02.18.08
OOXML Gone with the Wind: No Compatibility, No Interoperability
Things keep getting worse for OOXML. More and more of its dark secrets are being discovered. One has to wonder how many secrets remain in the minds of Office or OOXML engineers who pray that no outsider would find out about them.
The first issue is summarised in this very comprehensive new page which augments existing knowledge about the ‘upgrade trademill [sic]’ anti-features contained in Office 2007. This exceeds old expectations by miles. To quote just the summary:
This paper merely scratches the surface of Office 2007 compatibility issues. Many more issues exist that are application-specific.
Organizations should avoid a mixed environment of Office versions at all costs, even if it means staying with a previous version until Microsoft addresses the compatibility issues.
If Office 2007 must be deployed, then it should be deployed to users as rapidly as possible to avoid:
* Risks of content loss
* Increased training requirements and compatibility-specific end-user reference materials for BOTH Office 2007 and previous office version users.
* Increased strain on I.T. support staff
* Decreased realization of the benefits of the new features of Office 2007
In other news, the binary nature of OOXML is dissected further:
This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
<Relationships xmlns=”…”>
<Relationship Id=”rId7″
Type=”http://…/customProperty” Target=”CustomProperty.bin”/>
</Relationships>[…]
Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
Good Bye Interoperability!
Why does Microsoft continue to escape burning questions about this? What about the issue of OOXML patents and proprietary audio/video codecs (an example from yesterday)? Microsoft keeps denying these patent problems only to be promptly corrected time after time.
Transparency makes good standards; denial makes mistrust, abuse and exploitation. █
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.