end up with by having OOXML as a standard, in
addition to ODF."
(It's a mistake, but an obvious one :)
As I understand what the Foundation are doing with their plugin, this is
basically the approach they've taken: they translate to some level of
ODF, but then everything else is essentially Microsoft-specific tags
added in. More or less, OXML on top of ODF.
Whatever you think of that specific approach (it's very much how
Microsoft output HTML, for example, with their mso- additions in CSS),
it does make OXML less necessary. I would also love to see ODF take the
better parts of OXML too (as much stick as it gets, the spreadsheet part
of OXML is by expert opinion _very_ well designed - Microsoft know Excel
users extremely well).
I personally think we may have missed a trick with the contradictions
stuff: I suspect we're sending ISO the wrong message. I do think,
though, all the materials that have been put together will be _very_
useful in the next stage.
One problem that Microsoft have, that Miguel correctly identified, is
that they've shipped Office 2007. That means they have _very little
room_ in which to resolve ballots.
I don't know if we've understood the Microsoft position well enough, but
I wonder if their backs are somewhat against the wall here. These are
the logical outcomes:
1. OXML passed, as-is, with few or minor changes (ODF only required
"editorial" changes - and even that was a stretch - I'm not sure
OXML will escape so easily)
2. OXML passed, but with "significant" changes
3. OXML not passed
Look at it from Microsoft's point of view. 3. is obviously not a great
outcome for them; but is 2. preferable? If OXML was passed, but in a
format that was basically incompatible with Office 2007, that would be a
*huge* problem. I think the choices open to Microsoft are more or less 1
or 3. That helps us immensely.
More information about the odf-discuss