| Related sites for http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/attach.html |
| Alliance_Micro_Solutions Training and consulting services with emphasis on technical training. Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, IBM and other vendors. Located in California, United States. | | Kaul_Consulting Computer consulting and customized training. Solutions for both home and business computer users. Located in Arizona, United States. | | The_Code_Project_Introduction_to_VML Gives a brief overview of the Vector Markup Language and shows some examples and practical uses of this cool technology. | | Electronic_Labyrinth__Douglas_Engelbart Brief professional biography; a on-site few links. | | QB89 A site for Qbasic, downloads, tutorials. | | Quantum_Star_SE Quantum Star SE is a browser based space strategy game involving Mining, Combat, Exploration, Planets and Clans played in real time. (PHP/SQL)[Platform Independent] | | Biometric_Consortium The Biometric Consortium serves as the US Government's focal point for research, development, test, evaluation, and application of biometric-based personal identification/verification technology. | | Temtec_International_B_V_ Provides OLAP reporting and analysis software and business intelligence solutions. | | University_of_Saskatchewan,_Saskatoon Department of Computer Science. Research groups include: Bioinformatics, Advanced Research in Intelligent Education Systems (ARIES), Computer Systems, Networks, and Performance (DISCUS), Human Comput | | SCHENKER_CAD-Design_&_3D_Modeling Company develops quality 3D objects, as well as individual 3D symbols and 3D models for current CAD architecture programs. Models are available in DXF or 3DS-Format for 3D Studio and AutoCAD. | | T_C__Design Fractal and digital designs as well as some celebrities. | | The_G4_Store__Apple_iPod Read about the use of the iPod, Apple's digital music accessory for tunes on the go. Includes specifications and iPod features. | | TrMake Open Source - A modular makefile system for multi-platform C++ development in Unix environment using GNU make 3.80 or higher, featuring modular makefiles and transparent handling of dependencies and s | | RFC_2157 Mapping between X.400 and RFC-822/MIME Message Bodies. H. Alvestrand. January 1998. | | Bling_iPod Supplies reviews and commentary about iPod accessories in a blogging format. | | Web_Signals Web design, JavaScript, and search engine submissions. | | Ad_Loc_Design Offers web and graphics design. Located in Maine, United States. | | OWL_Software Publisher of easy to use accounting, billing, inventory and investment portfolio management software that you can try before you buy. | | Nutrocker Web buttons and background tiles, resources, photos and additional material. Also courses to help with HTML, JavaScript, Graphics, and a bulletin board. | | KDE_Themes_on_Freshmeat A list of "KDE Themes" on themes.freshmeat.net. |
|
div.p { margin-top: 7pt;} MS-Word is {Not} a document exchange format MS-Word is Not a document exchange format Jeff Goldberg Typically you are getting this because you sent someone an emailmessage using MS-Word or some other operating system ortext-processing specific attachment. Alternatively, you mayhave placed MS-Word files on the web as the only means for getting atthe document content.Contents 1 What's wrong with sending MS-Word files? 1.1 Requires proprietary software 1.2 Version problems 1.3 Proprietary data format 1.4 Viruses and security 1.5 Size 1.6 Prior version info 1.7 Typically attached "wrong" to email 1.8 Word is not device independent 1.9 Word isn't even good at what it is designed for2 Alternatives3 Where MS-Word is appropriate4 Response to the "it's the emergent standard" refrain5 History and related documents 5.1 Similar documents 5.2 Rants about MS-Word 5.3 Reaction so far 5.4 How you can help 5.5 About this document and copyright notice 5.6 Shameless plug 5.7 Acknowledgement 1 What's wrong with sending MS-Word files? 1.1 Requires proprietary softwareYou are basically assuming that everyone has on their desktop the samesoftware that you have. That often goes against the spirit of theInternet which is supposed to be about inter-operability ofheterogeneous systems. That fact that one "persistently predatorymonopoly"1 attempts tosubvert that goal, doesn't mean that you should go along with it.Someone who sends me such mail is perfectly welcome to purchase for mea machine and software specifically so that I can read mail in thatproprietary system. But I will still have the inconvenience of havingto forward the file to a system I wouldn't normally use. 1.2 Version problemsEven for those who chose to use MS-Word, there are compatibilityproblems between various versions. Foreshadowing the next topic, itappears that Microsoft is unwilling to provide fixes for verysubstantial security problems in older versions.An article on CNN's website (September 13, 2002) reports such aninstance. 1.3 Proprietary data formatThe above two problems are closely tied to the question of proprietarydata formats. When you store your work in MS-Word format, you arebetting that you will always have access to some licensed software thatwill be able to read that format. The Open DataFormat Initiative has more information on what is wrong with closedformats. 1.4 Viruses and securityMS-Word allows full macro-scripting. It is now the most commoncarrier for viruses. What this means is that embedded within a Wordfile can be a program which runs silently (or otherwise) on therecipient's computer whenever they view the file. Are you happy withletting other people run programs on your machine?In one instance that I know of, a substantial portion of an MBAgraduating class sent out résumés with a Word macro virus. Idon't think that this helped their job prospects. But the particularbusiness school had an official MS-Word policy. 1.5 SizeOften what would be just a few kilobytes of plain text is hundreds ofkilobytes as a Word file. I find it interesting that MS-file browsersand emailers don't make it obvious to the sender how large particularfiles are. 1.6 Prior version infoBecause of Word's system of doing version control, it is possible thatrecipients may see prior drafts of your document (which may containconfidential information).I've heard a number of "friend of a friend" stories about this sortof thing. In one case, a potential customer was given a quote forsome product, and the quote was sent in an MS-Word file. When thecustomer viewed the version history, they found that a previousversion of the document had been used for a quote to other customers,with much lower numbers. But since initially writing this, I haveheard a number of first hand accounts. Some of which are below.Since I almost never read MS-Word documents sent to me, I will have torely on the accounts of others.Probably one of the most spectacular instances of informationinadvertently leaked because someone (the British Prime Minister'soffice) used MS-Word for document exchange is described in an article byRichard M. Smith,MicrosoftWord bytes Tony Blair in the butt. The edit history of the "Februarydossier" has become a matter of contention to say the least. Smith'sarticle provides links and details.Other, more mundane, accounts of meta-data leaking from MS-Word documentsfollow.In a Usenet news article,Alan Frame describes some of his experiences with this In the past, I've received MS Word documents from an agency, describing a job vacancy where they've refused to name the client - lo and behold, the document properties reveals all.And also Indeed, I've also seen an internal business proposal which appears to have originated at the supplier that the proponent was err, proposing.I have also received word from others saying, This regularly happens to me because I deal with public relations companies who always use the very latest spiffy version of Word and Powerpoint and seem to be totally unaware that not everyone does the same. Normally I junk these docs, but if I need them I view them ... and often see where corrections have been made... I have never seen anything really sensitive as a result of this, probably because most press releases aren't on very sensitive subjects. Usually I see comments like "CLAIRE: should we describe what the possible treatment options might be?", plus minor word-changes. But I live in hope.Charles Wankel posted a message concerning this to theE-Media list of the Academy of Managementsaying, I received a paper for an effort that I was an editor for from someone who had used a ghostwriter. The ghostwriter had had embedded her name in such a way that when I looked at the document in a source view I could see it with the dates that wrote, edited, and re-edited drafts of the document. 1.7 Typically attached "wrong" to emailWhile this is not strictly speaking a problem with MS-Word files, itis a related problem. People and systems that think that it is rightto just send such things, seem to think that it is OK to sendeverything with the MIME Content-type ofapplication/octet-stream and let the recipient work thingsout from the filename info that is also sent. That is a violation ofthe intent of the MIME standards, and indicates broken design forexchange of information. 1.8 Word is not device independentI have been told that MS-Word documents will format differentlydepending on the specifics of the printer. This is not merely issuesof printer resolution or color depth, but the actual formating of thedocument will differ. I was surprised to learn this. I had assumedthat Word was "What You See Is What You Get", but it appears that Iwas mistaken about that. So it won't even achieve the goal ofensuring that your recipient sees things with all the formatting yousee things with even if the recipient also uses MS-Word. 1.9 Word isn't even good at what it is designed forAs an aside, I feel that MS-Word produces probably the worst outputand is the slowest and most tedious to work in of any documentpreparation system in serious use I've seen in the past 15 years. Ifind it remarkable that when people are presented a choice between astructural mark-up system (what you mean is what get) versus a visualmark-up system (what you see is all you get) people opt for thelatter. For more on this point see section 5.2. Notethat the argument that MS-Word is an inappropriate exchange formatis independent of this point about its quality as a documentpreparation system. 2 AlternativesWhen talking about things sent by email it is important to distinguishbetween document exchange and message exchange. Message exchange istypically what one does by email. Making announcements orparticipating in a discussion, and many of the other things wetypically do with email. For these plain text is the only reasonablething. It is the safest, most portable and by far the most compact.It allows responses quoting portions, and has none of the dangersmentioned above. The small added value of the formating informationisn't worth all of the problems.If you absolutely need to present the formating information fordocument exchange, then use a page description language like PDF.Also consider using (standards compliant) HTML. Please note that Iam not in any way advocating the use of HTML in ordinary email. It isgrossly inappropriate for that for reasons that are beyond the scopeof this document.In earlier versions of this document, I listed RTF (Rich Text Format) asa more standards based way of exchanging word-processor documents. Ihave been corrected on that point innumerable times. RTF is littlebetter than MS-Word format itself. It is a <em>little</em> better, butit shares all of the problems as MS-Word. Although RTF was advertised asa document exchange format, it never lived up to that. It appears tohave varying features, and the various version of RTF that Microsoft productscreate have elements which only Microsoft Products can read. Note thatthis is not because MS-Word is a better product, but because Microsoftkeeps elements of what it considers to be RTF secret. 3 Where MS-Word is appropriateMS-Word is appropriate for document exchange among co-authors of adocument who are all developing it and have agreed before hand to useMS-Word. If you have been referred to the document you are now reading,then the person who referred you to it probably doesn't considerthemselves party to such an agreement, and having sent them an MS-Worddocument is inappropriate. 4 Response to the "it's the emergent standard" refrainSeveral people have responded with sophisticated "network analysis"essays about MS-Word being a de facto standard, and pointing out thateven if the standard isn't the optimal one, it is better to go alongwith the standard anyway. My counter argument is two-fold: Whether or not the argument about emergent standard holds for authorship (eg, "I use Word because it is what my potential co-authors use") has little bearing on what you use for document exchange. I use LATEX for document preparation, but I distribute them as PDF.2 So there may be an argument for using MS-Word even though it is inferior to other options, but that in no way suggests that MS-Word should be used for document exchange. The second argument is an ethical one, and I start with an analogy. Over the past few years it has become fashionable in the US to drive some form of truck as a primary commuting/errands vehicle. There are many issues regarding that fashion, but for this analogy I would like to focus on two of them. When two vehicles collide the occupants of the lighter one are far more likely to suffer injury than they would if the had collided with an equally light vehicle. So when someone drives a truck, they are putting those in normal sized vehicles at an extra risk. The second property is similar. The headlights of the trucks are much higher off the ground than those of cars. Driving a car at night with one of these trucks close behind you is extremely annoying and possibly dangerous. In both of these cases, the drivers of the trucks don't experience the disadvantage of others driving trucks. In the first case, they too are in heavy vehicles, and in the second the driver is high enough off the ground to not be impaired by the headlights of other trucks. By the logic of the "emergent standard" advocates, the only way to deal with the truck problems I've described is to switch to driving a truck oneself. The emergent standard argument might have some validity if the standards were arbitrary, but if some are particularly destructive to community as a whole, they should be opposed. Use of MS-Word for document exchange is simply bad network citizenship. Paraphrasing Juhapekka Tolvanen: using MS-Word is like smoking; using it for document exchange is like blowing your smoke in everyone else's face. There is a third argument, closely related to the second: Do you want to be part of Microsoft's marketing effort? 5 History and related documents 5.1 Similar documentsWhen I first wrote the first version of this document in March, 2001,it was because I not only was fed up with people sending me unwantedMS-Word documents, but because I was tired of explaining repeatedlywhy I objected to them. I wrote this to be part of a cannedresponse.Being remarkably lazy, I didn't want to investigate and write this upif someone else had already written something. So I did a little bitof searching for documents like this. I knew from personalcommunication that while I am in a minority there is a substantialminority which feels exactly the same way. I expected that someonewould have already written something like this document.I didn't find any when I looked, but clearly I didn't look carefullyenough. I have since been informed of others that I've missed. Ilist them here, along with some which were written after my document. plaintext: In praise of practical e-mail hygiene This is Martin Vermeer's essay. It covers the same points as mine but goes deeper into trying to persuade people to be better network citizens. http://www.netby.dk/Oest/Europa-Alle/vermeer/plain.html We can put an end to Word attachments This is an article by Richard M. Stallman advocating efforts like mine to discourage people from sending MS-Word documents. The article itself is aimed at those who already know that Word attachments are wrong. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Sincere Choice This is the home page of the Sincere Choice platform who say "We believe that there should be a fair, competitive market for computer software, both proprietary and Open Source." http://sincerechoice.com/ The Sincere Choice principles of open standards and interoperability underly much of what has been stated here. http://sincerechoice.com/Principles/Open_Standards.html http://sincerechoice.com/Principles/Choice_Through_Interoperability.html Open Data Format Initiative This is an attempt to encourage software companies to fully document the formats of their data files. To paraphrase earlier words of the founder of this initiative, if you own the data in the PowerPoint presentation you created, why should you need a license from Microsoft to get at your presentation? http://odfi.org/ Miksi on typerää postittaa sähköpostin... As you can see, this detailed essay and analysis by Juhapekka Tolvanen is in Finnish. I don't read that language, but there are some useful links from that. He comes up with a very useful analogy, which I will rephrase more harshly: Using MS-Word is like smoking; emailing those files is like blowing smoke into other people's faces. http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/mswordmail.html MS-Word? nom obrigado A similar document to mine, available in Portugues and Galician, by Ramón Flores d'as Seixas. While this document is based on the others listed here, it also adds points about what makes a good document exchange format. It also discusses the values of standards of exchange in terms of establishing a level playing field. The Galician is pretty much readable to those who can read Spanish. http://members.tripod.com.br/ramonflores/word/index.html Brave new Word A similar document in Norwegian, a language I can't read. Written by Thomas Gramstad. It has some links at the end that might be useful to people who don't read Norwegian. http://www.efn.no/brave-new-word.html Avoid E-Mail attachments, especially Microsoft Word A similar document to this, but much shorter. It gives some brief instructions to MS-Word users on alternatives they can use for document exchange. http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/attachments.html Elektronische infomatieoverdracht binnen de VU-organisatie: Het gebruik van e-mail en MS Word (PDF) A document in Dutch by Reinout van Schouwen. Also it is directed internally. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~reinout/word-attachments.pdf 5.2 Rants about MS-WordThe focus of this document has been on the misuse of Word for documentexchange. It is geared toward MS-Word users to encourage them to senddocuments in other formats, even if they continue to use Word fordocument production. It should be noted, however, that thoseindividuals who are most annoyed by receiving MS-Word files fordocument exchange are those who do not regularly use MS-Word. Nonethe less, it is hoped that fans of MS-Word will recognize thatwhatever its virtues, it is not a document exchange format.The arguments I've presented stand even if MS-Word were a good toolfor document preparation. However, I'd also like to point to somedocuments which argue (correctly in my view) why MS-Word is a badchoice of document preparation system and not just a bad choice ofdocument exchange format. Word Processors: Stupid and Inefficient by Allin Cottrell discusses what is wrong with What You See is All You Get systems using visual mark-up, as opposed to the far more reasonable structural system where you separate the tasks of controlling the appearance from the task of writing the content. http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html No Proprietary Binary Data Formats by Sam Steingold. This discusses the dangers of keeping important data in formats which require restricting and licensed software to recover. MS-Word is a proprietary and secret document format. You are trusting your future access to you own documents to the whim of a persistent monopolist. http://www.podval.org/~sds/data.html 5.3 Reaction so farAs far as I can tell my campaign has met with little success so far(January 2002) other than a few people taking some care to send me RTFdocuments instead of MS-Word documents, with no change in theirgeneral practice. If I get any response at all it is typically"Well, you're right but I'm going to stick with my currentpractices." I find that disappointing, particularly when peopleacknowledge the correctness of the ethical argument I make.On September 13, 2002 an opportunity fell into my lap during adiscussion of a newly reported security bug in MS-Word to shamelesslyplug this document inhttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39860&cid=4252157.This generated a number of supportive email messages and a flurry oftypo corrections.There has also been one, somewhat harsh, critique of version 1.27 ofthis document. That critique and brief discussion can be found athttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39860&cid=4264355. I havemodified the wording of section 1.9 and furtheremphasized the point made at the beginning ofsection 5.2 as a result. 5.4 How you can helpThere are a number of ways you can help. These include, but arehardly limited to Don't use MS-Word for document exchange Refer people who assume that you do use MS-Word for document exchange to this or similar document. Promote the ideas described in this document. You may do this by linking to it or redistributing it. See section 5.5 for copyright notice and redistribution restrictions. 5.5 About this document and copyright noticeThis document is available in several formats fromhttp://www.goldmark.org/netrants/no-word/.Copyright (c) 2001-2002 by Jeffrey Goldberg. This material may bedistributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in theOpen Publication License, v1.0 or later (the latest version ispresently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).Distribution of the work or derivative of the work in any standard(paper) book form is prohibited unless prior permission is obtainedfrom the copyright holder.Please note that that if you wish do something with this that requiresmy explicit permission, just ask. I suspect that I'd grant it formost requests. Note also that the Open Publication License does allowyou to do many things with this document without my permission. 5.6 Shameless plugIf you have found this interesting, you may wish to seeother netrants I have at http://www.goldmark.org/netrants/. 5.7 AcknowledgementAmong others, I would like to thank Jim Diamond, Alan Frame, DaveReader, Pete Mitchell and Juhapekka Tolvanen for their comments on anearlier draft. Your name can be added here as well. Just provideuseful comments and suggestions. Other people are acknowledge in thechange log of this document.Footnotes:1In the words of a U.S. federal judge.2Using LATEX does have exactly the cost described by those who raise the "de facto standard" argument: I find myself limited in co-authors to a subset of clueful, intelligent and network cooperative individuals.File translated fromTEXby TTH,version 3.60.On 14 Jun 2005, 19:26. |
|
