Microsoft's shift on which features go in which version is important because of a longstanding controversy over the extent to which Office would support XML. 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 customised 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. Still, giving Office 2003 users the ability to create their own schemas allows them to extract data in a way appropriate to their business and also have more control over the information. This could be very important for the large number of businesses with corporate data locked in Microsoft proprietary file formats. This data lock affects all Office customers, not just those who would be the target market of the Enterprise and Professional editions of Office 2003. Microsoft's Leach emphasised that this change in positioning doesn't negate that "customer-defined XML schema support is a feature of Pro". On the other hand, he also acknowledged that XML documents saved using other versions of Office would be saved using Microsoft's own schema. "When you are using Word in Office XP or the Standard version of Office 2003, the WordML -- Microsoft's XML schema, which is 100 percent compliant with industry standards for XML -- is saving the formatting of the Word doc." 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 recognises 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." Other companies are interested in the easy exchange of XML data on the desktop. In November, members of the Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) established a committee to create that standard for office productivity applications. Supporters, which include Corel and Sun, are using the XML specifications developed by the open-source OpenOffice.org project as a starting point. Microsoft is not a participant. A question of price
Microsoft's limits on XML support means that customers looking for true portability of their data will have to buy the most expensive version of Office. While the company has not yet released pricing for the Office SKUs, the Professional and Developer editions typically have been the most expensive. Office 2003 Enterprise Edition replaces the Developer SKU available with earlier Office versions. "We've never believed that Microsoft would truly make their XML format interoperable," said Gregg Nicholas, a technology manager from Berrien County, Michigan. 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." For this and other reasons such as low-cost "viable alternatives" to Office, "it is uncertain that we'll be upgrading," Nichols said. Still, DeGroot, Gartenberg and some other analysts continually briefed by Microsoft expressed surprise that the company would backpedal so seriously to protect its proprietary Office formats. In an interview with CNET News.com last month, Jean Paoli, Microsoft's XML architect, said, "I'm out of the business of creating formats. Our focus on Office is on data exchange." He emphasised, "There is no more difference between documents and data." But the limiting by Microsoft of full XML capabilities to certain versions of Office means many customers could have to live with proprietary formats for a while longer. In the process, Microsoft likely will create unneeded customer confusion around Office 2003, say analysts. "Buyers of non-Professional SKUs will need to carefully scrutinise the functional capability of the package they purchase to see if it truly meets their needs," Gartenberg said.
What standards will drive the next wave of Web-based services, and how will they interact? Check out the latest developments on .Net, Java, Liberty Alliance, Passport and other technologies at ZDNet UK's Web Services News Section, including analysis, case studies and management issues.
Let the editors know what you think in the Mailroom.
