Talk:Office Open XML

Metro vs Office Open XML

What is the difference between "Metro file format" and "Open XML"? Was "Metro" the code name before it was finished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.85 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ZIP-compatible

What does that mean, it would seem to be important, since it's in the first sentence? Is it just a reference to: ZIP_(file_format)#Combining_ZIP_with_other_file_formats "it is possible to author a file that is both a working ZIP archive and another format, provided that the other format tolerates arbitrary data at its end, beginning, or middle." Or does it mean you can add Office Open XML files to a zip archive and effectively compress them? Is it in contrast to some other file type that is not Zip compatible? Could someone please clarify or have the guts to remove the fragment? Mathiastck (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reference to the fact that if you ask a zip program to unzip an .docx file, you end up with a bunch of smaller files, each containing part of the file content. Should probably be "zip-based", not "zip-compatible" - although (more) strictly speaking, it is the Open Packaging Format that is zip-based, not the document format as such. --Alvestrand (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was meant to mean that the zip compression algorithm was originally proprietary, but did not belong to Microsoft. So the compression algorithm they use to compress all the XML files into the docx (or whatever) archive is not 'zip', but it is compatible with 'zip'. And no, I have no idea how you condense that into a few crisp words in an opening sentence either. It's covered again in the 'File formats' section, but is still not that clear to a non-expert IMHO. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alvestrand above; I interpreted it as referring to the fact the file format is basically a ZIP file containing a bunch of files. A bit like JAR. I've altered it to "ZIP-based". Even taking into account what Nigelj says, "ZIP-based" still works for "a file format based on or derived from ZIP". mmj (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Office Open XML is ZIP-based format, this is not important enough for the first sentence of the article. It is certainly worth a mention in another section of the article (Delafield (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Softmaker

Notice a mention of this has been removed on grounds of non-notability. Not so sure about that -- in my own experience it is mentioned quite a bit (when discussing OOXML), and it has attracted some third-party attention also e.g. from Andy Updegrove Alexbrn (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think it ranks above OpenOffice.org, Apple TextEdit and iWork, IBM Lotus Notes, Corel Wordperfect and Google apps as being important software that supports OOXML? How many users does it have? Is it fully compatible, in that it can read and write all the formats (docx, xslx, pptx, etc)? I've never heard of it, so I'm just asking, but a citation would be good too. --Nigelj (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, wouldn't want to "rank" it - those other apps are notable too. But the SoftMaker suite is unusual in claiming to save (not just load) OOXML (at least DOCX and XLSX files). I've no idea how compatible/conformant it is. However, I don't think non-notability is a good reason not to mention it ... I just found an Infoworld article on it too. I have also re-worded the reference to make it more cautious! Alexbrn (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"Open XML"

I have re-instated the mention in the opening that this format is referred to as "Open XML". Like it or not (and most don't - including me), this name is used, even by those who don't like it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll put back the {fact} tag that prompted me to remove it earlier. 'XML' has always been 'open', this is an application of XML not an opening of it. If you want that one in, then find a WP:RS that says it's its name (clue: blogs are not normally considered reliable sources). --Nigelj (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not its name, it's what it is "known as"; Google "Open XML" too see that it's common usage (e.g. this ZDNet UK article if you want press). It's a characteristic of usages that they are diffuse rather than cited by an authoritative reference, hence the cite tag here is just silly. (BTW, I agree with your opinion about the term "open xml" -- but we're dealing with facts here, not opinions). Alexbrn (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to mention "Open XML", it doesn't seem to be commonly-used enough to warrant a mention (although the zdnet exception is noted). Prominently displaying in wikipedia on the other hand, in bold, in the first sentence, encourages an obviously incorrect and confusing naming. There's enough (deliberate?) confusion in the naming already. Thrapper (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The ZDNet article is from 2007! "Open XML" is included in the phrase "Office Open XML", so a more sophisticated search would be required. And thirdly, a lot of what you find on the web is either mirrored from what we say here, or fact-checked or based on what we say here. In this case I don't think we are following any common usage as much as creating a large part of it. I'm glad it has now gone from our text. --Nigelj (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is misleading because Office Open XML may refer to the ECMA standard or the ISO/IEC standard, for example. I will try to have that reflected in the first sentence. (Delafield (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Interestingly, the first hits on the Gsearch "open xml" -"office open xml" refer to something that is not Office Open XML. --Alvestrand (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's simply wrong to say that this spec is not known as "OpenXML" (and of course most mainstream media mentions will be from a while back, since that is when the mainstream media was interested in this subject!). Check out: Infoworld for many examples. And of course Microsoft themselves use this term nearly exclusively. Airbrushing the term out of this article is an attempt to alter reality, not to reflect it. As we can see, there is a large corpus of text out there that uses this term -- people coming across it and turning to Wikipedia would expect to have that usage clarified; we shouldn't mislead them, no matter how 'glad' that makes us! Alexbrn (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Maintence section

This article needs a substantial section about the maintenance phase of the specification. In particular, a description of the lack of maintenance being done on the standard, as per this and this. (The latter is a blog post by Alex Brown, who convened the OOXML approval committee, in which he says the standard is "heading towards failure") Raul654 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to mention that blog entry too (thanks to the slashdot discussion), but then it appears that the blog author is already fairly active in this page already so I figured he'd be in a better position to write something accurate :) Thrapper (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and more generally a section or two over the controversy around OOXML must be added! At the moment the article reads as very plain and whitewashed. Mathmo ^Talk 03:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the need for an entire section dealing solely with the controversy. We already have this, for instance,

The ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered, with IBM threatening to leave standards bodies that it said allow dominant corporations like Microsoft to wield undue influence. Microsoft was accused of co-opting the standardization process by leaning on countries to ensure that it got enough votes at the ISO for Office Open XML to pass.

Which appears alongside a link to the Standardization of Office Open XML article, where the controversy is discussed in depth. --Xyiyizi 18:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A section about controversy and criticism doesn't really come under the "Maintence (sic) section" but it is a valid suggestion. Controversy about the standardization process is indeed covered elsewhere, but I believe Mathmo was talking more generally about criticism about OOXML. There used to be a criticism section (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&oldid=314111559#Criticism_of_ECMA-376_1st_edition ) but any criticism of OOXML in this page has been persistently deleted by a number of dedicated individuals. Thrapper (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right, criticism of the spec itself. Yes, I agree that should be in there somewhere. --Xyiyizi 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Employees? Kidding :P But clearly it shouldn't be as whitewashed as is it is now, after all I do believe (IMHO) that the majority of the news coverage OOXML has got is because of troubles it has had.... to ignore this is mind boggling. If people do remove worthy inclusions in the article then it should be reverted and then discussed here on the talk page Mathmo ^Talk 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have some time to kill, have a browse through the archives of this talk page (see the small yellow box at the top of this page). It makes for some entertaining reading. Thrapper (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read through all of the archives too. The vast majority of the contention this article has had can be put down to one rather, err, cantankerous and persistent fellow, who is now banned. I suppose making the article more neutral and getting a consensus about it should be easier now, but we should be careful not to go too far the other way.--Xyiyizi 11:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about going one way or the other (whether it is "too far" or not). Take note that a number of editors (myself included) worked hard several months back to remove the "criticism" section and disperese its relevant information more usefully throughout the article, in line with Wikipedia best practice. I strongly second the suggestion to study the talk archive as (in addition to the bun fights) a lot of thoughtful hard work has gone into make the OOXML articles as they are today. As well as having pro-format trolls there has been damage from anti-format trolls too! Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

IBM Resistance/Controversy

Hi All,

The article states, "The ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered, with IBM threatening to leave standards bodies that it said allow dominant corporations like Microsoft to wield undue influence. Microsoft was accused of co-opting the standardization process by leaning on countries to ensure that it got enough votes at the ISO for Office Open XML to pass.[14]"

This appears to be a nearly verbatin quote from [14]. Unfortunately, [14] does not cite a source for its sensational claim. Perhaps it would be a good idea to cite IBM? Or simply state that IBM opposed the specification (and cite [14]) until the claim can be substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right I modified the section to reflect the fact that this is InfoWorld view only. Until someone finds such quotation from an IBM source. In addition, I do not trust InfoWorld. It employs weasel wording to accuse Microsoft. Fleet Command (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you challenging the statement that 'the ISO standardization of Office Open XML was controversial and embittered'? Do you think it actually went very smoothly and amicably, with just this one publication, InfoWorld, making such an unusual claim? Well. I have no objection to people finding additional references to cover specific details - have a look in Standardization of Office Open XML, you may find something there that'll help - but I think that the general statement will have to be restored, to avoid falsely giving an impression that of all involved, only InfoWorld noticed any discord. --Nigelj (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am challenging the said statement due to the lack of evidence to believe otherwise. If it was indeed embittered, InfoWorld was a poor choice for representing a gist of Standardization of Office Open XML article. Apart from my lack of trust for tabloids, (especially in regard to their favorite sport which is Microsoft-bashing,) I do not trust a journal that employs weasel words.

I just finished reading Standardization of Office Open XML and it gave me no evidence as to the extreme situation that InfoWorld tries to make me believe. InfoWorld is obviously exaggerating the situation. It seems that the process was Controversial but nontheless devoid of any wrongdoing, as stated by two official bodies which further investigated the issue.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is sourced to a WP:RS. Present a source which contradicts it and add that they disagree. Or use google and find many which confirm it. Takes seconds. Verbal chat 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)