Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Want to know the real reason why IBM and Microsoft are going at it hammer and tong over document formats?  Here it is.  Lotus Notes is getting clobbered by the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut. 

The article is old, but the point is well taken.  Today the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaut i sover 65% marketshare.  IBM is struggling to protect the Lotus Stack against an impossible foe.

The thing is, Microsoft E/S will ALWAYS have better integration with the MSOffice - Outlook desktop monopoly base (550 M and counting).  Most of this "integration" is due to the high fidelity exchange of documents in Microsoft's proprietary XML mode known as MS-OOXML.   Forget the charade that MS-OOXML is an open standard called Ecma 376.  MSOffice and infamous XML Compatibility Pack Plug-in do not implement Ecma 376.  The Pack implements MS-OOXML.

One key differnece between MS-OOXML and Ecma 376 us that MS-OOXML is infused with the Smart Tags components.  These are for metadata, data binding, data extraction, workflow, intelligent routing and on demand re purposing of docuemnt components.  In effect, MS-OOXML :: Smart Tags combines with proprietary .NET Libraries, XAML and soon enough Silverlight to replace the entire span of W3C Open Internet Technologies. 

Can you say "HTML"?

Okay, so why does this matter to IBM and the future of Lotus Notes?

The end game of the document format wars is that of a stack model that converges desktop, server, devices and web information systems.  The MS Stack uses MS-OOXML as the primary transport of accelerated content/data/multi media streams running across the MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web application systems.  it's the one point of extreme interoperability.

it's also a barrier that no non MS applicatio or service can penetrate or interoperate with except on terms Microsoft dictates. 

Whoa!  This has already happened.  In his blog titled, "The Formats of Excel 2007",  XML expert Rob Weir demonstrates for us that MSOffice 2007 Excel has a new file format.  Rob demonstrates that there are four file format choices in Excel; EOOXML, Legacy XLS binary, and two  new binary extensions of EOOXML: "Excel Macro-Enabled Workbook" - xlsxm, and "Excel Binary Workbook" - xlsb.

The new binaries are proprietary extensions to EOOXML.  xlsb in particular looks to be something known as a XML Binary InfoSet..  XBiS is a compressed form of an XML file used in situations where bandwidth and device cpu constraints demand such an extreme.  We can't be sure about xlsb, but it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and thherefore....

This must be some kind of record.  EOOXML isn't yet 30 days old and Micrsoft has eXtended it with a proprietary binary representation not available to the rest of the world.  And XBiS was designed so that implementations would be open and application and platform independent.  But that's not what we see with Microsoft's xlsb.

What Marbux is pointing out here is that only Micrsoft has the legal rights to do this proprietary eXtension of EOOXML.  Beat the drums.  Sound the alarms.  Hide the women and children.  Nothing has changed.  The longboats are fancier, there are more of them. The swords of the pillagers remain just as sharp.  Their determination and drive just as strong.

Some quick backgroud references:  Compression, XML</b

There are many other warts in the Microsoft covenant not to sue. E.g., the covenant applies only toEcmaOffice Open XML; it does not apply to any future version, including a version that might be approved by ISO or a variant that might be actually imple

There are many other warts in the Microsoft covenant not to sue. E.g., the covenant applies only toEcmaOffice Open XML; it does not apply to any future version, including a version that might be approved by ISO or a variant that might be actually imple

Brian is once again writing about OpenOffice and ODF, this time in the aftermath of Oracle's decision to cut OOo loose and turn it over to Apache instead of The Document Foundation.  Good discussion - features a lengthy comment from the mighty Marbux where he vigorusly corrects the river of spin coming out of IBM.  Worth a careful read! excerpt: IBM seems to maneuver itself to any open source project that suits its needs, and for whatever reason they have decided to hitch their wagon to Oracle's star (or vice versa). With this historical context, there is really little surprise in Oracle's decision to go with the Apache Software Foundation, because IBM was probably influencing the decision. My second question doesn't have a definitive answer--yet. But it needs to be answered. it is simply this: how will OpenOffice.org remain relevant to end users?

I should have added to that comment a stronger warning for the Apache Foundation Board and developers considering joining the IBM-backed Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project in regard to the danger posed by IBM and Oracle's control of the OpenDocument Formats Technical Committee at OASIS, aptly characterized by IBM's Rob Weir: "Those who control the exchange format, can control interoperability and turn it on or off like a water faucet to meet their business objectives." Rob Weir, Those Who Forget Santayana, An Antic Disposition (20 December 2007), http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/12/those-who-forget-santayana.html What IBM, Oracle, and others can do by manipulating the ODF specification that Apache OOo depends upon is something entirely outside the control of the Apache Foundation. And as history has taught us so well, IBM and Sun exercised that control mercilessly via their co-chairmanship of the ODF TC to block all real interoperability initiatives. That is the very reason that only ODF implementations that share the same code base can interoperate. And if one were tempted to think that IBM and Sun/Oracle would not even consider manipulating the ODF specification to their own commercial advantage, consider the fact that in writing the quoted statement above, Rob Weir was speaking from deep personal experience in in such activities. So beware, both Apache Foundation and LibreOffice developers.

Incredible comment by Marbux!  With one swipe he takes out both Ecma 376 and ODF. 

Microsoft has written a letter claiming that they will support ODF in MSOffice, but only if ISO approves Ecma 376 as a second office suite XML file format standard.  ODF was approved by ISO nearly a year ago.

Criticizing Ecma 376 is easy.  it was designed to meet the needs of  a proprietary application, MSOffice, and, to meet the needs of the emerging MS Vista Stack of applications that spans desktop to server to device to web platforms.  it's filled with MS platform dependencies that make it impossibly non interoperable with anything not fully compliant with Microsoft owned API's.

Criticizing ODF however is another matter entirely.  Marbux points to the extremely poor ODF interoperability record.  If MOOXML (not Ecma 376 - since that is a read only file format) is tied to vendor-application specific MSOffice, then ODF is similarly tied to the many vendor versions of OpenOffice/StarOffice.

The "many vendor" aspect of OpenOffice is somewhat of a scam.  The interoperability that ODF shares across Novell Office, StarOffice, IBM WorkPlace, Red Office, and NeoOffice is entirely based on the fact that these iterations of OpenOffice are based on a single code base controlled 100% by Sun.  Which is exactly the case with MSOffice.  With this important exception - MOOXML (not Ecma 376) is interoperable across the entire Vista Stack!

The Vista Stack is comprised of Exchange/SharePoint, MS Live, MS Dynamics, MS SQL Server, MS Internet Server, MS Grove, MS Collaboration Server, and MS Active Directory.   Behind these applications sits a an important foundation of shared assets: MOOXML, Smart Documents, XAML and .NET 3.0.  All of which can be worked into third party, Stack dependent applications through the Visual Studio .NET IDE.

Here are some thoughts i wou

Interesting observation about South Africa and their "free as in beer" software requirements.  This governement attitude towards open source is far more wide spread than commonly thought.  One would have hoped that interoperability and open standards were also part of the FOSS equation, but it looks like zero cost is the primary driver.

Uh?  The ODF failure in Massachusetts doesn't count as evidence that ODF was not designed to be compatible with existing MS documents or interoperable with existing MSOffice applications?

And it's not just the da Vinci plug-in that failed to implement ODF in Massachusetts!  Nine months later Sun delivered their ODF plug-in for MSOffice to Massachusetts.  The next day, Massachusetts threw in the towel, officially recognizing MS-OOXML (and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in) as a standard format for the future.

Worse, the Massachusetts recognition of MS-OOXML came just weeks before the September 2nd ISO vote on MS-OOXML.  Why not wait a few more weeks?  After all, Massachusetts had conducted a year long pilot study to implement ODF using ODF desktop office sutie alternatives to MSOffice.  Not only did the rip out and replace approach fail, but they were also unable to integrate OpenOffice ODF desktops into existing MSOffice bound workgroups.

The year long pilot study was followed by another year long effort trying to implement ODF using the plug-in approach.  That too failed with Sun's ODF plug-in the final candidate to prove the difficulty of implementing ODF in situations where MSOffice workgroups dominate.

California and the EU-IDABC were closely watching the events in Massachusetts, as was most every CIO in government and private enterprise.  Reasoning that if Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF, California CIO's totally refused IBM and Sun's effort to get a pilot study underway.

Across the pond, in the aftermath of Massachusetts CIO Louis Guiterrez resignation on October 4th, 2006, the EU-IDABC set about developing their own file format, ODEF.  The Open Document Exchange Format splashed into the public discussion on February 28th, 2007 at the "Open Document Exchange Workshop" held in Berlin, Germany.

Meanwhile, the Sun ODF plug-in is fl

Well well well. We knew that IBM had access to the secret binary blueprints back in 2006. Now we know that Sun ALSO had access!
And why is this important? In June of 2006, Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez asked the OpenDocument Foundation's da Vinci Group to work with IBM on developing the da Vinci ODF plug-in clone of Microsoft's OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in. When we met with IBM they were insistent that the only way OASIS ODF could establish sufficient compatibility with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents would be to have the secret blueprints open.
Even after we explained to IBM that da Vinci uses the same internal conversion process that the OOXML plug-in used to convert binaries, IBM continued to insist that opening up the secret binaries was a primary objective of the OASIS ODF community.
For sure this was important to IBM and Sun, but the secret binaries were of no use to us. da Vinci didn't need them. What da Vinci needed instead was a subset of ODF designed for the conversion of those billions of binary documents! A need opposed by Sun.
Sun of course would spend the next year developing their own ODF plug-in for MSOffice. But here's the thing: it turns out that Sun had complete access to the secret binary blueprints dating back to 2006!!!!!!
So even though IBM and Sun have had access to the blueprints since 2006, they have been unable to provide effective conversions to ODF!
This validates a point the da Vinci group has been trying to make since June of 2006: the problem of perfecting a high fidelity conversion between the billions of binaries and ODF has nothing to do with access to the secret binary blueprints. The real issue is that ODF was NOT designed for the conversion of those binary documents.
it is true that one could eXtend ODF to achieve the needed compatibility. But one has to be very careful before taking this ro

"aimed at achieving an optimum degree of order .... and .... aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits:. Uh, excuse me Mr. Robinson, tha tsecond part of your statement, the one concerning optimum community benefits - that would also disqualify ODF!! ODF was not designed to be compatible with the 550 million MSOffice desktops and their billions of binary docuemnts. Menaing, these 550 million users will suffer considerable loss of information if they try to convert their existing documents to ODF. it is also next to impossible for MSOffice applications to implement ODF as a fiel format due to this incompatbility. ODF was designed for OpenOffice, and directly reflects the way OpenOffice implements specific document structures. The problem areas involve large differences between how OpenOffice implments these structures and how MSOffice implements these same structures. The structures in question are lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics. it seems to me that "optimum community benefits" would include the conversion and exchange of docuemnts with some 550 million users!!!! And ODF was clearly not designed for that purpose!

I don't agree with this statement from Microsoft's Oliver Bell. As someone who served on the OASIS ODF Technical Committee from it's inception in November of 2002 through the next five years, i have to disagree. it's not that Microsoft wasn't welcome. They were. it's that the "welcome" came with some serious strings. Fo rMicrosoft to join OASIS would have meant strolling into the camp of their most erstwhile and determined competitors, and having to ammend an existing standard to accomodate the implementation needs of MSOffice. There is simply no way for the layout differences between OpenOffice and MSOffice to be negotiated short of putting both methodologies into the spec. Meaning, the spec would provide two ways of implementing lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. A true welcome would have been for ODF to have been written to accomodate these diferences. Rather than writing ODF to meet the implementation model used by OepnOffice, it would have been infinitely better to wrtite ODF as a totally application independent file format using generic docuemnt structures tha tcould be adapted by any application. it turns out that this is exactly the way the W3C goes about the business of writing their fiel format specifications (HTML, XHTML, CSS, XFORMS, and CDF). The results are highly interoperable formats that any applciation can implement.

You can harmonize an application specific format with a generic, applicaiton independent format. But you can't harmonize two application specific formats!!!!
The easy way to solve the document exchange problem is to leave the legacy applications alone, and work on the conversion of OOXML and ODF docuemnts to a single, application independent generic format. The best candidate for this role is that of the W3C's CDF.
CDF is a desription of how to combine existing W3C format standards into a single container. it is meant to succeed HTML on the Web, but has been designed as a universal file format.
The most exciting combination is that of XHTML 2.0 and CSS in that it is capable of handling the complete range of desktop productivity office suite documents. Even though it's slightly outside the W3C reach, the most popular CDF compound is that of XHTML, CSS and JavaScript. A combination otherwise known as "AJAX".

Correcto mundo! There should be only one standard to maximise interoeprability and functionality. But ODF is application specific to the way OpenOffice works. it was not designed from a clean slate. Nor was the original 2002 OpenOffice XML spec designed as an open source effort! Check the OOo source code if you doubt this claim. The ONLY contributors to Open Office XML were Sun employees! What the world needs is in fact a format standard designed to maximise interoperability and functionality. This requires a total application-platofrm-vendor independence that neither ODF or OOXML can claim. The only format that meets these requirements is the W3C's family of HTML-XML formats. These include advancing Compound Docuemnt Framework format components such as (X)HTML-5, CSS-3, XForms, SVG and SMiL.. The W3C's CDF does in fact meet the markeplace needs of a universal format that is open, unencumbered and totally application, platform and vendor independent. The only trick left for CDF is proving that legacy desktop applications can actually implement conversions from existing in-memory-binary-representations to CDF without loss of information.

Rick Jellife weighs in on the OpenOffice ODF- MSOffice OpenXML interop embroglio. His take is to focus on Classes of Fidelity, providing us with a comparative table of fidelity categories. I wonder though if this über document processing approach is anywhere near consistent with the common sense meaning of interoperability to average end-users? IMHO, end-users interpret "interoperability" to mean that compliant applications can exchange documents without loss of information. "..... In my blog last year Is ODF the new RTF or the new .DOC? Can it be both? Do we need either? I raised the question of whether ODF would replace RTF or DOC. I think this issue has come back with a bang with the release of Office 2007 SP2, and I'd like to give another pointer to it for readers who missed it first time around.... "...... OASIS ODF TC has some kind of conformance and testing wing at work, but it is not at all clear that they will deliver anything in this kind of area. Without targetting these classes, ODF's breezy conformance requirements means that ODF conforment software can deliver vastly different kinds of fidelity, yet still accord to the letter of the law (and, indeed, to the spirit of the ODF spec, which allows so many holes) which will cause frustration all-around....." Ouch!

Microsoft's proposed undertaking for resolving the ECIS complaint to the European Commission regarding its office productivity software can be downloaded from this linked web page. I've given it a quick skim. Didn't see anything in it for anyone but competing big vendors. E.g., no profiling of data formats for interop of less and more featureful implementations, no round-tripping provisions. Still, some major concessions offered.

Interoperability through antitrust - is there a legal foundation in place capable of pulling this off?  This article is a lengthy study and comparative analysis of the legal foundation in the USA and Europe.  Microsoft is of course the target. Excerpt: Microsoft has incorporated products, such as browsers and media players, into its operating system, behavior that again amounts to technological tying. it has also improved its server software by heightening the degree to which servers employing that software can interact. By raising the level of interaction among servers equipped with its software, Microsoft has so integrated work group servers as to enable groups of small servers to approach the capacities of mainframe computers. The European competition-law authorities see both matters as problematic. The integration of the media player has been condemned as tying; and the heightened server interaction has been faulted for failing to provide the interoperability that rival server software requires in order to participate on an equal footing with Microsoft server software in Windows work groups. Microsoft’s integration (at least in the view of the European antitrust authorities) also raises issues of essential facilities, and of the role of antitrust in achieving interoperability. . We have now reached a moment in time in which both the American and European laws are sufficiently developed to warrant reflection and comparison. That is the task approached in this article.  Three part study:  Part I -The European approach.  Part II-USA decisions regarding Microsoft tying.  Part III-comparison of USA and European approaches to product integration (tying).

At the height of the Document Wars, Doug Mahugh posted this year end, month to month, blow by blow list of blog assaults. I stumbled upon Doug's collection following up on a recent (December 20th, 2010) eMail comment from Karl.  Karl had been reading the infamous "Hypocrisy 101" blog written by Jesper Lundstocholm:  http://bit.ly/hgCVLV Recently i was researching cloud-computing, following the USA Federal Government dictate that cloud-computing initiatives should get top priority first-consideration for all government agency purchases.  The market is worth about $8 Billion, with Microsoft BPOS and Google Apps totally dominating contract decisions in the early going.  The loser looks to be IBM Lotus Notes since they seem to have held most of systems contracts. So what does this have to do with Hypocrisy 101? To stop Microsoft BPOS, IBM had to get a government mandate for ODF and NOT OOXML.  The reason is now clear.  Microsoft BPOS is dominating the early rounds of government cloud-computing contracts because BPOS is "compatible" with the legacy MSOffice desktop productivity environment.  Lotus symphony is not.  Nor is OpenOffice or any other ODF Office Suite.   This compatibility between BPOS and legacy MSOffice productivity environments means less disruption and re engineering of business process costs as governments make the generational shift from desktop "client/server" productivity to a Web productivity platform - otherwise known as "cloud-computing". IMHO, neither ODF or OOXML were designed for this cloud-computing :: Web productivity platform future.  The "Web" aspect of cloud-computing means that HTML-HTTP-JavaScript technologies will prevail in this new world of cloud-computing.  it's difficult, but not impossible, to convert ODF and OOXML to HTML+ (HTML5, CSS3, Canvas/SVG, JavaScript).  This broad difficulty means that cloud-computing does not have a highly compatible productivity authoring environment designed to meet the transition needs

Classic argument about ODF vs OOXML.  Need to send Rick an explanation about how the da Vinci plug-in works.  It is entirely possible to capture everythign MSOffice edItors do in ODF using namespace extensions compliant wIth ODF 1.1 standard.   What was impossible was to round-trip those MSOffice ODF documents to OpenOffice.org.  And as It turns out, replacing MSOffice/Windows on new workgroup desktops wIth OpenOffice/Linux was one of the primary objectives behind the Massachussetts effort to standardize on ODF.  They believed the hype that ODF was cross platform interoperable.  It wasn't then, and It still isn't five years later. As for capturing all the complexIties and nuances of the very robust MSOffice productivIty environment and authoring system?  Sure, ODf could easily be extended for that. What an incredible discussion!

"Over the past week, I've been blowing the virtual dust off more than a decade's worth of annual reports from Microsoft, Apple, and Google. My goal was to follow the money and figure out how each company's business has changed over the past decade. Consider this a follow-up to my February post, "Apple, Google, Microsoft: Where does the money come from?" My tally starts with financial results for 2002, the year after Microsoft signed a historic consent decree that settled the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. it was also the first full year after the introduction of the iPod, which was the first step on Apple's transformation from a PC company to one that revolutionized mobile computing and communication. The earliest annual report I could find for Google was from 2003, the year before its big IPO. In Microsoft's case, the question I was most interested in was "How dependent is the company on Windows?" The Windows monopoly began crumbling as soon as the settlement was signed (although it's debatable how much influence that lawsuit had on the market). Over the past 10 years, Microsoft has shifted its reporting structures a few times, making it hard to draw perfect comparisons over time. But the chart below, which shows revenue from the desktop versions of Windows and related products, is close enough."