OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Griffin Brown Weblog - ODF validation for the cognoscenti

Tue, 06 May 2008 19:05:47 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Just when it seemed like nobody was interested in the ODF conformance smoke test posted a few days ago, IBM's Rob Weir weighs in with a lengthy piece in response.

Tags: brown iso jtc-sc34 odf ooxml weir

Posted by: garyedwards

Open Stack: ISO Does The Unthinkable. How ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML will break the Web

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:16:23 -0000

Comments:

A summary of my views on ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML and the impact it will have on the futrue of the open web. posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

In August of 2007 we dropped ODF as the da Vinci target conversion format, and moved to the W3C's Compound Document Format (CDF) with an ePUB wrapper.

The reason for this move is that we could not establish a reasonable degree of interoperability with OpenOffice ODF unless Sun supported the five generic eXtensions to ODF needed to hit the high fidelity conversion the da Vinci process is capable of.

Since da Vinci is a clone of the MSOffice OOXML compatibility Kit, we use the same internal conversion process where imbr (in-memory-binary-representation) is converted to another format: imbr <> OOXML or, imbr <> RTF.

While it's entirely compliant to eXtend ODF, without Sun's changes to OpenOffice ODF the application-platform-vendor independent interoperability end users expect would be meaningless.

The problem as we see it is this; it is impossible to do a high fidelity conversion between two application specific XML formats.

It is however quite possible to do a conversion between an application specific format and a generic (application-platform-vendor independent) format.

Tags: css davinci interoperability msoffice odf ooxml xaml xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

Is HTML in a Race to the Bottom? A Large-Scale Survey of Open Web Formats

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:53:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The "race to the bottom" is a familiar phenomenon that occurs when multiple standards compete for acceptance. In this environment, the most lenient standard usually attracts the greatest support (acceptance, usage, and so on), leading to a competition among standards to be less stringent. This also tends to drive competing standards toward the minimum possible level of quality. One key prerequisite for a race to the bottom is an unregulated market because regulators mandate a minimum acceptable quality for standards and sanction those who don't comply.^1,2 In examining current HTML standards, we've come to suspect that a race to the bottom could, in fact, be occurring because so many competing versions of HTML exist.

At this time, some nine different versions of HTML (including its successor, XHTML) are supported as W3C standards, with the most up-to-date being XHTML 1.1. Although some versions are very old and lack some of the newer versions' capabilities, others are reasonably contemporaneous. In particular, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 both have "transitional" and "strict" versions. Clearly, the W3C's intent is to provide a pathway to move from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.1, and the transitional versions are steps on that path. It also aims to develop XHTML standards that support device independence (everything from desktops to cell phones), accessibility, and internationalization. As part of this effort, HTML 4.01's presentational elements (used to adjust the appearance of a page for older browsers that don't support style sheets) are eliminated in XHTML 1.1.

Our concern is that Web site designers might decline to follow the newer versions' more stringent formatting requirements and will instead keep using transitional versions. To determine if this is likely, we surveyed the top 100,000 most popular Web sites to discover what versions of HTML are in widespread use.

The summary statement glosses over the value of a highly structured portable XML document. A value that goes far beyond the strict separation of content and presentation. The portable document model is the essential means by which information is exchanged over the Web. It is the key to Web interop.

Up till now, Web docuemnts have been very limited. With the advent of XHTML-2, CSS-3, SVG, XForms and CDF (Compound Document Framework for putting these pieces together), the W3C has provisioned the Web with the means of publishing and exchanging highly interactive but very complex docuemnts. The Web documents of the future will be every bit as complex as the publishing industry needs.
The transition of complex and data rich desktop office suite documents to the Web has been non existent up till now. With ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML, Microsoft is now ready to transition billions of business process rich "office" documents to the Web.
This transition is accomplished by a very clever conversion component included in the MSOffice SDK. MS Developers can easily convert OOXML documents to Web ready XAML documents, adn back again, without loss of presentation fidelity, or data. No matter what the complexity!

The problem here is that while MSOffice-OOXML is now an ISO/IEC International Standard, XAML "fixed/flow" is a proprietary format useful only to the IE-8 browser, the MS Web Stack (Exchange, SharePoint, MS SQL, and Windows Server), and the emerging MS Cloud.

Apache, J2EE, Mozilla Firefox, Adobe and Open Source Servers in general will not be able to render these complex, business process rich, office suite documents. MSOffice-OOXML itself is far to complicated and filled with MS application-platform-vendor specific dependencies to be usefully converted to Open Web XHTML-CSS, ePUB or CDF.

XAML itself is only the tip of the iceberg. The Microsoft Web Stack also implements Silverlight, Smart Tags and other WPF - .NET technologies not available as open standards. Silverlight is a proprietary alternative to SVG and Flash technologies. Smart Tags and the LINQ meta search mechanism are alternatives to RDF, RDFa and SPARQL. And of course, XAML "fixed/flow" is a proprietary alternative to advanced XHTML-CSS, CDF, iPAPER, FlashPaper and PDF.

Web formats are important. This survey sadly only begins to scrape the surface of the interoperability problems the future of the Open Web faces. ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML is going to initiate a great transition of legacy client/server business process systems to a new model of highly efficient, barrier free and cloud ready client/ Web-Stack /server systems.

Hope this helps,

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Tags: cdf css html ooxml xaml xhtml

Posted by: garyedwards

OOXML: The next step - Interop at the International Standards legal level | Marbux - Weir - Ian [odf-discuss]

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:17:00 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

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?

Tags: interop iso odf ooxml wto

Posted by: garyedwards

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

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:22:53 -0000

Comments:

Outstanding analysis and research by the legendary marbux posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

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.

Tags: interop interoperability iso marbux odf ooxml opendocument-fellowship

Posted by: garyedwards

OOXML OPS and the GPL: A disappointing surprise from the SFLC | Gray Matter

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:56:35 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

I view the spec as confusing, obtuse, error-ridden, x86-centric, incomplete, and redundant. Microsoft sat on the board of ODF for _years_ without offering any help on the minor items ODF didn't provide that they wanted. Now that governments start pressing for permanent standards on document storage, MS throws out this half-baked item and expects a reward for good behavior. Maybe somebody on the board of directors at our company likes it, but the technical folks having to add more work are less than happy about this beast.

If they had to go with XML, couldn't they at least have allowed standard XML with attributes and the like instead of x86 specific, binary incompatible, past-version deprecating, standard-avoiding, crash on normal XML.. ... mess... that they have offered for consumption? Oh.. but wait, I'm sure the BRM fixed that in the week given. I'm sure the pretty version will show up any day now.

Tags: gpl grey-matter iso microsoft ooxml ops

Posted by: garyedwards

OOXML and ISO: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path | Matusow's Blog

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:27:27 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Where can we expect challenges?

Tags: iso jtc-1 ooxml open-standards

Posted by: garyedwards

OOXML: MSOffice Open XML - Where The Rubber Meets The Road | Matusow's Blog

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:06:22 -0000

Comments:

ISO NB's approved MS-OOXML not because it meets ISO Interoperability Requirements. It doesn't. OOXML doesn't even come close. They approved OOXML because it's the best deal they can get given the MSOffice predicament their governments are caught in.

Governments got the binary blueprints they have been insisting on, but didn't get the mapping of those binaries to OOXML.

Governemnts also took control of OOXML, with Patrick Durusau and the JTC-1 now in copmplete control of the specifications future. Sadly though, Durusau and company will not be able to make the interop changes they know are required by ISO and related World Trade Agreements. The OOXML charter prevents any changes that would degrade in any way compatibility with MSOffice! This charter lock was on full display in the Microsoft - Ecma response to Geneva BRM comment resolutions, with Microsoft refusing to address any comments that would alter compliance with MSOffice.

Durusau has always believed that a one to one mapping between OOXML and ODF is possible. Just prior to the Geneva BRM though, the EU DIN Workgroup released their preliminary report on harmonization, which they found to be a next to impossible task given the applicaiton specific nature of both ODF and OOXML.

The DIN Report no doubt left the mapping-harmonization crowd (lead by Durusau) with few choices other than to take control of OOXML and figure out the binary to OOXML mappings for themselves, wih the hope that somewhere down the road OpenOffice will provide OOXML documents. Meaning, governments are not looking at open standards for XML documents as much as they are looking to crack the economic hammer lock Microsoft has on the desktop.
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

There can be no doubt that OOXML, as a standard, has severe flaws. It is incomplete, platform specific, application specific, full of contradictions, fails to adhere to existing standards, untestable, and presents a moving target for any IT worker. There is not an organization in existence, including Microsoft, that promises to actually implement the full standard. Much of this is due to the fact the final version doesn't actually exist on paper yet, but a large fraction is also do to the patchwork nature of the product.

The reason governments and companies wanted a 'office apps' standard in the first place was to release an avalanche of data from aging applications. OOXML shows every appearance of being created to prevent this escape, not enable it. The immaturity of the standard means that it remains a gamble to see if older documents will remain readable or not. The lack of testing means there is no way to determine what docs actually adhere to it or not. The ignoring of existing standards guarantees compatibility problems. All of these factors are handy for the owner of the biggest share of existing documents, as it forces users to continue to use only _their_ application or risk danger from every other quarter.

Tags: iso matusow msoffice ooxml open-standards

Posted by: garyedwards

Has Microsoft lost its way on desktop computing? | The Apple Core | ZDNet.com

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:08:38 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

OM MALIK: You outlined Microsoft’s software-plus-services strategy, but what I want to know about is the changing role of the desktop in this service’s future.

RAY OZZIE: I think the real question is (that) if you were going to design an OS today, what would it look like? The OS that we’re using today is kind of in the model of a ’70s or ’80s vintage workstation. It was designed for a LAN, it’s got this great display, and a mouse, and all this stuff, but it’s not inherently designed for the Internet. The Internet is this resource in the back end that you can design things to take advantage of. You can use it to synchronize stuff, and communicate stuff amongst these devices at the edge.

A student today or a web startup, they don’t actually start at the desktop. They start at the web, they start building web solutions, and immediately deploy that to a browser. So from that perspective, what programming models can I give these folks that they can extend that functionality out to the edge? In the cases where they want mobility, where they want a rich dynamic experience as a piece of their solution, how can I make it incremental for them to extend those things, as opposed to learning the desktop world from scratch?

Tags: msoffice ooxml saas soa xaml

Posted by: garyedwards

Microsoft's Great Besmirching | Linux Journal

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:57:33 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Of course, all companies try to bend the rules in the their favour, and it would be unfair to pick on Microsoft for doing the same. But what has happened over the last year and a half goes so far beyond the accepted rough and tumble of the standards game that cumulatively it can only be considered as an all-out attack on the machinery of standards-making. Consider the evidence.

Tags: approval corruption iso ooxml open-standards

Posted by: garyedwards

Microsoft OOXML standardization bid: The clock is ticking | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:59:14 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The battle over OOXML standarization is all about money and marketshare. Microsoft wants OOXML to qualify as an “open standard” so that the company can continue to sell Office into governments that see ISO as the gold standard bearer. Many of the companies that have fought publicly against OOXML gaining ISO standardization approval are hoping that failure of OOXML to get the ISO nod will give them a chance to gain more marketshare in a world where Office still runs on more than 90 percent of Windows desktops.

Tags: approval iso mary-jo odf ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

The Stockholm Syndrom at ISO | ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does | Slashdot

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:51:08 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

ISO is bound to the business of "interoperability", and has very strict guidelines for interoperability requirements, that are themselves tied to international trade agreements and legal conventions. In this context, it is beyond surprising that ISO allows the "OASIS PAS" and "Ecma Fast Track" channels to remain open, with specification work remaining under the controlling influence of the vendors.

IMHO, the change in Patrick's position is entirely due to the realization that it is impossible to map between OOXML and ODF. I don't know this for sure, but when i read the German Standards Group (DIN) report on harmonization, authorized by the EU-IDABC and provided to ISO, i couldn't help but wonder how Patrick would react. The report definitively ends his OOXML ODF mapping dream.

Tags: durusau iso microsoft odf ooxml slashdot w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

The Charter Dilemma | ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does | Slashdot

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:47:00 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

OOXML on the other hand presents ISO with a very different situation. Because of the way the OOXML - Ecma charter is worded, i don't see how ISO JTC-1 could ever fix the OOXML interoperability problems. ISO approval of OOXML would include acceptance of a charter that defines and limits OOXML interoperability to whatever MSOffice determines it to be. If Patrick and the JTC-1 tried to bring OOXML into compliance with existing ISO Interoperability Requirements, they would have to somehow amend a charter duly approved.

Given that the JTC-1 has yet to address a two year old ISO directive regarding ODF interop compliance, what are the odds they will dare to amend an approved charter? Not good i think.

ISO approval of OOXML is a tragedy for all of us. For sure it's the end of ODF. It's perhaps the end of ISO as a respected standards organization. The issue of open standards itself will become a joke, with the reality of standards by corporation having us all wringing our hands in despair.

Tags: iso odf ooxml w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

Some thoughts on OOXML | Larsblog

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:42:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

What is to be done?

ISO has in a sense put itself in an awkward position here by already approving the rival OpenDocument format as an ISO standard. This makes it harder to reject OOXML, and at the same time makes it difficult to approve OOXML, since it competes with an existing ISO standard. Generally, I'm unhappy with how closely these two standards are tied to existing software. What I would really have liked to see was for OpenDocument and OOXML both to be dropped, and the two communities to sit down and work out a common agreed format that is not tied to any existing software. The Chinese UOF format, for example, might have served as the starting point for this. ODA has also been suggested. Unfortunately, this requires a political will that does not seem to be present, and so this seems unlikely for now.

Tags: approval iso microsoft msoffice odf ooxml sgml

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does | Slashdot

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:29:21 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

IMHO, the change in Patrick's position is entirely due to the realization that it is impossible to map between OOXML and ODF. I don't know this for sure, but when i read the German Standards Group (DIN) report on harmonization, authorized by the EU-IDABC and provided to ISO, i couldn't help but wonder how Patrick would react. The report definitively ends his OOXML ODF mapping dream.

Many wonder why mapping is impossible. I had more than a few discussions with Patrick on this. His point was that a schema is a schema. As long as the syntax and semantics are fully documented, no problemo. My point is that both ODF and OOXML are application specific; and, both are woefully lacking in "semantic" documentation. Add to this problem that both ODF and OOXML lack an interoperability framework with any semblance of compliance teeth, and the whole mapping issue becomes an impossible solution. Especially if interop is the goal.

Tags: durusau iso odf ooxml

Posted by: garyedwards

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

garyedwards's Discussions at ZDNet.co.uk Community

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:54:28 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

garyedwards's Discussions

Breaking the Web

Talkback: Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary'

Tags: iso microsoft msoffice odf ooxml xaml

Posted by: garyedwards

Once More unto the Breach: Microsoft Discusses Open Standards (versus Open Source Software)

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:56:26 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

So here are some "Key Messages" from Microsoft's standards team circa 2003 (doing battle with the Australian parliament no doubt) [Emphasis added]:

An open standard is a publicly available specification which details certain technical functionality that may be implemented in different products and services. It is adopted in an open, consensus-based process and must satisfy other criteria for transparency, ease of access, and broad implementation as described below.
Open standards exist to facilitate interoperability and data exchange across various products and services in a marketplace of multiple, competing implementations, while ensuring that certain minimum requirements are met.
Other types of standards (e.g., “proprietary standards”) and market-based mechanisms exist and are currently used to facilitate interoperability. However, open standards ensure the highest level of interoperability across the widest range of competing products and services.

Tags: brm geneva interoperability iso microsoft odf ooxml open standards

Posted by: garyedwards

Open Malaysia: Geneva, Day Five

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

We eventually found out that if any changes affected current implementations it would certainly be rejected. This seriously compromised any elegant solutions, and it forced us to be mindful of the "existing corpus of documents" in the wild. I personally don't believe that that should be our problem, but there was a large and vocal voting bloc which would oppose any changes to the spec which would 'break' Ecma 376.

This was why appeasing Ecma had to happen. Even though they rushed their Ecma International Standard, and Microsoft took the risk in shipping Microsoft Office 2007 last year, we now have to bear the burden of having to support its limitations. This also means that future maintenance changes would get harder and harder.

Tags: brm geneva iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF useless for Microsoft needs - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

ODF's limited spec can't support all MS Office features unless Microsoft goes on a major entending trip.

Tags: embrace-extend google harmonization odf ooxml opendocument unification

Posted by: garyedwards