<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group</title>
    <link>http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/application-specific+odf</link>
    <description>Bookmarks from OpenDocument tagged by application-specific+odf</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000</pubDate>
    <item>
      <title>[office] The infamous list-override list enhancement proposal</title>
      <link>http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200703/msg00056.html</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Highlights and Sticky Notes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;content&quot;&gt;Well, I think the problem we face is that there are different 
interpretations of the 1.1 specification regarding the numbering of
numbered paragraphs that have different list styles assigned. We 
therefore cannot say that the one or the other proposal is 
backward-compatible to the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the number or 
the style. We can only say whether it is backward-compatible to a 
certain _interpretation_ of the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the 
number or the style.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/application-specific&quot;&gt;application-specific&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/florian-reuter&quot;&gt;florian-reuter&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/foundation&quot;&gt;foundation&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/list-enhancement&quot;&gt;list-enhancement&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/michael-brauer&quot;&gt;michael-brauer&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/oasis-odf&quot;&gt;oasis-odf&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/odf&quot;&gt;odf&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/opendocument&quot;&gt;opendocument&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/openoffice&quot;&gt;openoffice&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/garyedwards&quot;&gt;garyedwards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Issue 51726: OpenOffice ODF Graphics Nightmare</title>
      <link>http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51726</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Highlights and Sticky Notes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;content&quot;&gt;Currently, the above given specification is a draft and has to be adjusted.
Beside the change of the context menu and the navigator it's is needed to adjust
the import of the XML file formats (OpenDocument and OpenOffice.org) and the
export to the OpenOffice.org file format. 
The import needs adjustment, because the existence of name is used to
distinguish Writer graphics/text boxes and Draw graphics/text boxes. The new
criterium is now, that Draw graphics/text boxes of Writer documents doesn't have
a parent style.
The export to the OpenOffice.org file format needs adjustment, because a Writer
document in the OpenOffice.org file format doesn't contain names for shapes.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;The EU DIN effort to harmonize or merge ODF and OOXML has uncovered some incredible inconsistencies in OpenOffice ODF tht will break interop every time, guaranteed.  This particular issue has to do with problems naming graphics, and the hack solution now in use.  It's hacks like this that make it impossible to convert MSOffice binaries to ODF. &lt;small&gt;posted by &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/garyedwards&quot;&gt;garyedwards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/application-specific&quot;&gt;application-specific&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/din&quot;&gt;din&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/florian-reuter&quot;&gt;florian-reuter&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/graphics&quot;&gt;graphics&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/odf&quot;&gt;odf&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/openoffice&quot;&gt;openoffice&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/garyedwards&quot;&gt;garyedwards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | A pos on both your houses!</title>
      <link>http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html?forumID=1&amp;threadID=43114&amp;messageID=803228&amp;start=-1</link>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Highlights and Sticky Notes:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;div class=&quot;content&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;What you've posted are examples of MSOffice &lt;i&gt;”compatibility settings”&lt;/i&gt; used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd).  These &lt;i&gt;compatibility settings&lt;/i&gt; are unspecified in that we know the &lt;i&gt;syntax&lt;/i&gt; but have no idea of the &lt;i&gt;semantics&lt;/i&gt;.  And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation.  This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue.  It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified &lt;i&gt;compatibility settings&lt;/i&gt; used by OpenOffice/StarOffice.  These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt; Since the &lt;i&gt;compatibility settings&lt;/i&gt; are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;OOo source code&lt;/a&gt; to discover where this stuff comes from.  Check out lines 169-211.  Here you will find interesting settings such as, &lt;b&gt;“UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Tags:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/application-specific&quot;&gt;application-specific&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/cdf&quot;&gt;cdf&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/ge&quot;&gt;ge&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/odf&quot;&gt;odf&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/ooxml&quot;&gt;ooxml&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/tag/pox&quot;&gt;pox&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Posted by:&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.diigo.com/opendocument/bookmark/garyedwards&quot;&gt;garyedwards&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:28 -0000</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>