Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged 2009-11-11

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Graham Perrin

Interoperability vs Homogeneity « Arnaud's Open blog - 1 views

lehors.wordpress.com/...nteroperability-vs-homogeneity

2009 2009-11 2009-11-11 European Interoperability Infrastructure Services

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 Nov 09 - Cached
  • Interoperability vs Homogeneity
  • leaked updated document of the European Interoperability Framework (EIF)
  • taking back what could be considered one of the most advanced features of the previous document
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • how could “homogeneity” possibly qualify has a way of obtaining “interoperability”?
  • why would the EU endorse the notion of having everybody select one specific solution or system? Isn’t that in total contradiction with its very goal?
  • I seriously hope the EU realizes how misguided this move was and takes it back.
  • November 10, 2009
  • Arnaud Le Hors
  • Graham Perrin on 12 Nov 09
Alex Brown

Doug Mahugh : Tracked Changes - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...tracked-changes.aspx

shared by Alex Brown on 14 May 09 - Cached
  • Much was made during the IS29500 standards process of the difference in the size of the ODF and Open XML specifications.  This is a good example of where that difference comes from: in this case, a concept glossed over in three vague sentences of the ODF spec gets 17 pages of documentation in the Open XML spec.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 14 May 09
       
      This is the nub; OOXML may be overweight, but ODF is severely undernourished as a spec.
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Alex, I know from your previous writings that you do not regard OOXML as completely specified. But your post might be so misinterpreted. In my view, neither ODF nor OOXML has yet reached the threshold of eligibility as an international standard, completely specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, Annex I. . OOXML is ahead of ODF in some aspects of specificity, but the eligibility finish line remains beyond the horizon for both.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Alex Brown on 14 May 09
     
    Paul, that's right - though so far the faulty things in OOXML turn out to be more round the edges as opposed to ODF's central lapses. Still, it's early days in the examination of OOXML so I'm reserving making any firm call on the comparative merits of the specs until I have read a lot (a lot) more. Is there an area of OOXML you'd say was particularly underbaked? I'm quite interested in the fact that neither of these beasts specify scripting languages ...
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Hi, Alex, Most seriously, there are no profiles and accompanying requirements to enable less featureful apps to round trip documents with more featureful apps, a la W3C Compound Document by Reference Framework. That's an enormous barrier to market entry and interoperability. That defect reacts synergistically with the dearth of semantic conformity requirements, with the incredible number of options including those 500+ identified extension points, and with a compatibility framework for extensions that while a good start leaves implementers far too much discretion in assigning and processing compatibility attributes. There are also major harmonization issues with other standards that get in the way of transformations, where Microsoft originally rolled its own rather than embracing existing open standards. I think it not insignificant that OOXML as a whole is available only under a RAND-Z pledge rather than being available for the entire world. The patent claims need to be identified and worked around or a different rights scheme needs Microsoft management's promulgation. This is a legal interoperability issue as opposed to technical, but an interoperability barrier nonetheless, an "unnecessary obstacle to international trade" in the sense of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. And absent a change by Microsoft in its rights regime, the work-arounds are technical. This is not to suggest that ODF lacks problems in regard to the way it implements standards incorporated by reference. The creation of unique OASIS namespaces rather than doing the needed harmonizing work with the relevant W3C WGs is a large ODF tumor in need of removal and reconstructive surgery. I'm not sure what is happening with the W3C consultation in that regard. I worked a good part of the time over several months comparing ODF and Ecma 376, evaluating their comparative suitability as document exchange formats. I gave up when it climbed well past 100 pages in length because the de
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    1. Full-featured editors available that are capable of not generating application-specific extensions to the formats? 2. Interoperability of conforming implementations mandatory? 3. Interoperability between different IT systems either demonstrable or demonstrated? 4. Profiles developed and required for interoperability? 5. Methodology specified for interoperability between less and more featureful applications? 6. Specifies conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability? 7. Interoperability conformity assessment procedures formally established and validated? 8. Document validation procedures validated? 9. Specifies an interoperability framework? 10. Application-specific extensions classified as non-conformant? 11. Preservation of metadata necessary to achieve interoperability mandatory? 12. XML namespaces for incorporated standards properly implemented? (ODF-only failure because Microsoft didn't incorporate any relevant standards.) 13. Optional feature interop breakpoints eliminated? 14. Scripting language fully specified for embedded scripts? 15. Hooks fully specified for use by embedded scripts? 16. Standard is vendor- and application-neutral? 17. Market requirement -- Capable of converging desktop, server, Web, and mobile device editors and viewers? (OOXML better equipped here, but its patent barrier blocks.)
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Didn't notice that my post before last was chopped at the end until after I had posted the list. Then Diigo stopped responding for a few minutes. Anyway, the list is short summation of my research on the comparative suitabilities of ODF 1.1 and Ecma 376 as document exchange formats, winnowed to the defects they have in common except as noted. The research was never completed because in the political climate of the time, the world wasn't ready to act on the defects. The criteria applied were as objective as I could make them; they were derived from competition law, JTC 1 Directives, and market requirements. I think the list is as good today in regard to IS 29500 as it was then to Ecma 376, although I have not taken an equally deep dive into 29500. You might find the list useful, albeit there is more than a bit of redundancy in it.
Alex Brown

An Antic Disposition: Asking the right questions about Office 2010's OOXML support - 1 views

www.robweir.com/...ht-questions-about-office.html

shared by Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09 - Cached
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      ... and we can expect similar censure for people claiming to support "ODF"?
  • Remember, the conformance language of OOXML is so loose that even a shell statement of "cat foo.docx > /dev/null" would qualify as a conformant application.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      Think you're confusing ODF and OOXML here Rob; hint - look at OOXML "application descriptions"
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • But that is not what WG4 was recently told in Seattle, where they were told that Office would not write out Strict documents until Office 16
  • In other words, will Office 2010 be "strictly conformant" with the ISO/IEC 29500:2008 standards?
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      interesting made up concept, this "strictly conformant", for a standard which contains an extensibility mechanism ...
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      err, news to me ... and I was at the meeting.
  • To do otherwise is to essentially specify a require for the use of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office alone.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 17 Nov 09
       
      or any of those other applications which support that format (including some from IBM even) ...
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering : Open XML: One Year In - 1 views

blogs.technet.com/...open-xml-one-year-in.aspx

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09 - Cached
  • What is noteworthy about this investment is that we’re working closely with members of JTC 1 SC 34 ( the standards body responsible with Open XML maintenance ) to identify and resolve backward compatibility issues related to this new functionality.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09
       
      I think it is worth noting, that quite a few of the independant experts of WG4 have argued against usage of ISO-dates in T.
Graham Perrin

FR: Advocacy group protests government's approving of OOXML - - 0 views

www.osor.eu/...governments-approving-of-ooxml

2009 2009-11 2009-11-21 Office Open XML

shared by Graham Perrin on 21 Nov 09 - Cached
  • FR: Advocacy group protests government's approving of OOXML
  • Nov 20, 2009
  • Gijs Hillenius
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • April, a French free and open source software advocacy group, is protesting the French government's approval of Microsoft's OOXML as a government document standard, alongside the open document format ODF.
  • General interoperability framework for public administrations and local governments, RGI
  • Référentiel Général d'Interopératibilité
  • We have just missed a historical opportunity to support openness and innovation in the software market
  • calling on members of the French parliament to clarify the RGI
  • The RGI does not resolve the controversy between software publishers and supporters of free software. Both standards office are placed 'under observation', and their use remains at the discretion of each administrative authority.
  • Graham Perrin on 21 Nov 09
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page