If you have any information, please update our knowledge about the implementation of ODF in MS Office 2010 and future Service Packs of MS Office 2007 – if you have any inside information…

It would be much more interesting to know if Microsoft will provide a working implementation of ODF, without the famous „Excel bug”. ;-)

Many thanks
Răzvan

"What we need is an ACID test for Office formats"

Maybe feeding benchmark test documents to http://www.officeshots.org could fulfil this function.

http://acid3.acidtests.org/

I agree, but then we must have a formal commitment by Microsoft that they will implement ISO29500 Strict within the coming 12 to 24 months latest.
Yes, and I'd personally encourage them to make such a statement. But it is really out of scope of WG4 to do anything about it.

I would recommend everybody to not invest one cent of their money or one second of their time improving it: it is lost time and money.
Well, there are several tools one can use to push Microsoft to implement S – "not participating" is perhaps the least effective of those.

I agree, but then we must have a formal commitment by Microsoft that they will implement ISO29500 Strict within the coming 12 to 24 months latest.

If nobody ever implements Strict, why would any vendor or any open source project invest time and money in making changes to it ? Sure, I understand that Microsoft is happy to distract competitors with the Strict variant, but unless Microsoft commits to switch to ISO29500 Strict rapidly, I would recommend everybody to not invest one cent of their money or one second of their time improving it: it is lost time and money.

1. "adding … to OOXML" means little as it is not specific. Would you propose to add this to ISO29500 Transitional or ISO29500 Strict ?
I think it should be added to S and we should stop fiddling anymore with T.

So, *maybe* the added items will appear in a version of MS Office within 5 or 6 years, if we are lucky. And if a feature is not understood by MS Office, nobody else will implement it. Do you really think it is worth for any company (outside MS) or any NB to contribute something new to OOXML ?
Well, you tell me? We cannot force anyone to participate in WG4. All we can do it create a platform for them to use. I do think we need more participation from the other vendors seeking interop with Microsoft Office (like IBM, Sun/ORACLE etc), but it's parhaps difficult to do so due to political reasons for the competitors to Microsoft Office. I'd personally welcome direct participation by IBM in WG4 with open arms, but until they do, I am completely happy that they choose to participate indirectly via Danish Standards.

Good for them :o) (and us)

Rob,

@Luc, Remember, NBs already made around 20 specific proposals to add features to OOXML to improve interoperability with ODF. These were all rejected by Ecma.

Yes, and I was among those that argued against them in the DIS-process. But I think the timing is now perfect for addition of them, so I encourage those that wished to have them added in the first place to re-enter the request.

WG4 should really go back to Ecma's proposed Disposition of Comments report and re-examine all the items that NBs proposed and Ecma rejected. There is no need for WG4 to sit around scratching their bellies, moaning about how no one but Microsoft has any proposals. The proposals have already been made.

1. "adding … to OOXML" means little as it is not specific. Would you propose to add this to ISO29500 Transitional or ISO29500 Strict ?

2. Adding something in the standard is only worth if it is implemented by somebody (look at the additions made by the BRM 18 months ago and still not implemented in any commercial office suite). So, once it is added and published (within at least one year) will Microsoft implement it ? If it is added in Strict, surely not before many, many, many years. Even if it is added in Transitional, it is too late for implementation in Office 2010. By the time it is published by ISO, it will likely be too late also for the "Feature freeze" of the next version of MS Office.

So, *maybe* the added items will appear in a version of MS Office within 5 or 6 years, if we are lucky. And if a feature is not understood by MS Office, nobody else will implement it. Do you really think it is worth for any company (outside MS) or any NB to contribute something new to OOXML ?

(sorry about missing your comment before I added my previous input)

What would be interesting is that *other* vendors or NBs not dominated by Microsoft suggest additions to OOXML. That's how it works in ODF TC: it is not a single dominating vendor that proposes additions.

Yes, it will indeed be interesting to see what happens. Since no "liaison" has yet approached us with suggestions for addition, it is already a bit speculative to discuss this.

The Japanese NB is, as far as I know, the committee that is closest to come with concrete proposals for better support for Japanese scripts.

Also, the Danish NB currently has 5 active members (that show up for the meetings). These are CIBER, IBM, Microsoft, Sun and DKUUG. So even though you might count CIBER and Microsoft "as one", it would still be hard to look at the Danish NB as "Microsoft dominated" with a "2:3" ratio against. I do not know of the current status of the IBM DK suggestions, but I have in previous meetings endorsed the idea of adding the ODF constructs to OOXML. I am looking forward to hearing uptodate status from IBM DK on this on our next meeting on November 27th.

However, I can tell you my opinion on the matter of adding Office 2010 extensions to OOXML:

Some of the extensions Microsoft has made to OOXML are actually good ideas. Of these are additional slice transitions, that I would see no problem in adding. Then there are other extensions that do not, at first glance, make a lot of sense. These include the attribute on the Cell-element called "xdy" (or something like that). I haven't studied them in depth, but they do not seem to be as "obviously good ideas" to add as e.g. the new slide transitions.

In any case, aside from being inaccurate, your comment is off topic. No more, please.

@Jesper, It is a prerogative of a vendor to make proposals to ISO? That is news to me, Jesper. The last I checked only NBs and liaison bodies could participate in ISO, not individual companies.
When I wrote this, I actually thought about writing "ECMA" instead of "Microsoft", but I thought it'd be spun regardless. Thanks for confirming that thought.

Also, "ISO" in Denmark is "Danish Standards" (and yes, I know you might be able to argue your way out of this as well) and everyone is more than welcome to approach the Danish committee with suggestions to OOXML or ODF. We'd be delighted to look at anything that comes our way. Indeed, IBM in Denmark has suggested we should propose adding some of the deferred things from DIS-process (like ODF-specific anchoring and positioning within frames) to OOXML. So IBM US might not be participating, but IBM Denmark certainly is.

In any case, with Jesper and Alex, who needs Doug?
I just love being stigmatized by you, dear … but please remember, that I am an "IBM drone" as much as a "Microsoft drone".

:o)

"I suppose at some point Microsoft will approach us with a list of suggested additions to OOXML. That is the prerogative of any vendor or any national body. I presume that is also how it works in ODF TC." What would be interesting is that *other* vendors or NBs not dominated by Microsoft suggest additions to OOXML. That's how it works in ODF TC: it is not a single dominating vendor that proposes additions.

(Note that as Microsoft is not a member of SC34, I'm not sure ISO rules allow them to provide direct input, but I guess ECMA will be pleased to play the in-between.)

Ironically, Microsoft has approached the ODF TC with some new features they are adding to Office 2010. It is odd that they have not done the same thing with OOXML and SC34.

@Cecil,

I don't know if it is just a coincidence, but ever since news stories broke about an imminent settlement with the EC over their antitrust investigation, Microsoft appears to have imposed "radio silence" on Doug and a few other bloggers, especially on matters of controversy. I wouldn't take this as meaning they agree with everything I say, but just that they perceive more risk in responding than benefit. In any case, with Jesper and Alex, who needs Doug?

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate your claims that OOXML will be aligned with Office 2010.

I suppose at some point Microsoft will approach us with a list of suggested additions to OOXML. That is the prerogative of any vendor or any national body. I presume that is also how it works in ODF TC.

We will then look at the suggestions and choose which ones might make sense as additions to OOXML. I imagine that some will – and some won't. Those that won't will remain as Microsoft extensions.

i.e:

http://idippedut.dk/post/2009/11/03/Excel-2010-%28Microsoft-Office-2010-CTP-TO-do-list-%2801%29.aspx#id_54987616-bed5-4c44-8ad9-e5222edd0e32

http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh/archive/2009/11/07/odf-plugfest-and-ooocon-orvieto.aspx#9919160

Zero official response from Microsoft.

I agree that Microsoft will likely never implement the Strict OOXML schema. However that is not the same as saying that it is not useful for Microsoft. I think of it like what chemists call a sacrificial anode. OOXML/Strict is Microsoft's sacrificial anode. Whenever someone points out a flaw in OOXML, or asks for anew feature, or complains that OOXMl is tied to Windows and to Office, or whatever, Microsoft is able to appear responsive fix it in the Strict schema. But then they implement the Transitional schema only. Without the Strict schema, Microsoft would have no sacrificial anode to divert criticism with.

Basically, Alex Brown tells the same story as yours (ISO-29500 Transitional will be aligned with the output of Office 2007/20010; ISO-29500 Strict will likely never see the light of the day) with his own words and twist, of course. The main difference is that he seems happy with this situation…

"But to require support for two different and incompatible versions of OOXML — that is simply intolerable." Microsoft knows this. This is why I predict that they will never produce Strict OOXML. At least not until a big enough part of the market is locked in OOXML Transtional. Then will be the right time to sell (at the high price) upgrades to OOXML Strict…