OpenDocument versus MS XML
Groklaw has a decent writeup on the OpenDocument (ODF) format, and how it relates to the newly-opened Microsoft XML schema. From what I can surmise, the fact that Microsoft is doing it is good, but there could be limitations (like what I was worried about), and MS XML really only has one advantage over OpenDocument (which I'd like to have explained to me better).
There appears to be some real problems with the MS XML format, coming from the side of the OpenDocument camp:
Sun's response [PDF] expresses several concerns about Microsoft's approach to XML. I recommend reading the full response for details, but here are a few:
- MS XML doesn't cover all of MS Office (for example, it doesn't cover PowerPoint).
- MS XML doesn't support some of the advanced MS Office features.
- MS XML can contain binary objects that depend on MS Office and Windows (e.g. OLE and VBA) and those lack complete documentation.
- MS did not commit to make future changes to MS XML available to the public, only the current one.
From what I know, I'm basically on the side of the OpenDocument camp, although I do need to learn more. It'll be the default file format for the upcoming versions of OpenOffice and KOffice, and it'd be nice to see Apple fully support it also for their newer apps, like iWork.
(Seriously, OpenOffice is dead on the Mac now, so iWork is really the only thing that can do it. Ask Apple for OpenDocument support.)
There might be shades here of the H.264/AVC versus Microsoft VC-9 codecs, where I said I don't really care who wins, but that situation doesn't really apply. In that case, you have two codecs that both kick major ass, and are for all intents and purposes comparable.
The H.264/AVC camps say that they're built on standards, but it's about the loosest definition out there, as they aren't open standards by any means. Everything is patented, and you have to pay royalties to play... but anyone can come along and do it. Microsoft's solution was developed in-house, as opposed to a bunch of companies getting together, but in order to get it adopted as an A-OK format for the successors to DVDs (not to mention home theatre PVR's and such) they had to completely open the specs and make it available for licensing... the same as the H.264/AVC camp. It's all posturing, and just dilutes what the term open standards really means.
In the case of the above, both formats are equally documented and equally encumbered, and the only difference between the two is how much the vendor of your HD-DVD or PVR software will be paying to use them. In this case, while MS seems to be opening up its format and freeing you from licensing and patent restrictions, there appears to be still enough gotchas that OpenDocument shouldn't just be rolled over in favor of of MS XML. With the inclusions of custom schemas, OpenDocument should be right up there with MS XML, with no technical deficiencies whatsoever.
I still think the MS XML format is a good thing, and will make many things easier. However, in all cases, freely available, standardized, and open formats should be chosen and pushed over all others. It's your data after all, and being locked in does you no favors.
Posted by drunkenbatmanJanuary 30, 2005, at 04:50 PM
Comments (5)
Posted by: Martey at January 30, 2005 10:41 PM
(Seriously, OpenOffice is dead on the Mac now, so iWork is really the only thing that can do it. Ask Apple for OpenDocument support.)Being relatively ignorant of Mac issues, why is this?
Posted by: vastheman at January 30, 2005 11:52 PM
The OpenOffice people aren't interested in doing a native Aqua port. The X11 build goes OK, but doesn't use native windows, menus, fonts, rendering, printing, etc. It's just not a Mac application.
Posted by: Alan Tam at September 11, 2005 07:41 AM
OpenOffice is dead on the Mac now
http://www.neooffice.org
Posted by: Neil at October 26, 2005 01:42 PM
Neooffice is nice, but there's no indication that they're working on a port of OOo 2.0, so, still no OpenDocument support.
I don't understand what is the fuzz about XML for office documents. Everyone is jumping in the band wagon but office tools are not about storing and retrieving data but about visualisation: a MS XML document is virtually useless without its rendering engine.
OpenDocument is not going to solve this problem. See HTML, one standard, more than one way to render it. See Apple's Pages. It renders beautifully in its own native format and looks like crap when exported to other formats. Even if Apple adds OpenDocument format, OpenOffice will never render it correctly.
The EU/Valoris report is laughable as it didn't take into account the rendering aspects and in fact dismissed many formats because they are too tightly dependent on a specific tool. But open formats are not a guarantee. So far, only OpenOffice and kOffice will support OpenDocument and you can bet that the rendering will be different across the two products.
Worst, an open format is not expandable. You can add new namespaces, but then you have to handle the rendering by yourself. Now take a macro-based format and you can expand it at will because the format contains its own rendering layer. For example takes ConTeXt. The default macro package gives you the same rendering quality over any platform and you can extend it by adding new packages or embedding your own rules in the file. The file format is much more easy to edit, it's damn simple ASCII **without** tags.
XML is not a neutral format, simply because it has to comply to a schema or a DTD, that virtually fix the format into something written is stone, meaning that at one time or another, some dirty tricks will appear to circle around the limitations of the format. People are interested by the output, not by the mean to transport the information.
The Valoris report is also bashing binary formats but take a moment and looks back in time. There was a computer platform (Amiga) with a single binary format (IFF) capable of embedding everything with meaningful headers and markers. Everything accessed through standard libraries, meaning that any one could read the binary format. The process was smooth and files opened in fraction of seconds. Today a considerable portion of computer processing time is dedicated to open and interpret text files!