copy text and hyperlink

[Patrick Schmid [MVP]]

If your expectations will be fulfilled in "several years from now",

what's happening in the meantime??
Just nothing.

The next version of OneNote is several years from now So is the next
version of Windows and of Office.

Patrick Schmid [OneNote MVP]
--------------
http://pschmid.net
***
Office 2007 RTM Issues: http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/13/80
Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh (B2TR):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/09/18/43
***
Customize Office 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/customize
OneNote 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/onenote
***
Subscribe to my Office 2007 blog: http://pschmid.net/blog/feed

 

[Grant Robertson]

You can't do that. What you are describing is still only OLE. What could
be done though (if programmed of course) is that an application inserts
a picture of something but stores the XML creating it behind the
picture. So if you double-click it, you can get it to open in the
application and edit it there.

That would be fine by me. I don't care what format the behind the scenes
data is in as long as it is possible for me to open it and edit it using
the original program.

There is nothing lost, it's still all there. Just looking forward, I
consider OLE to be a dinosaur type technology that will probably end up
being replaced eventually (several years from now) with something based
on XML. So I don't think it makes any sense to put some "old" technology
into a "new" program like ON.

Well, as long as I can insert things from one program into another
program and use the original program to edit it later then I will be
happy. I won't even care if it is a non-standard "standard." I got used
to those in the heyday of RS-232. Just as long as it works the same way
among all vendors products and Microsoft's "standard" isn't just
different enough to make it difficult for others to use. Heck, even if
all of Microsoft's programs did it one way and everybody else did it
another, as long as it was easy enough for other vendors to implement
Microsoft's "standard" along side the commonly accepted "standard" so
that they both worked seamlessly as far as the user is concerned, then I
would still be happy.

And if Microsoft refuses to play nice then I can just switch do a
different vendor. Since the only MS products that I really depend on are
OneNote and Outlook then I don't really care about Microsoft's
implementation of OLE in the future. OneNote doesn't have OLE and I never
use it in Outlook. I have the 2003 versions of almost every Microsoft
Office product and have no real reason to upgrade so I am fine.

But this is all way off topic for this group. To bring it back on topic,
I just want to reiterate that I would love to see some kind of OLE (even
if by another name) in OneNote one day.

 

[Grant Robertson]

IMO especially for a thing used for collecting every this and that,
the possibility to open an embedded object in the native application
it comes from and modify it with keeping things in sync would really
be a most important and really needed feature.

I wholeheartedly agree, Rainald. One would think that OLE would be the
first feature they would add.

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Patrick Schmid [MVP] shared these words of wisdom:

The next version of OneNote is several years from now So is the
next version of Windows and of Office.

Exactly!!
And that's why I'm complaining.
We would have needed the feature *NOW* (regardless of some possibly
better technology available in "several years").

Rainald

 

[Rainald Taesler]

Grant Robertson shared these words of wisdom:

I wholeheartedly agree, Rainald. One would think that OLE would be
the first feature they would add.

"One". But the ON team is not "One". :-( :-(

Rainald

 

[Patrick Schmid [MVP]]

That's just FUD. Those file formats are fully open and standardized
by

Yeah, I knew you would come back with that. The fact that they exist, yet
have not been submitted to the standards body, by definition, makes them
non-standard. The fact that they would need to be SUBMITTED TO the
standards body at all rather than COMING FROM a standards body is further
proof that they are non-standard.

You are buying the FUD
The ISO ODF standard is literally the file format that was designed for
OpenOffice. It was then SUBMITTED to ISO. It did not originate from ISO.
AFAIK, nothing originates from ISO, but rather happens because of
proposals submitted (sometimes multiple ones for the same issue).
Ecma is an authoritative standards body and they are simply not yet a
standard because they are still going through the motions. I think
within a few months, the standardization process will be done.
Ecma btw has standardized things such as C#, Eiffel, Universal 3D
(something from Adobe) and things like "Environmental design
considerations for electronic products". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecma_International
I'd say that within a year, OpenXML will be an ISO standard. I'll be
very interested to see what ODF-supporters will say then.

Patrick Schmid [OneNote MVP]
--------------
http://pschmid.net
***
Office 2007 RTM Issues: http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/13/80
Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh (B2TR):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/09/18/43
***
Customize Office 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/customize
OneNote 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/onenote
***
Subscribe to my Office 2007 blog: http://pschmid.net/blog/feed

 

[Grant Robertson]

The ISO ODF standard is literally the file format that was designed for
OpenOffice. It was then SUBMITTED to ISO. It did not originate from ISO.

A) Microsoft invented FUD, so for you to be accusing others of it is
laughable.

B) At what point did I ever mention ODF or claim it was a "standard"
either. If it was created outside of a standard body and THEN submitted
then it WAS a non-standard "standard" too. If I recall correctly, ODF was
created by a consortium of companies and open source developers and
submitted to ISO. This makes it at least a slightly less non-standard
"standard" than Microsoft's non-standard "standard." However, as you
yourself admit above, ODF has already been submitted to ISO whereas
Microsoft's "standard" has not. I'm not even sure if ODF has been
accepted but if it has then that would then make it a standardized
"standard" in my book but still not as good as a standard that came
directly from a previously existing standards body.

C) Even if Microsoft's "standard" ever is submitted to a standards body
and in the unlikely event that it is ever accepted as yet another
"standard", I will never believe that Microsoft has truly released ALL
the information about said "standard." Microsoft is notorious for
creating "double-standards" wherein they release one set of information
to the public and keep another set of information secret. This secret
info allows more efficient use of the standard or API. I have been
dealing with the MS BS ever since DOS 1.0. I have seen the effects of
this so many times that I have come to expect it and plan for its
affects. I have read so many articles where people more expert than I
have documented these tricks that they have become boring. No, I don't
have citations. It is not my job to keep track of all the crap that MS
pulls so that I can prove it in a court of law. It has been all I can do
to keep up with figuring out how to work around all the crap so that I
and my users can get their day to day jobs done.

 

[Ben M. Schorr - MVP]

Aloha Grant,

C) Even if Microsoft's "standard" ever is submitted to a standards
body and in the unlikely event that it is ever accepted as yet another
"standard", I will never believe that Microsoft has truly released ALL
the information about said "standard."

Well, then I guess there really isn't anything to discuss.



-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr - MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
Microsoft OneNote FAQ: http://www.factplace.com/onenotefaq.ht

 

[Patrick Schmid [MVP]]

A) Microsoft invented FUD, so for you to be accusing others of it is

laughable.

I don't work for Microsoft and when I see FUD, I call it. ODF and the
people associated with it are throwing lots of FUD at MS for the OpenXML
standard. Why?
- ODF isn't really complete (it is missing some critical pieces that are
planned for the next version of the standard). Anybody who is in the
technical community of the ODF format will admit this.
- OpenXML allows the conversion of Office 97-2003 file formats files
into OpenXML without a loss. You cannot convert those documents into ODF
without losing some information. Why does that matter? The vast, vast
majority of all Office documents worldwide are in the MS binary formats.
So there is now a way to convert them easily into an XML format. That
means, several years down the road, OpenXML documents will be the vast
majority of all XML-based Office documents, and ODF will be a small
minority. The introduction of OpenXML marginalizes ODF and who wants to
use something that is not used by the majority? OpenXML is a direct
threat to the existence of ODF and hence ODF-supporters will do anything
they can to counter it
- among the things ODF does is to try to get governments to standardize
on it NOW. Why? If a government decides to standardize on ODF now, those
people are locked into ODF even once OpenXML has marginalized its
importance.

B) At what point did I ever mention ODF or claim it was a "standard"

ODF is an ISO standard. And whenever someone goes after OpenXML, ODF is
the one being thought about as alternative.

either. If it was created outside of a standard body and THEN submitted
then it WAS a non-standard "standard" too. If I recall correctly, ODF was
created by a consortium of companies and open source developers and
submitted to ISO. This makes it at least a slightly less non-standard

The consortium was mainly Sun and the open-source developers worked for
Sun. They created the OpenOffice file format, and then submitted it to
ISO as ODF standard. Sure other companies got involved at that point,
but Sun was the originator and the main contributor for the format.
MS did the same thing. They are the ones who originated the format,
submitted it to a standard's body and then other companies got involved
in making it better (which brought quite some changes to the format). I
suggest you take a look at
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/a...summarizing-the-office-open-xml-standard.aspx

"standard" than Microsoft's non-standard "standard." However, as you
yourself admit above, ODF has already been submitted to ISO whereas
Microsoft's "standard" has not. I'm not even sure if ODF has been
accepted but if it has then that would then make it a standardized
"standard" in my book but still not as good as a standard that came
directly from a previously existing standards body.

It has been accepted. Sometime in the beginning of this year I think.
But as I noted above, it's not really complete. It was accepted in a not
complete state and the next two versions of it are designed to make it
complete. I think those two versions will be done by the end of 2007 or
the beginning of 2008, which will probably mean that ODF will be
complete around the same time as OpenXML will become an ISO standard.

C) Even if Microsoft's "standard" ever is submitted to a standards body

Ecma is a standard's body and it has been submitted to it. What are you
talking about?

and in the unlikely event that it is ever accepted as yet another
"standard", I will never believe that Microsoft has truly released ALL
the information about said "standard." Microsoft is notorious for

I invite you to read the 14,000 pages of documentation.

creating "double-standards" wherein they release one set of information
to the public and keep another set of information secret. This secret
info allows more efficient use of the standard or API. I have been
dealing with the MS BS ever since DOS 1.0. I have seen the effects of
this so many times that I have come to expect it and plan for its
affects. I have read so many articles where people more expert than I
have documented these tricks that they have become boring. No, I don't
have citations. It is not my job to keep track of all the crap that MS
pulls so that I can prove it in a court of law. It has been all I can do
to keep up with figuring out how to work around all the crap so that I
and my users can get their day to day jobs done.

That really was the old MS, and especially the Windows part of it. The
new MS, and mainly the Office part (I am not sure about the Windows
part), is actually quite open and wants and likes standards.
It would actually be not in MS's interest to have any part of OpenXML
secret. MS is all about good business, and in today's world, an open,
fully documented standard is good business.

Patrick Schmid [OneNote MVP]
--------------
http://pschmid.net
***
Office 2007 RTM Issues: http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/13/80
Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh (B2TR):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/09/18/43
***
Customize Office 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/customize
OneNote 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/onenote
***
Subscribe to my Office 2007 blog: http://pschmid.net/blog/feed

 

[Grant Robertson]

That really was the old MS, and especially the Windows part of it. The
new MS, and mainly the Office part (I am not sure about the Windows
part), is actually quite open and wants and likes standards.
It would actually be not in MS's interest to have any part of OpenXML
secret. MS is all about good business, and in today's world, an open,
fully documented standard is good business.

Well, I hope so. As you may have noticed, despite all of my mistrust of
Microsoft, I still use their products. Partly because I am stuck with
them since I have always had to support them in an office environment.
Partly because I already own a license to all of their major products so
there is no reason for me to buy or learn much of anything else. But a
big reason why I still use the products is because they are so damn much
better than the competition.

Have you seen the user interface for Sun's Star Office? It is just ugly.
Maybe I am baby ducked into the Office methodology for the user interface
but gawd, Star Office just seems stupid to me now. I haven't spent too
much time using it but it seems that you have to do a heck of a lot of
clicking to get even the simplest things done. I complain about Microsoft
products when I have to do more work than necessary to do something but
for crying out loud, Star Office Writer makes Word seem like a dream.

So, I don't trust MS as far as I can throw them, and I complain all day
that things should be better, but I readily admit that MS products are
often the best there is available*. I just want them to be better. I have
a hard time believing that such a huge collection of genius millionaires
can slip up and leave out things that most people would have at the top
of their wish list. So, I nag and I prod, and I prod and I nag. I don't
give a rats any more that they cheat. I have gotten used to it just like
I got used to $2.00 gasoline. But just because I am used to it doesn't
mean I am going to fool myself into thinking for one second that they
don't cheat like maniacs. It is just part of the Microsoft eats dog world
now.

* Exceptions: Desktop publishing, web site design, any graphics oriented
product. Now that Adobe has bought up Macromedia, they own that market,
cold. And now that they have a mini-monopoly, Adobe has been doing it's
share of cheating too. You just get used to it.

 

[Patrick Schmid [MVP]]

Have you seen the user interface for Sun's Star Office? It is just
ugly.
Star Office is the proprietary version of OpenOffice. It's OpenOffice
with a bunch of additional stuff...
Microsoft definitely screwed people in the past and everything they do
now should still be taken with a grain of salt. However, I have to say
that they were very open with Office 2007, even when they dropped
bombshells that users would have liked to avoid. At least they dropped
them months before the actual program came out and they announced them
instead of just sneaking them by, so everyone had a chance to be
somewhat prepared for them.
Vista on the other hand, I don't know. Their 5 years messed up
development thing where they kept pulling features in regular intervals
just doesn't want to make you trust the Windows division on anything.

Patrick Schmid [OneNote MVP]
--------------
http://pschmid.net
***
Office 2007 RTM Issues: http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/11/13/80
Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh (B2TR):
http://pschmid.net/blog/2006/09/18/43
***
Customize Office 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/customize
OneNote 2007: http://pschmid.net/office2007/onenote
***
Subscribe to my Office 2007 blog: http://pschmid.net/blog/feed