OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

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

Denmark: OOXML vote won't affect public sector. ODF is too costly! | InfoWorld

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Lebech said Denmark considers OOXML an open standard, regardless whether it is approved by the ISO. "It would be impossible for us to use only ISO standards if we want to fulfill the goal of creating interoperability in the government sector," he said.

The Danish Parliament also mandated that public agencies consider the cost of using open formats. One of the main reasons OOXML was included is because Denmark is heavily dependent on document management systems that are integrated with Microsoft's Office products, Lebech said.

Denmark also found that requiring agencies to only use ODF would have been too expensive, mostly because of the cost of converting documents into ODF, Lebech said.

"We wouldn't have been able to only support ODF," Lebech said. "It wouldn't have been cost neutral."

Tags: brm denmark geneva iso msoffice odf ooxml opendocment openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Antitrust: The EU Case Against Microsoft | Investingation, Court Proceedings, Decisions, Enforcment, Case Docuemnts

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The web-pages referred to below provide information about the European Commission’s March 2004 Microsoft Decision, the Court of First Instance proceedings relating to that Decision, and its ongoing implementation.

Tags: anti-trust eu microsoft msoffice ooxml openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Antitrust: Commission imposes € 899 million penalty on Microsoft for non-compliance with March 2004 DecisionOOXM

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Antitrust: Commission imposes € 899 million penalty on Microsoft for non-compliance with March 2004 Decision

Tags: anti-trust eu microsoft ooxml openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

A Savage Journey … ODF at the OOXML BRM « A Frantic Opposition

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

A Savage Journey …

‘Erupting from my vivid nightmares into the retro 80s faded luxury of a five-star hotel in Geneva, the pictures of the first victim reappeared on the wall. The head of the Brazilian delegation-it’s only a matter of time now.

My mind thrashes to disentangle the thrown spaghetti threads of blurred reasoning; who’s next, is it just the heads of delegation they are after, any NB member, P-members only?

The fog lifts and it’s worse. Who is behind this, them or us? We outnumber them, but maybe their plan is more devious. Must find Bonky Bob, he’ll know what to do.’

Enough levity for now. The BRM has held few surprises, other than the rather galling situation where I was forced to publicly toe the INCITS line by the temporary head of delegation, a Microsoft employee, against my better judgement.

Tags: brm ecma geneva iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml standards

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:27:41 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Both ODF and OOXML flunk that test badly. Their interoperable implementation neither has nor can be demonstrated. Both are designed for the waging of feature wars, not for interoperability. Both attempt to legitimize market-leading companies embracing and extending their own formats. They are standards in name only. What we are watching is a contest to decide which big vendor formats will be allowed to undeservedly claim the title of "international standard."

Tags: brm google interop iso marbux odf ooxml opendocument openxml zdnet-uk

Posted by: garyedwards

Linux Today - OOXML/ODF: Just One Battlefield in a Much Bigger War

Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:17:32 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

If the OOXML format in its current form cannot get made into a true ISO standard, it could lock Microsoft out of any future plays in what could be the biggest IT revolution to date.

Here are the pieces of the puzzle that fit together for me:

"Amazon SimpleDB is a web service for running queries on structured data in real time."

"Structured data." And what's a good way to contain such data? In well-built structured data file format of course. Like, for instance, the Open Document Format (ODF). And who has a vested interest in ODF? IBM certainly does. And so does Sun. And these two companies, along with Google, Microsoft, and I'm sure many others, realize that if cloud computing does indeed take off, then it will be the file format that makes the whole thing work.

Which is why Microsoft feels it must get their format standardized. Even with tactics that ironically have started to attract the attention of the EU again. How else can they get a piece of the cloud pie?

Tags: cloud-computing grid-computing odf ooxml openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Harmonizing ODF and OOXML using NameSpaces | Tim Bray's Thought Experiment

Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:18:24 -0000

Comments:

This log is connected to a recent post from Florian Reuter, XML Namespaces are designed to support exactly this kind of thing ... posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

First, what if Microsoft really is doing the right thing? Second, how can we avoid having two incompatible file formats? [Update: There’s been a lot of reaction to this piece, and I addressed some of those points here.]

On the technology side, the two formats are really more alike than they are different. But, there are differences: O12X’s design center, Microsoft has said repeatedly, is capturing the exact semantics of the billions of existing Microsoft Office documents. ODF’s design center is general-purpose reusability, and leveraging existing standards like SVG and MathML and so on.

The capabilities of ODF and O12X are essentially identical for all this basic stuff. So why in the flaming hell does the world need two incompatible formats to express it? The answer, obviously, is, “it doesn’t”.

The ideal outcome would be a common shared office-XML dialect for the basics—and it should be ODF (or a subset), since that’s been designed and debugged—then another extended vocabulary to support Microsoft features , whether they’re cool new whizzy features or mouldy old legacy features (XML Namespaces are designed to support exactly this kind of thing). That way, if you stayed with the basic stuff you’d never need to worry about software lock-in; the difference between portable and proprietary would be crystal-clear. And, for the basic stuff that everybody uses, there’d be only one set of tags.

This outcome is technically feasible. Who could possibly be against it?

Tags: bray florian-reuter namespaces odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

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

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

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

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

Calling all black helicopters! This is a red alert. The OpenDocument Foundation suspected of interfering with Roy's tin foil hat reception!

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 21:30:26 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Be aware that Gary Edwards and Marbux (of the organisation formerly known as “The OpenDocument Foundation” [1, 2]) have begun submitting links to their new site. They use Digg where they post elaborate comments about a decoy, a distraction. They comment on each other’s submissions, which are barely receiving any attention at all. The OpenDocument Foundation’s Web site has meanwhile become a link farm (inactive) with many inbound links. This is not very ordinary.

“At times, however, new people are introduced to intervene and create tensions, misunderstandings, and civil wars.”

Tags: odf ooxml opendocument opendocument-foundation openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Word of recognition from an unexpected side: ODF editor Patrick Durusau supports OOXML - ISO effort

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:04:16 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The OpenXML project has made a large amount of progress in terms of the openness of its evelopment. Objections that do not recognize that are focusing on what they want to see and not what is actually happening with OpenXML

Tags: brm durusau iso oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

The ODF Alliance puckers up and gets smacked with the great CSS question - Where is it? | O'Reilly XML Blog

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 06:55:06 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Harmonisation

It is interesting that the ODF Alliance quotes Tim Bray that the world doesn’t need another way to express basic typesetting features. If it is so important, why didn’t ODF just adopt W3C CSS or ISO DSSSL conventions? Why did they adopt the odd automatic styles mechanism which no other standard uses? Now I think the ODF formating conventions are fine, and automatic styles are a good idea. But there is more than one way to make an omlette, and a good solution space is good for users.

My perspective is that harmonisation (which will take multiple forms: modularity, pluralism, base sets, extensions, mappings, round-trippability, feature-matching, convergence of component vocabularies, etc, not just the simplistic common use of a common syntax) will be best achieved by continued user pressure, both on MS and the ODF side, within a forum where neither side can stymie the legitimate needs of other.

Tags: harmonization hypocrisy interop iso odf odf-alliance ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

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

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:53:47 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

In late 2007, an article 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.

But unfortunately, the erroneous Updegrove article was widely publicized by the usual occupants of the IBM cheering section⁽¹⁾ in the stadium where the latest big vendor game for the Incompatible File Format Cup is being played, IFFC Games Stadium.

Tags: cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Harmonization and Interop: The dizzying dance of ODF, OOXML, and CDF

Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:49:40 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

With the ISO BRM fast approaching, the harmonization of ODF and OOXML is all the rage. The legendary marbux takes on this discussion arguing that ODF and OOXML both lack the interoperability framework needed to meet ISO directives describing interop requirements. He argues that interop between MSOffice and OpenOffice can be achieved using CDF.

Tags: cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml uic w3c

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF and OOXML - The Final Act

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:44:37 -0000

Comments:

Correcto mundo! There should be only one standard to maximise interoeprability and functionality. But ODF is application specific to the way OpenOffice works. It was not designed from a clean slate. Nor was the original 2002 OpenOffice XML spec designed as an open source effort! Check the OOo source code if you doubt this claim. The ONLY contributors to Open Office XML were Sun employees!

What the world needs is in fact a format standard designed to maximise interoperability and functionality. This requires a total application-platofrm-vendor independence that neither ODF or OOXML can claim.

The only format that meets these requirements is the W3C's family of HTML-XML formats. These include advancing Compound Docuemnt Framework format components such as (X)HTML-5, CSS-3, XForms, SVG and SMiL.. The W3C's CDF does in fact meet the markeplace needs of a universal format that is open, unencumbered and totally application, platform and vendor independent. The only trick left for CDF is proving that legacy desktop applications can actually implement conversions from existing in-memory-binary-representations to CDF without loss of information.
posted by garyedwards

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

The format war between Microsoft’s Open Office XML (OOXML) and the open source OpenDocument Format (ODF) has flared up again, right before the looming second OOXML ISO vote in March.

“ISO has a policy that, wherever possible, there should only be one standard to maximise interoperability and functionality. We have an international standard for digital documentation, ODF,” IBM’s local government programs executive Kaaren Koomen told AustralianIT.

ODF has garnered some criticism for being a touch limited in scope, however, one of its strengths is that it has already been accepted as a worldwide ISO standard. Microsoft’s format on the other hand, has been criticised for being partially proprietary, and even a sly attempt by the software giant to hedge its bets and get in on open standards while keeping as many customers locked into its solutions as possible.

A "touch limited in scope"? Youv'e got to be kidding. ODF was not defined to be compatible with the billions of MSOffice binary (BIN) documents. Nor was it designed to further interoperability with MSOffice.

Given that there are over 550 million MSOffice desktops, representing upwards of 95% of all desktop productivity environments, this discrepancy of design would seem to be a bit more than a touch limited in scope!

Many would claim that this limitation was due to to factors: first that Microsoft refused to join the OASIS ODF TC, which would have resulted in an expanded ODF designed to meet the interoperability needs of the great herd of 550 million users; and second, that Microsoft refused to release the secret binary blueprints.

Since it turns out that both IBM and Sun have had access to the secret binary blueprints since early 2006, and in the two years since have done nothing to imptove ODF interop and conversion fidelity, this second claim doesn't seem to hold much water.

The first claim that Microsoft didn't participate in the OASIS ODF process is a bit more interesting. If you go back to the first OASIS ODF Technical Committee meeting, December 16th, 2002, you'll find that there was a proposal to ammend the proposed charter to include the statemnt that ODF (then known as Open Office XML) be compatible with existing file formats, including those of MSOffice. The "MSOffice" reference was of course not included because ODF sought to be application, platform and vendor independent. But make no mistake, the discussion that day in 2002 was about compatibility and the conversion of the legacy BIN's into ODF.

The proposal to ammend the charter was tabled. Sun objected, claiming that people would interpret the statement as a direct reference to the BIN's, clouding the charter's purpose of application, platform and vendor independence. They proposed that the charter ammendment be taken up a later time after the OASIS TC members had had a chance to read through the Open Office XML specification proposal.

Later attempts to change the charter (and the specification) to recognize the marketplace needs of compatibility with the BIN's were defeated. These issues came to a head when Massachusetts passed an ODF mandate, and was unable to implement ODF exactly because they couldn't convert existing documents, applications and business processes to an ODF based footing. This in turn lead to a major push within the OASIS ODF TC to ammend the specification and charter. If the compatibility - interoeprability problems with legacy desktop systems could not be resolved, there was no way ODF could succeed in Massachusetts.

That would of course leave the door open for OOXML and the OOXML plug-in for MSOffice as the only means of Massachusetts moving to a highly structured XML document footing. Massachusetts needed to get their desktop documents, applications and business processes into some form of useful XML before they could push forward with their SOA-SaaS-Web 2.0 enterprise infrastucture initiatives.

Between July 12th of 2006, and February 20th of 2007, there were six proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF groups designed to improve ODF compatibility - interoperability with the legacy desktops. Six different proposals! And not one survived the OASIS ODF discussion process.

One last point. The German DIN group was authorized by the EU to write a report for ISO concerning the prospects of harmonizing ODF and OOXML. DIN invited all the players with Microsoft and Novell accepting the challenge, and the ODF contingent led by IBM and Sun refusing to participate. The OASIS ODF TC was also inviited, but so far has waffled and stuttered even thoguh a number of meetings have already been held.

Given this past history, is it reasonable to assume that the OASIS ODF TC would have cooperated with Microsoft at any time in the past five years? There simply isn't any evidence to support claims that the ODF TC supports marketplace needs of compatibility - interoeprability. The evidence is quite to the contrary. And it's substantial.

posted by garyedwards
Will harmonization work?

I don't think so. The problem is that the DIN group is trying to harmonize two application specific formats. OpenOffice has one way of implementing basic document structures, and MSOffice another. These differences are directly reflected in the related formats, ODF and OOXML. Any attempts to harmonize ODF and OOXML will require that the applications, OpenOffice and MSOffice, be harmonized!

There is no other way of doing this unless the harmonized spec has two different methods for implementing basic structures like lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. Not to mention the problems of feature disparities.

If the harmonized spec has two different implementation models for basic structures, interoeprability will suffer enormously. And interoperability is after all the prupose of the standardization effort.

That brings us to a difficult compromise. Should OpenOffice compromise it's "innovative" features and methods in favor of greater interoperability with MSOffice and billions of binary documents? Let me see, 100 million OpenOffice installs vs. 550 MSOffice installs bound to workgroup-workflow business processes - many of which are critical to day to day business operations?

Sun and IBM have provided the anser to this question. They are not about to compromise on OpenOffice innovation! They believe that since their applications are free, the cost of ODF mandated "rip out and replace" is adequately offset.

Events in Massachusetts prove otherwise!

On July 2nd, 2007, Sun delivered to Massachusetts the final version of their ODF plug-in for MSOffice. That night, after reviewing and testing the 135 critical documents, Massachusetts made a major change to their ETRM web site. They ammended the ETRM to fully recognize OOXML as an acceptable format standard going forward.

The Massachusetts decision to overturn the ODF mandate was made after two years of testing and study of ODF implementation proposals. The first year was dedicated to "rip out and replace" initiatives put forward by IBM, Sun and Novell. The second year was dedicated to ODF plug-in for MSOffice efforts, culminating in the July 2nd, 2007 decision.

Simply put, Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF. The failures laregly being due to the fact that ODF was not designed to for a world dominated by MSOffice desktops! If users are unable to convert their documents to ODF, they are left with no other choice but to go forward with OOXML. If ODF plug-in desingers are unable to perfect this conversion, there is no way to repurpose MSOffice as an ODF ready application.

It's that simple.

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

The Burton Group did not recommend that ISO recognize OOXML as a standard! They pointed out that the marketplace is going to implement OOXML by default simply because it's impossible to implement ODF in situations where MSOffice dominates.

ISO should not go down the slippery slope of recognizing application-platform-vendor specific standards. They already made that mistake with ODF, and recognizing OOXML is hardly the fix.

What ISO should be doign is demanding that ODF fully conform with ISO Interoeprability Requirements, as identified in the May 2006 directive! Forget OOXML. Clean up ODF first.
posted by garyedwards

Tags: din fraunhofer harmonization iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

Harmonization Wars : Is it jetlag? | Brian Jones: Open XML- Open Document Formats

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:50:42 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

if you actually read the Ecma response, you'll see that TC45's position is actually quite the opposite. Harmonization is not as simple as just adding a few tags here and there. It's going to be a lot of hard work, and the German Standard Body (DIN) is already working on the first step, which is to identify the differences. This isn't something to take lightly.

Here is Ecma's full response to this issue (emphasis added):

There are currently several XML-based document formats in use, each designed to address a different set of goals or requirements. These include ISO/IEC IS 26300 (ODF), China's UOF, and ECMA-376 (DIS 29500 – Open XML). All these formats have numerous implementations in multiple tools and multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, Mac OS, hand-held devices).

The Ecma Response Document from the Fast Track 30-Day contradiction phase for DIS29500 addressed the question of harmonization by explaining the differences between the ODF and Open XML formats as follows:

Tags: harmonization jones odf ooxml opendocument openxml weir

Posted by: garyedwards

The Harmonization Myth: ISO Approval of Open XML Will Hurt Interoperability

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:00:17 -0000

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

This myth is rather silly if you think about it. Here is why…

When people talk about interoperability and Open XML they do so primarily in the context of ODF. The story goes something like this:

1. Open XML is not interoperable with ODF
2. Open XML should be interoperable with ODF because ODF is already an ISO standard!
3. Hence: Open XML is no good, because it is not interoperable with ODF and therefore Open XML should not be an ISO standard!!!

Forget ISO approval of OOXML. I would rather see ISO enforce the current directive that ODF be brought into compliance with existing ISO Interoperability requirements. Then and only then should ISO then consider OOXML.

The reason for this approach? If ODF wiere compliant with existing ISO Interop Requirements, there would probably be some hope of harmonizing ODF and OOXML. Until ODF is stripped of it's application specific settings, and fully documented, we can hardly beging the process of figuring out harmonization.

ODF 1.0 has four gapping holes that must be tended to before ISO proceeds any furhter with either ODF or OOXML. The holes are that ODF numbered lists, formulas and the presentation layer (styles) are woefully underspecified. The fourth problem is that ODF is seriously lacking an interoperability framework.

These ODF problems can of course be traced back to the fact that ODF is application specific and bound to the "semantics and capabilities" of OpenOffice. That creates all kinds of problems. OOXML on the other hand is even worse. OOXML is application, platform and vendor specific!!!!

If ODF were brought up to snuff, we could reasonably start work on harmonization. Thereby eliminating the need to standardize two file formats for the same purposes. Until ODF is fixed, what's the world to do?

~ge~
posted by garyedwards

Tags: din fraunhofer harmonization iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

ODF Alliance on the Microsoft Disposition of ISO Comments on OOXML

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:25:45 -0000

Tags: brm odf odf-alliance ooxml opendocument openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM WILL support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net

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

Highlights and Sticky Notes:

Well, if that's IBM's plan they're going to need more than ODF, that's for sure - and that brings us to the announcement I've been wondering about:

IBM favors ODF as a file format because it is "truly open" and technically elegant, Heintzman said.
But IBM will support Open XML, which is the current document format in Office 2007, in its Lotus collaboration and portal products. IBM already supports older versions of Office.

I feel a Pamela Jones moment coming on .... there it is, as plain as day for the world to see, Doug Heintzman breaks through all IBM's doublespeak and hypocrisy and admits it.

I don't know about "Beyond Office" as a plan, I think the real game here is "Beyond ODF"

Tags: cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml openxml

Posted by: garyedwards

OpenDocument's feed | Diigo Group

Open Malaysia: Geneva, Day Five

Denmark: OOXML vote won't affect public sector. ODF is too costly! | InfoWorld

Antitrust: The EU Case Against Microsoft | Investingation, Court Proceedings, Decisions, Enforcment, Case Docuemnts

Antitrust: Commission imposes € 899 million penalty on Microsoft for non-compliance with March 2004 DecisionOOXM

A Savage Journey … ODF at the OOXML BRM « A Frantic Opposition

A Savage Journey …

ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK

Linux Today - OOXML/ODF: Just One Battlefield in a Much Bigger War

Harmonizing ODF and OOXML using NameSpaces | Tim Bray's Thought Experiment

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

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

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

Calling all black helicopters! This is a red alert. The OpenDocument Foundation suspected of interfering with Roy's tin foil hat reception!

Word of recognition from an unexpected side: ODF editor Patrick Durusau supports OOXML - ISO effort

The ODF Alliance puckers up and gets smacked with the great CSS question - Where is it? | O'Reilly XML Blog

Harmonisation

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

Harmonization and Interop: The dizzying dance of ODF, OOXML, and CDF

ODF and OOXML - The Final Act

Harmonization Wars : Is it jetlag? | Brian Jones: Open XML- Open Document Formats

The Harmonization Myth: ISO Approval of Open XML Will Hurt Interoperability

ODF Alliance on the Microsoft Disposition of ISO Comments on OOXML

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM *WILL* support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM WILL support OpenXML in its Lotus and Portal products - Notes2Self.net