Linspire to help develop ODF-OpenXML translators

Quelle surpris!

The headline should read

Linspire help entrench Microsoft's proprietary specification as defacto standard.

Although -

There is a side to all of this that you're overlooking...

The very fact that Microsoft is trying to get OOXML->ODF (or ODF->OOXML, or whatever) translators developed is an assessment that ODF matters.

Quoting:The very fact that Microsoft is trying to get OOXML->ODF (or ODF->OOXML, or whatever) translators developed is an assessment that ODF matters.

Yes, it does mean that.

However the translation is being done, primarily on the FOSS, or at least Linux, side of the equation, as indeed every non Microsoft inspired attempt at interoperability between Microsoft proprietary specifications and open standards has been in the past, which means that Microsoft is likely driving this round of interoperability in order to side line the Open standards embodied in ODF.

Which would mean that eventually ODF would no longer matter.

All that matters to MS is that you can get from ODF to OOXML. They don't care the other way around. They don't want interoperability but they want a one-way street to MS lock-in.

Quoting:All that matters to MS is that you can get from ODF to OOXML.

Indeed. It's unlikely that Microsoft will invest a great deal in getting from OOXML to ODF, only as much as is necessary for appearance sake, and it's unlikely that OOXML to ODF translators will be an easily accessible option on Microsoft's Office products, or evn that Microsoft will do anything to make it well known that such a choice is available.

What I see here is an attempt to normalise document formats on OOXML by creating a situation - the translators, which are being developed in the the Linux/FOSS/Open Standards domain - where ODF conforms to OOXML.

If Microsoft's Open XML format is truly 'open', why does anyone have to enter into a patent agreement in order to develop translators for the format?

If it were truly 'open', you would just have to read the specs.

>If it were truly 'open', you would just have to read the specs.

Yup.

My personal test is whether you can change OOXML from Office to ODF for, well, anything else, with a simply transform. I could even live with a few glitches if the basic document came out mostly right.

If you can't do these things, then the format isn't open.

This is a crucial moment in time for Microsoft. If they don't control the standard, they will lose customers. But even if MS "wins," an open standard for document formatting will cost it market share.

In the unlikely even that ODF is adopted by any large entities in the face of Microsoft's "marketing," Open Office and open source gains legitimacy. MS will have to add ODF as one of its formats.

In the likely event that OpenXML gains traction (and how, with Microsoft behind it, can it fail?), can Microsoft prevent Sun and other developers from incorporating it into their product? That would make it less than open, no?

As long as the format is open, who cares which one "wins"? As long as everybody is free to use ODF or OpenXML, I don't think it matters so much -- and how can OpenXML be "open" unless every developer has equal access to it?

What I'm also wondering is what do each of these "standards" offer, and how do they differ? Rather than play off evil empire vs. FOSS, I think it's time for us all to figure out what's going on from both a technical and legal standpoint.