On TechRepublic: 10 dying IT skills
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Ingrid Marson
Posted on ZDNet News: Nov 22, 2005 7:42:00 PM

Industry observers have expressed concern about Microsoft's decision to submit the file formats for its new Office 12 applications to ECMA International, a European standards body.

The software giant said on Monday that the creation of a fully documented standard submission derived from the formats, called Microsoft Office Open XML, is likely to take about a year.

But Gary Barnett, a research director at analyst firm Ovum, said on Tuesday that he doubted that the move would result in the format becoming "truly open."

"It's a tactical move by Microsoft to give its proprietary document formats a glimmer of openness," Barnett said. He added that Microsoft is entitled to describe its file formats as open only if it "gives up control of its formats to a standards body that is accessible."

If Microsoft maintains control over its XML-based file format, it will be able to arbitrarily change the standard when it wants, enabling it to keep ahead of any competitors that wish to implement the standard, according to Barnett.

Mark Taylor, executive director of the Open Source Consortium , agreed that Microsoft's move is not as open as it might first appear. He said Microsoft appears to want to extend its "Office monopoly into the XML age. If the intention is to really play nicely with others in the open-standards game, then why patent applications in this area?" he asked.

But other industry observers were less critical of Microsoft's move, which follows the growing popularity of the OpenDocument format.

"I think it's great to see that the current discussions have forced Microsoft to be more open," said James Governor, an analyst at RedMonk.

However, Governor pointed out that it was not clear whether any standard approved by ECMA would be compatible with the General Public License, or GPL.

The British Library has also lauded Microsoft's move, saying in a statement that it would help it fulfill its "core responsibility of making our digital collections accessible for generations to come."

So far, Microsoft has refused to support OpenDocument in its software, which Barnett and Taylor believe raises questions about its commitment to open standards.

"The OpenDocument format is a genuinely open format that is managed in a completely transparent way. Any company in this business that is genuine about open standards should be supporting that," Barnett said.

"The existing standard places no restrictions whatsoever on who may implement it, and one has to continue asking the question why Microsoft won't," said Taylor of OpenDocument. "If the Microsoft standard really is genuinely open in the same sense as the OpenDocument format, what advantage is there to Microsoft in trying to impose their standard over the established one?"

Governor suggested that OpenDocument may have an advantage over the Microsoft standard through wider adoption by software makers, but he said this is unlikely to prevent Microsoft Office's Open XML from becoming widespread.

"If we're talking about multiple implementations, OpenDocument has a clear advantage," Governor said. "From a government perspective, the kind of conversations that OpenDocument can have with the public sector will be somewhat more compelling, but Microsoft has shown itself to be very persuasive at selling to the public sector. Also, there are massive advantages in incumbency."

Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 106 Talkback(s)
apart from being inferior to ODF
having had a look, it's structure and support of current XML standards is pretty poor. ODF is definitely the superior technical candidate.... (Read the rest)
Posted by: hipparchus2001 Posted on: 11/27/05 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Anyone Surprise By Mr. Barnett  jjworleyeoe | 11/22/05
"You're either with us or against us!"  Jeff Spicoli | 11/22/05
funny last sentence...  Arm A. Geddon | 11/22/05
Tanks Geddy!  Jeff Spicoli | 11/22/05
what flav?  Arm A. Geddon | 11/22/05
YOu just made every decent person supporting open source puke.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/22/05
Not me.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/22/05
Still Waiting....  Seenidog | 11/22/05
Children are often kept waiting while adults talk.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Were it only so!  IT_User | 11/23/05
Is that why you are posting here?  B.O.F.H. | 11/23/05
That's odd  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Perceived weakness in existing standards?  __howard__ | 11/22/05
So, let me get this straight.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/22/05
Well then...  rapson | 11/23/05
Not necessarily.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
That's true...  rapson | 11/23/05
crapson rides again  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Leave it to crapson  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Nope... Not "Open".. Don't trust 'em  el1jones | 11/22/05
exactly.  Arm A. Geddon | 11/22/05
The conditions include the fact the changes  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/22/05
What if somebody else makes changes?  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/22/05
Please do us a favor and read it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
That's what I thought.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
Well,  Ardian Daka | 11/23/05
Decisions  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
This is a new one...  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Rep is giving me details...  Mike Cox | 11/22/05
4.1  htotten | 11/22/05
6.2 !  Reverend MacFellow | 11/23/05
MS has shown time and again that it despises and avoids "Open Standards"  michael_t | 11/22/05
May I point out your contradictions.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/22/05
Fallacies  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/22/05
This industry  Real World | 11/23/05
Yes, that perception is a fallacy. I offer you the challenge  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
When you compare...  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
There is nothing to compare.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
You're just ignorant.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
When you have LOST the debate, attack the other guy.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Lost?  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
A rant to say your not ranting... Buwahahaha  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
not a rant...a maxim (100% applicable I might add) nt  LoCal | 11/23/05
You're still saying  Roger Ramjet | 11/23/05
Bzzzt, wrong again.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Choice IS wonderful  Roger Ramjet | 11/23/05
Politics?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
No contradiction  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
You talking about this?  Mihi Nomen Est | 11/23/05
Always two sides  ibabadur1 | 11/22/05
Open versus accessible  Rodney Davis | 11/22/05
Published is not enough...  techboy_z | 11/23/05
M$ is EVIL!  Reverend MacFellow | 11/23/05
Articvle demonstrates why standards are bad.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/22/05
Credibility  Seenidog | 11/22/05
Post demonstrates why your reasoning is bad.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/22/05
Well then, let me use small words for you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
What are you advocating?  IT_User | 11/23/05
Sorry, wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
You're telling me  IT_User | 11/23/05
How about this perfect example then.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Re: "perfect example"  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
You poor clueless fool  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
When you have LOST the debate, attack the other guy.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
Do I need to lead you to the IEEE site and read it for you?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Sure. Go ahead.  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
bitty obviously has a double standard  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Re: "you poor clueless fool" from bitty  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Excellent examples  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
Rubish...  Physco Dude | 11/23/05
You show the very reason not to use a standard.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Well, by all means  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
Rubbish deux...  Fred Fredrickson | 11/23/05
No_Ax demonstrates clearly that he does not understand standards  CobraA1 | 11/24/05
Bzzzzt - No_Ax is Wrong Again - If MS would support . . .  Plain Logic | 11/22/05
are you sure  LinuxHippie | 11/22/05
No, ODF isn't even close.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Provision for Sharepoint or Groove  IT_User | 11/23/05
The fact is, it is what MS customers want.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Not exactly ignoring  IT_User | 11/23/05
I see your mistake.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Maybe, maybe not  IT_User | 11/23/05
Can you say Java???  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
rubbish  hipparchus2001 | 11/23/05
'Fraid not  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
My point is this has nothing to do with the file format  hipparchus2001 | 11/23/05
Do you understand the difference between application and format?  B.O.F.H. | 11/23/05
Lend you a clue? Ok... The application can NOT  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Again, you are confusing application with format.  B.O.F.H. | 11/23/05
What provisions?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 11/23/05
ANd again you elect to remain clueless.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
I agree  opensourcepro | 11/26/05
Divide experts, observers, or just polarizes  Boot_Agnostic | 11/23/05
Remember when DEC resisted open standards? (Remember DEC?)  paul613 | 11/23/05
Dec, oh yeah, proprietary companies put them out of business.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
Yeah Sun was hot then  hipparchus2001 | 11/23/05
Interesting MS agreement content for No Axe...  MacCanuck | 11/23/05
A Linux consultant and his guesses about the future.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
An MS-sponsored study showing Windows  MacCanuck | 11/24/05
bitty as usual  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05
Thought I'd leave you folks with a parting thought and prediction.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 11/23/05
And when you turn out to be wrong...  Immanuel Tranz-Mischen | 11/23/05
If it ends up being an open standard, I have nothing against it  hipparchus2001 | 11/23/05
apart from being inferior to ODF  hipparchus2001 | 11/27/05
ISO? Try ECMA, or didn't you read the article?  Fred Fredrickson | 11/23/05
bitty the psychic (or is it psycho?)  JusPassinThrough | 11/26/05

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Meet Doc