Forum Moderators: phranque
To create, as a community, the leading international office suite that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format.
No wonder M$ is so hot to get their XDocs product launched - they've been beaten to the punch!
Follow on article: [www-106.ibm.com...]
René.
Rene, not sure I agree with you on this. ;) XML documents are text files that anyone can read with a text editor. The DTDs and Schemas are also open source as they are referenced by the XML document and must be readable. For example "<DOCTYPE hockeyTeam SYSTEM "dtd/hockeyTeam.dtd">"
M$ may/will (I expect they would) be using some sort of proprietary program to edit, publish, and view XML documents so yes, that's not open source. And I can even see them copyrighting the DTD/Schema but I would think that the documents themselves would still be text files in an XML format.
Or do you know something that I'm obviously unaware of?
The format will be documented, but you won't get the documentation unless you sign an NDA. If you try to figure out what it means for youself, you get sued till you drop. It is a closed format.
Access to a DTD will help a bit, but not much. It will only describe the syntax of the format, not the semantics. It might not be all that helpful to know that the akdshfajkshbf element can have optional askudfsajhb and afhbasbasdkb attributes.
XML is not necessary an open format (which is not the same as open source). A given use of XML can be an open format, if it is documented (or immediately comprehensible, since it is utf-8 encoded clear text), but it can be made almost if not just as closed as any other format.
It is probably a lot easier to reverse engineer an XML format, since it is clear text, but that is now illegal in large parts of the western world (USA and EU).
René
I've been thinking about switching to OpenOffice for sometime now and my recent discovery pretty much seals it for me.
As for M$. They're really shooting themselves if they do use a incomprehensible naming convention for elements and attributes. Take web services for example. If they aren't willing to promote interconnectivity using XML-RPC or SOAP or? then they've immediately isolated themselves and their customers (again) by forcing them into buying into the M$ solution. Unfortunately for most businesses that will buy their XDocs product when it comes out, they won't be able to exchange documents with anyone except those using an M$ solution. And many of them won't realize this until after they've spent thousands of dollars.
Of course, I would hazard to guess that BG intended this all along. He's been preaching the M$ version of web services and interconnectivity for a decade. It will be quite interesting to see how web services and XML in general play out over the next few years.
René.
Are you suggesting that I will violate the DCMA if I write an app that allows me to read an XML doc created by a M$ app?
René.
<msxdoc>
<JJHdww HHjm="jjKKJNM">JJJdfdf</JJHdww>
<lldsJk7H>
<hhaid>K8HJHj3</hhaid>
<jjdsi93k>KJIIIj9sd</jjdsi93k>
</lldsJk7H>
<fdssd>JKKJHhms</fdssd>
</msxdoc>
How exactly is that in any way open, yet it's still a valid piece of XML?
They don't have to publish DTDs, not do they have to open up any documentation.
The fact that you can read the tags does not mean much.
