MS Office 11 to have XML document format

Post #58,302 by admin 10/22/02 11:29:26 AM Reply	MS Office 11 to have XML document format [link\|http://news.com.com/2100-1001-962835.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed\|http://news.com.com/...?tag=fd_lede1_hed] Adoption of XML means that for the first time, companies would have the option of bypassing proprietary Office file formats used for more than a decade. "It's a big risk for them," said Forrester Research analyst Ted Schadler. "They open up the file format, open up the data feed, open up the template format, and somebody can make a cheaper Office or a better Office. They're going to lose that lock on the file format they've had for 15 years." Microsoft counters that argument by pointing out that the greater use of XML in Office will make the software more flexible and able to read the growing number of business documents generated in XML format. Office 11 supports what Barzdukas described as "arbitrary XML support." Companies that already have deployed Web services would find that their existing schemas--or XML vocabularies--would work with Office 11. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #58,308 by drewk 10/22/02 11:37:32 AM 10/22/02 12:03:08 PM Reply	This is getting too easy Right after what you quoted: Office 11 supports what Barzdukas described as "arbitrary XML support." Companies that already have deployed Web services would find that their existing schemas--or XML vocabularies--would work with Office 11. "We'll be able to read their XML in applications like Word and Excel," Barzdukas said. "Therefore, they won't have to rework their XML schemas. Note that there is no mention of then saving or exporting files in formats that anyone else's applications can read. Once again, they are claiming improved ability to import everyone else's formats. And just what does "arbitrary XML support" mean? Does it mean that users will be able to chose what type of XML to use? As in "import the OpenOffice XML format and save in the MSOffice XML format"? Color me unconvinced that: "It's a big risk for them," said Forrester Research analyst Ted Schadler. "They open up the file format, open up the data feed, open up the template format, and somebody can make a cheaper Office or a better Office. They're going to lose that lock on the file format they've had for 15 years." I see no indication of opening anything up. All I see is the same old claim that if you buy their next product, you won't have any "upgrade" pains. They can import all your existing stuff cleanly. [Edit] And how about this, further down: "If Microsoft can get people to write their applications to Office and make it part of their business processes, it's harder for people to throw Office out and replace it," Silver[1] explained. "They can make it an integral part of actually getting the business done, instead of (using it for) just writing letters." "XML makes Office a rich client for Web services and to fit into larger business processes," Barzdukas[2] said. As Office evolves into a platform for developing XML-connected documents, businesses could start a new cycle of application development that could also benefit software makers other than Microsoft.[3] "We think it's a good idea and customers will benefit from the changes," Schadler[4] said. [1] Gartner analyst Michael Silver [2] Gytis Barzdukas, director of Office product management at Microsoft [3] This seems aufully close to an opinion to be presented unattributed. Gives the impression the publication is endorsing the conclusion. [4] Forrester Research analyst Ted Schadler, the same one who described the "big risk" of "opening up the file format". So we have one analyst explaining how this is going to tie businesses more closely to Office, one saying how this is risky because it cuts the ties, the official Microsoft position that it makes MSOffice more central to businesses. The MS position is of course that this is a good thing. The analyst who thinks its a risky opening up of the formats also says it's a good thing. Since the (apparent) position of the magazine is that it could spur a new round of development by competitors, they seem to be buying the openness argument. Excuse me if I (still) remain unconvinced. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus] Edited by drewk Oct. 22, 2002, 12:03:08 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #58,314 by admin 10/22/02 11:41:02 AM Reply	Re: This is getting too easy To make that happen, Microsoft is turning to what some analysts say is a risky strategy. The company is adopting Extensible Markup Language (XML) as a second file format in all Office applications, to enable better data exchange between the productivity suite and back-end software, such as databases. This "opening up" of Office could end Microsoft's lock on document file formats that have boosted Office sales in years past and made the software the de facto standard for desktop productivity. So, for what that's worth. Second file format, in the tradition of RTF, probably. No one will use it unless requested to. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #58,334 by drewk 10/22/02 12:05:05 PM Reply	Like I said, strictly an import filter And as you said WRT rtf, unless someone explicitly chooses "Save as type" it'll never really exist. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #58,353 by Andrew Grygus 10/22/02 12:22:13 PM Reply	Last I heard, Office 11 will read XML pretty well, but won't really write it effectively. That capability was disabled to protect the current monopoly and is reserved for a "future version of Office". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #58,364 by inthane-chan 10/22/02 12:33:03 PM Reply	Just curious... Was that meant as a joke, or serious? Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised IF they go ahead and use XML as the new save format by default as well - but then encrypt it with a proprietary compression scheme copyrighted by M$ and protected under the DMCA. All saving in the XML format means is removing the compression and encryption. "Hey, you can save in the standard format, but our format is so much smaller!" That, plus it still won't solve the issue of ActiveX components being included with documents... End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #58,416 by wharris2 10/22/02 1:49:21 PM Reply	Besides, XML is a framework If whatever Word/Excel/Office lookalike doesn't know what "msoft_format_special" is (just picking something out of the air), it should still be able to parse the XML, it just won't be able to do whatever "msoft_format_special" is trying to tell it to do.
Post #58,466 by imric 10/22/02 4:33:52 PM Reply	msoft_format_special parses the binary data that actually composes the document. Compressed/encrypted/proprietary formatting language, it doesn't matter. XML doesn't guarantee that the data is actually text and readable, does it? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #58,471 by jake123 10/22/02 4:47:34 PM Reply	Re: msoft_format_special IIRC (If I Read Correctly) XML guarantees that it's text, but doesn't guarantee readibility. So... they could encrypt the data in the fields and make it legitimate XML while still garnering protection via anti-circumventing laws, like the DMCA. This would in fact close the format even more than it currently is... clean room reverse engineering of binary data formats is perfectly allowable under the law, but reverse engineering encryption of data is not... cf. Skylarov, DeCSS. --\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \r\n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \r\n Laval Qu\ufffdbec Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #58,479 by drewk 10/22/02 5:05:39 PM Reply	No guarantee at all IIRC (If I Read Correctly) XML guarantees that it's text, but doesn't guarantee readibility. Not at all. XML just describes the structure for formatting tags, and allows linking to an external DTD that defines the contents and parameters of the tags. It basically allows you to define a custom markup language. It is perfectly legal in XML for one of the tags to define binary data. This is required for images, but can easily be used for arbitrary binary streams. ie: ActiveX controls, Java applets, compressed/encrypted text, etc. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #58,907 by jb4 10/23/02 3:30:12 PM Reply	Well, hold on there a second... If I were to get something that told me it was XML, I (per your statement) could legally assume it's text. I could then legally reverse engineer that text. That it's encrypted is hardly an issue...unless Microsoft specifically claims it's encrypted, so as to invoke whatever shell of DMCA it might to protect its monopoly. And they wouldn't do that (IMnsHO), because it would be "bad press". (I can see the headlines now in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Microsoft Admits Scrambling Your Data." "Your Letters to Mom Encoded so Only Microsoft Can Read Them." Might actually be fun....) jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #58,562 by wharris2 10/22/02 7:20:33 PM Reply	Reading some of the other comments, So it is special, but it isn't special? Heehee.
Post #58,354 by deSitter 10/22/02 12:23:55 PM Reply	Ugh - die XML, die! -drl
Post #58,370 by mmoffitt 10/22/02 12:42:22 PM Reply	Seconded.
Post #58,956 by warmachine 10/23/02 6:35:26 PM Reply	Don't trust published MS formats I once had to write an RTF reader/writer. You'd think that as RTF is a published standard, it would be easy. It was painful. RTF is built around MS Word concepts and is an alternative streaming format for MS Word, not a generic description of a document. MS Word would fail if specific combinations of control words were missing, even though it's supposed to handle missing or optional control words gracefully. Resolution of conflicts between control words were not described - these had to determined by trial and error. Some documentation was simply missing. For example, it failed to describe the code for fields for today's date, let alone date formatting options - this had to be reverse engineered from RTF documents saved by MS Word. MS Office will use XML to create open file formats? Keep dreaming. Microsoft antitrust violations - is it possible to be any more guilty, except using violence?
Post #59,002 by wharris2 10/24/02 12:10:11 AM Reply	Trial and error? Try VB database access sometime Talk about trial and error. Visual Basic (at least earlier versions, who knows what the hell VB.net does) would error out on common conditions and, hell, is finickier than Grandma.
Post #59,093 by mmoffitt 10/24/02 12:32:14 PM Reply	If you use DAO, you deserve what you get. Or Jet, for that matter. Which is why Exchange is such a collosal POS. Around about the time VB4 came out, MS bought this thing from some company in NY that they renamed RDO (remote data objects). That got morphed into ADO. The problems I've had w/ADO stemmed from the MS goo that was being put into RDO (never underestimate MS's ability to "enhance" a product into utter worthlessness) and version incompatabilities (Aside: they shipped ADO w/just about everything and by the time of versions 2.1, 2.1a,b,c 2.2, 2.21, etc, damned near everything broke). But, RDO was solid and ADO (using >= v 2.5) I haven't had any problems with (except when trying to connect to DB2/400 [note: not DB2 UDB]). DAO, OTOH, is a pile of excrement even by MS standards.
Post #59,143 by wharris2 10/24/02 2:26:49 PM Reply	Re: If you use DAO, you deserve what you get. Actually, I was thinking of the even earlier database access - what was that pile of gently steaming dung called?
Post #59,236 by mmoffitt 10/24/02 7:34:48 PM Reply	Stumped me. You talking prior to VB3? VB3 was the first rev of VB I played with to any extent and iirc you used DAO w/it. No?
Post #59,242 by wharris2 10/24/02 7:58:51 PM Reply	Something about bound controls? There was something in VB3 that used "bound controls" or something like that, but I don't remember what it was called (other than four-letter words.) Had a consulting group (read: newbies but we'll claim we're consulting and learn while doing) do a couple of programs with it; they didn't know even about DAO (or is that DOA?) I do understand ADO and its minions are better. But I haven't done enough VB programming to tell if Microsoft has really desanitized the fly-swarming heap of crap its VB database access has been in the past.
Post #59,243 by mmoffitt 10/24/02 8:02:42 PM Reply	OMG! The "Data Control". Only a friggin' moron uses "bound controls". Jesus! I never knew anyone actually billed for that kind of crap. DAO is the object model that the "Data Control" was built on (basically a wrapper for the Jet Engine). Gack! I just realized I'm confessing to more knowledge/experience about this than I'd like to with you guys. <:-O bcnu, Mikem
Post #59,247 by wharris2 10/24/02 8:07:45 PM Reply	Chuckle Company finally realized the path of insanity the project was taking and rewrote the application using... well, I don't know what since I wasn't involved in it (fortunately). Hopefully ADO was available by that time.
Post #59,355 by CRConrad 10/25/02 3:26:48 AM Reply	Clarification/emphasis needed: MikeM rants: OMG! The "Data Control". Only a friggin' moron uses "bound controls". Jesus! I never knew anyone actually billed for that kind of crap. DAO is the object model that the "Data Control" was built on (basically a wrapper for the Jet Engine). That should be, "Only a friggin' moron uses Visual Basic bound controls". Sure, VB is what this discussion is all about -- but, if someone saw this post in isolation, this far down the thread the context may be lost; the condemnation of bound controls looks quite general... Delphi's bound controls work quite nicely, thankyouverymuch. (Whole 'nother object model, and so forth, but the same name 'coz it's basic[Heh! :-]ally the same concept.) Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #59,449 by mmoffitt 10/25/02 3:04:19 PM Reply	Hmmmm... I have no experience w/Delphi/Kylix "bound" controls. However, bound controls only make sense for read (or select) access - just viewing existing data, not altering it. I maintain that anyone who uses a bound control for updating a table hasn't properly secured his/her database. Unless Delphi can bind a control to a parameter of a stored procedure, using bound controls for anything but displaying data is not a good idea, imnsho. bcnu, Mikem
Post #59,522 by CRConrad 10/25/02 6:40:06 PM Reply	Even better than that! [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/user?userid=109\|MikeM] proclaims: I have no experience w/Delphi/Kylix "bound" controls. Yeah, I figured as much. So, if that's all the clarification you're going to give, I supose we'll have to settle for that. However, bound controls only make sense for read (or select) access - just viewing existing data, not altering it. Depends -- what's wrong with, for example, using bound controls to update records in a local DBase or Paradox table, where your app is guaranteed to be the only one to access the table at any given time? I maintain that anyone who uses a bound control for updating a table hasn't properly secured his/her database. Yeah, you do... "maintain", that is -- regardless of the fact that you just confessed your complete ignorance about at least one kind of bound controls. Do you always pronounce such cut-and-dried opinions on stuff you've just admitted to not knowing anything about? What if, for example, there were a way to use RDBMS server data pretty much as if it were a local DBase or Paradox table? Ever considered, for example, actually using a local DBase or Paradox table to cache data for each user in, locally on his/her machine? I know that works -- I've done it! (This was before the dbExpress architecture was introduced.) (And in the process, I made a TDBGrid look almost like a damn spreadsheet, by going through and updating the local Pdx table on-the-fly... :-) That's also pretty much how Borland used to do it... (Though admittedly that first attempt was somewhat flaky and resource-intensive in the beginning; that's why I rolled my own, simpler, variant.) Only, nowadays they've replaced TCachedDataSet with the even better TClientDataSet (see more below). Unless Delphi can bind a control to a parameter of a stored procedure, using bound controls for anything but displaying data is not a good idea, imnsho. Delphi can do much better -- it can bind a control to a TClientDataSet, which in turn is de-cached back onto the server (when you call the `ApplyUpdates` method) as a parameter of a stored procedure (though more normally as one parameter of a parameterized `INSERT` statement) -- or pretty much any way you want to handle it, in a `BeforeUpdateRecord` event handler. This [link\|http://bdn.borland.com/article/images/29106/migrating_bde_applications_to_dbexpress.pdf\|white paper by Bill Todd] really discusses the migration of BDE-based applications to dbExpress, but in the process it becomes maybe the best intermediate-level explanation of that new architecture (also called "provide/resolve") I've seen. "Recommended", as JerryP would say. Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #59,642 by mmoffitt 10/26/02 5:23:13 PM Reply	Devil's Advocate. >>What if, for example, there were a way to use RDBMS server data pretty much >>as if it were a local DBase or Paradox table? I can do that w/ADO Disconnected recordsets. I can also suck data down to a local db, then call the BatchUpdate method and handle all my errors from all the stuff I've done at that point. It's a different approach, but one I've infrequently used. Still, that approach doesn't demand "bound controls". >>What if, for example, there were a way to use RDBMS server data pretty much >>as if it were a local DBase or Paradox table? Ever considered, for example, >>actually using a local DBase or Paradox table to cache data for each user >>in, locally on his/her machine? Considered and (almost always) rejected. I can imagine cases where that might make sense, but I can imagine even more cases where replication would be a better solution. Here's my point. I've found it easier and cleaner to write sp's, rules, triggers, etc. on the db server and create custom error messages to be passed back to the client apps (be they my own, some one elses or even, GACK, MS Access). My client apps then, become only pretty shells for populating parameters of stored procedures, and handling some generic error trapping code that can just display what the db server said was wrong. I don't see what's wrong with this strategy, moreover, I don't see what bound controls give me for update/insert. Except maybe, if as you say and I can "bind" a text box control to a parameter of a sp_mytable_update stored procedure, then I skip having to write a couple lines of code. As for using Dbase, I did. Long ago when it owned the market (mid to late 1980's). I was even a ClipperHead (if you know what that was). But Dbase now? I don't think so. It had it's day in the sun and that day passed along time ago. (.DBF, .MDX, .CDX, .NTX, .NDX, blech!) bcnu, Mikem
Post #59,653 by CRConrad 10/26/02 7:00:55 PM Reply	Topsy-turvy upside-down argumentation from MikeM (new thread) Created as new thread #59652 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=59652\|Topsy-turvy upside-down argumentation from MikeM] Christian R. Conrad Microsoft is a true reflection of Bill Gates' personality - the sleaziest, most unethical, ugliest little rat's ass the world has seen unto this time. -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=42971\|Andrew Grygus]

Welcome to IWETHEY!