Office Supplemental Release (October 2009)

[Greg Maxey]

Bill Coan passed me a link today containing information about change by MS
that could affect how Content Controls interact with the XML datastore:

The gist of the link is this:

"Microsoft has released a supplement for Office 2007 (October 2009). The
following patch is required for the United States. The patch will work with
all Office 2007 languages.
2007 Microsoft Office Supplemental Release (October 2009) .img 12.9 MB

After this patch is installed, Word will no longer read the Custom XML
elements contained within DOCX, DOCM, or XML files. These files will
continue to open, but any Custom XML elements will be removed. The ability
to handle custom XML markup is typically used in association with automated
server based processing of Word documents. Custom XML is not typically used
by most end users of Word."

Can this really be true!!?? Are all mapped CCs in existing docx and docm
files now busted? Can one no longer map CCs to a CustomXMLPart? Why would
MS do such a thing?

My PC is setup to automatically download and install MS updates, but if the
disaster described above is really true then apparently I don't have this
release installed.

I can still open a new document and run this code to create a CustomXMLPart

Sub CreateTestXMLPart()
Dim pXML As String
ClearExcessXMLParts
pXML = "<Test><Item>House</Item></Test>"
ActiveDocument.CustomXMLParts.Add pXML
End Sub


Sub ClearExcessXMLParts()
Dim i As Long
For i = 4 To ActiveDocument.CustomXMLParts.Count
ActiveDocument.CustomXMLParts(4).Delete
Next i
End Sub

I can then save, close and reopen the file and access the CustomXMLPart
using this code:

Sub Testing()
Dim oNode As CustomXMLNode
Set oNode = ActiveDocument.CustomXMLParts(4).SelectSingleNode("Test/Item")
MsgBox oNode.Text
End Sub


Looking for someone that is certain that they have installed the
supplemental release and willing to try out the code above to determine the
results and hopefully (very hopefully) confirm that CustomXMLParts can still
be accessed. Thanks.

--
Greg Maxey


See my web site http://gregmaxey.mvps.org
for an eclectic collection of Word Tips.

Arrogance is a weed that grows mostly on a dunghill (Arabic proverb)

 

[Jay Freedman]

Hi Greg,

The reason for this change is that MS lost a patent suit, described at
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3712.

Although the link at the Microsoft OEM Partner Center
(http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563214) says
the patch is "required for the United States", the patch doesn't seem
to be anywhere on the general downloads site, nor is it (yet) being
sent out through Microsoft Update. I'm also not seeing any mention of
this patch anywhere else on the web.

Although it doesn't say so explicitly, I suspect that the patch is
only being applied to newly sold copies of Office and not
retroactively. Of course, that impression may be wrong, or MS may
later be ordered to force the patch on everyone when the court catches
on.

Just so you know who to thank for this kick in the face, read
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=55810.

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so all may benefit.

 

[Greg Maxey]

Jay,

How does one say thanks for learning about a kick in the head ;-). Thanks.

Is the ability to create and use a CustomXMLPart available in the Word2010
Beta?

 

[Peter Jamieson]

Your test code works in the (English) copy of the Office 2010 beta that
I have here. Whether it will work in the final release doubtless depends
on what happens in the courts.

Sorry, I do not have the patch so cannot test that side of things. I
don't know how MS's patching for OEMs works but I wouldn't be surprised
to learn that this patch applies to Office/Word SETUP itself, not to a
copy of Office already installed on a user's machine - if so, such a
patch would not be for typical end users, only for admins who need to
tailor SETUP.

Peter Jamieson

http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk

 

[Greg Maxey]

Peter,

Thanks.

Your test code works in the (English) copy of the Office 2010 beta
that I have here. Whether it will work in the final release doubtless
depends on what happens in the courts.

Sorry, I do not have the patch so cannot test that side of things. I
don't know how MS's patching for OEMs works but I wouldn't be
surprised to learn that this patch applies to Office/Word SETUP
itself, not to a copy of Office already installed on a user's machine
- if so, such a patch would not be for typical end users, only for
admins who need to tailor SETUP.

Peter Jamieson

http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk

 

[Greg Maxey]

Peter,

The following is an excerpt from an article I read today:

"Microsoft said it has been preparing for such a judgment since August.
Copies of Word and Office sold before Jan. 11 aren't affected by the court's
decision. And Microsoft said it has "put the wheels in motion to remove this
little-used feature" from versions of Word 2007 and Office 2007 that would
be sold after that date.

"Beta" or test versions of Word 2010 and Office 2010, expected to be
finalized next year, do not contain the offending code, the software maker
said."

If this is true and since you can satisfactorily run the text code I
provided then maybe the issue isn't as big or disruptive as I first thought.
Fingers crossed that MS is telling the truth here.

 

[Karl E. Peterson]

Greg Maxey formulated the question :

Peter,

The following is an excerpt from an article I read today:

"Microsoft said it has been preparing for such a judgment since August.
Copies of Word and Office sold before Jan. 11 aren't affected by the court's
decision. And Microsoft said it has "put the wheels in motion to remove this
little-used feature" from versions of Word 2007 and Office 2007 that would be
sold after that date.

"Beta" or test versions of Word 2010 and Office 2010, expected to be
finalized next year, do not contain the offending code, the software maker
said."

If this is true and since you can satisfactorily run the text code I provided
then maybe the issue isn't as big or disruptive as I first thought. Fingers
crossed that MS is telling the truth here.

"But people looking to buy Word or Microsoft's Office package in the
U.S. won't have to go without the software. Microsoft said Tuesday it
expects that new versions of the product, with the computer code in
question removed, will be ready for sale when the injunction begins on
Jan. 11."
~ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121766377

Looks like they pranced their way out of another one.

 

[BLT]

I share your concern. I have recently completed a solution for a customer
whereby I inject custom xml into a Word 2007 template "on the fly". The
Content Controls embedded within the template bind to the custom XML and so
act as placeholders for injecting database fields (this particular solution
is a Purchase Order).

I am concerned that this solution is going to become obsolete once this
"patch" is applied. Does anyone know definitively if the intent of the patch
is to remove the binding functionality between a custom control and embedded
Xml within the document? What use would the custom controls be if they can'
be bound to any data source?

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...L_from_Word_offers_patch_to_OEMs?taxonomyId=1

I have searched on this topic for hours this morning and do not see any
solid info on specifics of "yanked" functionality.

 

[Dean G]

We just completed a new module for our system that inserts paragraphs into
document.xml. We are purely inserting paragraphs, runs and tables, only basic
markup tags that are defined in the WordprocessingML reference.

Can someone please confirm whether this constitutes CustomXML?

Thanks a bunch,
Dean

 

[Peter Jamieson]

Hi Greg,

All I can say for sure is what I tested.

Without reading all the relevant material I would prefer not to jump to
any conclusions, but the one thing that is not immediately obvious to me
is this:
if MS can't use "custom XML", how can they continue to sell solutions
that are entirely based on "custom XML", for example any solution that
involves Word, Sharepoint, and Sharepoint properties?

If MS is convinced that Office/Sharepoint solutions do not fall foul of
this decision, I can only conclude that either
a. MS is blagging its way through (why wouldn't they?) or
b. the decision is much "narrower" than appears at first sight.

Other than that, I suspect the US legal system has little to be proud of
on this one. It's not just the US system, of course, it's that legal
systems in general appear to be reaching the limits of their ability to
come to sensible conclusions.

Peter Jamieson

http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk

 

[Greg Maxey]

Roger All. Particularily your assessment of hte U.S. legal system. Flat
broke. Read the other day that a fellow fell and hurt himself while
breaking and entering a home. Sued the home owner and won. Fact or
fiction, I don't know. Nothing surprises me.

 

[Fumei2 via OfficeKB.com]

Jay wrote:

Just so you know who to thank for this kick in the face, read
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=55810.

If there is indeed any "kick in the face" are you implying it comes from i4i?
I think not.

Where were Microsoft's due diligence people? The patent existed. Period.
Two courts have upheld that fact. Did their due diligence people know of the
patent? If yes, and Microsoft engineers used it anyway, they are in the
wrong. If they did not, then those due diligence people are in the wrong.

Microsoft could have tried to negotiate a licensing agreement with i4i. Did
they? No they did not. They tried to brazen it out, and lost. IMO,
appropriately.

IMO, if there is any kick in the face, it comes from Microsoft. Thinking
that they are a "too big to fail" - this was in fact one of their arguments
in the appeal - and going for broke.

I am willing to bet that if Microsoft held a patent that was being used by
someone without proper licensing, their lawyers would be in court in a New
York second.

 

[Fumei2 via OfficeKB.com]

I also wish to point out that Microsoft was hit with a $40 MILLION fine for
misconduct by its lawyers during the trial. Misconduct.

Don't get me wrong. I have no hate-on for Microsoft. I use their products
and generally speaking I like them. However, let's face it, they are
extremely litigatious and sorry, what is good for the goose is good for the
gander.

Jay wrote:

Just so you know who to thank for this kick in the face, read
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=55810.

If there is indeed any "kick in the face" are you implying it comes from i4i?
I think not.

Where were Microsoft's due diligence people? The patent existed. Period.
Two courts have upheld that fact. Did their due diligence people know of the
patent? If yes, and Microsoft engineers used it anyway, they are in the
wrong. If they did not, then those due diligence people are in the wrong.

Microsoft could have tried to negotiate a licensing agreement with i4i. Did
they? No they did not. They tried to brazen it out, and lost. IMO,
appropriately.

IMO, if there is any kick in the face, it comes from Microsoft. Thinking
that they are a "too big to fail" - this was in fact one of their arguments
in the appeal - and going for broke.

I am willing to bet that if Microsoft held a patent that was being used by
someone without proper licensing, their lawyers would be in court in a New
York second.

We just completed a new module for our system that inserts paragraphs into
document.xml. We are purely inserting paragraphs, runs and tables, only basic

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

Thanks a bunch,
Dean

 

[Greg Maxey]

Fumei,

I agree with everything your have said. However, you or I are neither the
goose or the gander. We are end users that may have grown accustomed to
features, or dependent on features contained in a product that we purchased
in good faith. After receiving a 240 million dollar settlement, and if i4i
is still requiring MS to pull the code from Word then I see it as a kick in
the face to me. Perhaps MS's fault but i4i still delivers the kick ;-)

I also wish to point out that Microsoft was hit with a $40 MILLION
fine for misconduct by its lawyers during the trial. Misconduct.

Don't get me wrong. I have no hate-on for Microsoft. I use their
products and generally speaking I like them. However, let's face it,
they are extremely litigatious and sorry, what is good for the goose
is good for the gander.

Jay wrote:

Just so you know who to thank for this kick in the face, read
http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=55810.

If there is indeed any "kick in the face" are you implying it comes
from i4i? I think not.

Where were Microsoft's due diligence people? The patent existed.
Period. Two courts have upheld that fact. Did their due diligence
people know of the patent? If yes, and Microsoft engineers used it
anyway, they are in the wrong. If they did not, then those due
diligence people are in the wrong.

Microsoft could have tried to negotiate a licensing agreement with
i4i. Did they? No they did not. They tried to brazen it out, and
lost. IMO, appropriately.

IMO, if there is any kick in the face, it comes from Microsoft.
Thinking that they are a "too big to fail" - this was in fact one of
their arguments in the appeal - and going for broke.

I am willing to bet that if Microsoft held a patent that was being
used by someone without proper licensing, their lawyers would be in
court in a New York second.

We just completed a new module for our system that inserts
paragraphs into document.xml. We are purely inserting paragraphs,
runs and tables, only basic

[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]

Thanks a bunch,
Dean

 

[Greg Maxey]

I can not attest to the accuracy of this information, but it true it may
alleviate 'some' concerns:

http://blogs.technet.com/gray_knowl...d-the-impact-of-the-i4i-judgment-on-word.aspx