Replies

and your access to XML functionality (which is the real independent and non-proprietary cross-platform technology) should be unlimited.

Except that in Office the XML format is proprietary. It is not totally open.

The real test is "cross-platform interoperability" and the range of choices one can make in implementing it. Microsoft is light years ahead of the rest of the field in this respect.

Are you kidding? One reason for the European anti-trust action was Microsoft making communication easy only between its own desktops and servers. That's why even here they're being forced to reveal their APIs and protocols.

"Except that in Office the XML format is proprietary. It is not totally open."

The interaction between MS Office XML documents and the Windows operating systems, whether PC or server, is proprietary in that Microsoft has enabled its operating systems to handle MS Office XML documents to a degree which other operating systems cannot. But there are two points that follow from this. The first is that MS Office XML Documents are interoperable across platforms since all that is required to get at the information or data they contain is access to the XML DOM. Microsoft does nothing to prevent that. Other platforms are only restricted in their ability to make full use of MS Office XML documents to the degree in which their systems capabilities allow them to do so, with Microsoft's use of Vector Markup Language (VML) for providing graphics capabilities being one good example since not many other platforms use VML, opting instead for SVG. But VML is also an open W3C standard which is available to the designers of any platform. A second point which follows is that XML itself is "self-describing" and many developers who create their own XML Schemas to describe their documents, and I fall into this category, create their own standards for using those documents within their own systems, which is what Microsoft has done in their MS Office XML document format, they have designed a unique schema to provide enhanced interaction with their operating systems. So Microsoft's use of the format for their MS Office XML documents is not in fact proprietary, that distinction attaches to the full capabilities of their operating system to use MS Office XML documents based upon their ability to use the schemas those XML documents contain.

"Are you kidding? One reason for the European anti-trust action was Microsoft making communication easy only between its own desktops and servers. That's why even here they're being forced to reveal their APIs and protocols."

That action was not related to XML capabilities, but focused instead on desktop and, to a lesser extent, software components installed on servers that used Microsft's proprietary ActiveX technology. Microsoft's response was that XML should form the basis for cross-platform interoperability. In this respect, they followed IBM's lead, since it was IBM who first asked the W3C to adopt XML standards in 1996 to provide a cross-platform capability that would form an alternative to ActiveX. Microsoft then read the tea leaves correctly and outdid IBM and everyone else in supporting XML by developing an XML-based server development platform, which is what .NET is today.

I stand by my statement that Microsoft is light years ahead of the field in promoting cross-platform interoperability. .NET is the proof.