Re: [wpmac] How can I convert Word files to Word for Mac!
- I think that MS is going to offer (beta) support for Office 2004 soon
and Neo Office (http://trinity.neooffice.org/modules.php?
name=News&file=article&sid=116), which is free, should have support
by the end of the month.
On Feb 17, 2007, at 11:55 PM, Rick Albright wrote:
> Isn't XML a fairly standard (and open) format? Or has Microsoft once
> again tweaked an open format to make it proprietary? I don't know
> much about the technical details of the format (except that the files
> saved in that format are the OSX package files--that might be the
> wrong term, but I mean the ones with components that you can open if
> you control-click the file name). Mellel converted to that format
> last year, and one thing I noticed right away is that the files are
> much smaller than files in a format such as .doc or .rtf.
> Rick Albright
> On Feb 16, 2007, at 4:56 PM, James ARTHURS wrote:
>> Geoff: This seems to address the problem you refer to:
>> Office 2007 .DOCX Issues
>> by Ed@...
>> A couple of months ago, Microsoft released Office 2007 for
>> Windows PCs. This new version of Office uses a new file
>> format called the "Microsoft Open Office XML Format." It's
>> extension is .docx. Unfortunately (typically?) this format is
>> incompatible with pervious versions of MS Word. Office
>> 2008 for Mac won't ship until the second half of this year,
>> For now, you can ask people using Office 2007 to save their
>> files with the older .doc extension. If you don't want to do
>> that, or can't do that, Creative Techs has compiled a page of
>> links on their excellent blog, to help you open .docx files.
>> Check it out here:
>> In all fairness, it does seem like the .docx format has some
>> advantages, and will be useful in the future. Remember, at
>> one point long ago, even .doc and .pdf were new fangled
>> incompatible formats!
>> On Feb 16, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Geoff Gilbert wrote:
>>> Happened today for the first time. I was sent a Word for Windows
>>> .docm file and I couldn't open it. I know that will be fixed soon,
>>> but so much for cross-platform capability.
> “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”
> --Edward R. Murrow
> Rick Albright
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Every implementation of XML is slightly different. Even though the XML format is open, it
takes work (usually a *lot* of work) to write a converter from any one variety of XML to any
other format or to any other variety of XML. Word documents can contain an enormous
amount of information of many different kinds; the XML that stores it can get very complex.
Microsoft's XML is just as "open", just as well documented, as, say, OpenOffice's XML. It's a
non-trivial job to make converters for either of them. Neither one is "proprietary" but each is
This topic has been very widely discussed on the web. A ten-second Google search can
provide more detail than I've tried to offer here.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Rick Albright <logres@...> wrote:
> Isn't XML a fairly standard (and open) format?
- On Feb 17, 2007, at 8:55 PM, Rick Albright wrote:
> Isn't XML a fairly standard (and open) format? Or has Microsoft onceIt is not exactly any of those. Microsoft has based its new document
> again tweaked an open format to make it proprietary?
format on XML, but it has extended it, and they have even included
Zip-like compression to the file format.
While the format was originally going to be proprietary, it is now an
ISO-certified open format and everyone has access to the
specifications, so theoretically any developer can create perfect
translators or use this file format in their product.
Microsoft's file format is in competition with the OpenDocument
format, another XML-based format, that IBM and others are pushing.
While the OpenDocument format may never supplant the Microsoft docx
format, you can credit it with forcing Microsoft to open up their
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (3rd, 4th, and 5th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance