Skip to main content

Home/ In-the-Clouds-with-SOA-XML-and-the-Open-Web/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by Gary Edwards

Contents contributed and discussions participated by Gary Edwards

Gary Edwards

GlideOS 3.0 | Transmedia Corporation : Reducing Digital Friction - 0 views

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Jun 08 - Cached
    Glide 3.0 has been released and it is excellent! Does not yet run on a Treo, but htings are looking great. The sync program is very intriguing, and they seem to have a well thought out hosting model. Way beyond Google Docs and Zoho. Not much information on the file format side of things. Glide is written in Flex with native OS adaptations written in C-C++. Optimized for Firefox. I'm still ocnfused about the browser vs. Flex runtime (VM).
Gary Edwards

The Blog: Welcome to - Work. Together. Anywhere. - 0 views

  • With people will not have to sacrifice the quality of their documents or the quality of the user experience in order to work together more efficiently online. The documents look great. They are truly ‘what you see is what you get’ no matter who you are or what computer you are using, including the text, the graphics, and the pages. Finally, the user experience or design of the applications is beautiful, easy to use and getting better all the time. takes the meaning of rich internet application to the next level by using the Adobe technology platform of Flash, PDF and AIR to create distinctive and compelling software. You can access while online from almost any browser thanks to the Flash Player or from your desktop via on AIR. And soon you will be able to access your work via the AIR version of even while off-line.

    Adobe's Erik Larson introduces His blog comments echo his post in response to an article at ComputerWorld:

    In the CW article, Guy Creese of the Burton Group holds the line, defending, as expected, the Microsoft alighnment of MSOffice, Exchange and SharePoint.
Gary Edwards

Kevin Lynch on Adobe's AIR: Extending the Web beyond the Browser - Knowledge@Wharton - 0 views

  • CEO Shantanu Narayan described AIR as Adobe's "fourth platform," positioning it as the next link in the chain that includes PostScript, Acrobat's PDF (Portable Document Format) and Flash. The first three created disruptive paradigm shifts in their respective fields -- typesetting and document printing, electronic document interchange and web interactivity -- and all have generated significant revenue for Adobe. Adobe hopes AIR will follow suit
    good interview with Kevin Lynch about the future of the Web. Covers AIR, Flex, Flash, Silverlight and how the Web is moving from universal access and exchange of documents to that of applications. Lynch places Adboe products into a larger context of which problems these inventions solved. The new problem is that of expanding the Web to the desktop through these emerging universal applications.
Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML: The Bill Gates MSOffice "formats and... - 0 views

  • A pox on both your houses!

    gary.edwards - 01/22/08

    Hi Robert,

    What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability.

    But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts!

    Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”.

    So what's going on here?

  • From: Bill Gates Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998 To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky Subject : Office rendering "One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows. I would be glad to explain at a greater length. Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well." Tuesday, August 28, 2007
    The IOWA Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust suit evidence is now publicly available. This ZDNet Talkback posts an extraordinary eMail from Bill Gates concerning the need to control MSOffice formats and protocols as Microsoft pushes onto the Web.

    The key point is that Chairman Bill understands that the real threat to Microsoft is that of Open Web formats and protocols outside of Microsoft's control. It's 1998, and the effort to "embrace and eXtend" W3C HTML, XHTML, SVG and CSS isn't working well. The good Chairman notifies the troops that MSOffice must come up with another plan.

    Interestingly, it's not until 2001, when OpenOffice releases an XML encoding of the OpenOffice/StarOffice imbr that Microsoft finally sees a solution! (imbr = in-memory-binary-representation)

    The MSOffice crew immediately sets to work creating a similar XML encoding of the MSOffice binary (imbr) dump. The first result is released in the MSOffice 2003 beta as "WordprocessingML and SpreadsheetML".

    XML was designed as a structured language for creating specific structured languages. OpenOffice saw the potential of using XML to create an OpenOffice specific XML language. MSOffice seized the innovation and the rest is history. Problem solved!

    So what was the "problem" the good Chairman identified in this secret eMail? It's that the Web is the future, and Microsoft needed to find a way of leveraging their existing desktop document "editor" monopoly share into owning and controlling the Web formats produced by Microsoft applications. MSOffice OOXML is the result.

    ISO approval of MSOffice OOXML is beyond important to Microsoft. It establishes MSOffice "editors" as standards compliant. It also establishes the application, platform and vendor specific MSOffice OOXML as an international "open" standard.

    Many will ask why this isn't a case of Microsoft actually opening up the MSOffice formats in compliance with government antitrust demands. It is "compliance", but not in the sense of what
Gary Edwards

Comes v. Microsoft - 0 views

  • Comes v. Microsoft
    list of email evidence presented in the antitrust action Microsoft rushed to settle.
Gary Edwards

Yahoo BrowserPlus™: Web 3.0 - 0 views

  • BrowserPlus™ is a technology for web browsers that allows developers to create rich web applications with desktop capabilities.
    Another JavaSript library concept, but this time secure. Not as robust as jQuery, but Yahoo is off to a great start. wikiWORD could use this for dynamic page generation.
Gary Edwards

BOOK Offered Or Kept: Digital reading without Epub? | TeleRead: Bring the E-Books Home - 0 views

    • Gary Edwards
      .wiki is the native wikiWORD language for MSOffice "editors". It's really AJAX for documents, with HTML+ handlign the "structure", and CSS+ handling the "presentation". We need javascript to perfect the full range of typographical options used by knowledge workers makign their way from MSOffice to the web. BOOK is a good place to start.
  • The structure of a BOOK would look like this:


  • As for the Javascript, it’s based on the ECMAScript standard, which has evolved into a strongly-typed, object-oriented programming language and is one of the few web “standards” which really is a standard. BOOK authors will welcome the addition of a scripting language, as it is NOT currently supported in the IDPF specifications. In fact, it’s forbidden for .epub reading systems to execute scripts. It’s also forbidden for them to display a file called index.html without first loading and parsing several other files.
  • ...10 more annotations...
    • Gary Edwards
      Good point! The IDPF ePUB format does not support javascript! Which makes "BOOK" a better format to target.
  • For BOOKs, it offers true pagination, typesetting, skinnable and collapsible layouts, footers and headers, footnotes as popups, inline text, true footer notes, or endnotes . . . the list goes on. YUI, JQuery, dojo, MooTools, and Prototype are just a few of the frameworks available, and they’ve been addressing these issues for some time now.
  • Jon Noring Says:
  • EPub is an excellent, high-fidelity format for both direct rendering and for user-side conversion to other formats for particular platforms such as very limited resource handheld devices.
  • Javascript is useful mainly for rendering, not bells and whistles. Without Javascript, the non-normalized implementations of CSS out there become useless–you can’t rely on them to produce a consistent rendering of a document. Unfortunately, with CSS3 the rendering game is only going to get more complicated. I don’t advocate executing scripts from epubs, I advocate executing scripts in epub reading systems. Two very different things, as you’re aware.
  • Scripting is *essential* for many digital publishing projects and not understanding it is a major failure of IDPF. Saying that “we will reconsider scripting when adoption of epub grows” is also inadequate, because nobody will wait patiently, but will choose some another platform for their publishing needs, Adobe AIR for example.
  • My criticism of epub is not about details but about its fundamentals. It seems to me that while preparing the spec the most fundamental question was left out of view: what is the right model for digital publication: is it a physical book? Or is it something else? If something else, then what? From my point of view, not a physical book, but a website should be thought as the right model. Why website? - because of the well supported and ubiquitous mix of technologies (html, css, javascript) and because of the workflow (publishing early versions of the publication on the website for gathering feedback and then publishing as downloadable file). If a model for a digital publication is a website, then any format which does not allow to have everything which we have on websites and does not allow to take all website’s html, css and client-side scripts and publish them as downloadable file without much changing them, is doomed to failure in the long run. It seems that epub is now on this way to failure.
  • What I’d like to see is a sort of epub spinoff, another specification from the IDPF, if you will, with slightly different requirements. Instead of BOOK, we could call it epub-lite. The basis for this simplified, consumer-oriented version of .epub would be the same browser-centric building blocks under the IDPF specs. The difference would be in the file structure and in the way a browser deals with it.
    • Gary Edwards

      What we really need are "webDOCS". Laisvunas is absolutely right. The web is the target, with print and device "flow" an auxillary offshoot. I think we can have it all, and Aaron's "BOOK" is a good place to start. My thinking though is that javascript has to come from standardized libraries such as jQuery or Yahoo's "BrowserPLUS".

      Yahoo BrowserPLUS does have a security model and off-line capability built in. It's nowhere near as robust and sweepign as the jQuery javascript library, but i don't see why the two can't be combined.

      Good thinking on the part of Laisvunas!

  • What I wish for is this: a simple ebook format which allows me to use all technologies there are on the web with exactly the same freedom as on web and imposing no additional limitations. Secondly, some browser-based reader (browser add-on or some program based on some quality browser engine). Thirdly, some program (editor/compiler) for producing publications from preexisting web-pages.
    • Gary Edwards
      Once again Laisvunas nails it. I really like his "AIR" suggestion. It's also true that flowing content ready device browsers like the webKit "Safari" and SkyFire will be far more widespread than any ePUB reader!!!!! So why not write for both the web and the device at the same time?
  • The system I’m referring to is alive and well at It features an AJAX reader and Package Creation tool. The package tool is currently part of the upload feature which enables people to convert .doc, .rtf, and html documents to epub packages that can be viewed in the Reader. Once we have more epubs out there, direct epub upload will also be an option. We may also eventually enable epub download. Right now, we’re having some doubts about the value of that.
    • Gary Edwards
      How about "eWEB" as a format name? Is it better than "webBOOK" or webDOC"?
    Aaron Miller writes about the limitations and difficulties with ePUB. He suggests a new format, "BOOK" based on ePUB but web ready. BOOK is an AJAX format in that it includes (X)HTML, CSS and JavaScript! Excellent stuff! The discussion on this page is one of the best on the Web. ePUB gets thrashed, but with arguments very difficult to contest. The web is everything, and Aaron's friends fully understand this. Sadly, the ePUB crowd does not. I found this site looking to solve the problem of numbered lists in ePUB.
Gary Edwards

The Fall of Microsoft Office - 0 views

  • On the same day that the state of New York published a report supporting open formats for electronic documents, mighty Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) said that it would support the open-source ODF format in Office 2007. Redmond's own Open Office XML specification may be heading for the great Recycle Bin in the sky, never to come back.
  • The company's biggest revenue generator may be a shadow of its former self in a few years. I just hope that Microsoft has some alternative business prospects on tap
    More confusion about the MS announcement of native support for ODF, with delayed support for whatever ISO finally determines to be ISO 29500; "OOXML". Damn but these guys are all twisted up about this. The truth is, ISO National Bodies traded their vote in favor of OOXML for MSOffice support for ODF and Microsoft's joining the OASIS ODF TC. It's not complicated. MS wants ISO approval of OOXML because it established MSOffice as a "standards" editor. The rest of this kurfufull is all about anti trust concerns and Microsoft's need to put htose concerns to bed before the world figures out that they are leveraging the MS desktop monopoly into an MS Web monopoly. ISO approval of OOXML is the final piece of very complex puzzle.

    The harmonization of OOXML-ODF is impossible. MS knows this. So why not join OASIS ODF TC if it means putting aside the anti trust claims from ISO NB's and getting that all important standardization of OOXML? Both ODF and OOXML are both XML encodings of entirely application specific binary formats. There is no possible to way to reconcile the file formats without also reconciling the applications! Incuding feature sets and layout engines!!!! Impossible!!

    The real game is the transition from client/server to the emerging client/Web-Stack/server model. MS is the "client" in client/server. No way were they about to give that up without a plan to control the transition of MSOffice documents to the emerging client/Web-Stack/server model. They sought to fully control the formats, protocols and API's of this new model. ISO handed it to them.

    The thing to watch is the MSOffice SDK where one can find a very cool OOXML <> XAML converter. XAML is totally proprietary, but "web ready". Meaning, MSOffice is a "web ready" application. It's just that the web readiness is 100% MS .NET-Silverlight.

    The great transition to client/Web-Stack/server is now on. Thanks to ISO. All this ODF stuff is just background noise designed to quiet the anti t
Gary Edwards

HTML5, XHTML2, and the Future of the Web : Digital Web Magazine - 0 views

  • The fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t really support XHTML as XML in any way, and the problems XML can cause when not all tools in the authoring chain are XML tools, means that there has been little incentive for using XML on the web. This is compounded by search engines not indexing XHTML as XML documents; very few XHTML authoring tools for XML; very few CMS or blogging tools supporting XML correctly all the way from input through database to generation; and very few ad suppliers supporting XML.

    There is a little incentive if you want to allow MathML, SVG, and other XML applications to be interspersed inline in XHTML documents, but this use of XHTML as XML has found a very limited audience.

    XHTML2 is XML

    And therein lies the biggest problem. On top of all the concerns that web developers have about using XML for serving documents, XHTML2 adds another layer of complexity. It isn’t HTML 4.01 reformulated as XML; it’s a different but similar language, with added, removed, or modified semantics for many elements, and added or changed element vocabulary for many semantics. In many cases, the changes are steps in the right direction, but at the same time, XHTML2 was not built with web developers in mind. As an example, it doesn’t at all address the deficiencies of HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 in the areas of interactivity, local storage, or script interactions.

    great article walking through the history of HTML, XHTML, and browsers. Summary is that HTML5 is the future. Good thinking, great arguments.
Gary Edwards

Google Search To Surpass Size of Microsoft Windows in 2009 - Silicon Alley Insider - 0 views

  • Google's search business will pass Microsoft's Windows business by early next year (at the latest). Good thing Microsoft has another huge, wildly profitable monopoly: Office. Add that to the calculation, and Microsoft can breathe easy for a few more years:

    Quarterly Revenue Q3 2006-Q1 2008

    Of course, Google's visible in that Microsoft rearview mirror, too--especially now that it offers a product that is directly competitive with Office.

    And then there's the most depressing comparison (from Microsoft's perspective). After 13 years of heavy investment, frequent doubling down, and--until recently--a browser monopoly, here's how Microsoft's online business is doing relative to Google's search business. Remember:

      • Google was founded four years after Microsoft launched its online business, and
      • Microsoft's search business is just a tiny piece of Microsoft Online.
  • The "Windows monopoly+Office monopoly=Microsoft" story was absolutely true 10 years ago, but less so now.

    1. It looks as if the "Office" revenue figures are coming from MSFT's reported revenues in the Business segment. That's not all Office. Based on what they've said at the last few Financial Analyst Meetings, Exchange is approaching $2B/year, SharePoint is about $1B/year, and Dynamics (formerly Microsoft Business Solutions) is more than $1B per year. I also know that Project has been a $1B/year business for a long time (believe it or not), and products such as Comms Server and Visio contribute around $500m/year. Margins on all these products are lower than on Office, but most (not Comms Server) are profitable.

    2. In addition to all the non-Office products that compose its Business segment as mentioned above, the Server and Tools business (Windows Server, SQL Server) is profitable (30% margins) and growing revenues average of 15% for the last six years. Not monopoly, but a good business.

    Look at all these stats together, and seems like they should get out of search and advertising and sell off (or scale back to maintenance mode) most of the consumer online sites, focusing instead on hosted business apps--they're already doing it with Exchange and SharePoint, why not Office? If somebody's going to canniblize their "real" business, it might as well be them.
    The Henry Blodgett article comparing Google and Microsoft. Excellent source!
Gary Edwards

Is MSOffice the new Netscape? | Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: - 0 views

  • One of the cornerstones of Microsoft's competitive strategy over the years has been to redefine competitors' products as features of its own products. Whenever some upstart PC software company started to get traction with a new application - the Netscape browser is the most famous example - Microsoft would incorporate a version of the application into its Office suite or Windows operating system, eroding the market for the application as a standalone product and starving its rival of economic oxygen (ie, cash). It was an effective strategy as well as a controversial one.
  • Google is trying to pull a Microsoft on Microsoft by redefining core personal-productivity applications - calendars. word processing, spreadsheets, etc. - as features embedded in other products. There's a twist, though. Rather than just incorporating the applications as features in its own products, Google is offering them up to other companies, particularly big IT vendors, to incorporate as features in their products.
  • Google's advantage here doesn't just lie in the fact that it is ahead of Microsoft in deploying Web-based substitutes for Office applications. Microsoft can - and likely will - neutralize much of that early-mover advantage by offering its own Web-based versions of its Office apps. Its slowness in rolling out full-fledged web apps is deliberate; it doesn't see Google Apps, or similar online offerings from other companies, as an immediate threat to its Office franchise, and it wants to avoid, for as long as possible, cannibalizing sales of the highly profitable installed versions of Office.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • It knows that, should traditional personal-productivity apps become commonplace features of the cloud, supplied free or at a very low price, the economic oxygen will slowly be sucked out of the Office business. That doesn't necessarily mean that customers will abandon Microsoft's apps; it just means that Microsoft won't be able to make much money from them anymore.
  • Microsoft may eventually win the battle for online Office applications, but the victory is likely to be a pyrrhic one.
    Microsoft faces down threats from Google, IBM and with it's threat to enterprise IT - MSOffice as the ultimate browser.
    Google Office productivity alternatives are "trapped inside the browser". MSOffice, Silverlight, Live Mesh and Adobe Flex "RIA" browser alternatives are comparatively feature rich and powerfull.
Gary Edwards

A reminder of why Microsoft wanted Yahoo | Tech news blog - CNET - 0 views

  • When Windows has a real rival, Microsoft has real problems.

    As Blodget notes, there are caveats: The unofficial Office monopoly should give Microsoft breathing room for a few more years. But even that could be threatened as Google's more-affordable Web applications improve.

    This storm has been gathering for years. In 2005, we wrote a piece at about Google's longterm threat to Microsoft. The impetus was a major management shuffle at MSN, but we had fun pulling out some old Microsoft memos about now-defunct Netscape in the early days of the World Wide Web. My favorite was a note written in 1995 by Microsoft engineer Ben Slivka describing a "nightmare" scenario for his company.

    "The Web...exists today as a collection of technologies that deliver some interesting solutions today, and will grow rapidly in the coming years into a full-fledged platform (underlined for emphasis in the original memo) that will rival--and even surpass--Microsoft's Windows," Slivka wrote.

    Microsoft didn't pay too much attention to the warning. Ten years later, another internal memo put a name to that nightmare--Google. Now Blodget has advanced that nightmare scenario a few more steps with his analysis.

    Review of Henry Blodgett's predicitve analysis that within the next year Google's search revenue will surpass Microsoft's revenue from Windows. MS still has MSOffice and the Exchange/SharePoint/SQL Server juggernaut. But Blodgett fearlessly predicts the beginning of the end fo rthe great monopolist. Great quote from Microsoft's Ben Slovika.
Gary Edwards

Do new Web tools spell doom for the browser? | InfoWorld | Analysis | 2008-05-12 | By N... - 0 views

  • Today's Web sites are another matter, however. Gone are the static pages and limited graphics of 15 years ago. In their place are lush, highly interactive experiences, as visually rich as any desktop application. The Web has become the preferred platform for enterprise application delivery, to say nothing of online entertainment and social software. In response, new kinds of online experiences have begun to emerge, challenging old notions of what it means to browse the Web.
Gary Edwards

How To make Web-Clean Documents in AbiWord - 0 views

  • HTML Formatting Instructions - Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)

    By default, when you save your document as an HTML file, AbiWord places all formatting instructions into one block at the beginning.  These formatting instructions use the Cascading Style Sheet language, and are in the <style> tag in the <head> of your document.  From here it is easy to move the styles as a whole (copy and paste) into a new document which can then be externally linked or integrated with your web-site's style sheet.

    Bonus points to Paul!
Gary Edwards

The end of the web as we know it | Adobe - Developer Center : Duane Nickull - 0 views

  • The web as we knew it in 1995 has already largely died. Out of the ashes has arisen a second incarnation and we are currently on the verge of a new reality, Web 2.0. While there is no one definition, Web 2.0 is perhaps best described as the migration to the web as a platform spanning all connected devices, coupled with a specific set of patterns. Web 2.0 has many components, but it is generally associated with a class of web applications that harness the intelligence, data, and actions of their users to create value (iconic Web 2.0 applications include Flickr, YouTube, and Amazon). While many are looking to Web 2.0 to solve the problems of yesteryear, the mass migration is creating a new set of problems that must be addressed.

    This article is divided into three parts: an analysis of the web today, an analysis of what has already died or is dying, and a look forward at aspects of Web 2.0 that are creating problems and will likely die in the next five years.

    Humm. Good idea Duane! I'm thinking why it is that i don't have a Wikipedia resource center for my personal information. Instead i have Diigo, Facebook and Flickr.
    Excellent whitepaper from Duane.
Gary Edwards

Analysis: Sun's Lively Kernel Threatens HTML, CSS Dominance - Software - IT Channel New... - 0 views

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 May 08 - Cached
  • A little-known project called Lively Kernel at Sun's research labs simplifies the way Web programming is created. Lively is a JavaScript engine that uses scalable vector graphics (SVG) to render images, animation and text on a Web browser. What's most exciting about the Lively stack is that eliminates the need for HTML, document object model (DOM) and style sheet (CSS) programming.
    uh oh. JavaScript - SVG rendering engine relacing HTML - CSS with SVG drawn from a transform library.
Gary Edwards

Live Mesh as the next information bus :: Incremental Blogger » Blog Archive » - 0 views

    More review of the Gilmopre Gang interview
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Says Yes With Mesh While Google Waits On Officenomics - 0 views

  • Imagine (not for long will it be ephemeral) an information bus that orchestrates the signaling of text, rich media, calendar, communications, transaction, and group location status under a social graph umbrella based in part on user-controlled behavior aggregation (gestures). Now imagine what Google needs to do to match this architecture and its overwhelming lead in connectors to existing hardware via Windows.

    Google’s answer for now is no. There’s no need to attack Mesh directly, but rather continue to iterate on Officenomics while retaining its dominant leads in user credibility and advertiser cloud. But Microsoft can efficiently hybridize Google and other microbig services with the Mesh layer added, creating information bus fail-over to multiple streams (virtual devices) to insure enterprise levels of reliability and security.

    Techcrunch review of a recent Gilmore Group interview with MS Live Mesh product manager
Gary Edwards

Microsoft SOA Products & Investments: Oslo - 0 views

  • Microsoft is investing some of the top engineering talent at the company to make two key investments:

    • Deliver a world class SOA platform across client, server, and cloud. Microsoft has been a thought leader in Web services and SOA technologies since the very beginning and has delivered industry leading technologies such as the Windows Communication Foundation and BizTalk Server.
    • Deliver a world class and mainstream modeling platform that helps the roles of IT collaborate and enables better integration between IT and the business. The modeling platform enables higher level descriptions, so called declarative descriptions, of the application.
    SOA platform that extends across client, server and cloud. Scary stuff that preceeded the Live Mesh - Silverlight announcement at Web 2.0 (2008)
Gary Edwards

What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation? - Wikipedia Link - 0 views

  • Re: Finally, the beef...

    Posted by: Anonymous [ip:] on November 12, 2007 11:32 PM

    XHTML + CSS is the base. Add XForms, SVG and SMiL where needed. Study the work being done on microformats. Like most modern portable XML file formats, the basic packages are those of content and presentation. In CDF speak, this is XHTML content and CSS as the portable presentation package. ODF and MS-OOXML both struggle with the legacy tradition of the presentation package being application specific. Meaning, the portability is limited to other applications that are either of the same version, or, share the same layout and rendering model so that the exchange of the presentation package is lossless.


    The Wikipedia "OpenDocument Foundation" page is continually re edited, changing the factual truth to portray the Foundation in the worst light possible. Every time we try to repair the page to reflect the truth, the liars jump right back in. Is there a Wikipedia resolution for liies? Our facts can be verified by the five year history of the OASIS membership and ODF TC records that are public information.

    This anonymous post to Joe Barr's article is perhaps the best explanation on the Web of why the Foundation choose CDF, and could not use ODF.

    Good explanation of MSOffice-OOXML and the MS Web-Stack :: MS Cloud.

    No mention of the December 2007 MSOffice SDK beta that provided us with that first all important glimpse of the MSOffice-OOXML <> XAML converter component. I take it the article comment was written before that most important discovery. XAML "fixed/flow" is an alternative to W3C/ISO XHTML-CSS and ISO PDF.

1 - 20 of 52 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page