Talk:Open XML Paper Specification

message: Sumatra PDF can read XPS 
:Reference - http://www.ghacks.net/2011/04/26/sumatra-pdf-reader-updated-xps-file-support-added/
:Link - http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/free-pdf-reader.html
personally checked. would have saved me some time hunting if it was in the article ^_^
Ramdomwolf 130.63.143.227 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Readers

message: Does anybody know what is the status of reader for Mac, Linux,
mobile OS? --BBird (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Mac OS and Linux, you can use Okular. (It's even listed in the article in the "See also"-section, though for some reason without an explanation what it actually is) --77.56.245.143 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Other OS readers

message: Microsoft's licensing terms for XPS and shared source simply state that incorporating MS code with code under some other license (e.g., GPL) does not subject the MS code to the other license's terms.  In other words, agreeing to a contract with company X does not subject you to a contract from company Y (which you never signed/agreed to).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: License openess

message: 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)
replies: text: a smaller download in current OSes.
Firstly it appears to be OR. Secondly, it's potentially a bit misleading as the Essentials pack requires MSXML 6.0. As this is an additional component that many Windows XP computers won't have by default it had to be considered even if it is only 1.5mb Nil Einne 15:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XPS is a "smaller download" to read files than PDF? 

message: "Adobe Reader also has a less-than-stellar user interface due to issues like the feature bloat and inconvenient navigation/zooming". Says who? If Acrobat is inconvenient, what does that make the XPS Viewer (plug-in or stand-alone)? Prehistoric? Minimalist?
nemo 10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this section can be much improved. One thing that is often considered bloat is the multimedia abilities that Adobe has added to the format. Most of the time, the format is used for print media - why add multimedia capabilities to something intended for print? Seriously, there are very, very few people who actually use the multimedia aspect of PDF files. The vast majority of people use PDF for stuff that's intended to be sent to a printer - and XPS happens to do print stuff, so it's competing directly with PDF. Most people are going to be using Flash for multimedia, not PDF. CobraA1 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be pointed out that XPS supports custom namespaces and as such can be extended (or "bloated") by third-party developers should they so wish (in addition to Microsoft). XPS is extremely young compared to PDF, so its current lack of little-used features may be remedied in time! nemo 16:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed UI criticism 

message: The criticism section looks more like a criticism of Adobe (in particular, Acrobat) than anything approaching a criticism of XPS. While the first few sentences do mention some things, important points such as Embrace Extend, and Exterminate are left to the end and are made out to be mainly bad points about Adobe Acrobat. Why all the comparison with Adobe anyway? Are we confusing a "specification" with "a program designed to read files of that specification". XPS cannot be compared to Acrobat, because one is a program, and the other isn't. --User:Snow93
:Agreed. Comparing XPS to PDF is a valid exercise (especially when comparing the resources required to process such documents). Comparing a feature-rich application (Acrobat) to a feature-poor one (XPS Viewer) proves nothing of the formats' relative merits. nemo 15:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: The example is image is good, but is self-referential and ought to be replaced with something more neutral per Wikipedia:Avoid self-reference. Maybe a vendor-supplied example. Dcoetzee 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I don't understand this comment.  Dcoetzee, is it the Wikipedia front page that you take issue to?  The Wikipedia policy against self-reference basically says "don't define the XML Paper Specification as a specification for paper that uses XML".  More succinctly, don't define a dog as an animal that is a dog.  The contents of the print page are entirely meaningless as long as it's something that the viewer might have a frame of reference for.  The Wikipedia front page certainly qualifies. - Robert Rapplean 17:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self reference 

message: :Image:Xpsviewer.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Xpsviewer.png

message: Specification reader is not allowed to copy the specificiation as written in the license on 2008-04-16:
…You may not (i) duplicate any part of these Materials…
Statement about free redistribution on Wikipedia is in conflict with the license.
147.251.48.18 (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redistribution of specification

message: As per this page ECMA is working to produce an open XPS-compatible standard. Is this worth mentioning in the main article, and if so how should one go about it? 86.8.141.80 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to say. I'd take a wait and see approach to see if this really solidifies into something real, or if it falls apart. If progress is made and it turns out to be a real effort, then go ahead and mention it.  —CobraA1 03:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECMA standardisation 

message: I've never seen an .*xps file in the wild. Is there any advantage of XPS over PDF except maybe better interoperability with Microsoft products? Both are supposedly open standards, both are heavily tied to/controlled by a corporation that has a strange definition of "open". --88.73.63.221 (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody use this? 

message: This article is not very helpful for someone who has received an XPS file and simply wants to view the contents, with no desire to install anything.
Are there any true online viewers?
One good option is here: XPS2PDF - Convert your XPS files to PDF online
a simple free service that works, without requiring any emails.-96.237.13.111 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewing XPS files 

message: It looks like XPS will continue in Windows 8. However, it won't be called "Microsoft XPS", but simply "Open XPS".
Taken from a Softpedia article:
“As an international standard, OpenXPS has several ecosystem advantages, compared to Microsoft XPS. First, there are a number of government agencies that require standardized document formats for internal use, and that requirement has been a barrier to the adoption of MSXPS in some cases. OpenXPS removes this barrier to adoption.
“Additionally, Microsoft has received feedback from hardware and software developers requesting a process that prevents frequent revisions and changes to the MSXPS format to prevent the frequent rewriting of their applications and drivers to match the arbitrary changes. OpenXPS is an international standard with a formalized change processes and a wide publication of revisions.”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open XPS in Windows 8 

message: Just a friendly reminder folks: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Andacar 18:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Misuse 

message: Why does this article refer to XPS/OXPS in the past tense? I have not found any mention in the article of the format's demise or abandonment, so the use of past tense is confusing. If past tense is applicable, I believe it is important to explain the rationale prominently in the first paragraph. Otherwise, I propose that this article be edited to use present tense. Wthrower (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Tense 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open XML Paper Specification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090919151131/http://www.microsoft.com:80/whdc/xps/xpscommunitypromisefaq.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpscommunitypromisefaq.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Open XML Paper Specification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120423075901/http://notes2self.net:80/archive/2009/06/17/openxps-openxml-paper-specification.aspx to http://notes2self.net/archive/2009/06/17/openxps-openxml-paper-specification.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article mention libgxps based readers as supporting OpenXPS, which is not accurate. It seems to only support the older XPS format. (eVince, possibly others) (The entire third party support section seems to include possibly XPS-only readers in the OpenXPS article) 196.14.169.11 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenXPS vs XPS readers 

message: Hi. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add a section about Microsoft removing the XPS Viewer from Windows 10.https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/unlock-xps-viewer/ It would seem to indicate that they have largely abandoned support for the XML format. Madoublet (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft removes XPS Viewer from Windows 10