文档格式标准之争变私人化
作者： KK
责任编辑： 阚智
来源： 《电脑商情报》
时间： 2006-12-11 09:18
Microsoft and IBM ratcheted up their criticism and rhetoric this week in the long-standing battle to win the hearts and minds of developers and users for the document format they support.
The volley was started by IBM, which was the lone dissenter in the vote on Dec. 7 that approved Microsoft's Open XML document format as an Ecma standard.
In a public comment about its decision to vote against approving the standard, Bob Sutor, vice president of open source and standards at IBM, says on his blog that the Open XML format is nothing more than a vendor-dictated specification that documents proprietary products via XML.
He goes on to say that IBM believes the OpenDocument Format (ODF) ISO standard is vastly superior to the Open XML spec, and that "ODF is what the world needs today to drive competition, innovation, and lower costs for customers.
"It is an example of a real open standard versus a vendor-dictated spec that documents proprietary products via XML. ODF is about the future, Open XML is about the past. We voted for the future," Sutor says.
However, in an interview with me, Alan Yates, the general manager of information worker business strategy at Microsoft, said the vote on the standard was 20 in favor and one, IBM, against, which showed how "IBM is isolated from the other members in this regard."
He also railed against the fact that IBM has decided to be open in its criticism of Open XML, accusing Big Blue of being at the forefront of creating conflict around the Open XML format.
"They are also really focused on mandating ODF, mandating a single format that their commercial products support. This push to mandate ODF seems to be so antithetical to what they ordinarily talk about around open standards, interoperability and choice," he said.
Yates also has an interesting assessment of the two competing standards, claiming that "ODF takes more of a greenfields approach, while Open XML takes more of a practical approach toward documenting compatibility and interoperability."
He also rejected out of hand the notion that OpenXML is not universally interoperable as it has ties to Windows, thereby preventing full interoperability with other platforms, saying that Open XML has no ties to Windows.
"This is a bogus argument. What Open XML does is enable embedding code from any platform--whether that is Java code from Linux or ActiveX code from Windows. Applications are allowed to do this as they have done this in the past. A lot of the committee's work was on ensuring it was cross-platform friendly," he told me.
There is also no truth to claims that the Open XML specification does not define macros or embedded scripts, Yates said, noting that the specification has been "out there" for many months now and the final specification is available for all to see.
He also pointed a finger at the ODF, calling out the fact that that format does not include anything for formulas in spreadsheets and is being revised in separate OASIS committees to address the gaps it has with the Open XML format, including accessibility, support for the integration of external XML data and the lack of formulas.
Unlike IBM, Microsoft is also investing in the coexistence of the two specifications, including plug-ins for them, and has created an open-source project around this so that everyone will have access to the code and be able to see the decisions that are being made, he maintains.
"We are bending over backward at this point to reassure customers that we really are in favor of coexistence and choice. They can choose ODF or Open XML, and whatever choice they make is right for them and we will work hard to make it work," he told me.
Ecma will also begin the fast track process for adoption of the Office OpenXML formats as an ISO international standard in January 2007, a process that Yates expects to take about a year.
In response to Yates' comments, Sutor told me Dec. 8 that, with Open XML, Microsoft had squandered a golden opportunity to use a modern XML architecture and design, to take advantage of open rather than proprietary standards, and to provide backward-compatibility via their extensive engineering capability.
"Microsoft says that it spent millions of dollars on the Office 2007 user interface. Wasn't moving their data format into the future deserving of at least some of those resources? In my opinion, Open XML only delays the day of reckoning when Microsoft will need to seriously and fundamentally re-architect their format to make it truly interoperable and future-ready," he said.
"At that point, the quality of the design of OpenDocument Format will become even more apparent to Microsoft as it is increasingly becoming so to governments and implementors around the world," Sutor said.
IBM would also welcome Microsoft's participation in the OASIS technical committee of global experts which had been working openly on ODF since 2002. "Further, it will put an end to their isolation from this mainstream open document standards effort," he told me.
So, what's your view on these divergent opinions and document formats in general?
The volley was started by IBM, which was the lone dissenter in the vote on Dec. 7 that approved Microsoft's Open XML document format as an Ecma standard.
In a public comment about its decision to vote against approving the standard, Bob Sutor, vice president of open source and standards at IBM, says on his blog that the Open XML format is nothing more than a vendor-dictated specification that documents proprietary products via XML.
He goes on to say that IBM believes the OpenDocument Format (ODF) ISO standard is vastly superior to the Open XML spec, and that "ODF is what the world needs today to drive competition, innovation, and lower costs for customers.
"It is an example of a real open standard versus a vendor-dictated spec that documents proprietary products via XML. ODF is about the future, Open XML is about the past. We voted for the future," Sutor says.
However, in an interview with me, Alan Yates, the general manager of information worker business strategy at Microsoft, said the vote on the standard was 20 in favor and one, IBM, against, which showed how "IBM is isolated from the other members in this regard."
He also railed against the fact that IBM has decided to be open in its criticism of Open XML, accusing Big Blue of being at the forefront of creating conflict around the Open XML format.
"They are also really focused on mandating ODF, mandating a single format that their commercial products support. This push to mandate ODF seems to be so antithetical to what they ordinarily talk about around open standards, interoperability and choice," he said.
Yates also has an interesting assessment of the two competing standards, claiming that "ODF takes more of a greenfields approach, while Open XML takes more of a practical approach toward documenting compatibility and interoperability."
He also rejected out of hand the notion that OpenXML is not universally interoperable as it has ties to Windows, thereby preventing full interoperability with other platforms, saying that Open XML has no ties to Windows.
"This is a bogus argument. What Open XML does is enable embedding code from any platform--whether that is Java code from Linux or ActiveX code from Windows. Applications are allowed to do this as they have done this in the past. A lot of the committee's work was on ensuring it was cross-platform friendly," he told me.
There is also no truth to claims that the Open XML specification does not define macros or embedded scripts, Yates said, noting that the specification has been "out there" for many months now and the final specification is available for all to see.
He also pointed a finger at the ODF, calling out the fact that that format does not include anything for formulas in spreadsheets and is being revised in separate OASIS committees to address the gaps it has with the Open XML format, including accessibility, support for the integration of external XML data and the lack of formulas.
Unlike IBM, Microsoft is also investing in the coexistence of the two specifications, including plug-ins for them, and has created an open-source project around this so that everyone will have access to the code and be able to see the decisions that are being made, he maintains.
"We are bending over backward at this point to reassure customers that we really are in favor of coexistence and choice. They can choose ODF or Open XML, and whatever choice they make is right for them and we will work hard to make it work," he told me.
Ecma will also begin the fast track process for adoption of the Office OpenXML formats as an ISO international standard in January 2007, a process that Yates expects to take about a year.
In response to Yates' comments, Sutor told me Dec. 8 that, with Open XML, Microsoft had squandered a golden opportunity to use a modern XML architecture and design, to take advantage of open rather than proprietary standards, and to provide backward-compatibility via their extensive engineering capability.
"Microsoft says that it spent millions of dollars on the Office 2007 user interface. Wasn't moving their data format into the future deserving of at least some of those resources? In my opinion, Open XML only delays the day of reckoning when Microsoft will need to seriously and fundamentally re-architect their format to make it truly interoperable and future-ready," he said.
"At that point, the quality of the design of OpenDocument Format will become even more apparent to Microsoft as it is increasingly becoming so to governments and implementors around the world," Sutor said.
IBM would also welcome Microsoft's participation in the OASIS technical committee of global experts which had been working openly on ODF since 2002. "Further, it will put an end to their isolation from this mainstream open document standards effort," he told me.
So, what's your view on these divergent opinions and document formats in general?
