OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Behind Putting the OpenDocument Foundation to Bed (without its supper) : Updegroove | Linux Foundation Legal

Fri, 30 May 2008 22:18:53 -0000

Response from the OpenDocument Foundation setting the record straight. See "copmments" with this bookmark

Comments:

Uh? The ODF failure in Massachusetts doesn't count as evidence that ODF was not designed to be compatible with existing MS documents or interoperable with existing MSOffice applications?

And it's not just the da Vinci plug-in that failed to implement ODF in Massachusetts! Nine months later Sun delivered their ODF plug-in for MSOffice to Massachusetts. The next day, Massachusetts threw in the towel, officially recognizing MS-OOXML (and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in) as a standard format for the future.

Worse, the Massachusetts recognition of MS-OOXML came just weeks before the September 2nd ISO vote on MS-OOXML. Why not wait a few more weeks? After all, Massachusetts had conducted a year long pilot study to implement ODF using ODF desktop office sutie alternatives to MSOffice. Not only did the rip out and replace approach fail, but they were also unable to integrate OpenOffice ODF desktops into existing MSOffice bound workgroups.

The year long pilot study was followed by another year long effort trying to implement ODF using the plug-in approach. That too failed with Sun's ODF plug-in the final candidate to prove the difficulty of implementing ODF in situations where MSOffice workgroups dominate.

California and the EU-IDABC were closely watching the events in Massachusetts, as was most every CIO in government and private enterprise. Reasoning that if Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF, California CIO's totally refused IBM and Sun's effort to get a pilot study underway.

Across the pond, in the aftermath of Massachusetts CIO Louis Guiterrez resignation on October 4th, 2006, the EU-IDABC set about developing their own file format, ODEF. The Open Document Exchange Format splashed into the public discussion on February 28th, 2007 at the "Open Document Exchange Workshop" held in Berlin, Germany.

Meanwhile, the Sun ODF plug-in is floundering in Belgium and Denmark pilot trials now under way.

What Andy Updegrove needs to do is provide some evidence that it is possible to implement ODF where MSOffice workgroups rule. Announcements of good intentions are starting to ring a bit hallow. We need to see some successes.

There is another side to this problem. For the past five years, the OASIS ODF Technical Commitee has brushed aside all efforts to improve ODF interoperability with Microsoft Office documents, applications and processes. If ODF is the "single file format" solution IBM claims it to be, then someone is going to have to do something about the 550 million MSOffice desktop that cannot convert their documents, applications and processes to ODF without suffering intolerable fidelity loss and costly disruption to business processes.

Five years without interop progress between ODF and MSOffice is a bit much. But now we have Sun's Simon Phipps suggesting that maybe this will challenge will be considered in ODF 1.3 or 1.5 (or why not ODF 12.3?)

Meanwhile, Sun continues to insist that ODF was not designed for interoperability with Microsoft documents and applications. Therefore Sun argues, the world needs mulitple file formats, including ISO approval of MS-OOXML.

Don't believe me? Check out the Sun ANSI - ISO vote in favor of MS-OOXML. A vote they submitted with this comment from Sun's Jon Bosak:

“We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.”

The one thing we know for certain is that ODF cannot be implemented in workgroup environments driven by MSOffice. So why not try converting existing MSOffice documents to CDF WICD Full?

And who's the looney toon suggesting that someone is trying to use CDF WICD Full as a native file format for MSOffice? The da Vinci Group believed it was possible to convert MSOffice documents to CDF WICD Full. How is this different from an export from MSOffice to CDF WICD Full?

The Foundation steps into the fray claiming that hey, if the da Vinci Group can convert MSOffice docuemnts to CDF WICD Full, then why not convert ODF documents to the same CDF profile? At least at the web platform level much if not most of the current ODF interoperability problems will be lessened. It's not a desktop application to desktop application play, but what's wrong with a web platform solution? End users are going to end up there anyway.

As with any tempest in a teapot, it's the threat to big ego's with identities and purpose of being bound to ODF success as a universal file format that roils the waters. Somebody somewhere has to put down the keyboard, step out of the blogoshpere, and start providing real world pragmatice solutions. Otherewise, those 550 million desktops will have no other choice but MS-OOXML going forward.

This isn't rocket science. It's pragmatism in the face of mounting evidence that ODF was not designed to meet the needs of MSOffice workgroups needing to convert to XML.

~ge~

posted by garyedwards
Marbux sets the record straight. These are the facts: Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) ..... http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/4 posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

CDF is one of the very many useful projects that W3C has been laboring on, but not one that you would have been likely to have heard much about. Until recently, that is, when Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser and Marbux, the management (and perhaps sole remaining members) of the OpenDocument Foundation decided that CDF was the answer to all of the problems that ODF was designed to address. This announcement gave rise to a flurry of press attention that Sam Hiser has collected here. As others (such as Rob Weir) have already documented, these articles gave the OpenDocument Foundation’s position far more attention than it deserved.

The most astonishing piece was written by ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley. Early on in her article she stated that, “the ODF camp might unravel before Microsoft’s rival Office Open XML (OOXML) comes up for final international standardization vote early next year.” All because Gary, Sam and Marbux have decided that ODF does not meet their needs. Astonishing indeed, given that there is no available evidence to support such a prediction.

Tags: cdf foundation marbux odf ooxml updegrove

Posted by: garyedwards

Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council

Tue, 27 May 2008 07:43:44 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

by OASIS attorney Andy Updegrove claimed that W3C Compound Document Formats: [i] are non-editable formats; [ii] are not designed for conversions to other formats; and [iii] are therefore unsuitable as office formats. Updegrove could not have been more wrong.

Shorn to essentials, Updegrove in effect argues for the existence of some sort of immaculately conceived data, that data cannot be generated by software editing tools if a homo sapiens operating a keyboard is somehow involved.

Conversions — Updegrove hedged somewhat on this issue, attributing a statement to Lilly that the "CDF working group was not chartered to achieve conversion between formats." But one might as well argue that because claw hammers were designed to drive and pull nails they can not be used to hit anything else.

To suggest that only W3C WICD profiles can be used with the Framework either flows from or is an appeal to ignorance. There is no wiggle room between those two conclusions.

While the Framework specification does require that markup languages combined to create conforming documents be profiled following strict rules, there is no requirement that the profiles thus used superset one or more of the WICD profiles. It may be preferable to do so for purposes of compatibility and interoperability with web applications, but to repeat, that is not required.

In fact, virtually any plain text-based markup language that can be profiled can be used within the structure of the Framework. But more importantly, a combination of cutting edge W3C markup language versions such as XHTML 2.0, CSS 3.0, XForms, SVG, etc. can, with only trivial extensions, serve as the full-featured metalanguage superset every expert who has spoken to the subject agrees is necessary to convert between ODF and OOXML with high fidelity.

ODF and OOXML are designed for apps from the sneaker net era. Do we choose formats designed for the dinosaurs or formats designed for tomorrow's needs? ODF and OOXML are about the past; CDF is about the future. And yes, there are fully interoperable editors in that future.

Tags: cdf foundation updegrove w3c wicd

Posted by: marbux

OOXML vs ODF: where next for interoperability? | Reg Developer

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 00:37:16 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

'A diversion from the real end game – the taking of the internet'

Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation has a fascinating post on the important of Microsoft Office compatibility to the success of the ISO-approved Open Document formats.

It is in places a rare voice of sanity:

People continue to insist that if only Microsoft would implement ODF natively in MSOffice, we could all hop on down the yellow brick road, hand in hand, singing kumbaya to beat the band. Sadly, life doesn’t work that way. Wish it did.
Sure, Microsoft could implement ODF - but only with the addition of application specific extensions to the current ODF specification … Sun has already made it clear at the OASIS ODF TC that they are not going to compromise (or degrade) the new and innovative features and implementation model of OpenOffice just to be compatible with the existing 550 million MSOffice desktops.

Tags: foundation iso microsoft odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Compound Document Formats Group Charter

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:51:10 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

be widely implementable in browsers and authoring tools

Tags: cdf da-vinci foundation opendocument w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Wizard of ODF: The Foundation on Interop and the List Proposal Vote Deadline

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 06:05:55 -0000

If ever there was a discussion thread of consequence at the OASIS ODF TC, this is it. This is where the ODF interoperability nightmare burst into the daylight of a showdown vote. The interop issues were clear. OpenDocument TC members voted between interoperability and/or application specific innovation.

Application specific innovation trumped interoperability. Again. And wha ta sad day it was.

The thing is, the recent ECIS antit trust action against Microsoft comes at the request of IBM and Sun. They allege that Microsoft is violating standards requirements for interoeprability, and has launched a series of corrupt activities to push through a non interoperable standard.

They are right. Microsoft is guilty. The problem is that Microsof tcan easily point to Sun and IBM activities at OASIS ODF, and make the same allegation! Using this thread as evidence!

Furthermore, this thread is evidence that if Microsoft had tried to implement ODF, their efforts to establish interop would have been met with the same response from IBM and Sun that the OpenDocument Foundation recieved. Or so they could argue. 

Houston, we have a problem. IBM and Sun could have fixed the ODF interop problems at any time during the past five years. Yet, the world is waiting. Meanwhile, this willfull negligence and lack of desire to address pressing market needs for full interop has served to hold the door open for OOXML. And now these negligent acts llook to be the basis of a Microsoft counter claim.

Oh well ..

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Oh, my. Both IBM and Sun voted for the proposal that broke the Foundation's plugin that was going to add full-fidelity native ODF file support to Microsoft Office. So it's sounding to me like at least two of the TC members who voted for the Sun/KOffice proposal didn't check in with the ECIS lawyer before they broke interoperability with Microsoft Office. Do you think Microsoft won't use this evidence in the DG Competition antitrust proceeding, Michael? Let's see, you guys are prosecuting Microsoft for not supporting ODF in Microsoft Office while you block Microsoft Office from supporting ODF. Yeah, I think DG Competition is going to hear about this one from Microsoft. They'll probably hear about what you said about compatibility being a trade off too. Oh, yeah. Microsoft's lawyers are going to love this. Look at the ECIS public statement about interoperability's importance.

Tags: anti-trust ecis foundation odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against anyway) « A Frantic Opposition

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 04:30:26 -0000

This very funny satire builds on some harsh realities. The ODF chickens have come home to roost, and it isn't pretty. Very funny, yes. But not pretty for those who continue to believe that somehow ODF is a standard worthy of their support.

The flip side of the coin is that using the same critieria of interoperability, OOXML is worthless. The sad truth is that both ODF and OOXML are applicaiton specific formats that will continue to defy and defeat all efforts at interoperability. Inparticular, it's the presentation layers of ODF and OOXML that remain bound to the layout engines and feature sets of their originating applications.

Just as the presentation layers defy interoperability, they will also defeat harmonization. The only way to harmonize two application specific formats is to harmonize the originating applications. And Microsoft, Sun and IBM are not about to do that.

The links in this satire are stunning!!! They shout loudly as to how Microsoft is going to respond to the ECIS anti trust allegations. So when you stop laughing, make certain you track down the links and read through the various OASIS ODF archive threads. IBM and Sun had their chance to fix ODF interoperability. Now it may be too late.

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against anyway)

In my recent post, I discussed the case for harmonization, mainly due to trying to portray a more kindly, conciliatory face in the “standards krieg” that I was enjoying so much. I have been forced to take a different tack, in light of being hung out to dry by my more business-focused IBM comrades and the work that the enemy has done in sprucing up the spec. However, as my closest friends know, for me, there are no half-victories, so you can rest assured that I will not settle for this weak “harmonization” compromise. I set out my (and IBM’s) stall some time ago on this, and as those on the Open Document Foundation know, any attempt at harmonization shall be met with swift and final retribution. They were ejected from the odf-coven just days after their impudence. I have baited my trap, inviting this “harmonization” in my lair (the OASIS ODF TC) where I can bog them down in a morass of incompetence, bickering and politicking, so no new standard is ever ratified. I have already been practicing for this, as you can see, by the ODF 1.1 and 1.2 specs.

Tags: foundation harmonization interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

[office] The infamous list-override list enhancement proposal

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:01:29 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

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.

Tags: application-specific florian-reuter foundation list-enhancement michael-brauer oasis-odf odf opendocument openoffice

Posted by: garyedwards

Podcast: ODF, OOXML and CDF .... The OpenDocument Foundation Responds | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:13:19 -0000

Comments:

Dragged through the mud posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

David continues his deep dive into the curious case of the OpenDocument Format and the OpenDocument Foundation.

Tags: cdf foundation ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

Posted by: garyedwards

Interoperability Enhancement Proposal: Suggested ODF1.2 items

Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:52:44 -0000

Comments:

This is the fifth of the six major iX - interoperability enhancement proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF TC - SC between July 2006 and February of 2007.

This particular iX proposal lead to the "List Enhancement Proposal" donnybrook that consumed the OASIS ODF TC for the next six months, ending with the OpenDocument Foundation being booted out of OASIS in May of 2007.

The six iX proposals were all different approaches to the same basic problem: ODF was not desinged to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications or bound processes. The proposals come out of the OpenDocument' Foundation's efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts.

ODF iX repressents a subset of ODF designed to grealty improve compatibility with MS binary and XML formats. With the ODF iX subset, the da Vinci plug-in would be able to convert the billions of MSOffice binary and xml documents with a very high level of fidelity, and do so within the bounds of "round trip" business processes.

The most basic iX approach was to add five generic elements to the existing ODF specification. The five generic elements would cover lists, tables, fields, sections, and page dynamics (breaks).

It is a well known fact that these five areas of incompatibility between OpenOffice ODF and MSOffice binaries represent 95% of all conversion fidelity problems. MSOffice has one way of implementing lists, and, OpenOffice has another. These application specific implementation models are irreconcilably different.

It's also true that the applicaiton specific implementation models are directly reflected in each file format. So applications implementing ODF must also implement the OpenOffice model for lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics-page positioning if they are to have any meaningful measure of exchange fidelity.

Perhaps the best of the iX approaches was that based on the innovative use of metadata to describe presentation-layout attributes. There were two submissions by OpenDocument Foundation members relating to this method. The first came in August of 2006 and was accepted as part of the OASIS ODF Metadata SC "Requirements" document. The second was submitted in February of 2007, also a s part of the Metadata CS work.

By April of 2007, when votes on both the "List Enahncement Proposal" vote and the "Metadata 1.2" were taken, the Foundation's proposals were eitther dropped or defeated.

In May of 2007, OASiS moved to enforce a rule change eliminating the ability of 501(c)3 non profit corporations to sponsor OASIS participants. This evisceration of our membership effectively ended the Foundation's role with OASIS ODF.

It also ended any hope of an ODF subset geared towrds interoperability with MSOffice and high fidelity conversion of billions of MS binary and xml documents.

posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Subject: Suggested ODF1.2 items

From: "Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>
To: <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:03:24 +0100

Tags: foundation interop ix odf odfix opendocument subset

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF Split: Good Riddance, Good Grief, or Game Over? Michael Desmond Redmond Developer News

Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:03:13 -0000

Comments:

Interesting comment from Simon Phipps: maybe we'll see ODF interoperability in versions 1.3 or 1.5?

Note to Simon: It's been five years now since owrk on ODF began! Why not do something about the piss poor ODF interop now? Do we really need to wait another five years? ODF interop problems can be fixed with a simple vote to change the wording in Section 1.5, the Compatibility Clause, from should to must. Today compliance is optional, and it's killing ODF!!!!

And this clown says we were out of our depth? He's out there peddling zero interoperability amongst ODF ready applications, with over 550 million users unable to convert their billions MSOffice documents to ODF, and we're the ones out of our depth?

Although ODF began a noble and honorable effort to gift mankind with an open universally interoperable XML strucutred format also application, platform and vendor independent, things have changed. The big vendors have taken over, and turned this once noble effort into a shameless marketing war that's invaded international politics as it has corrupted international standards orgs.

Game Over!

~ge~
posted by garyedwards
Interesting comment from Simon Phipps: maybe we'll see ODF interoperability in versions 1.3 or 1.5?

Note to Simon: It's been five years now since owrk on ODF began! Why not do something about the piss poor ODF interop now? Do we really need to wait another five years? ODF interop problems can be fixed with a simple vote to change the wording in Section 1.5, the Compatibility Clause, from should to must. Today compliance is optional, and it's killing ODF!!!!

And this clown says we were out of our depth? He's out there peddling zero interoperability amongst ODF ready applications, with over 550 million users unable to convert their billions MSOffice documents to ODF, and we're the ones out of our depth?

Although ODF began a noble and honorable effort to gift mankind with an open universally interoperable XML strucutred format also application, platform and vendor independent, things have changed. The big vendors have taken over, and turned this once noble effort into a shameless marketing war that's invaded international politics as it has corrupted international standards orgs.

Game Over!

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml opendocument

Posted by: garyedwards

Open Document Format: The sad truth | Scott Mace Information Manager Journal

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:17:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Open Document Format: The sad truth

David Berlind has posted a massive chronicle of who said what to whom about the supposed emergence of CDF as an alternative to Open Document Format (ODF) and OOXML. I played a minor role in this saga when I spoke with Gary Edwards for Opening Move, back in April. This was before Edwards proposed CDF in place of ODF. If you haven't listened to our conversation, please do so, because the concerns Edwards raised about ODF (and OOXML) remain just as valid today. While I'm sad to see Edwards' more recent direction and assertions debunked in the press and the blogosphere, the greater tragedy is of two competing document standards -- ODF and OOXML -- now on seemingly irreversible paths to immortality, meaning we'll have translation issues between them around for several lifetimes to come.

Tags: berlind cdf foundation mace odf ooxml opendocument

Posted by: garyedwards

Did the W3C acknowledge CDF’s potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-mail? | Berlind’s Testbed | ZDNet.com

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:17:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through.

If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.

Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.

The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):

So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?

Tags: berlind cdf foundation heintzman odf ooxml opendocument schepers w3c zdnet

Posted by: garyedwards

Former ODF Leaders Turn Hopes to Compound Document Format

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:17:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Editor's Note: This is the third in a series of articles that examine why the ODF Foundation closed down.

The leaders of the recently shuttered OpenDocument Foundation have moved their attention and efforts away from the Open Document Format and towards the W3C's Compound Document Format, which they believe will be able to neutralize Microsoft Office by repurposing those documents.

Tags: cdf foundation galli good odf ooxml opendocument w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Carl's Whine Rack: OpenDocument Foundation reversal - Flock

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:18:22 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

A major proponent of this format, the OpenDocument Foundation, has evidently recently decided to dump ODF in favor of an obscure alternative called the Compound Document Format, developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. So now I really don't know what to think. I wonder if the foundation will change its name.

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

OpenDocument Format (ODF) Resources on ZDNet - Carrol, Le' Bracage, Crocker, Philador, YGBK

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:42:05 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

the World Wide Web Consortium's Common Document Format (CDF) had been identified by the OpenDocument Foundation as a superior document format to the OpenDocument Format

the OpenDocument Foundation had decided to back away from work on ODF in favor of CDF (a W3C-backed standard) out of a belief that ODFÂ wouldn't achieve the real-world interoperability goals the OpenDocument Foundation was originally created to achieve,

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Slashdot | OpenDocument Foundation To Drop ODF in desperate search for something that works

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:49:00 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

This fight is a distraction. Recognize both formats as legacy defacto standards and move on. This is actually a very common precursor in a standards process.

CDF provides an opportunity to do the job right. People should not be translating OOXML into ODF, there simply isn't the value there. It is much more likely that OOXML will be a live format in twenty years time than ODF.

We have a common standards based document language today - HTML. OK so I have a bias here but there is much more HTML than anything else. HTML is just a document format and it is somewhat presentation oriented but modern XHTML is changing those problems.

The problem for "you" is that Microsoft is the one who has 400 million or so installs of the dominant de facto office suite in the planet. "You" can either try to get them to play nice with you by applying pressure intelligently, or you can organize an exciting jihad to stick it to them. In a make-believe world where companies choose technology based on, well, technical merits and openness, the second approach will usually work. In the real world though, the former option would have been a better idea. But when you have well-paid shills like Rob Weir (courtesy of IBM) and his co-religionists who rarely take a break from hating Microsoft (except for lame attempts at making fun [robweir.com] of Microsoft) it's difficult to get away from the join-us-or-die approach. It just feels so right, I guess.

I'm going OT here but seriously, Weir is just the cat's meow. Every single time Microsoft has challenged his hyperbolic rants and outright lies he's essentially ignored them or just penned some more. He thinks the OpenDocument Foundation is an irrelevant fly-by-night fanboy club (which I guess is possible), but he has no problem quoting obscure African groups [robweir.com] and his groupie bloggers to prop up his "Microsoft is evil and Office sucks and remember, IBM had nothing to do with this post" arguments. If the man spent 1/10th as much time writing some code or documentation as he does bitching about the Office toolbar buttons, ODF would have conquered the world by now.

With people like that at the helm it's not difficult to see why a document format controlled by a single company and an elite group of testy technorati has gotten to where it is now. Not that I think OOXML is a particularly good idea, but at least there's someone out there with the balls to point out that the emperor is buck naked. I guess they better get ready for the DoS attacks, hate mail and death threats.

Blame Sun for this.

Sounds like a populist position, or maybe troll flamebait. I'll be generous and assume the former, despite the fact your post seems like a digest from an anti-ODF briefing paper. Disclosure: My job [sun.com] includes the task of receiving complaints about Sun and trying to get Sun to fix whatever causes the problem. If you have proof of any of your accusations, let me know. I may have some of my facts wrong below as I'm working from memory; I'd welcome correction.

With a few small additions, ODF could have supported Office formats as well, but Sun would not allow this.

That is indeed the constant assertion that the three guys who comprise the Foundation make. However, I have personally asked members of the ODF working group at OASIS and they tell me its not so.

The Foundation guys wanted to add structures to ODF to preserve untranslateable tags in translated documents so they could be regenerated on the reverse translation. Sounds OK at first glance, but in practice it results in very brittle software solutions that work well in demos but not in real life.
The proposal was thus rejected by the whole working group (not just the Sun employees).
Rejected, that is, in conversation. A complete solution was never proposed for voting.
To say Sun would not allow it ignores the actual dynamic of the working group (see below).

Their policy is that ODF will support what is needed for StarOffice, and nothing more.

Naturally every member of a standards group in the traditional standards process is looking out for the code base where they implement a standard, and will have serious questions of any feature that they regard as unimplementable. The features actually put to a vote by the guys from the Foundation would have resulted in very brittle implementations, highly dependent on the version of MS Office with which they were coupled. It may have been possible to come up with a solution that reduced this problem, but the discussion was not sustained. The assertion you make is not true in the general case.

They control the ODF technical committee

Untrue. The ODF TC [oasis-open.org] can have no more than three members from any one organisation and is not under the control of any organisation. The Foundation guys actually flaunted that rule at one point and sent many, many more representatives - OASIS had to step in to fix it. That intervention is one of the issues they have with OASIS, in fact. Sun happens to employ the people who act as Chair and Secretary to the TC but the voting remains democratic.

and their patent license allows them to stop the ODF TC if the ODF TC goes in a direction Sun does not like.

I've heard that interpretation of the patent non-assert covenant [oasis-open.org] that Sun has made regarding ODF, but it's untrue. Sun covenants not to enforce any patents against ODF implementations based on any spec it participates in. To the extent that versions of the spec after Sun's departure are based on version in which Sun was involved, that covenant remains in effect even in the unlikely event of Sun leaving the TC. Sun can't stop the TC from continuing its work.

Are you relaying this all as hearsay, or do you actually have data to back up your accusations? If you have, I'd like to see it (genuinely).

Sun currently has SIX voting members on the TC. This statement is crap and easily disproven by the facts of actualy voting records. It's also true that Sun members have voted as a block since December 16th, 2002 The Foundation, at the height of it's work sponsored 28 particpants. Never once did the Foudnation member vote as a block. Never. Fopundation member are responsible for the OASIS ODF Open Formula Sub Committee and the ODF Metadata Sub Committee. This work would not exist without the sponsorship of the Foundation. It is true that a rule change OASIS inititated in December of 2006 cut the sponsorship of Foundation members from 15 to 2. And no more than 2! this effectively ended the Foundation's role in OASIS. The rule change was the elimination of the 501c(3) exception. Under normal rules, OASIS Corporations can sponsor as many employees as they like under a single membership. Under 501c(3) IRS rules, volunteers are considered the equivalent of employees. All OASIS had to do was eliminate the 501c(3) membership category and the Foundation was dead. And this is exactly what they did. posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Blake Matheny : OpenDocument Foundation to Drop ODF for W3C CDF WICD | Blogging success

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:38:30 -0000

Comments:

Wow! Does Blake Matheny ever get it! Maybe it's time for the W3C CDF Community to speak up?
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Now, Sam Hiser, VP of the ODF, has said that he sees the W3C standard CDF (Compound Document Format) as a more viable universal format than ODF. He stated simply that, "ODF is not the open format with the open process we thought it was". Why is this significant?

First, I think it speaks to how important the W3C is and has become over the past several years. The number of web standards in particular that have been formalized by the W3C is remarkable, whether they have been successful or not. Second, it (CDF) addresses an issue that I see on a daily basis in my role here at Compendium Blogware.

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c wicd

Posted by: garyedwards

Open IT Strategies: Sun and IBM Sabotage ODF Interoeprability

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:24:38 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Nov. 12: A great article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols announced that the Open Document Foundation has closed shop, alleging that the foundation’s founders Sun and IBM tried to sabotage document interoperability, and instead endorsing W3C’s Compound Document Format. I’ve had my differences with SJVN — he’s on the true-believer end of open source reporters — but he’s really captured well a complex story: in the end, neither the ODF nor CDF faction comes across as completely credible.

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Open Document Format Wars at xentek.net - Eric Marden

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:22:03 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

What is quite remarkable, if not a little confusing, is that an organization would not only put the brakes on a format it helped created - but do so publicly and authentically, as soon as they realized that the end result was not what they set out for it to be. Many organizations would just sweep such thoughts under the rug, and keep to their dead end strategy - afraid to admit the wrong turn they took at Albuquerque. I have to applaud the leadership body of the Open Document Foundation for having the courage to stand for what they believe. Bravo.

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF and differences of opinion | John Carroll | ZDNet.com

Sat, 03 Nov 2007 22:06:53 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

the OpenDocument Foundation had decided to back away from work on ODF in favor of CDF (a W3C-backed standard) out of a belief that ODF wouldn’t achieve the real-world interoperability goals the OpenDocument Foundation was originally created to achieve

Tags: cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards