First, let’s consider how software interoperability works when it is not standards-based. Consider the various ways that four applications can share data, as shown in the diagram to the right.  There are six connections between these four applications, and each connection can be traversed in either direction, so there are 12 total types of interoperability involved.

As the number of applications increases, this complexity grows rapidly.  Double the number of applications to 8 total, and there will be 56 types of interoperability between them:

through standards maintenance, transparency of implementation details, and collaborative interoperability testing.

Here’s where those workarounds will need to be implemented: Note the complexity of this diagram.

In the real world, interoperability is almost never achieved in this way.  Standards-based interoperability is much better approach for everyone involved,

whether that standard is an open one such as ODF (IS26300)

or a de-facto standard set by one popular implementation.

or Open XML (IS29500)

The core premise of open standards-based interoperability is this:

each application implements the published standard as written, and this provides a baseline for delivering interoperability.

the existence of a standard addresses many of the issues involved, and the other issues can be addressed

In the standards-based scenario, the standard itself is the central mechanism for enabling interoperability between implementations: This diagram is much simpler

there is no question that users of other products are massively surprised by

How this all applies to Office 2007 SP2 I covered last summer the set of guiding principles that we used to guide the work we did to support ODF in Office 2007 SP2.

applied in a specific order

I’d like to revisit the top two guiding principles

Guiding Principle #1: Adhere to the ODF 1.1 Standard

Guiding Principle #2: Be Predictable

Being predictable is also known as the principle of least astonishment.

What about Bugs and Deviations? Of course, the existence of a published standard doesn’t prevent interoperability bugs from occurring.

deviations from the requirements

different interpretations

Our approach to the transparency issue has been to document the details of our implementation through published implementer notes.

Interoperability Testing The final piece of the puzzle is hands-on testing

What else would you like to know about how Office approaches document format interoperability?

a standard (evolved and improved as reality demands) is the proper foundation for resolving interoperabilty

All complex software has bugs, and some bugs can present significant challenges to interoperability.  Let’s consider the case that 3 of the 4 applications have bugs that affect interoperability, as shown in the diagram to the right.

(1) their spreadsheets having their formulas lost when interchanged with Excel 2007

(2) not being able to handle the formulase received in Excel 2007's ODF output.

I am creating my own fantasy about the state of affairs

it is far too early to declare it to be unsuccessful

I cannot fault the Microsoft approach as incorrect

I was at the year-ago DII meeting where the guiding principles were announced and their application to spreadsheet formulas described.  I applauded the principles and understood the reasoning for formulas.

How this would impact various groups of users and non-users (who still want to interoperate) of Office 2007 did not surface in my consciousness.

there is NO published standard for ODF spreadsheet formulas yet.

Nor is there any de-facto standard that everyone agrees on.

the “spaghetti diagram" method, with all of the complexity and risk of bugs that entails

No implementer we know of has attempted that

In the case of spreadsheet formulas, help is on the way -- OpenFormula is under development for use with ODF 1.2.

I’d like to keep this thread on-topic

I appreciate the post, very good

Visually I would rather frame it in terms of convergence, a spiral.

and user satisfaction.

I doubt someone would ever find a magic bullet to interoperability

New Comments to this post are disabled

© 2009 Microsoft Corporation

HTML is the format to consider first

validated, standards compliant XHTML in particular

HTML at one end (simple WP documents)

PDF at the other end (full page fidility but read-only)

HTML, ODF, OOXML, PDF

W3C versus ISO

Lie adopts an extreme view towards overlap of standards:

overlap at all brings nothing but misery and bloat.

The next dodgy detail is to make blanket comparisons between HTML and ODF/OOXML.

ODF and OOXML deal with many issues that HTML/CSS simply does not.

the W3C argument might be to say that every part should have a URL

a strange theory that MS wants ODF and OOXML to both fail

being pro-ODF does not mean you have have to be anti-OOXML

HTML is the format ｏｆ choice for interchange of simple documents

ODF will evolve to be the format of choice for more complicated documents

OOXML is the format of choice for full-fidelity dumps from MS Office

PDF is the format of choice for non-editable page-faithful documents

all have overlap

we need to to encourage a rich library of standard technologies,

widely deployed,

free,

unencumbered,

explicit,

awareness of when each is appropriate

an adequate set of profiles and profile validators

using ISO Schematron

Plurality

SourceForge “OpenXML/ODF Translator Add-in for Office

Sun Plug-In 3.0

fail when using the “built-in” support provided by Office 2007 SP2

on the face of it

some real problems with basic spreadsheet interoperability among ODF products using undocumented extensions

abandoning the “convention”

these ODF implementations have limited interoperability

more or less

unsafe for any mission-critical data

ODF implementations can actually cut it,

legacy support as an option

this interoperability fiasco has been allowed to happen within the context of a standard

in the interests of the users

behave better

good news

work is underway to fix this problem: ODF 1.2

people may disagree in good faith

does not, in fact, conform

Rob’s statement that “SP2's implementation

is mistaken on this point

no grounds for complacency about the sufficiency of the ODF specification

keen to see defects, such as conformance loopholes, fixed in the next published ODF standard

I urge all other true supporters to read the drafts and give feedback to make ODF better for the benefit of everyone

Microsoft is the only one of seven main ODF implementations that fail to achieve interoperability in ODF formulas

in the time frame taken to approve it

by National Body to trust that BRM has influence

by BRM for not attending to every concerns of national bodies

for not incorporating BRM resolutions in the published standard

OOXML is fundamentally intended to document a format for a pre-existing technology and feature set of recent proprietary systems.

years for IS29500 to have a really good debugged version

years for ODF to have a good, complete debugged version

the nature of big standards

sad about OOXML meeting

Apple, Oracle and British Library did not even bothered to turn up

risk that the results might not be the same

Open XML / ODF Translator Add-Ins for Office can be used with Office 2007 SP2

Sun ODF Plugin

apparently works with SP2