Talk:Open XML Paper Specification

=License openess

Microsoft's licensing terms for XPS and shared source simply state that incorporating MS code with code under some other license (e.g., GPL) does not subject the MS code to the other license's terms. In other words, agreeing to a contract with company X does not subject you to a contract from company Y (which you never signed/agreed to).

Clarification?

"XPS is viewed as a potential competitor to Adobe's portable document format (PDF). XPS however is a static document format that does not include dynamic capabilities similar to those of PDF." What does that really mean? RobertM525 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably that XPS has nothing like forms, multimedia etc. It's just GDI++. --Oneiros 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But it has the thing that the majority of PDF users use: storing static documents as they'd be printed. What proportion of PDF documents really use the scripting, multimedia or forms features? --James 10:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It might all be moot anyhow, it looks like Adobe is going to go down the route of taking proactive legal action to prevent Microsoft from getting too far down this route.[1] Warrens 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"What proportion of PDF documents really use the scripting, multimedia or forms features?" -- It doesn't matter, the difference is this among other things anyway. -- Northgrove 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter, the difference is this among other things anyway." -- Nevertheless, if it is seen as having less demanding requirements for viewing, saving, and printing, it may have an advantage: Adobe's reader is often viewed as unnecessarily bloated, both in size and in computational requirements. If viewers for XPS are smaller and faster, it could be seen as an advantage. If plugins are made for the major browsers, I could easily see this as replacing PDF for the vast majority of users. CobraA1 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Northgrove is correct here. The statement is that "PDF does things that XPS doesn't, therefore when those things are useful, PDF will be the only thing that provides those things". The question of how often they're useful is moot as long as they are useful sometimes.

I would like to see that statement expanded a bit. "dynamic capabilities" is a very vague statement that doesn't mean much to the reader. Heck, it's my field and I had no idea what was meant by it without reading the discussion. Can we change it to "...does not currently include the ability to display dynamic content such as scripting, forms or animations..."? - Robert Rapplean 17:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversations about Why

Why has Microsoft decided to do this? Is there a reason why they wanted to create a pdf-like format? I searched the microsoft website and found nothing. Maybe if someone finds a formal reason from Microsoft, you can add it to the article.

I don't have a formal reason from Microsoft, but the primary purpose of XPS is to be a method of printing. You make various printing calls that are converted into XPS XML and then shipped off to the printer driver. Thus, communicating with a printer "directly" requires only throwing an XPS XML document at it. As a useful side effect, you can print to a file that can easily be read by other programs (whether print drivers or GUI applications). Lastly, you have the potential ability to algorithmically convert any document into XPS without bothering with graphics calls and the Windows XPS converter. Korval 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good question... Also, why isn't the Word doc format not good for this...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.102.124.102 (talk • contribs)-28T18:48:28.

The Word format is no good for any use that involves accurate reproduction of formatting on more than one computer. It’s apparently so complex that even different versions of Word have difficulty accurately rendering documents, let alone third-party software designed to run on low-powered hardware. Also, in order for them to achieve their goals with this, they’d basically have to open the Word format to competition, which Microsofts believes would cost them their monopoly. —Felix the Cassowary 01:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Before having read anything about the license, I'd have said they are trying to create a PDF-like proprietary standard that Free Software can't use. The summary of the licensing (on Wikipedia) sounds okay, but I'd be inclined to have an extremely careful read through it before dropping all suspicion.

It does require source code to include: This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52369.

Then it goes on to say: By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license. - James Foster 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously part of Microsoft's "Every format should belong to us" - business strategy. They plan on succeeding with this by integrating this new format into Windows. I'd say that it's a clear case of that old "monopoly violation" you all heard of before.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.248.82.7 (talk • contribs)-08T13:12:52.

Be reasonable. Microsoft has announced they plan to standardize XPS through a standards body (cf. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061015-7992.html). Everyone needs access to a free, reliable, non-proprietary fixed document format (PDF is proprietary). This is a good thing. 131.107.0.73 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PDF is a submitted ISO standard. --Jaded-view 16:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

220.239.127.104 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ChrisAlexander 5th Dec 2006 I Believe; you are right about Doc being way too complex, large file size, no portability etc... for a few years Microsoft have been using XML or variations to deliver information. Now it seems like they will use it for MS Word too. "docx" is a new format, but it probably will be overtaken by XPS. If they could switch over like a Light Switch, they probably would, but hey look at what switching over did for VB6 to VB.Net (many coders were not happy, and cried for days, boo-hoo ;) Why not just use PDF? Well they could, but if their plan is to have MS Word save as XPS as default in the future, then there's no point really. People can still print XPS to PDF can't they?

- Real Life and Down to Earth - If we all sat around thinking about it for a while we would just start creating HTML files (instead of Doc) MS tried to have "save as... html" but you still needed IE or MS Word to read the stupid things, so it was almost pointless. Maybe XPS will get around this issue, where XML is standardised, it could make it easier for other platforms to read/write to.

Actually, that's kind of what they're doing. XMS is basically a zip file with a standard directory structure. That structure contains an XML file which will provide the functionality of HTML, but is more specific to print production instead of web rendering. Unlike HTML, it also includes all the fonts, images, etc. that are necessary to produce the finished document. - Robert Rapplean 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

XPS is a "smaller download" to read files than PDF?

Seriously, I had no idea people were still using Adobe's bloatware to read something so simple as a PDF. --Mike 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this line:

a smaller download in current OSes.

Firstly it appears to be OR. Secondly, it's potentially a bit misleading as the Essentials pack requires MSXML 6.0. As this is an additional component that many Windows XP computers won't have by default it had to be considered even if it is only 1.5mb Nil Einne 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

XPS Propriety ?

Guys we are not publishing the facts here. XPS is not Propriety. PDF is.Its an open standard and available for download. Its better than pdf because its XML. When you use XML you become vendor independent. Thats something a layman can also understand. Adobe is trying to do everything of PDF. But what's the original purpose. To have a device independent portable document. I would say XML is clear winner over any propriety standard. Whether its doc or anything else. Kunaldeo 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Wiki defines "proprietary" (which is what I assume you meant) as "a party, or proprietor, exercising private ownership, control or use over an item of property, usually to the exclusion of other parties". Nothing could be further from the truth in the case of PDF, which has been openly documented since 1993 (and "downloadable" as you cite). There is an entire industry, of 100s (maybe 1000s) of companies, built around producing, processing and consuming PDF content. There is no licensing required to produce or consume PDF, no fee payable, no undocumented file format, and no DRM. The format is even published in book form and available from any good bookstore! As if that wasn't enough, in January 2007 Adobe announced that it is releasing the PDF 1.7 specification to the AIIM for publication by the ISO. nemo 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unattributed UI criticism

"Adobe Reader also has a less-than-stellar user interface due to issues like the feature bloat and inconvenient navigation/zooming". Says who? If Acrobat is inconvenient, what does that make the XPS Viewer (plug-in or stand-alone)? Prehistoric? Minimalist? nemo 10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this section can be much improved. One thing that is often considered bloat is the multimedia abilities that Adobe has added to the format. Most of the time, the format is used for print media - why add multimedia capabilities to something intended for print? Seriously, there are very, very few people who actually use the multimedia aspect of PDF files. The vast majority of people use PDF for stuff that's intended to be sent to a printer - and XPS happens to do print stuff, so it's competing directly with PDF. Most people are going to be using Flash for multimedia, not PDF. CobraA1 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that XPS supports custom namespaces and as such can be extended (or "bloated") by third-party developers should they so wish (in addition to Microsoft). XPS is extremely young compared to PDF, so its current lack of little-used features may be remedied in time! nemo 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, folks. This is an article on XPS, not on Adobe Reader. Could we move the Adobe Reader criticism to the Adobe Reader page? - Robert Rapplean 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section looks more like a criticism of Adobe (in particular, Acrobat) than anything approaching a criticism of XPS. While the first few sentences do mention some things, important points such as Embrace Extend, and Exterminate are left to the end and are made out to be mainly bad points about Adobe Acrobat. Why all the comparison with Adobe anyway? Are we confusing a "specification" with "a program designed to read files of that specification". XPS cannot be compared to Acrobat, because one is a program, and the other isn't. --User:Snow93

Agreed. Comparing XPS to PDF is a valid exercise (especially when comparing the resources required to process such documents). Comparing a feature-rich application (Acrobat) to a feature-poor one (XPS Viewer) proves nothing of the formats' relative merits. nemo 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Self reference

The example is image is good, but is self-referential and ought to be replaced with something more neutral per Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. Maybe a vendor-supplied example. Dcoetzee 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I don't understand this comment. Dcoetzee, is it the Wikipedia front page that you take issue to? The Wikipedia policy against self-reference basically says "don't define the XML Paper Specification as a specification for paper that uses XML". More succinctly, don't define a dog as an animal that is a dog. The contents of the print page are entirely meaningless as long as it's something that the viewer might have a frame of reference for. The Wikipedia front page certainly qualifies. - Robert Rapplean 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)