On TechRepublic: Why Android beats iPhone
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

April 18th, 2008

OXML as Microsoft's swivel point

Posted by John Carroll @ 9:57 am

Categories: Microsoft, ODF, Office, Office 2007

Tags: ISO, Microsoft Corp., Nothing, Iso standards, Process Improvement, Quality, Business Operations, John Carroll

My apologies for not writing more this week. A rather interesting twist in my IT career occurred recently, which I’ll relate later. It’s exciting stuff which will involve lots of travel to rarely-visited parts of the world (well, rarely visited by me).

But enough of that. I haven’t spoken much on the subject of OOXML (now simply named OXML, as the first “O” stood for Office, and that doesn’t apply anymore to ISO-ratified OXML). Part of the reason is that my preferred outcome - that OXML be ratified as an ISO standard - won the day, and I don’t find elaborate pieces where I dance around singing “I told you so” to be that interesting to write.

What most interests me about OXML’s transition from control by Microsoft to the ISO is what it could do to Microsoft culture. Culture seems to occupy a lot of my blogging thoughts of late. It lies at the heart of my concern about Microsoft’s proposed merger with Yahoo. It’s the essence of what I think Microsoft most misses about itself. We need to realize that we are, at heart, a platform company, and everything should be done with an eye towards enabling developers to do interesting things, because that is what Microsoft does well. Granted, those interesting things need to include features on par with closed systems made by a certain Cupertino-based company, but the toolkit orientation should be the identity that threads everything this company does.

I look at OXML with the same glasses (no, they aren’t completely rose-colored). What is interesting about OXML is that Microsoft, for the first time that I can remember, has handed over the core protocol that lies at the heart of a product that plays a critical part in the revenue story written by Microsoft. The essential nature of that revenue is the real reason Microsoft wasn’t first mover in the ISO standardization game. When billions in quarterly-accrued earnings are derived from the existing structure, it’s hard to take a bird’s eye view and discern a need for radical change.

Change, however, has come, first with Microsoft’s decision to move to a documented XML grammar for office documents, and now with its successful push to get OXML ratified by both the ECMA and ISO.

I can’t say that Microsoft would have chosen the ISO path on its own (and please, that is just me saying that, not Microsoft). Events forced them down that path, to be sure, events mostly generated by a competing XML document format, the proponents of which had hoped to use its exclusive ISO-ratified status as a wedge by which to gain competitive ground against the dominant Microsoft-sponsored format.

Microsoft is now, however, irreversibly on that path. What I think will be a real eye-opener for Microsoft, however, is how being open helps Microsoft’s business.

The success of Adobe’s PDF is due entirely to the fact that they have been very open with the format. They standardized relatively early, and work hard to ensure that readers were available on every major platform. Adobe’s success is a micro-scale example of what has happened in this Internet-enabled, globally-connected market for IT products. Standards need to be universal to really gain traction in today’s marketplace. It’s partly a reflection of the essential nature of modern Internet-based communications and information, but also a reflection of the fact that, in a networked world, EVERY computing device can digitally interact with every other computing device on the planet.

This isn’t computing circa 1985, where computers tended to be isolated silos of processing power and, at best, compatibility needed to exist with other systems within the enterprise. This is 2008, where data flies from Hyderabad to Silicon Valley at light speeds.

That’s why I’m gunning not just for OXML to be improved, but to be more successful as a public standard than it ever was as a private one (and for that success to benefit Microsoft). Nothing tends to support the arguments of those who advocate for open systems within a company as large and profitable as Microsoft more than success.

I think OXML can be the sequoia lying across the chasm from a Microsoft cultural standpoint. Other smaller trees may bridge the chasm in other places, but nothing quite as large and powerful as that sequoia. If Microsoft’s Office business is enlivened by its experience with OXML, I expect that the standardization approach used there will become an instinctive part of the cultural habits at the company.

That is a good thing, one that benefits competitors as much as users of Microsoft technology.

John CarrollJohn Carroll has delivered his opinion on ZDNet since the last millennium. Since May 2008, he is no longer a Microsoft employee. He is currently working at a unified messaging-related startup. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

Email John Carroll

Subscribe to A Developer's View via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 41 Talkback(s)
Thanxs...Yet still unclear...
About PDOXUSRS.....
Is this a Paradox tool, or .NET or Delphi/Kylix?
Would you point me to a useful source?
My intial searches have not turned up anything useful, yet......
and again thanxs....... (Read the rest)
Posted by: LazLong Posted on: 04/21/08 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Yes, but...  zkiwi | 04/18/08
No, but I think the incentives are there.  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 04/18/08
Well...  zkiwi | 04/18/08
You have that backwards  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
MSO2K7 does not implement IS-29500  lordshipmayhem | 04/18/08
Please distinguish  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
Microsoft's interest in compatibility  lordshipmayhem | 04/18/08
And shame on any ideology  fr0thy2 | 04/18/08
Pardon me  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
I'd say desperately trying to squish global co-operation  fr0thy2 | 04/19/08
Re: No, but I think the incentives are there.  none none | 04/18/08
Office 2007 fails OOXML conformance test  deaf_e_kate | 04/21/08
How does this change anything?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
I doubt that  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 04/18/08
How, you ask?  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
lingua franca  Anton Philidor | 04/18/08
Who's boss  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 04/18/08
As if we don't know  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
"... a truly open format."?  Anton Philidor | 04/18/08
Historical revisionism  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
OXML != Open  SpikeyMike | 04/18/08
Are you living in the same world?  deaf_e_kate | 04/20/08
"the recent addition of ISO" ...  fr0thy2 | 04/18/08
MS has little choice but to follow the standard.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 04/18/08
Managing aggravations.  Anton Philidor | 04/18/08
Tautology  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
why?  deaf_e_kate | 04/20/08
Motives  Anton Philidor | 04/18/08
Yes, But...  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 04/18/08
Lessons Learned  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
Not really  John CarrollZDNet Moderator | 04/18/08
It's good to be king!  Yagotta B. Kidding | 04/18/08
Nice paragraph there ...  fr0thy2 | 04/18/08
Cross-device.  Anton Philidor | 04/18/08
"now that this stuff is properly documented and standardized."  fr0thy2 | 04/18/08
RE: OXML as Microsoft's swivel point  DannyO_0x98 | 04/18/08
ADOBE is not much of anything today; plagued with problems to stay flexable  rtirman37@... | 04/18/08
About your rose-tinted glasses  deaf_e_kate | 04/20/08
John, What are the best converters for OXML to ODF?  LazLong | 04/20/08
Lazlong, Robz here; micro PDOXUSRS (beta) is being given for Adobe8, fast!"  rtirman37@... | 04/20/08
Thanxs...Yet still unclear...  LazLong | 04/21/08

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

Recent Entries

Top Rated

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads