Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged design

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

PlexNex: Achieving Openness - 0 views

fussnotes.typepad.com/...achieving_openn.html

ecma-376 iso microsoft odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • "ECMA 376" is a set of file formats subject to ECMA and now to ISO. "Office 2007" is a set of file formats which extend "ECMA 376" file formats. Office 2007 file formats are undocumented per se. ECMA 376 are. ECMA 376 file formats are documented but only at a syntactic level. To realize the true meaning of every single attribute is to realize that the documentation is more like 600,000 pages, not 6,000. Of particular difficulty is to keep some kind of control over the virtually infinite combinations of such attributes. Quick analysis of the underlying schemas reveals that simple concepts such as text formatting is expressed in no less than 6 different and incompatible ways. This leads to thinking that the file formats were only designed to comply with existing legacy formats that themselves are the result of 15 years of inside/outside library aggregation (some of the libraries were bought from non-Microsoft vendors). In fact, the truth is, ask any reverse engineer third-party who worked with legacy formats, they'll tell you Microsoft essentially added angle brackets around the binary serialization in legacy formats. This makes for a very cool XML-based file format, not an international standard.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Whoa, Stepen Rodriguez knocks this one out of the park.  What an impressive dissembling of MS OfficeOpenXML and it's poor sister subset, Ecma 376.  Incredible. 
Gary Edwards

Linux News: Software: OpenDocument Foundation Abandons Namesake Format - Katherine Noyes - 0 views

www.linuxinsider.com/...Abandons-Namesake-Format.xhtml

cdf odf ooxml opendocment

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Soured Relationships "What's happened is that there's just not a lot of interest in their approach, and that has resulted in a lot of souring of relationships on the part of the OpenDocument Foundation folks," Douglas Johnson, standards manager at Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA) , told LinuxInsider. The about-face in support should not have a significant effect on the move toward open standards, Johnson added. The OpenDocument Foundation's decision to support CDF, however, is puzzling, Johnson said. 'I'm Perplexed' "It doesn't seem like a good fit," he explained. "It's not designed for this, so I'm perplexed at their desire to go in that direction."
Gary Edwards

Brendan's Roadmap Updates: My @media Ajax Keynote - 0 views

weblogs.mozillazine.org/...my_media_ajax_keynote.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Standards often are made by insiders, established players, vendors with something to sell and so something to lose. Web standards bodies organized as pay-to-play consortia thus leave out developers and users, although vendors of course claim to represent everyone fully and fairly. I've worked within such bodies and continue to try to make progress in them, but I've come to the conclusion that open standards need radically open standardization processes. They don't need too many cooks, of course; they need some great chefs who work well together as a small group. Beyond this, open standards need transparency. Transparency helps developers and other categories of "users" see what is going on, give corrective feedback early and often, and if necessary try errant vendors in the court of public opinion.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      Brendan's comment about the open standards process and the control big vendors have over that process is exactly right. The standards contsortia are pay to play orgs controlled entirely by big vendors. OASIS and the OpenDocuemnt Technical Committee are not exceptions to this problematic and troublesome truth.
      The First Law of the Internet is that Interoperability trumps everything - including innovation. The problem with vendor driven open standards is that innovation ontinually trumps interoperability. So much so that interop is pretty much an after thought - as is the case with ODF and OOXML!
      The future of the Open Web will depend on open source communities banding together with governemnts and user groups to insist on the First Law of the Internet: Interoeprability. If they don't, vendors will succeed in creating slow moving web standards designed to service their product lines. Vendor product lines compete and are differentiated by innovative features. Interoeprability on the other hand is driven by sameness - the sharing of critical features. Driving innovation down into the interop layer is what the open standards process should be about. But as long as big vendors control that process, those innovations will reside at the higher level of product differentiation. A level tha tcontinues to break interoperability!
Gary Edwards

Debate Simmers on Why ODF Shuttered its Doors - Peter Galli eWEEK - 0 views

www.eweek.com/...0,1759,2223042,00.asp

cdf galli good ms-ooxml odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Did the OpenDocument Foundation recently shutter its doors for good because it was unable to convince Oasis to support its converter, known as Da Vinci? Or was it because OpenDocument Format was simply not designed for the conversion of Microsoft Office documents, applications, and processes?
Gary Edwards

The X Factor: ODF, OOXML, CDF | Redmond Developer News - 0 views

reddevnews.com/...article.aspx

cdf odf ooxml w3c xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • XML expert, consultant and Microsoft MVP Don Demsak argues that both technologies share a fundamental flaw-they're not really striving to be standards at all. "I think this whole OOXML versus ODF thing is a non-issue. Both formats are just serialization formats for the object models they're associated with, and are not designed as impartial, interoperable formats," Demsak writes in an e-mail. Gary Edwards, president of the OpenDocument Foundation, which drives ODF development, believes codified document standards should not carry forward old flaws and application nuances. "The world is not a clean slate, but it's going to somehow make that transition of existing documents, applications and processes to XML," he says in an e-mail. "To us, that is an open XML file format consistent with the continuing work of the W3C that also meets the following criteria: open, unencumbered, universally interoperable, totally application-platform-vendor independent, with an acceptable citizen-driven governance," Edwards writes.
  • Being XML, it should be easy to convert between the two formats."
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      UH, excuse me. ODF and OOXML might be XML, but they are both application specific XML. Converting between the two means somehow being able to reconcile the different application models for handling basic document sturctures such as lists, fields, tables, sections, and page dynamics. The problem is that the two file formats are irreconcilable on these issues. What's needed is a move towards a basic generic elements/attribute model able to layer these application specific nuances into a more flexible attibute descriptive. Or, we could just move to XML/RDF and never look back :)
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Now you're talking!
Gary Edwards

How Does Compound Document Framework Benefit Us? - Axistive.com - Assistive Technology ... - 0 views

www.axistive.com/ment-framework-benefit-us.html

cdf css xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • How does Compound Document Framework Work? The Compound Document framework introduces concepts that are implemented by a number of new classes. The Compound Document framework implements a new, and more versatile, type of document and defines several new classes to support and manage this compound document, therefore its design is in this format document, command and selection, data, storage. The class structure of the Compound Document framework builds on the structure laid down by the Basic Document framework. Therefore, this section introduces only the classes new to the Compound Document framework.
Gary Edwards

» Why XHTML and CSS? | UK Web Hosting | Linux Windows Server Tutorials | PHP ... - 0 views

blog.eukhost.com/...why-xhtml-and-css

css design xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Title: Why XHTML and CSS? Simply put, XHTML and CSS has an indefinate bond together, they work together perfectly and they shape everything for the prospect of the future Internet.
Gary Edwards

Ripped Off by Rob Weir - Again - 0 views

www.robweir.com/...nd-and-monicas-blue-dress.html

cdf da-vinci hamlet ibm massachusetts odf ooxml opendocument pdf pilot rfi weir

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • An intriguing idea is whether we can have it both ways. Suppose you are in an ODF editor and you have a "Save for archiving..." option that would save your ODF document as normal, but also generate a PDF version of it and store it in the zip archive along with ODF's XML streams. Then digitally sign the archive along with a time stamp to make it tamper-proof. You would need to define some additional access conventions, but you could end up with a single document that could be loaded in an ODF editor (in read-only mode) to allow examination of the details of spreadsheet formulas, etc., as well as loaded in a PDF reader to show exactly how it was formated.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Intriguing?  Rob Weir knows full well that the Foundation proposed this exact same feature set as part of the da Vinci Plug-in design for Massachusetts, July of 2006!!!!!!!!!

    The Complete Feature list of the da Vinci plug-in for MSOffice that was proposed and signed off on by CIO Louis Gutierrez in early August of 2006 was well known by IBM's representatives who were working hand in hand with us at the time: Rob Weir, Don Harbison and Doug Heintzman. 

    Louis Gutierrez had asked IBM and Oracle to create a "benefactors Group" to overcome the challenge that Massachusetts ITD did not have a budget.  IBM and Oracle selected Google, Sun, Novell, Intel, and Nokia as key benefactors.  The group was provided with the complete feature set and roadmap for da Vinci development. 

    The da Vinci roadmap was the schedule announced by Louis Gutierrez in his mid year report, August 17th, 2006.

    The da Vinci plug-in feature set, in order of priority, consisted of:
    ODF iX Approval at OASISPlug-in for MS WORDAccessibility Interface for all ODF documents in MS WordPDF - ODF iX Digital Signature containerPlug-in for MS ExcelInteroperability Wizard for OpenOfficePlug-in for PowerPointXForms InterfaceThe roadmap we provided Louis and the "benefactors" was sceduled out with deliverables, test periods, and cost per deliverable.  The buy-in per "benefactor" was set at $350,000, and i
Gary Edwards

Open Document Foundation Gives Up | Linux Magazine - 0 views

www.linux-magazine.com/...n_document_foundation_gives_up

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The reasons for the move to CDF was improved compatibility with Microsoft’s OOXML format the foundation claimed at the time. Cris Lilley from W3C contradicted. CDF is not an office format, and thus not an alternative to the Open Document Format. This turn-down is likely the reason for the abrupt ditching of the foundation.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    I've got to give this one extra points for creativity!  All anyone has to do is visit the W3C web sites for CDF WICD Full 1.0 to realize that there is in fact a CDf profile for desktops.  CDF WICD Mobile is the profile for devices.

    My guess is that Chris Lilley is threading the needle here.  IBM, Groklaw, and the lawyer for OASIS have portrayed the Foundation's support for CDF WICD Full as a replacement for ODF - as in native file format for OpenOffice kind of replacement.  Mr. Lilley insists that CDF WiCD Full was not designed for that purpose.  It's for export only!  As in a conversion of native desktop file formats.

    Which is exactly what the da Vinci group was doing with MSOffice.  The Foundation's immediate interest in CDF WICD was based on the assumption that a similar conversion would be possible between OpenOffice ODF and CDF WICD.

    The Foundation's thinking was that if the da Vinci group could convert MSOffice documents and processes to CDF WICD Full, and, a similar conversion of OpenOffice ODF documents and processes to CDF WICD could be done, then near ALL desktop documents could be converted into a highly interoperable web platform ready format.

    Web platform ready documents from OpenOffice?  What's not to like?  And because the conversion between ODF and CDF WICD Full is so comparatively clean, OpenOffice would in effect, (don't go native file format now) become ahighly integrated rich client end user interface to advancing web platforms.

    The Foundation further reasoned that this conversion of OpenOffice ODF to CDF WICD Full would solve many of the extremely problematic interoperability problems that plague ODF.  Once the documents are in CDF WICD Full, they are cloud ready and portable at a level certain to diminish the effects of desktop applications specific feature sets and implementation models.

    In Massachusetts, the Foundation took
Gary Edwards

Greg McNevin : Open Document Foundation Abandons Namesake, Closes up Shop - 0 views

www.idm.net.au/story.asp

cdf odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The decision to go with CDF has left some industry commentators scratching their heads, with arstechnica.com’s Ryan Paul noting that the decision is curious as CDF doesn't support “the full range of functionality required for office compatibility”. Paul does add, however, that the formats broad use of formats such as XHTML and SVG does give it a compelling edge.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The W3C's Chris Lilley, IBM and the lawyer for OASIS have been making quite a bit of noise claiming that CDF doesn't support "the full range of functionality required for office compatibility". 

    This a strange claim, especially when considering IBM as the primary source.  CDF WiCD Full 1.0 is a desktop profile for CDF.  Other profiles include WICD Mobile and WICD Core.  The call for implementations for WICD core, mobile and full went out on Monday, November 12, 2007. 

    To understand cdf, one must first get a handle on the terms used to describe cdf technologies.
    ..... CDF= compound document formats
    ..... CDRF= compound document by reference framework
    ..... WICD = Web Integration Compound Document
    ..... CDR using WICD = Compound Document by Reference using a WICD profile, (Core, Full or Mobile)
    ..... Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
    ..... WICD Core 1.0
    ..... WICD Mobile 1.0 Profile
    ..... WICD Full 1.0 Profile

    The WICD Full 1.0 Profile is the "DESKTOP" profile for CDF.
    Some interesting Quotes:

    "WICD Full 1.0 is targeted at desktop agents".

    "The WICD Full 1.0 profile is designed to enable rich multimedia content on desktop and high capability handheld agents."

    From the Compound Document by Reference Use Cases and Requirements Version 1.0 :

    "The capability to view documents with preserved formatting, layout, images and graphics and interactive features such as zooming in and out and multi-page handling."

    "
    <
Gary Edwards

WICD Full 1.0 - CDF Desktop Profile - 0 views

www.w3.org/WICDFull

cdf odf ooxml w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • WICD Full 1.0 is targeted at desktop agents
  • The WICD Full 1.0 profile is designed to enable rich multimedia content on desktop and high capability handheld agents.
  • The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "may", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC&nbsp;2119 (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt). However, for readability, these words do not appear in all uppercase letters in this specification.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      This will make marbux happy!
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Now this is interesting.  I wonder if IBM and the OASIS Lawyer have seen this page?
Gary Edwards

Barr: What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation? - Linux.com - 0 views

www.linux.com/121034

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The OpenDocument Foundation, founded five years ago by Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser, and Paul "Buck" Martin (marbux) with the express purpose of representing the OpenDocument format in the "open standards process," has reversed course. It now supports the W3C's Compound Document Format instead of its namesake ODF. Yet why this change of course has occurred is something of a mystery.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    More bad information, accusations and smearing innuendo.  Wrong on the facts,  Emotionally spent on the conclussions.  But wow it's fun to see them with their panties in such a twist.

    The truth is that ODF is a far more "OPEN" standard than MS-OOXML could ever hope to be.  Sam's Open Standards arguments for the past five years remain as relevant today as when he first started makign them so many years ago.

    The thing is, the Open Standards requirements are quite different than the real world Implementation Requirements we tried to meet with ODF.

    The implementation requirements must deal with the reality of a world dominated by MSOffice.  The Open Standards arguments relate to a world as we wish it to be, but is not.

    It's been said by analyst advising real world CIO's that, "ODF is a fine open standards format for an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist".

    If you live in that alternative universe, then ODF is the way to go.  Just download OpenOffice 2.3, and away you go.  Implementation is that easy.

    If however you live in this universe, and must deal with the impossibly difficult problem of converting existing MSOffice documents, applications and processes to ODF, then you're screwed. 

    All the grand Open Standards arguments Sam has made over the years will not change the facts of real world implmentation difficulities.

    The truth is that ODF was not designed to meet the real world implmentation requirements of compatibility with existing Microsoft documents (formats) and, interoperability with existing Microsoft Office applications.

    And then there are the problmes of ODF Interoperability with ODF applications.  At the base of this problem is the fact that compliance in ODF is optional.  ODF applications are allowed to routinely destroy metadata information needed (and placed into the markup) by other applications.<b
Gary Edwards

Interoperability Enhancement Proposal: Suggested ODF1.2 items - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00048.html

foundation interop ix odf odfix opendocument subset

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Subject: Suggested ODF1.2 items From: "Florian Reuter" &lt;freuter@novell.com&gt; To: &lt;office@lists.oasis-open.org&gt; Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:03:24 +0100
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
     
    This is the fifth of the six major iX - interoperability enhancement proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF TC - SC between July 2006 and February of 2007. This particular iX proposal lead to the "List Enhancement Proposal" donnybrook that consumed the OASIS ODF TC for the next six months, ending with the OpenDocument Foundation being booted out of OASIS in May of 2007. The six iX proposals were all different approaches to the same basic problem: ODF was not desinged to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications or bound processes. The proposals come out of the OpenDocument' Foundation's efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts. ODF iX repressents a subset of ODF designed to grealty improve compatibility with MS binary and XML formats. With the ODF iX subset, the da Vinci plug-in would be able to convert the billions of MSOffice binary and xml documents with a very high level of fidelity, and do so within the bounds of "round trip" business processes. The most basic iX approach was to add five generic elements to the existing ODF specification. The five generic elements would cover lists, tables, fields, sections, and page dynamics (breaks). It is a well known fact that these five areas of incompatibility between OpenOffice ODF and MSOffice binaries represent 95% of all conversion fidelity problems. MSOffice has one way of implementing lists, and, OpenOffice has another. These application specific implementation models are irreconcilably different. It's also true that the applicaiton specific implementation models are directly reflected in each file format. So applications implementing ODF must also implement the OpenOffice model for lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics-page positioning if they are to have any meaningful measure of exchange fidelity. Perhaps the best of the iX approaches was that based on the innovative use of metadata to describe presentation-layout attributes.
Gary Edwards

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself? - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
     
    This quote from Chalres Schultz is ridiculous. Because Novell is not allowed to commit code to OpenOffice, they must maintain a separate code base of extensions and improvements. With each build of OpenOffice, Novell must reintegrate their changes into the code base, making for a managerial nightmare. When Novell does have improvements that Sun wants though, there is no end to the hoops of fire the Sun developers will jump through to get it. The Field Enhancement routine written by Novell's Florian Router is one of those improvements that Sun had to have. Sun even went so far as to arguing for changes in the way ODF implements fields to accomodate the Novell improvements! It's important to note however that Sun did not support the ODF Field Enhancements UNTIL Novell agreed to donate Florian's code to OpenOffice!!!!!! Proving conclusively what i have been arguing for years: Sun does not allow for any changes to ODF unless and until those changes can be implemented by OpenOffice. The ODF Field Enhancements needed by Florian's fix to OpenOffice were originally proposed on July 12th, 2006, when Florian was the CTO of the OpenDocument Foundation. These changes to the way ODF implements fields were needed by the da Vinci plug-in as part of our efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts. so here we have a rather direct example of Sun refusing improvements to ODF when needed by another application (da Vinci), but supporting those exact same changes when it is OpenOffice that can be improved!!! The arguments that the OpenOffice.org Community isn't open also apply to the OASIS ODF TC work!!!!!!
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
     
    Good catch by Eric!
    This link is to the infamous Sun statement of support for MS OOXML issued by Jon Bosak when ISO DIS 2900 was voted on by the US delegation to ISO.
    The statement is important because it directly references the core issue: MS OOXML was written for MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts bound to that application suite. ODF on the other hand was written to OpenOffice.
    Because ODF was not designed for the conversion of those billions of MSOffice documents, conversion is next to impossible. The implementation of ODF in MSOffice is next to impossible. The loss of information, especially the presentation-layout information, is so severe as to be intolerable in the real world.
    This leaves the real world, where MSOffice dominates over 550 million desktops, unable to implement ODF. In light of this real world problem, Sun's Bosak urges support for MS OOXML as an ISO standard!!!
    So we have this situation at OASIS ODF where Sun is in control of both ODF and OpenOffice, refusing in all cases to compromise the linkage or accomodate the much needed interoperability enhancemnts seeking to improve the conversion of billions of documents to ODF. And publicly supporting MS OOXML as the only pragmatic alternative to the situation Sun is responsible for!
Gary Edwards

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself? - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • OpenOffice.org's biggest foe may be Microsoft Office, but critics say the open-source organization has, from its inception, also been one of its application suite's own worst enemies -- a victim of a development culture that differs radically from the open-source norm. Observers now wonder if IBM's entry into OpenOffice.org can make the necessary changes.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      good article from Eric Lai of ComputerWorld. Written on the eve of the infamous Barcelona OpenOffice.org developers conference, Eric argues that OOo isn't a real open source community. Instead, OOo is a owned and operated by Sun.
      One of the more important control points Sun insists on is that of commit rights and project managers. Only Sun employees have these rights and can hold these important positions..
      The more important point is made by Marbux (below: ODF is an application specific format designed exactly for OpenOffice. While other applications might partially implement ODF, interoperability and successful ODF document exchange require the OOo code base!
      From Marbux: This is the only article I've found to date where IBM (Heintzman) flat out says IBM wants changes in OOo licensing, more in line with the Eclipse and Apache licenses. See pg. 2. Significant because it feeds the meme that IBM's own ODF-based development goal is proprietary closed source built on the OOo code base, e.g., Symphony, et cet.
      And that has huge signficance once you realize that ODF is not the real standard; the OOo code base is the real ODF standard. Look around the world and you see that ODF adoption decisions by governments are all in reality decisions to go with StarOffice, OOo, or OOo clones. I haven't, for example, seen a single instance where a government decided to ride with KOffice. Why would they, with the interop issues between KOffice and OOo? The fact that OOo's code base is the real ODF standard will figure strongly in the comments. Couple it with Sun's iron-fisted control of the OOo code base, and you have vendor lock-in with a Microsoft partner.
      But with 70 developers committed in China, where developers salaries are inexpensive, IBM will soon be in a position to threaten to fork the OOo code base using proprietary extensions. Is that their real tactic to force changes in licensing and gov
Gary Edwards

ConsortiumInfo.org - ODF vs. OOXML: War of the Words Chapter 5 - 0 views

www.consortiuminfo.org/...article.php

massachusetts oasis odf ooxml updegrove

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Unlike screw threads, which are easily implemented with complete fidelity, it is sometimes only feasible to create a standard for software that, in a given case, at best will enable two products to become close to interoperable.&nbsp; After that, tinkering and testing is necessary to accomplish the final "fit."&nbsp; Similarly, the costs to innovation in achieving true "plug and play" interoperability when that result is feasible may be unacceptably high, leading to a decision to create a standard that (like ODF) only locks in a very significant amount of functionality, rather than complete uniformity (as OOXML strives to achieve).
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      This is an odd way of stating the interop problem between ODF and the billions of legacy MSOffice documents? "The costs to innovation in achieving true plug and play interoperability (high fidelity conversion?) when that result is feasible may be unacceptably high......"
      OOXML was designed for the high fidelity conversion of those billions of legacy MSOffice documents. ODF was not.
      What's interesting here is that Andy is correctly pointing out that the ODF vednors refuse to compromise on the innovative ways OpenOffice differs from MSOffice. The innovations involve the different ways OpenOffice implements basic docuemnt structures such as lists, sections, fields, tables and page dynamics. MSOffic euses an older method of implementation.
      When converting legacy MSOffice documents to ODF, the fidelity breaks down wherever these strucutral features are present. The key point here is that these strucutral differentials are exactly related to how OpenOffice and MSOffice differ in their implementation methods. It's an application difference beign expressed at the file format level!!!!!!!!!!!
      The ODF vendors refuse to compromise with their application level innovations. The result of this is that billions of MSOffice docuemnts cannot be converted to ODF without significant loss of information.
      Which is to say: both ODF and OOXML are application specific formats. Worse, neither ODF or OOXML specify the syntax and semantics of layout!!! They only specify the syntax. Developers must study OpenOffice and MSDOffice to figure out how presentation (layout) is achieved.
      This stands in stark contrast to the W3C's Compound Document Format (CDF). CDF provides a very generic, application independent separation of content (XHTML) and presentation (CSS), where the presentation layer is entirely specified. CSS is highly portable because it is completely specified and totally application indepen
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
     
    The First Law of the Interent is that of interoperability. Interop ALWAYS comes first.
    Interop trumps innovation!!!
    This is why the Interent changes everything. Innovation takes place within the bounds of ineroperabiltiy. Vendors of course rely on innovation as the primary means of market differentiation. They would of course champion innovative features. Interop on the other hand is a leveling force.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
Gary Edwards

Novell: No end to OOXML disputes - ZDNet UK - 0 views

news.zdnet.co.uk/...0,1000000121,39291317,00.htm

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Despite some efforts by the two camps, ODF and OOXML are, for the most part, not interoperable, meaning documents that are created in one format cannot be successfully read by applications based on the other format. According to Novell's vice president of developer platforms, Miguel de Icaza, the situation won't change in the foreseeable future.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      The money quote. ODF was not designed to be compatible with the billions of MSOffice legacy documents, or interoperable with the 5550 million legacy MSOffice desktops.
  • "Neither group is willing to make the big changes required for real compatibility," de Icaza added.
Gary Edwards

Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council - 0 views

www.universal-interop-council.org/?q=node/2

cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08 - Cached
  • 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.
Gary Edwards

Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - marbux - ge comments | ZDNet UK - 0 views

news.zdnet.co.uk/...0,1000000121,39348282,00.htm

google interop odf ooxml opendocument zd-uk

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • Google's technical analysis of the OOXML specification — which notoriously runs to 6,000 pages of code, compared with ODF's 860 pages — has led the company to believe that "OOXML would be an insufficient and unnecessary standard, designed purely around the needs of Microsoft Office", Bhorat claimed.
  • ODF and OOXML are standards in... Marbux
  • Interoperability and the binary ODF conversion di... garyedwards Sorry, the comment was cut short. Here'... garyedwards
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary'... - 0 views

www.zdnet.co.uk/...282-39001068c-20091889o,00.htm

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • 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."
« First ‹ Previous 61 - 80 of 90 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page