Office Supplemental Release (October 2009)
in [Word VBA]
|
From: Greg Maxey on 23 Dec 2009 15:32 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. Peter Jamieson wrote: > 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 > > On 22/12/2009 21:58, Greg Maxey wrote: >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> Peter Jamieson wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> On 22/12/2009 09:05, Greg Maxey wrote: >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> "Jay Freedman"<jay.freedman(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:0ef0j5p2jvgfv6ie18im9hmcuf0o39pagj(a)4ax.com... >>>>> 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 FAQ: http://word.mvps.org >>>>> Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the >>>>> newsgroup so all may benefit. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:27:48 -0500, "Greg Maxey" >>>>> <gmaxey(a)mIKEvICTORpAPAsIERRA.oSCARrOMEOgOLF> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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.
From: Fumei2 via OfficeKB.com on 23 Dec 2009 16:40 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. Dean G wrote: >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 -- Message posted via http://www.officekb.com
From: Fumei2 via OfficeKB.com on 23 Dec 2009 16:50 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. Fumei2 wrote: >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 -- Message posted via OfficeKB.com http://www.officekb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/word-programming/200912/1
From: Greg Maxey on 23 Dec 2009 16:56 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 ;-) Fumei2 via OfficeKB.com wrote: > 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. > > > Fumei2 wrote: >> 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
From: Greg Maxey on 24 Dec 2009 07:34 I can not attest to the accuracy of this information, but it true it may alleviate 'some' concerns: http://blogs.technet.com/gray_knowlton/archive/2009/12/23/what-is-custom-xml-and-the-impact-of-the-i4i-judgment-on-word.aspx BLT wrote: > 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/article/9142627/Microsoft_yanks_Custom_XML_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. > > "Greg Maxey" wrote: > >> 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) >> >> >> >> .
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Copiing styles to Normal.dotm Next: Using code to hide format of form field until needed. |