First, what if Microsoft really is
doing the right thing? Second, how can we avoid having two incompatible
file formats?
[Update: There’s been a lot of reaction to this piece, and I addressed some
of those points
here.]
On the technology side, the two formats are really more alike than they are
different.
But, there are differences:
O12X’s design center, Microsoft has said repeatedly,
is capturing the exact semantics of the billions of existing Microsoft Office
documents.
ODF’s design center is general-purpose reusability, and leveraging existing
standards like SVG and MathML and so on.
The capabilities of ODF and O12X are essentially identical for all this
basic stuff. So why in the flaming hell does the world need two incompatible
formats to express it? The answer, obviously, is, “it doesn’t”.
The ideal outcome would be a common shared office-XML dialect for the
basics—and it should be ODF (or a subset), since that’s been designed and
debugged—then another extended vocabulary to support Microsoft features ,
whether they’re cool new whizzy features or mouldy old legacy features (XML
Namespaces are designed to support exactly this kind of thing).
That way, if you stayed with the basic stuff you’d never need to worry about
software lock-in; the difference between portable and proprietary would be
crystal-clear.
And, for the basic stuff that everybody uses, there’d be only one set of
tags.
This outcome is technically feasible.
Who could possibly be against it?