You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cocoon.apache.org by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org> on 2003/02/26 21:21:17 UTC
[FYI] M$ Office 2003 and XML
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnofftalk/html/office12092002.asp
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [FYI] M$ Office 2003 and XML
Posted by Jakob Praher <jp...@yahoo.de>.
it looks like M$ doesn't want to publish the schema of its xml format,
this could be a nightmare to reverse engineer. I think it will be a very
complex format ...
read more: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-977880.html
Am Don, 2003-02-27 um 06.34 schrieb Niclas Hedhman:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnofftalk/
> >html/office12092002.asp
>
> Office 97 released 1997.
> Office 99 released 1999.
> Office 11 released 2011??
hehe
>
> The main drive for changing the format is to generate revenue. "My business
> contacts has the new Office, and I can't open their documents, I need to
> upgrade..."
totally agree.
> Long live the XML revolution.
>
viva la revolution
-- Jakob
Re: [FYI] M$ Office 2003 and XML
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnofftalk/
>>html/office12092002.asp
>
>
> Office 97 released 1997.
> Office 99 released 1999.
> Office 11 released 2011??
No, Office 11 is the codename for Office 2003 (99 was 10 and 97 was 9)
> The main drive for changing the format is to generate revenue. "My business
> contacts has the new Office, and I can't open their documents, I need to
> upgrade..."
Yes.
> However, the change to XML can be the downfall for the never-ending
> upgrade-cycle forced upon Office-users, as small tools on the net will make
> back-conversions....
I think Microsoft is all but stupid and it plans to change their reveue
stream entirely to subscription services, which are much more
predictable. To do this, they have, at least, to impose .NET and teach
XML to the world.
> The second assault will come from OSS projects, which now will have a clean
> view into the formats, and should be able to reproduce Office documents much
> better than is currently the case. UNFORTUNATELY, I think (hope not) some
> tags will contain crucial data in some arcaic binary format, only useful to
> COM services in the OS.
Yep.
Did you know it was microsoft that wanted Processing Instruction back
into the XML spec?
What would you do with this:
<o:document xmlns:o="urn:microsoft:office11:document">
<?COM 38493849348827384093082738402938409824302830948234324
230498923840298304823489328049802934828349280389420398409
170908935709324709238409720394809238402937509385029348072?>
</o:document>
> Long live the XML revolution.
Yeah, it will, unfortunately, never end :/
Welcome to Babel!
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [FYI] M$ Office 2003 and XML
Posted by Santiago Gala <sg...@hisitech.com>.
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
(...)
> However, the change to XML can be the downfall for the never-ending
> upgrade-cycle forced upon Office-users, as small tools on the net will make
> back-conversions....
>
> The second assault will come from OSS projects, which now will have a clean
> view into the formats, and should be able to reproduce Office documents much
> better than is currently the case. UNFORTUNATELY, I think (hope not) some
> tags will contain crucial data in some arcaic binary format, only useful to
> COM services in the OS.
>
OTOH, they could choose to go the opposite way: have leased/rented
applications, that are updated continuously, and make the formats evolve
so fast that OSS projects and competing commercial projects cannot
follow them.
You would find a "Dialog Box" saying: "The document you have just
received has a new feature that requires you tu update your Office copy
to enhance your user experience. Notice that you could be missing
important features from the document if you don't do it. Proceed? [Now]
[Later]"
They could earn money just by selling the specification documents at
standard paper prices (you would need to actually "subscribe to the
spec") ;-)
> Long live the XML revolution.
>
> Niclas
Re: [FYI] M$ Office 2003 and XML
Posted by Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>.
On Thursday 27 February 2003 04:21, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnofftalk/
>html/office12092002.asp
Office 97 released 1997.
Office 99 released 1999.
Office 11 released 2011??
The main drive for changing the format is to generate revenue. "My business
contacts has the new Office, and I can't open their documents, I need to
upgrade..."
However, the change to XML can be the downfall for the never-ending
upgrade-cycle forced upon Office-users, as small tools on the net will make
back-conversions....
The second assault will come from OSS projects, which now will have a clean
view into the formats, and should be able to reproduce Office documents much
better than is currently the case. UNFORTUNATELY, I think (hope not) some
tags will contain crucial data in some arcaic binary format, only useful to
COM services in the OS.
Long live the XML revolution.
Niclas