Source files of fsfe.org, pdfreaders.org, freeyourandroid.org, ilovefs.org, drm.info, and test.fsfe.org. Contribute: https://fsfe.org/contribute/web/ https://fsfe.org
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

msooxml-converter-hoax.en.xhtml 5.2KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142
  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
  2. <html>
  3. <head>
  4. <title>FSFE - The converter hoax</title>
  5. </head>
  6. <body>
  7. <h1>The converter hoax</h1>
  8. <p>
  9. Originally published on Heise.de, 2007 July 16th.
  10. </p>
  11. <p>
  12. Conversion between Microsoft's Office OpenXML (MS-OOXML) and the
  13. vendor-independent Open Document Format (ODF) has been proposed by
  14. Microsoft and its associates as a solution to the problems caused by
  15. Microsoft's efforts to push a format into the market that conflicts with
  16. the existing Open Standard. Microsoft's business partners Novell,
  17. Xandros, Linspire and Turbolinux all committed themselves to work on the
  18. converter in the individual deals they signed.
  19. </p>
  20. <p>
  21. Just like the UK National Archives fell for the myth of better archival
  22. through MS-OOXML, which has been analysed in more depth in a recent
  23. followup <a href="msooxml-questions-for-ms.html">article</a> in the BBC
  24. Technology news, influential groups like Gartner have swallowed the
  25. converter claim hook, line and sinker.
  26. </p>
  27. <p>
  28. Here is the problem: If these converters were actually able to do what
  29. they promise to do, they would be unnecessary.
  30. </p>
  31. <p>
  32. When the standardisation effort around Open Document Format (ODF) began,
  33. Microsoft was invited to participate, and chose to remain
  34. silent. Although people implore them until today to join the global
  35. standardisation effort, Microsoft does not contribute its ideas and
  36. suggestions to the multi-vendor Open Document Format.
  37. </p>
  38. <p>
  39. Instead Microsoft focusses on MS-OOXML, which it promotes on the grounds
  40. of technical superiority and wider range of features. But if Microsoft's
  41. claims to technical superiority of MS-OOXML over ODF are true, how could
  42. one ever be converted perfectly into the other?
  43. </p>
  44. <p>
  45. Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the
  46. Open Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because
  47. this was the only way for them to offer the full features of its office
  48. suite. But if Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data
  49. structures in the Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office
  50. suite, how could an external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish
  51. this task?
  52. </p>
  53. <p>
  54. The answer to both questions is that it is not possible because two
  55. things cannot be the same and different at the same time.
  56. </p>
  57. <p>
  58. If the two formats could in fact represent the exact same data, there
  59. would be no reason for MS-OOXML to exist. And there would be no excuse
  60. for Microsoft not to use ODF natively for its office application.
  61. </p>
  62. <p>
  63. So Microsoft had to add some additional features to make both formats
  64. represent different data and function sets. This means it will never be
  65. possible to convert all documents from one format to the other.
  66. </p>
  67. <p>
  68. The promise of the converters is an empty one. It is a hoax.
  69. </p>
  70. <p>
  71. If users of MS-OOXML make use of the Microsoft specific functions, they
  72. will find themselves locked into as much vendor and product-dependency as
  73. if no Open Standard or converter existed.
  74. </p>
  75. <p>
  76. To gain at least some of the advantages of Open Standards, users of
  77. MS-OOXML would have to avoid using any of the Microsoft specific
  78. functions and features, and stay within the realm of the existing
  79. functionality of the converter.
  80. </p>
  81. <p>
  82. But how can a user know which function is Microsoft specific?
  83. </p>
  84. <p>
  85. Microsoft Office does not have warning labels on its buttons and it does
  86. not have a "use ODF-compliant functions only" setting. In fact, it does
  87. not even support the Open Document Format natively, because Microsoft has
  88. more interest in lock-in than competition.
  89. </p>
  90. <p>
  91. The only effective way for users of Microsoft Office to avoid that
  92. lock-in into a single-vendor dependency would be to save all their
  93. documents in the Open Document Format (ODF) by using the ODF plugin for
  94. Microsoft.
  95. </p>
  96. <p>
  97. In other words: The only way to not be locked into MS-OOXML is to stay
  98. away from it. Because no matter what Microsoft and its business partners
  99. claim, the converters promote lock-in, they don't avoid it.
  100. </p>
  101. <p>
  102. More questions that you should be asking <a
  103. href="msooxml-questions.html">are online</a>.
  104. </p>
  105. <h2>Related reading</h2>
  106. <ul>
  107. <li><a href="/documents/msooxml-interoperability.html">Interoperability woes with MS-OOXML</a></li>
  108. <li><a href="/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies.html">DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?</a></li>
  109. <li><a href="/documents/msooxml-questions.html">Six questions to national standardisation bodies</a></li>
  110. <li><a href="/documents/msooxml-questions-for-ms.html">Questions for Microsoft on Open Formats</a></li>
  111. </ul>
  112. </body>
  113. <timestamp>$Date$ $Author$</timestamp>
  114. </html>
  115. <!--
  116. Local Variables: ***
  117. mode: xml ***
  118. End: ***
  119. -->