And you're posting this on THIS list, why????????????? Avery At 07:09 PM 04/14/03 -0500, you wrote: >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [DISCUSS] Microsoft limits XML in Office 2003 >Date: 14 Apr 2003 15:24:55 -0500 >From: Scott Granneman <scott@granneman.com> >Reply-To: discuss@sluug.org >To: SLUUG Discuss <discuss@sluug.org> >CC: StlWebDev List <stlwebdev@stlwebdev.org> > > > >Remember how MSFT promised that XML was going to be a big new feature in >the upcoming version of Office? And how data interoperability was their >new focus? >It was all lies. > >Here's the relevant bits. To read the full story, check out: >http://news.com.com/2100-1012-996528.html?tag=lh > >This b.s. makes me as angry at them as I've ever been. But I should have >known better than to believe what they promised. After all, saying one >thing and doing another -- no matter who they screw -- is their m.o. > >Scott > >============= > >Microsoft limits XML in Office 2003: "A distinction that Microsoft is >making between professional and standard versions of Office 2003 means >that many customers may not get all the features they've been expecting, >including broad support for Web services. >For more than a year, Microsoft has touted Office 2003's support for >Extensible Markup Language (XML), a highly anticipated new feature of >the productivity suite. But Microsoft now plans to fully deliver the >feature only in the two high-end versions of the product, one of which >will be available only to businesses subscribing to Microsoft's >volume-licensing program. >Two other features also are similarly restricted: the document >protection technology Windows Rights Management Services (RMS), and >Excel List, a feature for improving analysis of data lists. Microsoft >plans to deliver the three features only in the Enterprise and >Professional versions of Office 2003, the company confirmed late >Thursday. >At no time during two phases of testing, one in October and another in >March, did Microsoft make it widely known that XML support would not be >available in all versions of Office 2003. The most recent beta test >version, available to an estimated half-million testers, delivers the >full XML feature set promised by Microsoft. ... >XML is fast emerging as the preferred means of formatting data delivered >in back-end business processes or Web services. But unlike HTML >(Hypertext Markup Language) tags, which are universal, XML tags can be >customized by developers and so need to be communicated to the software >that reads them. The XML tags that define the elements of a document are >collectively called a schema. Microsoft has yet to disclose the >proprietary dialect--or underlying schema--of the XML used in Office >2003. ... >But analysts contend that WordML's compliance with industry standards is >a misnomer. Because the schema isn't fully documented, people who want >to edit files created in Office 2003 will only be able to do that with >Office itself, as before. Text in Office 2003 files stored in XML format >might be viewable in other desktop programs, but all document formatting >would be lost and most other files would be unreadable. >Such a move could also hamper data exchange with competing desktop >productivity software that recognizes XML, such as Corel's WordPerfect >or Sun Microsystems' StarOffice, say analysts and competitors. >"From the beginning, there was a question whether Microsoft was going to >buy in completely to XML," said Technology Business Research analyst Bob >Sutherland. "Microsoft is often trying to spin their message, and they >want to appear as if they buy into (open) standards. But they always put >in the proprietary hooks somewhere in the final release of the product." >... >"We've never believed that Microsoft would truly make their XML format >interoperable," said Gregg Nicholas, a technology manager from Berrien >County, Mich. Microsoft's "standard operating procedure with standards >seems to be embrace, extend and exterminate. Despite the hype from their >public relations department, I've seen no reason to believe that they >would act any differently with XML."" > >-- >R. Scott Granneman >scott@granneman.com ~ www.granneman.com >Join GranneNotes! Information at www.granneman.com >Read my blog at http://radio.weblogs.com/0100530 > >"For some reason, we don't read about mobs of atheists stoning and burning >alive human beings who do not share their non-beliefs. So far, no >agnostics have blown themselves up in discos, taking someone's children >with them. No scientific determinists have been kidnapped and murdered by >supporters of chaos theory. Moral relativists are not organizing militias >for the purpose of putting people in jail for possession of the Ten >Commandments; nor are agnostics firing rockets at pantheists from >helicopter gunships." > ---John Maclachlan Gray > >------- >St. Louis Unix Users Group - http://www.sluug.org/ >To unsubscribe from the SLUUG discussion mailing list, send a message to >discuss-request@sluug.org with the word 'unsubscribe' as the body > > > >-- >Duaine Hechler >Piano, Player Piano, Organ, Pump Organ >Tuning, Servicing & Rebuilding >Associate Member of the Piano Technicians Guild >Reed Organ Society Member >Florissant, MO >(314) 838-5587 >dahechler@charter.net > > >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC