Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged blog

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: The Office question - 0 views

www.roughtype.com/...the_office_ques.php

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • As I argued in my post Office Generations last year, we're in the early stages of the "hybrid phase" of personal productivity applications, when most people will use web apps to extend rather than replace their old Office apps. This phase will play out over a number of years as the web technologies mature, at which point it will become natural to use purely web-based apps (with, probably, continued local caching of data and program code). What this means is that Microsoft has a good opportunity to maintain Office's dominance during the switchover by pursuing what it calls its "software plus services" strategy. But Microsoft should be anything but complacent right now. Maintaining market dominance does not necessarily mean maintaining traditional levels of profitability. The biggest threat posed by online alternatives may well be to undermine Microsoft's pricing power - a trend we're already seeing in the student market.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      It's all about interoperability and functionality without disruption to existing business processes.
Gary Edwards

Open IT Strategies: Sun and IBM Sabotage ODF Interoperability - 0 views

blog.openitstrategies.com/...two-months-of-it-news.html

cdf foundation odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Nov. 12: A great article by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols announced that the Open Document Foundation has closed shop, alleging that the foundation’s founders Sun and IBM tried to sabotage document interoperability, and instead endorsing W3C’s Compound Document Format. I’ve had my differences with SJVN — he’s on the true-believer end of open source reporters — but he’s really captured well a complex story: in the end, neither the ODF nor CDF faction comes across as completely credible.
Gary Edwards

Does ODF 1.2 Metadata Solve the Interop Problem? - Microsoft starts rolling out more O... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

afnor cdf iso maryjo merger metadata odf ooxml opendocument talkback zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - No Cached
  • Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2 Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe. The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission. You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects. Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint. Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    A Second response to Mary Jo's, "Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators" is also posted here. The title is "Standardization by Corporation". Shish-Ka-Bob makes the assertion the ODF 1.2 metadata model will enable lossless two way conversion between MSOffice and ODF. While it's true that that intent was a key component of the original July of 2006 Metadata Requirements, the proposal was eventually stripped from the final submission made in April of 2007. I try to explain to Shish how that came about. The second post here, "Standardization by Corporation", is a follow on to statements made to Shish. The statements have to do with the events at ISO, and what i think will eventually happen. IMHO, ISO will follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML. To do this they will remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter. A derpressing but nevertheless very true concern. In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300). ~ge~
Gary Edwards

Open Document Format: The sad truth | Scott Mace Information Manager Journal - 0 views

scottmace.typepad.com/...open-document-f.html

berlind cdf foundation mace odf ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Open Document Format: The sad truth David Berlind has posted a massive chronicle of who said what to whom about the supposed emergence of CDF as an alternative to Open Document Format (ODF) and OOXML. I played a minor role in this saga when I spoke with Gary Edwards for Opening Move, back in April. This was before Edwards proposed CDF in place of ODF. If you haven't listened to our conversation, please do so, because the concerns Edwards raised about ODF (and OOXML) remain just as valid today. While I'm sad to see Edwards' more recent direction and assertions debunked in the press and the blogosphere, the greater tragedy is of two competing document standards -- ODF and OOXML -- now on seemingly irreversible paths to immortality, meaning we'll have translation issues between them around for several lifetimes to come.
Gary Edwards

ODF 1.2? You're dreaming! Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators | Mary... - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft

cdf mary-jo metadata odf ooxml opendocument zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Over the next three months, Microsoft will be releasing new and updated translators designed to aid  customers who want interoperability between Microsoft’s Office Open XML (OOXML) and other document formats, including Open Document Format (ODF). On December 4, Microsoft began rolling out three new translators that it plans to make available this month: A 1.1 update of its translator for Word; an Open XML spreadsheet translator and a presentation translator. Additionally, in February 2008, Microsoft will deliver the final version of its translator designed to provide interoperability between the Chinese-government backed Uniform Office Format (UOF) file format and OOXML. Microsoft announced the creation of the SourceForge-hosted Open Translation Project in July 2006. At that time, the Softies said the translator-focused initiatve was started “in response to government requests for interoperability with ODF because they work with constituent groups that use that format.” Vijay Rajagopalan, a Microsoft Principal Architect, provided the update on the OOXML-ODF translation work during the XML 2007 conference on Decmeber 4. During the XML 2007 interoperability panel — sponsored by Microsoft and of which Rajagopalan was a part — the ongoing battles that have raged for the past couple of years between Microsoft and the backers of ODF were a mere sidenote.
Gary Edwards

Did the W3C acknowledge CDF's potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-... - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind

berlind cdf foundation heintzman odf ooxml opendocument schepers w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through. If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.
  • Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.
  • The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?
Gary Edwards

Inside PDF: CDF - 0 views

blogs.adobe.com/...cdf.html

adobe cdf odf ooxml pdf

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The real technical content of the CDF recommendations is in details of how to glue these various (XML markup) languages together once they all have been processed into their respective DOMs. It establishes conventions for how a script might reach across DOM boundaries, how events might get propagated across DOM boundaries and stuff like that. I won't go into this any deeper because you will get more accurate information by just reading the W3C documents. But the main idea of CDF is to bring these variously defined content types into a uniform "framework" so that scripts can operate more at a document level instead of being confined to their own document child.
Gary Edwards

Open Document Foundation Dumps ODF for CDF - Open for Business - Lora Bentley - 0 views

www.itbusinessedge.com/...osb

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Five years after it was formed specifically to promote OpenDocument Format as an alternative to Microsoft Office formats, those behind the Open Document Foundation are abandoning the OASIS- and ISO-approved document standard in favor of the World Wide Web Consortium’s Compound Document Format.
Gary Edwards

OpenDocument Foundation Slams Namesake Format And Calls For True Interoperability | Wir... - 0 views

blog.wired.com/...opendocument-fo.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • There’s some weight to that accusation when you consider how the applications behind each format operate. For instance, Microsoft Office more or less sucks at handling ODF documents and OpenOffice sucks at opening OOXML files — but why? OpenOffice has largely refused to implement any of the proprietary elements of Microsoft’s Office and Microsoft has made only a passing effort at supporting ODF. The two sides may argue about which is the better file format, but in reality what they’re saying is “our software works better than yours.” From an end user point of view software remains the critical issue — far moreso than the document format itself. But the OpenDocument Foundation would like that to change, they believe that interoperability is the whole point of having a universal format.
  • But it is nice to see that at least some part of office document debate is actually on the real-world user’s side. After all, most of us really don’t care what format our documents are in as long as all our applications can open them. And right now that sort of cross-application compatibility is little more than a pipe dream.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Wow.  Add another name to the ODF Jihadist list of fatwah targets, "Scott Gilbertson".
Gary Edwards

Jason Brooks - Bumps on the Road to Document Exchange Nirvana - Flock - 0 views

blogs.eweek.com/...e_opendocument_foundation.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The OpenDocument Foundation has announced its plans to sever itself from participation in or further advocacy of its namesake office document format in favor of the World Wide Web Consortium's XHTML (Extensible HTML)-based Compound Document Format. Although the OpenDocument Foundation is a fairly small organization, the group sports a certain cachet that stems from the ODF-to-MS Office plug-in that the group announced--but did not release publicly--about a year and a half ago. At the heart of the rift between the Foundation and the rest of the ODF backers--led by Sun and IBM--lies a dispute over the proper strategy for achieving round-trip document fidelity between Microsoft Office and ODF-consuming applications, such as Sun's OpenOffice.org or IBM's Lotus Symphony.
Gary Edwards

ODF and differences of opinion - ZDNet John Carrol - John Le'Bracage - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5206-11048-0.html

carrol cdf lebracage odf ooxml opendocument w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world. The chickens came home to roost when Massachusetts started a year long pilot study regarding the implementation of ODF. The study began shortly after the OASIS approval of ODf 1.0, and ended in May of 2006. The results were nothing short of a disaster for ODF.
Gary Edwards

ODF and differences of opinion | TalkBack on ZDNet - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11048-0.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Lengthy comment explaining once again why we moved from ODF to CDF. 
Gary Edwards

ODF and differences of opinion | John Carroll | ZDNet.com - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/carroll

carrol cdf foundation odf ooxml opendocument w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • the OpenDocument Foundation had decided to back away from work on ODF in favor of CDF (a W3C-backed standard) out of a belief that ODF wouldn’t achieve the real-world interoperability goals the OpenDocument Foundation was originally created to achieve
Gary Edwards

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Mapping documents in the binary format (.doc; .xls; .pp... - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...pt-to-the-open-xml-format.aspx

burtongroup cdf css ibm iso microsoft odf okelly ooxml opendocument openxml sun w3c xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • The second issue we had feedback on was an interest in the mapping from the binary formats into the Open XML formats. The thought here was that the most effective way to help people with this was to create an open source translation project to allow binary documents (.doc; .xls; .ppt) to be translated into Open XML. So we proposed the creation of a new open source project that would map a document written using the legacy binary formats to the Open XML formats. TC45 liked this suggestion, and here was the TC45 response to the national body comments: We believe that Interoperability between applications conforming to DIS 29500 is established at the Office Open XML-to- Office Open XML file construct level only.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      And here i was betting that the blueprints to the secret binaries would be released the weekend before the September 2nd, 2007 ISO vote on OOXML! Looks like Microsoft saved the move for when they really had to use it; jus tweeks before the February ISO Ballot Resolution Meetings set to resolve the Sept 2nd issues. The truth is that years of reverse engineering have depleted the value of keeping the binary blueprints secret. It's true that interoperability with MSOffice in the past was near entirely dependent on understanding the secret binaries. Today however, with the rapid emergence of the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaught, interop with MSOffice is no longer the core issue. Now we have to compete with E/S, and it is the E/S interfaces, protocols and document API's and dependencies tha tmust be reverse engineered. The E/S juggernaught is now surging to 70% or more of the market. These near monopoly levels of market penetration is game changing. One must reverse engineer or license the .NET libraries to crack the interop problem. And this time it's not just MSOffice. Today one must crack into the MS Stack whose core is tha tof MSOffice <> E/S. So why not release the secret binary blueprints? If that's the cost of getting the application, platform and vendor specific OOXML through ISO, then it's a small price to pay for your own international standard.
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
     
    Well well well. We knew that IBM had access to the secret binary blueprints back in 2006. Now we know that Sun ALSO had access!
    And why is this important? In June of 2006, Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez asked the OpenDocument Foundation's da Vinci Group to work with IBM on developing the da Vinci ODF plug-in clone of Microsoft's OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in. When we met with IBM they were insistent that the only way OASIS ODF could establish sufficient compatibility with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents would be to have the secret blueprints open.
    Even after we explained to IBM that da Vinci uses the same internal conversion process that the OOXML plug-in used to convert binaries, IBM continued to insist that opening up the secret binaries was a primary objective of the OASIS ODF community.
    For sure this was important to IBM and Sun, but the secret binaries were of no use to us. da Vinci didn't need them. What da Vinci needed instead was a subset of ODF designed for the conversion of those billions of binary documents! A need opposed by Sun.
    Sun of course would spend the next year developing their own ODF plug-in for MSOffice. But here's the thing: it turns out that Sun had complete access to the secret binary blueprints dating back to 2006!!!!!!
    So even though IBM and Sun have had access to the blueprints since 2006, they have been unable to provide effective conversions to ODF!
    This validates a point the da Vinci group has been trying to make since June of 2006: the problem of perfecting a high fidelity conversion between the billions of binaries and ODF has nothing to do with access to the secret binary blueprints. The real issue is that ODF was NOT designed for the conversion of those binary documents.
    It is true that one could eXtend ODF to achieve the needed compatibility. But one has to be very careful before taking this ro
Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft

burtongorup cdf css garyedwards maryjo odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • “ODF represents laudable design and standards work. It’s a clean and useful design, but it’s appropriate mostly for relatively unusual scenarios in which full Microsoft Office file format fidelity isn’t a requirement. Overall, ODF addresses only a subset of what most organizations do with productivity applications today.” The report continues: “ODF is insufficient for complex real-world enterprise requirements, and it is indirectly controlled by Sun Microsystems, despite also being an ISO standard. It’s possible that IBM, Novell, and other vendors may be able to put ODF on a more customer-oriented trajectory in the future and more completely integrate it with the W3C content model, but for now ODF should be seen as more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection.”
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      Mary Jo takes on the recently released Burton Group Report comparing OOXML and ODF. Peter O'Kelly, one of the Burton Group authors, once famously said, "ODF is a great format if you live in an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist!" This observation speaks to the core problem facing ODF and those who seek to implement the ODF standard: ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents. Nor was ODF designed to work with MSOffice applications. Another way of saying this is to state that ODF was not designed to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications and bound processes. The truth is that ODF was designed for OpenOffice/StarOffice. It is an application specific format. Both OOXML and ODF do a good job of separating content from presentation (style). The problem is that the presentation - layout layers of both ODF and OOXML remains bound to specific applications producing it. While the content layers are entirely portable and can be exchanged without information loss, the presentation layers can not. Microsoft makes no bones about the application specific design and purpose of OOXML. It's stated right in the Ecma 376 charter that OOXML was designed to be compatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents in MSOffice specific binary formats. The situation however is much more confusing with ODF. ODF is often promoted as being application, platform and vendor independent. After five years of development though, the OASIS ODF TC has been unable to strip ODF of it's OpenOffice/StarOffice specific aspects. ODF 1.0 - ISO 26300 had three areas that were under specified; meaning these areas were described in syntax only, and lacked the full semantics demanded by interoperable implementations. Only OpenOffice and StarOffice code base applications are able to exchange documents with an acceptable fidelity. The three under specified areas of ODF are: Lists (numbered), F
Gary Edwards

Collaboration and Content Strategies Blog: Free Report on ODF/OOXML Available - 0 views

ccsblog.burtongroup.com/...blogger-guy-cre.html

burtongroup cdf desmond odf okelly ooxml opendocument xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • The overall document summary: Industry debate about the relative merits of OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Ecma 376 Office Open XML (OOXML) highlights the significance of the productivity application market shift from binary and proprietary file formats to vendor- and product-independent Extensible Markup Language (XML) models. The competitive stakes are huge, and the related political posturing is sometimes perplexing. In this overview, Research Directors Guy Creese and Peter O’Kelly introduce ODF, OOXML, and related World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards, and project their implications for future productivity applications.
Gary Edwards

The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against anyway) « A Frantic Op... - 0 views

robweird.wordpress.com/...t-ibm-will-vote-against-anyway

foundation harmonization interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against&nbsp;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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I have already been practicing for this, as you can see, by the ODF 1.1 and 1.2 specs.
Gary Edwards

The Harmonization Myth: ISO Approval of Open XML Will Hurt Interoperability - 0 views

blog.hvorom.dk/...ill-Hurt-Interoperability.aspx

din fraunhofer harmonization iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 31 Jan 08 - Cached
  • 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!!!
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 31 Jan 08
       
      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~
Gary Edwards

Collaboration and Content Strategies Blog: Response to Ars Technica's Article on the OD... - 0 views

ccsblog.burtongroup.com/...response-to-ars.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 31 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Five days ago Ars Technica issued its view of the Burton Group ODF/OOXML report and made it clear that they disagreed with its findings, going with the headline, "Analyst group slams ODF, downplays Microsoft ISO abuses." We've had some questions from Burton Group clients and others about the article, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go through where we agree, where we disagree, where Ars Technica mischaracterizes what we said, and where it's wrong.
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 100 of 147 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page