Update: Simon Phipps has stated that my assertion that Novell is the largest contributor of source code to OpenOffice.org is incorrect, and in fact it is Sun Microsystems who is the largest contributor. My data says otherwise, but I also have a lot of trust in as well as respect for Simon, so I have to assume that my data is incorrect.
I don’t think this changes my assertion that Miguel is someone in whom can be seen as an authority figure when it comes to the technical debate between ODF and EOOXML, as regardless of whether Novell is, in fact, the largest contributor, they are a significant contributor, and therefore his understanding of the technical issues involved are significant. None-the-less, if my assertion is incorrect (and, again, I can only assume that it is) then please take this into consideration in your overall analysis of both this post as well as the follow-up comments.
Thanks for helping to clarify the facts, Simon!
Update: bryan presents a refreshing perspective than what seems to be the standard “I hate Microsoft!” attitude when it comes to why they feel EOOXML is a bad thing.
Basically if someone asked me to work with OOXML for extracting data I would say, sure but it would be cheaper and easier to use Microsoft’s APIs to work with office data, or to convert the document to ODF and extract the data that way.
This is really my only dislike of ooxml. I don’t think it qualifies as FUD, it is just my experience of how it is to work with these technologies.
In follow-up, Miguel de Icaza provides a solution to the stated problem at hand,
This is an article about LINQ and how to extract Word ML document using it:
Folks have showcased LINQ-like technologies for Ruby and Python, so it cant be that hard to parse.
What I truly admire and appreciate about this exchange is pretty straight forward,
A real-world problem in regards to the usage of EOOXML, and a real-world solution provided in follow-up, or in other words, just like what tends to take place on a daily basis in both the open and closed source camps (though the the community aspect and overall openness, as should be obvious, is much more prevalent, generally speaking, in the OSS camps), two hackers find ways to present real-world problems and real-world solutions to these problems.
This is the way it *NEEDS* to be folks. The FUD, anti-EOOXML smear campaigns accomplish *NOTHING*, where as the exchange that took place below accomplished exactly what needed to be accomplished… Find where the problems exist and then fix them.
Thanks to both of you for providing a picture perfect example of how things both could and should be working as we move forward into the next generation of open xml document formats!
So I just finished up reading an interesting post from Miguel de Icaza regarding ODF vs. EOOXML, and felt that it was really quite important to share with the rest of you all,
… I think that the group is not only shooting themselves in the foot, they are shooting all of our collective open source feet.
Interesting lead in, and something that I can assure you lives up to the promise of showcasing why the ODF vs. EOOXML battle field is doing more harm than it could ever do good, but before I move on, there’s something I’ve been wanting to get off my chest…