Desmond File

Blog archive

The OOXML Odyssey: Reader Outrage Edition

I like to think of myself as a fair-minded guy who's open to both sides of an argument. So when I wrote about the recent no-vote for the Microsoft Office Open XML (OOXML) spec by the International Organization of Standardization (ISO), I was a bit astonished by the nature of the response.

To wit: Not one person wrote in to say they supported Microsoft or the OOXML specification. Not one.

Instead, what I read was a parade of impassioned protest. Readers railed against what they found to be a sloppy, complex and potentially dangerous XML-based technical specification. Several wrote to express concern about Microsoft strong-arming the ISO process, stacking national ISO voting bodies in an effort to win approval. And to a man (or woman), the writers condemned OOXML on its technical merits.

What surprises me about this response is that these are people reading Redmond Developer News -- you know, a publication for developers and managers working with the Microsoft technology stack. You'd think this audience would have a lot invested in Microsoft tools and skill sets, and that they'd be at least somewhat likely to have a favorable opinion of OOXML.

But they don't.

What does it say about Microsoft and its current OOXML push that our readers -- essentially, the home field for Microsoft in this contest -- are so clearly opposed to the Redmond-sponsored technology?

You tell me. Because I really want to hear it. E-mail me at mdesmond@reddevnews.com.

Posted by Michael Desmond on 09/19/2007 at 4:02 PM


Reader Comments:

Fri, Jan 9, 2009 Anonymous Anonymous

hi
lfl6bimg44g1ig2o
good luck

Sat, Aug 2, 2008 Anonymous Anonymous

Your site reddevnews.com is interesting resource.
Good job, webmaster.

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

As much as I hate to say it, if MS had gone through the ISO process correctly in the first place, AND had documented OOXML properly in the first place, it still should NOT have gone through, for several reasons.

1. If you recall, those standards people were a little concerned with ODF regarding its length, and it was only a few hundred pages, not thousands. It is ludicrous to expect developers not to go insane trying to fully support this.

2. Promising not to sue except for future versions, then extending the standard with their own enhancements but only allowing those enhancements to work with MS Office which also break any other standardized support really sucks. (Think: Java/VM, HTML/IE, .... what'd you expect they would do?)

3. The only reason they did it was to compete with ODF as they were worried about their government contracts as governments start to lean towards standards for documents (ODF is it by default).
[I have a vague memory of this actually coming from a quote from a MS employee, anyone else recall this?]

,Rooks

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

For a developer, 6000 pages?...come on. Would you call that more work or less work?

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

Could it be that people developing for MS products are concerned that MS is changing their default document format (again)? Perhaps people prefer using the tools they already know, rather than trying to relearn (and re-write) everything they've done in the past to work with these newer formats.

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Scott Dunn

How refreshing to see someone who is a developer of Microsoft technologies actually tell the truth. Most of the time, the reports I read are more like Microsoft press releases - a kind of pea soup fog with no end and no beginning or boundary.

You're the first person to reveal the true nature of the cause: greed and jealousy on the part of Microsoft. The fact is, there is enough business for everyone. And for the last 20 years, Microsoft has been busy eliminating every competitor it can find. How do they do it? Lies, extortion, cheating, bribes - whatever it takes. All this while they could be making a better product.

And with every competitor and partner they destroyed, they eliminated another choice for me. That is the problem with Microsoft.

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

I think the answer is simple: there is already one standard and supporting two means a lot of unneeded work for developers (plus uncertainty on the market).

I guess Microsoft expected us to side with only ITS standard. That may be OK for a company the size of MS, but not for the rest of us who must answer to local users and regulating bodies.

If you add on top of it that there is incomplete information to provide backwards compatibility support, then it should be obvious.

That seems to be other forgotten issue at MS: it looks like only they need to worry about office documents as only Office produced them. But many applications need to access those old documents (or save in them) and incomplete specs are the latest thing we need.

In short: for the rest of us it is better to have one single, well defined standard even if that will mean having to reconvert all old documents to ODF. Which BTW, is great, mostly if MS does not support ODF: it means a huge niche for business opens to whoever undertakes the task of providing conversion of legacy documents to the new ODF ;-)

MS should remember that non-MS developers work for other companies and must pledge allegiance to them first.

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Paul Shirley Anonymous

Either Microsoft are so busy astroturfing the rest of the internet they didn't get round to you OR they're getting sloppy and just assumed you're readers would 'do the right thing' for Microsoft. Instead they 'did the right thing' for the wider world.

Either way its heartening to see Microsoft have limits, they can't drown out every critic.

Mon, Sep 24, 2007 MS Anonymous

Why are you surprised? The reason for the response is simple - Microsoft users are more aware than anyone of Microsoft's lock-in and extort strategy based on planned incompatibility even with older Microsoft file formats. OOXML is simply the latest Microsoft proprietary lock-in format - that is why the OOXML patent no sue covenant explicitly excludes future versions. Do you really believe Microsoft's claim that they are not providing full ODF import/export capability or defauly save in ODF because customers don't want it? It seems to me journalists are the stupid (or corrupt) ones faithfully repeating this line when Microsoft customers actually want otherwise. Customers want choice over the format they can save in including the default format, when Microsoft while professing that this is what they are offering want is denying it. The only choice Microsoft is offering is the choice to state and national government politicians of whether to take campaign funds in return for forcing MS and proprietary OOXML down the throats of users and taxpayers.


Mon, Sep 24, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

I don't know why you are so surprised by this reaction. Developers, no matter what their platform, understand the value of standards, and the value of meaningful and comprehensible documentation. They daily experience the difference between marketing drivel and technical reality. The OOXML fiasco was a blatant attempt to subvert the standards process, which means chaos for developers. When they look at a nightmare of ambiguous and incomplete specifications, and see even XML, one of the most beneficial standards of recent years, being perverted in the cause of proprietary lockin, of course they are going to react negatively.

Sun, Sep 23, 2007 J.C. Doll West Virginia

The industry has shifted and the days of single vendor lock-in are long over. Most of us no longer have the luxury of supporting a single platform or technology anymore. Microsoft seems to be having an identity crisis about this. From one side of the company we hear how they want to meet our demand for interoperability but from the other side it seems to be fighting this tooth and nail. What few strides that have been made in this area only work if Microsoft is the domination controller and Open XML is just another example of that. Both Open XML and ODF each have their technical flaws but ODF is the platform natural choose so many of us see it as having the more vibrant future in the new world. Microsoft has been my bread and butter for a long time, but I am very seriously worried about its future.

Sun, Sep 23, 2007 Anonymous Anonymous

The response you described says integrity, honesty and technical merit count, and Microsoft cannot buy approval or support of products or tactics that lack those qualities.

Add Your Comment:

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above