Free Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily

InfoWorld
Log-in | Register

  Monday, October 06, 2003 

Office 2003 perspectives

InfoWorld's special report on Office 2003 appears this week. I was interested to compare our take with that of the New York Times. David Pogue wrote:

In Office 2003, Microsoft has made shockingly few changes to Word, Excel and PowerPoint. The message seems to be: "You people didn't like it when we piled on features? O.K., fine. Let's see how you like it when we add none at all. [New York Times

In a brief paragraph, he summarized one of the major advances that I've devoted many articles to:

Another juicy corporate morsel: Office documents can now incorporate what's called XML code (extensible markup language). That statement may mean nothing to you, but it will give corporate geeks dilated pupils and sweaty palms. XML can tie together specially defined areas in ordinary Word and Excel documents with big, humming corporate databases. Fill in the blanks of the company expense report, and the company's SQL database can inhale and process it automatically.

Given how Microsoft has soft-pedaled the XML infrastructure now woven into Office, I can see why Pogue relegated it to a footnote. And the truth is that it will probably take at least one more turn of the crank before XML in Office, or indeed in any mainstream application, makes this kind of scenario -- which I suggest in the lead story -- a routine thing:

An entire document can always be saved as XML, but you can bind just a subset of a document to a schema and manage it accordingly. It's always been possible to attach metadata to an Office document using global properties. With this approach, the metadata can appear anywhere in the document. A paragraph or section, for example, might be assigned to a category and thus exposed to a category-aware search engine. [InfoWorld.com]

In a separate story, I looked at the collaborative modes now available when you use Office apps together with SharePoint and Live Communication Server. First, Outlook users get what Apple's Mail.app users have had for some time now: presence indicators in the email client:

presence in outlook

Likewise in SharePoint:

presence in sharepoint

And perhaps most interestingly, in the SharePoint pane of Excel (or Word):

presence in sharepoint

Pretty hot stuff! I concluded:

E-mail, the intranet, and IM have been on a collision course for some time now. I am delighted to see Microsoft not only embracing all three modes but also looking for ways to weave them together. Yet I can't avoid a sense of deja vu. In the 1990s, Netscape tried something similar, offering a suite of collaboration servers and a matching suite of clients. There were compelling benefits, but also a lot of moving parts. I feel the same way about Office, Exchange, SharePoint, and Live Communication Server. Users will find no single unifying theme akin to the Groove shared space. Administrators will have to install and manage three or four sets of clients and servers. The new capabilities are exciting, but it'll take lots more integration to make Office-based collaboration a seamless and manageable experience. [InfoWorld.com]

That conclusion was reinforced for me this weekend at BloggerCon, during Joi Ito's wonderful session about online community. Even highly advanced bloggers are often unfamiliar with alternate modes such as IRC and Wiki. Helping users to integrate these different communication modes and cognitive styles is going to be a real challenge, but it's great to see movement in that direction.

 

If it's Tuesday, it must be 10AM

A long-ago friend who was the alpha math/science geek in our junior high school used to set his watch by the stars. If programmers had their way, we'd all use astronomically-pure sidereal time. Or at least we'd abandon the absurd notion of time zones. Daylight Saving Time? Don't even go there. I have seen world-renowned software architects go ballistic when that hated subject comes up. Look at the ill-disguised contempt in the IETF's RFC 3339, Date and Time on the Internet:

All times expressed have a stated relationship (offset) to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). (This is distinct from some usage in scheduling applications where a local time and location may be known, but the actual relationship to UTC may be dependent on the unknown or unknowable actions of politicians or administrators. The UTC time corresponding to 17:00 on 23rd March 2005 in New York may depend on administrative decisions about daylight savings time. This specification steers well clear of such considerations.)

This week, Ray Ozzie touched off a cross-blog discussion by asking why we don't yet have a standard way to exchange "virtual objects so basic as calendars." His comment inspired me to dust off a back-burner project to export my Outlook calendar in iCalendar format (RFC 2445), so that users of Apple's iCal, or Mozilla Calendar, or other iCalendar-aware programs could subscribe to it. Along the way I rediscovered why calendaring, though indeed basic, is far from simple.

I'll spare you the details of my excursion into MAPI, Microsoft's mail API, using Python's Win32 and COM extensions plus code I cribbed from the SpamBayes plug-in for Outlook. Suffice it to say that after some fiddling, I got Outlook to disgorge my events as iCalendar VEVENT records. Then the fun began.

My calendar for October includes several trips to other timezones. (For good measure, some occur before the end of Daylight Saving Time, others after.) Those of you who travel more than I do have already guessed what dilemma now arose. Outlook's COM interface handed my Python script a UTC time object, and another field with my timezone, which it reported as GMT-05:00 Eastern Time (US & Canada). How should I represent that time in my published calendar? Here's one choice for a 10AM appointment on October 15:

DTSTART;TZID=US/Eastern:20031015T100000

But wait! That appointment is in Denver. So while it looks right to me in Outlook now, it's wrong for people in Denver. Alternatively I can set Outlook's timezone to GMT-07:00, record the event, and then switch back. Now the appointment will be right for people in Denver, but wrong for me.

The problem, as everybody who runs into this dilemma soon realizes, is that calendar programs typically don't allow you to distinguish between the location of the event you're scheduling and the location of the computer you are using to record the event.

When a computer in one timezone schedules an event in another timezone, the computer doing the scheduling needs to be able to accept and display both. Since the feature usually isn't needed, it should ideally be hidden but easily accessible. That's admittedly a thorny user interface problem. I'm sure programmers could solve it -- if they weren't so indignant about humanity's perversion of astronomical time. And now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go. It's 0100 UTC and the sun's coming up.

 


Recent Entries


















































Sponsored Technology Links

 
 
 HOME  NEWS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  VIDEOS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS   About | Advertise | Awards | RSS | Contact Us 

Copyright © 2008, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy, Terms of Service.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

CIO :: ComputerWorld :: CSO :: Demo :: GamePro :: Games.net :: IDG Connect :: IDG World Expo
Industry Standard :: IT World :: JavaWorld :: LinuxWorld :: MacUser :: Macworld :: Network World :: PC World :: Playlist