Skip to main content

Diigo Home
Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged interop

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Alex Brown on the ODF Zero Interop problem: The discussion to limit the use of Foreign elem... - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00009.html

odf interop alex-brown

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 09 Mar 09 - Snapshot
  • So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF
    document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM
    TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best
    valueless and at worst positively misleading.

    So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into
    resolving this problem ...
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 22 Mar 09
       
      The sad thing is that with the agreement between JTC1 and OASIS regarding ODF, it seems that SC34 has been completely cut out of the loop in terms of "fixing ODF", as you put it.

      I cannot see how SC34 will be able to play any part in this - besides rubber-stamping ODF 1.2 when it comes our way.
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 09 Mar 09
     
    So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF
    document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM
    TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best
    valueless and at worst positively misleading.

    So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into
    resolving this problem ... Alex Brown

    What Alex fails to mention is that the "foreign elements and alien attributes" components in the ODF Section 1.5 "Compliance and Conformance" clause was originally put there in early 2003 to provide a compatibility layer for MSOffice binary documents. Without this clause, it would be impossible to convert the billions of legacy MSOffice binary documents to ODF without breaking the fidelity. Now th OASIS ODF TC wants to limit the use of the compatiblity clause. An action that would seriously cripple Microsoft's efforts to implement ODF in MSOffice 14.

    No surprises here. It was only a matter of time until IBM and Sun ganged up on the newest TC member, Microsoft.
  • Jesper Lund Stocholm
    Jesper Lund Stocholm on 22 Mar 09
     
    So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF
    document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM
    TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best
    valueless and at worst positively misleading.

    So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into
    resolving this problem ... Alex Brown

    What Alex fails to mention is that the "foreign elements and alien attributes" components in the ODF Section 1.5 "Compliance and Conformance" clause was originally put there in early 2003 to provide a compatibility layer for MSOffice binary documents. Without this clause, it would be impossible to convert the billions of legacy MSOffice binary documents to ODF without breaking the fidelity. Now th OASIS ODF TC wants to limit the use of the compatiblity clause. An action that would seriously cripple Microsoft's efforts to implement ODF in MSOffice 14.

    No surprises here. It was only a matter of time until IBM and Sun ganged up on the newest TC member, Microsoft.
Gary Edwards

An Interop Nightmare: The Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate Review of OpenOffice.org... - 0 views

www.nwprogressive.org/...free-openofficeorg-writer.html

ooo odf ooxml interop marbux

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Feb 09 - Snapshot
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 03 Feb 09
     
    Marbux at his best! Let's hope the OASIS ODF and OpenOffice.org groups get to work on real interop, and stop with the phony baloney. It can be done, bu tnothing is going to happen until people face up to the harsh reality that today there is zero interop between ODF compliant applications. This must change .... unless of course the world decides to move to the most interoperable but high performance format ever invented: HTML-CSS.

    And maybe from there the world can move onto the WebKit sugarplum document model, and truly set the future of the Open Web. One thing obviously missing for the Open Web is an office suite of high performance editors capable of natively producing high end WebKit documents (or basic HTML-CSS for that matter!!!!!!!)

    Good on marbux. Now, can you persuade OASIS and OpenOffice to change their application specific ways? Take on the desktop as well as the future of the Open Web?
Gary Edwards

Interoperability, more and less | Bob Sutor's Website and Blog - 0 views

www.sutor.com/...blog-open

interop interoperability

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Jan 09 - Snapshot
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 08 Jan 09
     
    IBM'sl Bob Sutor defines interop in terms of formats, protocols and interfaces: "To be clear, I'm talking about software interoperability. That technically boils down to the formats used to exchange information, the protocols by which the formatted information is exchanged, and the application programming interfaces (APIs) that software implements to allow the interchange to concretely take place. Collectively I'll call these interchange formats and methods".
Paul Merrell

Doug Mahugh : ODF Implementation Notes for Office 2007 SP2 - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...notes-for-office-2007-sp2.aspx

ODF Microsoft office 2007 interop

shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Jan 09 - Snapshot
  • Microsoft has today published our first set of document-format implementation notes, for the ODF implementation in Office 2007 SP2. These notes, which are available on the DII web site, provide detailed information about the design decisions that went into our implementation of ODF 1.1.

  • Doug,


    The list of elements and attributes "not supported in core Word/Excel/PowerPoint 2007" is quite long. Can you tell us what will happen, when Office 2007 encouters an unsupported element.


    Will it simply be ignored?


    When roundtripping - will it be deleted or preserved?

  • Doug,


    The list of elements and attributes "not supported in core Word/Excel/PowerPoint 2007" is quite long. Can you tell us what will happen, when Office 2007 encouters an unsupported element.


    Will it simply be ignored?


    When roundtripping - will it be deleted or preserved?

  • ...1 more annotation...

  • Jesper,


    On load, Office 2007 SP2 will simply ignore the unsupported elements and attributes in ODF files.  We do not attempt to round trip unsupported elements and attributes, they will be removed from the ODF file if you resave it using Office 2007 SP2.  This is consistent with our implementation principles and our desire to provide predictable behavior.   We considered trying to roundtrip elements and attributes that we do not understand or support, but we found if we did this that we could not be sure the resulting files were internally consistent and conformant ODF files.  


    As an aside, there are some cases where we write elements or attributes on save that we do not support on load, for the sake of better interoperability with other applications that use ODF.   Those cases are described in the implementer notes as well.

  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 05 Jan 09
     
    Jesper Lund Stocholm asks a right-on-the-mark question. Peter Amstein answers for Microsoft. What do you expect when a specification ends its conformance section with the statement, "There are no rules regarding the elements and attributes that actually have to be supported by conforming applications, except that applications should not use foreign elements and attributes for features defined in the OpenDocument schema?"
Gary Edwards

MIcrosot's latest kiss of death: ODF - 0 views

www.fool.com/...ofts-latest-kiss-of-death.aspx

odf ooxml dII interop

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Dec 08 - Snapshot
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 20 Dec 08
     
    Embrace. Extend. Extinguish.

    That's how Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) killed Netscape many moons ago. Embrace this newfangled "Web browser" market with a new product. Extend the existing Web standards with proprietary technologies like ActiveX. Extinguish the competition by denying them access to those fancy new features. When it works, this is a great way to build and maintain wide, alligator-filled business moats.

    It seems to me that Mr. Softy is up to his old tricks again. The target this time is the OpenDocument standard, a free and open alternative to Microsoft's own Office formats for text documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and more.
Gary Edwards

Apache POI - Java API To Access Microsoft Format Files - 0 views

poi.apache.org

apache-poi ooxml interop DII

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 08 - Snapshot
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 08
     
    POI 3.5 beta 3, and Office Open XML Support (2008-07-18) now supported by Microsoft through the Document Interoperability Initiative Project (DII)

    The Apache POI Project is currently working to support the new Office Open XML file formats, such as XLSX and PPTX, which were introduced in Office 2007.

    The POI project consists of APIs for manipulating various file formats based upon Microsoft's OLE 2 Compound Document format, and Office OpenXML format, using pure Java. In short, you can read and write MS Excel files using Java. In addition, you can read and write MS Word and MS PowerPoint files using Java. POI is your Java Excel solution (for Excel 97-2007). However, we have a complete API for porting other OLE 2 Compound Document formats and welcome others to participate.

    OLE 2 Compound Document Format based files include most Microsoft Office files such as XLS and DOC as well as MFC serialization API based file formats.

    Office OpenXML Format based files include the new (2007+) xml based file formats, including Microsoft office files such as XLSX, DOCX and PPTX.
Gary Edwards

EU's Kroes says further technology antitrust abuse cases pending UPDATE - Forbes.com - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...afx5098515.html

antitrust eu interop kroes odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Jun 08 - Snapshot

  • The commission said that as part of its antitrust investigation into interoperability with Microsoft Office it will investigate whether the announced support of ODF in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.


    Kroes said on Tuesday that the commission keeps a close eye on interoperability and said the market should have the right balance of non-propriety and propriety standards.


    'Standards are the foundation of interoperability'. 'Standards may, of course, be proprietary or non-proprietary. Much excellent technical development has been driven by non-proprietary standards - the internet is awash with acronyms for non-proprietary standards: HTTP, HTML and XML'.

  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 12 Jun 08
     
    I wonder if the EU is aware that there is no such thing as ODF Interoperability? After more than five years of working side by side with Sun on the OASIS ODF TC, there is zero interop between KOffice ODF and OpenOffice ODF! How is it that Microsoft's joining the ODF TC somehow results in a level of application interop that has eluded and defied the efforts of two supposedly open source applications?

    The truth is that OpenOffice-ODF and MSOffice-OOXMl are both based on an XML encoding of the application specific binary dump. The content layers are easily exchanged with other applications, but presentation continues to defy any kind of interop. Especially what the EU expects. Check out the quotes:

    " The commission said that as part of its antitrust investigation into interoperability with Microsoft Office it will investigate whether the announced support of ODF in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice.

    "Kroes said on Tuesday that the commission keeps a close eye on interoperability and said the market should have the right balance of non-propriety and propriety standards.

    'Standards are the foundation of interoperability'. 'Standards may, of course, be proprietary or non-proprietary. Much excellent technical development has been driven by non-proprietary standards - the internet is awash with acronyms for non-proprietary standards: HTTP, HTML and XML'.
Paul Merrell

Patrick Durusau on ODF and interoperability - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00005.html

durusau interop interop myth sources odf

shared by Paul Merrell on 05 Jun 08 - Snapshot
  • Interoperability is one of the primary reasons why I like XML in general
    and ODF in particular.
Paul Merrell

New OASIS Discussion List: oiic-formation-discuss - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00003.html

iic tc interop odf odf tc sc 34 w3c

shared by Paul Merrell on 03 Jun 08 - Snapshot
  • The proposed discussion list name is "oiic-formation".
    (2) A preliminary statement of scope for the TC whose formation the list is
    intended to discuss.

    It is the intent of the ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance
    (IIC) TC to provide a means for software implementors and service providers to
    create applications which adhere to the ODF specification and are able to
    interoperate. As such, the purpose of the IIC TC includes the following:
  • It is the intent of the ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance
    (IIC) TC to provide a means for software implementors and service providers to
    create applications which adhere to the ODF specification and are able to
    interoperate. As such, the purpose of the IIC TC includes the following:
    1. To publish test suites of ODF for applications of ODF to check their
    conformance with the Standard and to confirm their interoperability;
    2. To provide feedback, where necessary, to the ODF TC on ways in which the
    standard could improve interoperability;
    3. To produce a set of implementation guidelines;
    4. To define interoperability with related standards by the creation of
    profiles or technical reports;
    5. To coordinate, in conjunction with the ODF Adoption TC, OASIS InterOp
    demos related to ODF;

    The IIC TC may also liaise with other standard bodies whose work is leveraged in
    present or future ODF specifications. These include, but are not limited to, the
    W3C and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34.
  • 1. To publish test suites of ODF for applications of ODF to check their
    conformance with the Standard and to confirm their interoperability;
    2. To provide feedback, where necessary, to the ODF TC on ways in which the
    standard could improve interoperability;
    3. To produce a set of implementation guidelines;
    4. To define interoperability with related standards by the creation of
    profiles or technical reports;
    5. To coordinate, in conjunction with the ODF Adoption TC, OASIS InterOp
    demos related to ODF;

    The IIC TC may also liaise with other standard bodies whose work is leveraged in
    present or future ODF specifications. These include, but are not limited to, the
    W3C and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34.
Paul Merrell

Is our idea of "Open Standards" good enough? Verifiable vendor-neutrality - O'Reilly XML Bl... - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...ur_idea_of_open_standards.html

dita docbook interop jelliffe odf ooxml uof vendor neutrality

shared by Paul Merrell on 23 May 08 - Snapshot
  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
     
    In light of the Microsoft announcement of ODF support, a prescient July, 2007 blog article by Rick Jelliffe deserves revisiting. Jelliffe surveyed the pressure points for various players that he saw in the File Format War and made a set of suggestions that bear a remarkable resemblance to subsequent events. The goal he recommended for eGovernment and open standards advocates was to push to get ODF and OOXML out of the hands of Ecma and OASIS and into the hands of ISO for harmonization work, arguing that it is the most vendor-neutral eligible forum for such work.
Paul Merrell

Doug Mahugh : Office support for document format standards - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...document-format-standards.aspx

interop microsoft odf strategy

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Snapshot
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
       
      Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong.
      On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip.
      The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy.
      There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy.
      I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
       
      Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong.
      On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip.
      The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy.
      There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy.
      I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional
  • If you're an Office 2007 user, the image above probably looks pretty familiar. But look close, and you'll see some Save-As options you've not seen before here: OpenDocument, and (unless you have the existing add-in) PDF & XPS.
  • This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • There is new information today about the planned release of v2.0 of the ODF translator on the ODF translator team blog. The SourceForge translator projects will continue to move forward, and Microsoft will continue to be an active participant in these projects.
  • Third-party translators. We anticipate that some developers may want to take over the default ODF load and save paths, so that they can plug in their own translators for ODF, and we'll be providing an API in SP2 that enables this scenario. This means that if a developer disagrees with the details of our approach and would like to implement ODF for Office in a different way, they're free to do so and can set it up such that when a user opens an ODT attached to an email or from their desktop, it will be loaded through their ODF code path.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      The Third-party translators discussion of the forthcoming new API suggests that it is for ODF only, and thereby implicitly that it will not be a tool for accessing the full functionaolity of MS Word, i.e., that only the functionality specified in ODF 1.1 will be available. E.g., no control of Sharepoint functionality or manipulation of the Microsoft cloud through the API from OpenOffice.org via ODF. .
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08
       
      The Microsoft cloud depends heavily on OOXML, and that is likely not going to change. Are you saying that you'd prefer a plug-in mechanism in SharePoint as well? I believe the protocols used by SharePoint are included in the specs now provided.

      Won't that do (apart from the non-commercial usage of the specs)
  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    "This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."
  • Jesper Lund Stocholm
    Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08
     
    "This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."
Jesper Lund Stocholm

The Forrester Blog For Information & Knowledge Management Professionals - 0 views

blogs.forrester.com/...microsoft-crash.html

interop odf ooxml

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08 - Snapshot
  • Wow. Microsoft opened up today, taking a nearly 180-degree turn to announce its intent to support ODF, PDF, and XPS. Overall, this is a great, positive move. While unexpected, it's not surprising. Microsoft has been moving towards more open standards, like with its recent DAISY XML initiative. But it's also a no-brainer. Sticking exclusively with its competing Open XML was divisive, complicating IT's efforts to leverage the benefits that open source XML provides.
  • Jesper Lund Stocholm
    Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08
     
    Reading this I suddenly thought of the phrase "Internet tidal wave" from Bill Gates in the late 90's . I know the rest of the world don't give a damn about the document format war (as much as we do), but the move from Microsoft here is actually quite substantial.
Paul Merrell

Alliance Calls on Microsoft to Act on Its Commitment to Implement Support for ODF - 0 views

www.prnewswire.com/...stories.pl

interop microsoft msoffice odf odf alliance

shared by Paul Merrell on 23 May 08 - Snapshot
  • The ODF Alliance today greeted with
    scepticism Microsoft's announcement of its intention to include support for
    the OpenDocument Format in the first half of 2009.
Paul Merrell

OpenOffice.org business manager John McCresh on ODF support in MS Office - 0 views

www.mealldubh.org

interop microsoft msoffice odf

shared by Paul Merrell on 23 May 08 - Snapshot

  • There was a certain inevitability that Microsoft would be forced to bow to market pressures and announce its acceptance of ODF. However, Microsoft’s traditional approach to standards has been characterised as Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - i.e. attempt to claim ownership and take control of a standard through abuse of its near monopoly position.


    Proponents of ODF need to defend against this by setting up independent testing for software conformance with the standard. The testing needs to be accessible not just to the Suns and IBMs of this world - but also the KOffices.


    While proponents of ODF are celebrating that a victory has been won, it is more likely that the real battle is only just beginning.

    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
       
      One might reasonably wonder how one would go about building further tools to test for conformance with a standard that has almost no mandatory conformance requirements other than validation against the schema after all foreign elements and attributes (application-specific extensions) are removed. The validation tool specified pre-existed ODF. Methinks that the world verges on learning that ODF is a standard in name only and that ODF interoperability is a complete and utter myth no more accurate than the corresponding myth of OOXML interoperability that was thoroughly debunked long before OOXML became an international standard.
  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
     
    There was a certain inevitability that Microsoft would be forced to bow to market pressures and announce its acceptance of ODF. However, Microsoft's traditional approach to standards has been characterised as Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - i.e. attempt to claim ownership and take control of a standard through abuse of its near monopoly position.

    Proponents of ODF need to defend against this by setting up independent testing for software conformance with the standard. The testing needs to be accessible not just to the Suns and IBMs of this world - but also the KOffices.

    While proponents of ODF are celebrating that a victory has been won, it is more likely that the real battle is only just beginning.
Paul Merrell

Gray Matter : Microsoft adds "Save as ODF" to Office 2007 Service Pack 2 - 0 views

blogs.technet.com/...ffice-2007-service-pack-2.aspx

interop microsoft odf strategy

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Snapshot
  • There are really two central catalysts for these actions. One of these is the feedback we have received from the regulatory environment. There is a high degree of interest in our working with other software vendors to improve information exchange through the use of standardized technologies.
  • Because ODF side-stepped the compatibility question, we were left to solve (continue solving) that challenge elsewhere; the aversion to dealing with legacy content created a real problem for customers who want to transition to more open file formats.
  • In our early testing we are observing that every product implementing these standards has some level of variation from the written spec. If you've been around standards for a while, you'll know this is common, and requires dialog to establish best practices & patterns. This is our reason for joining the OASIS, AIIM and ISO committees,
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Office 14 will update our support for IS29500. The timing for this might seem strange, but I do hope the rationale is clear. ODF 1.1 is a completed specification. The final version of IS29500 is not published today. While we do support a significant portion of IS29500 already, the BRM changes and other issues raised in public forums will inform us on how to best move forward with IS29500… and it gives me a little time to address the compatibility considerations that will be an important part of any file format related changes in Office.
  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    Microsoft's Gray Knowlton on the reasons for the Redmond decision to provide native support for ODF 1.1. But most noteworthy, I think, is Knowlton's statement indicating that Microsoft aims at improving interop through best practices & patterns, i.e., application-level interop initiatives, as opposed to amending the ODF standard to specify conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability, as required by JTC 1 Directives, international law, and antitrust law. In other words, big vendor negotiations around interop rather than giving software users and independent developers a seat at the table.
Paul Merrell

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : More on yesterday's ODF announcement - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...terday-s-odf-announcement.aspx

interop microsoft strategy

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Snapshot
  • Paul Merrell
    Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    "Even though ODF 1.0 is the official ISO version of the format, the decision was made to use version 1.1 which had some accessibility improvements. Hopefully future versions of ODF will be brought back to ISO so that we have a more current ISO version soon. You also may have noticed that we as Microsoft plan to start participating in the ODF standardization efforts, whether that happens in OASIS or ISO. ... I've heard different opinions though on what to do if the standard says one thing and Open Office does something else. I think the right thing to do is to follow the standard, but I'd be curious to hear what other folks have to say." Note that this Jones post includes several links to commentary on the ODF support announcement written by other Softies
Gary Edwards

OOXML: The next step - Interop at the International Standards legal level | Marbux - Weir -... - 0 views

lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/...007359.html

interop iso odf ooxml wto

shared by Gary Edwards on 14 Apr 08 - Snapshot
  • Both ODF and OOXML are only one WTO Dispute Resolution Process complaint
    away from losing their international standard, national technical
    regulation, and government procurement specification status. They do not
    meet the minimum requirements of international law. Both are unnecessary
    obstacles to international trade; neither specify a uniform and
    substitutable product. That does not sound like a sound business plan to me.

    So I return to my question posed in an earlier post: Will ODF v. 1.2 under
    your leadership attempt to "clearly and unambiguously specify that
    conformance requirements essential to achieve the interoperability" and will
    the standards-based interoperability between *different* IT systems be
    "demonstrable," as required by JTC 1 Directives?

    That is not a complicated question and it requires no deep dive into
    international law to answer. International law requires what the quoted JTC
    1 Directives require in this regard, but for purposes of the point under
    discussion we need go no further than the Directives' plain language.


    One either adheres to the rules or one forfeits the moral high ground to
    complain when others ignore the rules. Where does Rob Weir stand on
    complying with the rules?
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 14 Apr 08
     
    Marbux at his best! Here he responds to Rob Weir's ODF v 1.2 arguments with a legal dissertation on International Standards, ISO, the WTO, and the key issue of interoperability and what it must mean. Excellent!
Gary Edwards

OOXML and ODF: The next step | [odf-discuss] Marbux Responds! - 0 views

lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/...007308.html

interop interoperability iso marbux odf ooxml opendocument-fellowship

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08 - Snapshot
  • The issue we were discussing -- and what I believe the ODEF conference was
    very much concerned with -- was whether ODF plus vendor-specific extensions
    will be classified as conformant ODF. The market requirement is for
    "Exchange Formats" and document-level interoperability.

    I could repose my question as whether ODF v. 1.2 will "clearly and
    unambiguously specify interoperability requirements essential to achieve the
    interoperability," as required by JTC 1 Directives. As you noted in an
    earlier post in this thread, you can't do interoperability if you use vendor
    extensions.


    > I see a standard as providing a shared vocabulary for buyers and sellers
    > to express their requirements.


    You are in error. This is a matter controlled by law rather than by personal
    opinion. Standards are all about the substitutability of goods, weights, and
    measures. A standard specifies all characteristics of a product, weight, or
    measure in mandatory terms so there is uniformity. Standards are the
    antithesis of product differentiation. Their very purpose is to eliminate
    product differentiation.
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08
     
    Excellent legal argument by the legendary marbux concerning OOXML and ODF itneroperability. Covers ISO Interop Requirements and the demands of International Trade Agreements. Key to this thread is ODF v 1.2 and what must be done to bring ODF into legal compliance with International demands.
  • Gary Edwards
    Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08
     
    Outstanding analysis and research by the legendary marbux
Gary Edwards

Wizard of ODF: Proposal to amend TC charter, re interoperability with non-conformant ap - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00022.html

harmonization interop interoperability oasis odf ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Snapshot
  • 7. it must provide all feasible functionality required to suppport
    full fidelity conversions from and to existing office document binary
    file formats.
1 - 20 of 32 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page