Office 2004 will lack XML support with Office 2003

GroundZeroX

GroundZeroX

Searching for logic
According to this article, Office 2004 does not have support for Microsoft Word's XML features. It will support Excel in XML though. Now, while this may sound trivial, this is a huge hinderance to work flow when working with classmates or co-workers. My school sells all Office upgrades for $5 a cd, so everyone on my campus is probably all ready running Office 2003, and when it's time for projects to come along, compatibility issues will surely arise.

Microsoft has a FeedBack Page . I suggest we get as many people to go to it as possible, and try to get them to add the ability to at least be able to read XML in the shipping version, with full support for XML with either a .1 upgrade, or Service Release.

Why only the ability to read? Well, it is pretty late in the development of Office 2004 to try to demand that something like this is added with full functionality. I think it is far more practical to ask for this, because it is realistic.
 
The Compatibility Report tool lets users check whether a document will display as intended in various file formats. If a feature is not supported, users can choose to "fix" the incompatibility.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that take care of it?
 
As always Macintosh is second class Citizen. This is enexcusable. XML should have been built into the mac version concurrently with Office 2003.

Mac users are charged full pop for Office Software that is cripped. Methinks it's time for a competing Apple suite. Frankly I'm tired of limitations and doing things Microsofts way.
 
I was very ****ed-off when reading these. XML is all the rage within business. Every large corporation will spout the acronym continuously at present. The fact that Microsoft have failed to include it in the new Mac version, I think, could be a shrewd move by them (if it was intentional of course ;) ).
 
M$ efforts on the Mac always seem Half-hearted. I have been wishing for competition on the Mac Platform for Office Suites for years. Lotus (IBM), and Apple should work on a suite (Please)!!!!
 
The compatability checker only checks compatability with versions of Office that have been previously released/ We need to get as many people to be behind this as possible. Get everyone you can to send in feedback. They said that the reason why the feature was left out was because of user feedback, now lets seeif we can get that turned around.
 
powermac said:
M$ efforts on the Mac always seem Half-hearted. I have been wishing for competition on the Mac Platform for Office Suites for years. Lotus (IBM), and Apple should work on a suite (Please)!!!!
Click to expand...

But that's the thing, Microsoft's Mac software is actually pretty good, I'm surprised at them leaving XML support out of the new office. Apart from the fact that they make money from Office vX, their Mac software in my opinion is usually far better than its Windows counterparts. Outlook Express was the best mail client I'd used until I switched to Apple Mail (via Entourage admittedly); IE5 for Mac was pretty good when it was first released as 4.5 was heinous and 5 was far superior to Netscape 4.7, which was a swine to develop for. Of course it's not a patch on Safari or Firebird but it's still better than IE6; all the Office versions I've used are a bit bloated (as is to be expected), and I still can't stand Word but they're still nicer to use than the Windows versions, especially vX. As I said, Entourage is especially good.

So it will be interesting to see what Apple does. An office suite would be great but it could affect Microsoft development for OSX. Anyway, there are other threads on that... no XML for Office – bad.
 
I'd agree that superficially (well, maybe not superficially, but ergonomically) that Office for Mac is superior. But, it has always fallen short to it's Windows counterpart where it business facilities are concerned. As implied in my other post, maybe it's good for M$ to disallow these key hard-lined business features. this effectively stops business users (marketeers, admin, etc.) from using the Mac version when the Windows version offers much more than simple ergonomics and aesthetics over it's PC version.
 
This is not a matter of WinOffice being superior to MacOffice or anything like that. I wanted to bring this to peoples attention, so we can all send stuff into the feedback page of Microsoft. I feel Office 2004 is going to be a great upgrade, but we also need compatibility.

This is about compatibility, not which product is superior.
 
excel for mac is terrible, i can't stand it. its the one app that i use on a consistent basis for school (i'm a business major), and it's so much easier to use for windows than it is for mac.

some problems i have with it:

F2 is the "edit active cell" key in windows, now it's control-U. totally different, and much more cumbersome. (and no, you can't change it, i've tried, and talked to MS tech support)

the formula inputs do not appear in the cell as you are typing it in, so you either have to memorize the order of the inputs, or go to insert>function, also a cumbersome procedure.

i also can't just copy and paste tables into excel from HTML tables like you can on windows - the easiest way of getting a table into excel on the mac is getting the source code and copying and pasting that.

basically, its just not as user-friendly in the mac version as it is in the windows version.........

edit: i apologize if this is the wrong thread to complain about excel for mac, it just pisses me off......
 
I'm a business major too, and have never had a problem with Excel. I may be wrong, but I think I have pasted tables from HTML tables into Excel.

But, this isn't the right topic for this.

This has to do about XML compatibility being missing.
 
And my point is: How can a company/corporation seriously consider Mac Office when it won't support XML, and the Windows version is out there flying with it?
 
Satcomer, thanks, I think it is outrageous. We need XML support for compatibility reasons. I probably won't ever use the features that XML brings, but the compatibility is ncessary for work.
 
I'm not sure I see the big problem. What is so special about XML that is going to be a problem for the typical Mac office user?

I'm just thinking in my situation in particular. Small office. Few Macs. Few PCs. We use Office on both. Never use anything XML-ish in Office. We just do spreadsheets, PowerPoints and Word files and send them back and forth to each other and to clients. So, in my situation, do I really care about the XML thing?
 
hmmmm don't really know how to state this but here it goes.

xml may not be in the mac version of office because SOAP hasn't been completed yet for the mac. I was talking to a programming friend of mine and he said that this may be the issue. I'm in the process of doing some research on this so ill get back to you all.

If anyone understands this or can explain it please do.
 
Well, I suppose that soothes the admission a bit.

I can understand (mindbend) that you may never need to worry about XML (for now, or at all). However, considering my situation, which is also a small set-up. My main client's site that we developed and continuously maintain, will be redeveloped with extensive XML use, and, if they get their way, XBRL (which is a language developed in XML (eXtensible Business Reporting Language). Integral to there whole system is Word's facility to utilise XML. Now, I am going to have to purchase more PC hardware and software solely for this job (where, if MS had implemented XML in Office 2004, I could get away with a lot spending).

But, as average zen has stated, XML support isn't perhaps MS fault. In general, XML isn't implemented on OS X very well at all. I'd be interested to see what average zen finds out.

By the way, welcome to the site average ;) :)
 
For an average user, I certainly don't need XML. Office X is a good product, has gotten stable with the upgrades. Yes, M$ browser was great when X was first out. They slacked on the updates and forced users to use others browsers.
I have no experience using the Windows version of Office, so can't lend my opinion on that matter. All I feel is competition fuels great development. Currently all we have is Office. I wish their were more choices for the Macintosh.
 
Mindbend,
The point is not whether or not we will use the XML features that it brings, but that we are able to use the format. The entire file format structure in Office 2003 has been completely re-written in XML. What that means is, if someone who has 2003 sends you a documentm, without saving it to a lower version of Office, we won't be able to open up documents on our macs even with the newest verion of Office 2004. That is the problem. I am a student, where Office 2003 is availible to students legally for as low as $20. What usually happens is, people buy the newest version, not because they need the features, but because they can since it's so cheap. What will probably end up happening is, I won't be able to read their documents when we start group projects together. This is unacceptable. If I am buying the newest version of Microsoft Office, that is out AFTER the new file format, I expect full support for it. Anything less is not acceptable if it hinders compatibility. That is the problem. It's not like we are complaining because the idiotic smart tags, or the smart panes, or whatever. I'm saying that we need to get things that are necessary for workflow with Windows Users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top