Talk:XML Paper Specification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the XML Paper Specification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

[edit] Clarification?

"XPS is viewed as a potential competitor to Adobe's portable document format (PDF). XPS however is a static document format that does not include dynamic capabilities similar to those of PDF." What does that really mean? RobertM525 20:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably that XPS has nothing like forms, multimedia etc. It's just GDI++. --Oneiros 21:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
But it has the thing that the majority of PDF users use: storing static documents as they'd be printed. What proportion of PDF documents really use the scripting, multimedia or forms features? --James 10:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It might all be moot anyhow, it looks like Adobe is going to go down the route of taking proactive legal action to prevent Microsoft from getting too far down this route.[1] Warrens 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"What proportion of PDF documents really use the scripting, multimedia or forms features?" -- It doesn't matter, the difference is this among other things anyway. -- Northgrove 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter, the difference is this among other things anyway." -- Nevertheless, if it is seen as having less demanding requirements for viewing, saving, and printing, it may have an advantage: Adobe's reader is often viewed as unnecessarily bloated, both in size and in computational requirements. If viewers for XPS are smaller and faster, it could be seen as an advantage. If plugins are made for the major browsers, I could easily see this as replacing PDF for the vast majority of users. CobraA1 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why has Microsoft decided to do this? Is there a reason why they wanted to create a pdf-like format? I searched the microsoft website and found nothing. Maybe if someone finds a formal reason from Microsoft, you can add it to the article.

I don't have a formal reason from Microsoft, but the primary purpose of XPS is to be a method of printing. You make various printing calls that are converted into XPS XML and then shipped off to the printer driver. Thus, communicating with a printer "directly" requires only throwing an XPS XML document at it. As a useful side effect, you can print to a file that can easily be read by other programs (whether print drivers or GUI applications). Lastly, you have the potential ability to algorithmically convert any document into XPS without bothering with graphics calls and the Windows XPS converter. Korval 21:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good question... Also, why isn't the Word doc format not good for this...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.102.124.102 (talk • contribs)-28T18:48:28.

The Word format is no good for any use that involves accurate reproduction of formatting on more than one computer. It’s apparently so complex that even different versions of Word have difficulty accurately rendering documents, let alone third-party software designed to run on low-powered hardware. Also, in order for them to achieve their goals with this, they’d basically have to open the Word format to competition, which Microsofts believes would cost them their monopoly. —Felix the Cassowary 01:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Before having read anything about the license, I'd have said they are trying to create a PDF-like proprietary standard that Free Software can't use. The summary of the licensing (on Wikipedia) sounds okay, but I'd be inclined to have an extremely careful read through it before dropping all suspicion.
It does require source code to include: This product may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. The terms and conditions upon which Microsoft is licensing such intellectual property may be found at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52369.
Then it goes on to say: By including the above notice in a Licensed Implementation, you will be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions of this license. You are not licensed to distribute a Licensed Implementation under license terms and conditions that prohibit the terms and conditions of this license. - James Foster 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously part of Microsoft's "Every format should belong to us" - business strategy. They plan on succeeding with this by integrating this new format into Windows. I'd say that it's a clear case of that old "monopoly violation" you all heard of before.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.248.82.7 (talk • contribs)-08T13:12:52.
Be reasonable. Microsoft has announced they plan to standardize XPS through a standards body (cf. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061015-7992.html). Everyone needs access to a free, reliable, non-proprietary fixed document format (PDF is proprietary). This is a good thing. 131.107.0.73 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

220.239.127.104 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC) ChrisAlexander 5th Dec 2006 I Believe; you are right about Doc being way too complex, large file size, no portability etc... for a few years Microsoft have been using XML or variations to deliver information. Now it seems like they will use it for MS Word too. "docx" is a new format, but it probably will be overtaken by XPS. If they could switch over like a Light Switch, they probably would, but hey look at what switching over did for VB6 to VB.Net (many coders were not happy, and cried for days, boo-hoo ;) Why not just use PDF? Well they could, but if their plan is to have MS Word save as XPS as default in the future, then there's no point really. People can still print XPS to PDF can't they?

- Real Life and Down to Earth - If we all sat around thinking about it for a while we would just start creating HTML files (instead of Doc) MS tried to have "save as... html" but you still needed IE or MS Word to read the stupid things, so it was almost pointless. Maybe XPS will get around this issue, where XML is standardised, it could make it easier for other platforms to read/write to.

[edit] XPS is a "smaller download" to read files than PDF?

Seriously, I had no idea people were still using Adobe's bloatware to read something so simple as a PDF. --Mike 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../x/m/l/Talk%7EXML_Paper_Specification_1f89.html"