Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged documents

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
1More

OOXML-ODF: The Harmonization Hope Chest | Orcmid's Lair - 0 views

orcmid.com/...f-harmonization-hope-chest.asp
shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Feb 08 - Cached
  • 4. The Reality in the Punchbowl Meanwhile, Sam Hiser offers a different impression of the DIN effort [4]: "The ODF-to-OOXML harmonization effort being hosted by the German standards group, DIN, is Europe's best effort to resolve our Mexican Standoff between Microsoft, Sun and IBM. Even though harmonization is laughably complex and will not work unless the applications are harmonized too, the best and brightest of Germany are left to hope for success."  [emphasis mine: dh] Although the mission of the German effort is translation (Übersetzung), not harmonization, I find there is a very important point that is not made often enough:  People write, read, and edit office documents with little, if any, understanding of the particular format that makes them persistent in digital form.  The XML-based open formats do not change that.   People adapt to the software/device they are using by trial and error.  We train ourselves to obtain the visible results that we want.  Different people obtain superficially similar results by quite different means.   Even when someone has gone to the trouble to create style sheets, forms, macros, templates and other format-impacting aids, it is very loosey-goosey in practice.  And it still does not require paying attention to the file format.  
1More

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.
1More

Microsoft legislatively TKO's open document formats. At least stateside. | ComputerWorl... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html
shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The question we should be asking is why State CIO's and IT divisions are not backing the legislative proposals? It's not the lobbying that is killing ODF. It's the lack of support from those who would have been left with the challenge of implementing ODF solutions. The silence of the CIO's is deafening. There are three quotes i've seen batted about that pretty much say it all:
2More

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~
1More

Microsoft: IBM masterminded OOXML failure - ZDNet UK - 0 views

news.zdnet.co.uk/...0,1000000121,39292492,00.htm
shared by Gary Edwards on 31 Jan 08 - Cached
  • "IBM have asked governments to have an open-source, exclusive purchasing policy," Tsilas said. "Our competitors have targeted this one product — mandating one document format over others to harm Microsoft's profit stream." "It's a new way to compete," Tsilas said. "They are using government intervention as a way to compete. It's competing through regulation, because you couldn't compete technically."
1More

Microsoft's OOXML limps through ISO meeting - ZDNet UK - 0 views

news.zdnet.co.uk/...0,1000000121,39362112-2,00.htm brm ecma geneva iso oasis odf ooxml
shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards, former president of the Open Document Foundation, an industry group that promoted ODF but then rejected both approaches and closed itself down in November 2007, said: "Ecma and Oasis are vendor consortia where the rules governing standards specification work favour vendor innovation over the open and transparent interoperability consumers, governments and FLOSS efforts demand... Shutting that door on Ecma OOXML is proving very difficult exactly because the primary and fundamental rule of ISO interoperability requirements has been breached."
1More

Open Malaysia: Geneva, Day Five - 0 views

www.openmalaysiablog.com/...geneva-day-five.html brm geneva iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml
shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • We eventually found out that if any changes affected current implementations it would certainly be rejected. This seriously compromised any elegant solutions, and it forced us to be mindful of the "existing corpus of documents" in the wild. I personally don't believe that that should be our problem, but there was a large and vocal voting bloc which would oppose any changes to the spec which would 'break' Ecma 376. This was why appeasing Ecma had to happen. Even though they rushed their Ecma International Standard, and Microsoft took the risk in shipping Microsoft Office 2007 last year, we now have to bear the burden of having to support its limitations. This also means that future maintenance changes would get harder and harder.
1More

IBM's Director of Strategy comes clean on OpenXML - IBM *WILL* support OpenXML in its L... - 0 views

notes2self.net/...lotus-and-portal-products.aspx cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml openxml
shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Well, if that's IBM's plan they're going to need more than ODF, that's for sure - and that brings us to the announcement I've been wondering about: IBM favors ODF as a file format because it is "truly open" and technically elegant, Heintzman said. But IBM will support Open XML, which is the current document format in Office 2007, in its Lotus collaboration and portal products. IBM already supports older versions of Office. I feel a Pamela Jones moment coming on .... there it is, as plain as day for the world to see, Doug Heintzman breaks through all IBM's doublespeak and hypocrisy and admits it. I don't know about "Beyond Office" as a plan, I think the real game here is "Beyond ODF"
2More

Re: [office-comment] Public Comment - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00016.html
shared by Gary Edwards on 23 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Regarding section 1.5 itself: The Open Office TC decided to use the term MAY rather than MUST (or will) at the mentioned location, because it wanted to ensure that the OpenDocument specification can be used by as many implementations as possible. This means that the format should also be usable by applications that only support a very small subset of the specification, as long as the information that these applications store can be represented using the OpenDocument format. A requirement that all foreign elements and attributes must be preserved actually would mean that some applications may not use the format, although the format itself would be suitable. Therefor, we leave it up to the implementations, which elements and attributes of the specification they support, and whether they preserve foreign element and attributes. Some more information about this can be found in appendix D of the specification.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 23 Jan 08
       
      This OASIS ODF discussion is about the Compliance - conformance clause of the ODF specification: Section 1.5. A developer has complained that use of MAY instead of MUST in the wording of the clause would enable conforming applications to destroy foreign elements and alien attribute markup at will. This of course would result in ZERO Interoeprability!!!!! The foreign elments and alien attributes were included for the purposes of improved ODF compatibility with the billions of MSOffice binary documents that would need to be converted to ODF. Sadly, the section 1.5 loop hole falls short of the compatibility goal, but that only begins to scratch the surface of the ODF problems. OpenOffice only supports foreign elements and alien attributes for text spans, and paragraphs!!!!!! All other such markup is unrecognized and therefore "destroyed" by OpenOffice. ZERO interop. No roundtripping with MSOffice desktops. Lossy conversion with jagged fidelity. Guaranteed.
8More

XML.com: Standard Data Vocabularies Unquestionably Harmful - 0 views

www.xml.com/...perry.html odf ooxml presentation semantics xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08 - Cached
  • At the onset of XML four long years ago, I commenced a jeremiad against Standard Data Vocabularies (SDVs), to little effect. Almost immediately after the light bulb moment -- you mean, I can get all the cool benefits of web in HTML and create my own tags? I can call the price of my crullers <PricePerCruller>, right beside beside <PricePerDonutHole> in my menu? -- new users realized the problem: a browser knows how to display a heading marked as <h1> bigger and more prominently than a lowlier <h3>. Yet there are no standard display expectations or semantics for the XML tags which users themselves create. That there is no specific display for <Cruller> and, especially, not as distinct from <DonutHole> has been readily understood to demonstrate the separation of data structure expressed in XML from its display, which requires the application of styling to accomodate the fixed expectations of the browser. What has not been so readily accepted is that there should not be a standard expectation for how a data element, as identified by its markup, should be processed by programs doing something other than simple display.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      ODF and OOXML are contending to become the Standard Data Vocabulary for desktop office suite XML markup. Sun and Microsoft are proposing the standardization of OpenOffice and MSOffice custom defined XML tags for which there are no standard display expectations. The display expectations must therefore be very carefully described: i.e. the semantics of display fully provided.
      In this article Walter Perry is pointing out the dangers of SDV's being standardized for specific purposes without also having well thought out and fully specified display semantics. In ODF - OOXML speak, we would call display presentation, or layout, or "styles".
      The separation of content and presentation layer of each is woefully underspecified!
      Given that the presnetation layers of both ODF and OOXML is directly related to how OpenOffice and MSOffice layout engines work, the semantics of display become even more important. For MSOffice to implement an "interoperable" version of OpenOffice ODF, MSOffice must be able to mimic the OpenOffice layout engine methods. Methods which are of course quite differeent from the internal layout model of MSOffice. This differential results in a break down of conversion fidelity, And therein lies the core of the ODF interoeprability dilemma!
  • There have also emerged a few "horizontal" data vocabularies, intended for expressing business communication in more general terms. One of these is the eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), about which more below. Most recently, governments and governmental organizations have begun to suggest and eventually mandate particular SDVs for required filings, a development which expands what troubles me about these vocabularies by an order of magnitude.
  • ...5 more annotations...
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      Exactly! When governments mandate a specific SDV, they also are mandating inherent concepts and methods unique to the provider of the SDV. In the case of ODF and OOXML, where the presentation layers are application specific and woefully underspecified, interoperability becomes an insurmountable challenge. Interop remains stubbornly application bound.
      Furthermore, there is no way to "harmonize" or "map" from one format to another without somehow resolving the application specific presentation differences.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      "in the nature of the SDV's themselves is the problem of misstatement, of misdirection of naive interpretation, and potential for fraud.
      Semantics matter! The presentation apsects of a document are just as important as the content.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      Walter: "I have argued for years that, on the basis of their mechanism for elaborating semantics, SDVs are inherently unreliable for the transmission or repository of information. They become geometrically less reliable when the types or roles of either the sources or consumers of that information increase, ending at a nightmarish worst case of a third-order diminution of the reliability of information. And what is the means by which SDVs convey meaning? By simple assertion against the expected semantic interpretations hard-coded into a process consuming the data in question.
      At this point in the article i'm hopign Walter has a solution. How do we demand, insist and then verify that SDV's have fully specifed the semantics, and not jus tpassed along the syntax?
      With ODF and OOXML, this is the core of the interoperability problem. Yet, there really is no way to separate the presentation layers from the uniquely different OpenOffice and MSOffice layout engine models.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 21 Jan 08
       
      Interesting concept here: "the bulk of expertise is in understanding the detail of connections between data and the processes which produced it or must consume it ........ it is these expert connections which SDV's are intended to sever.
      Not quite sure what to make of that statement? When an SDV is standardized by ISO, the expectation is that the connections between data and processes would be fully understood, and implementations consistent across the board.
      Sadly, ODF is ISO approved, but doesn't come close to meeting these expectations. ODF interop might as well be ZERO. And the only way to fix it is to go into the presentation layer of ODF, strip out all the application specific bindings, and fully specifiy the ssemantics of layout.
  • In short, the bulk of expertise is in understanding the detail of connections between data and the processes which produced it or must consume it. It is precisely these expert connections which standard data vocabularies are intended to sever.
2More

Jonathan Schwartz: Today We Love the GPL! Live for the moment because it may not last - 0 views

blogs.sun.com/jonathan gpl iso linux odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • It's driven competition into a market which historically had none - and it's created an opportunity for the world to standardize on an open, royalty and patent free file format for exchanging documents.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Public posturing in overdrive.  Warp speed overdrive. 
2More

What's So Bad About Microsoft? - 0 views

www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html backwards-compatibility iso microsoft odf ooxml xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Backward Incompatibility Also contributing to Microsoft's goal of putting everybody on a perpetual upgrade cycle is the backward incompatibility in Microsoft's products. Once a small number of users adopt a new version of a Microsoft product all other users are pressured to upgrade lest they are unable to interact with files produced by the newer program. Dan Martinez summed up the situation created with the incompatibility in subsequent versions of Word when he said "while we're on the subject of file formats, let's pause for a moment in frank admiration of the way in which Microsoft brazenly built backward-incompatibility into its product. By initially making it virtually impossible to maintain a heterogenous environment of Word 95 and Word 97 systems, Microsoft offered its customers that most eloquent of arguments for upgrading: the delicate sound of a revolver being cocked somewhere just out of sight." (cited from the quote file) For a more detailed lament of how Microsoft likes to pressure its customers to keep buying the same product over and over by using backward incompatibility, see Zeid Nasser's page on 'Forced upgrading,' in the World of Word.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The "Backwards Compatibility" issue is all the rage at ISO, with the September vote on MS OOXML just a month away.

    Microsoft and Sun (We've Been Had!) are arguing that ISO should approve MS OOXML (Microsoft OfficeOpenXML) because OOXML offers a backwards compatibility with the legacy of existing billions of binary documents.

    This oft sighted history of Microsoft's reprehensible business practices is worth citing once again before the nations of the world go down that treacherous path towards ratifying Microsoft's proprietary systems and products as international standards.



1More

OASIS OpenDocument TC Pending Requests - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...pending_request.php oasis odf opendocument tc
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Pending Requests for OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC
2More

Opportunity Knocks - 0 views

lnxwalt.wordpress.com iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • With the news that another state–California–is considering adopting open standard XML-based file formats for office documents (which could be interpreted to mandate ODF), and the continued march of governments around the world to ODF (ISO/IEC 26300:2006), their poorly-done translator is not likely to meet the standard. For one thing, it “bolts” ODF capability on, rather than building it in as a fully-native peer format. It also uses XSLT to attempt the translation when OOXML’s design is not fully usable with XSLT. I cannot see how they could have created a more error-prone method to do the conversions. This could potentially cause Microsoft’s office applications suite to be expelled from government agencies and their employees and contractors.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Count on Walt Hucks to nail it every time.  Once again he comes through with another gem, commenting on the Mary Jo Foley interview with the slippery Tom Robertson, General Manager of laugh out loud "Interoperabiltiy and Standards" for Microsoft.  I kid you not. 

    Microsoft describes their highly proprietary and self serving implementation of interoperbiltiy as, "Interoperability by design".  Which means, only those applications, systems and services designed by Microsoft will have the needed interoperability consumers must have to make sense of the many volumes of information and information processes that drive critical day to day workflows.

    Now with Ecma 376, we have a clear example of Microsoft "Standards by Design".  Very sad, but it's our lot in life.

    Thanks Walt, once again a great commentary,
    ~ge~

4More

The Joel on Software Discussion Group - Microsoft's ridiculous Office Open XML - 0 views

discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp ecma imported:del.icio.us iso microsoft mooxml msoffice oasis odf
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes".  Lots of comments, pro and con, as to whether or not the applications specific tags used so extensibvely by MOOXML are needed, or not.

    Many argue that the application bound tags should have been fully described.  That every tag in the specification should also include the informaiton needed to implement it.  Agreed!  Otherwise, the specification does not qualify as a standard.  It's simply a vendor specific, and in this case highly proprietary and encumbered file format.

    Others argue that the app bound tags are the only way for Microsoft to provide backwards compatibility with the billions of binary documents bound to MSOffice through proprieatry and secret binary file formats.  These people argue that embedding an application specific binary in the XML file format, instead of converting it to proper XML, is the only way to insure backwards compatibilty.  BS.  There is no technical reason not to convert it to proper XML.  But that would mean fully describing the binary objects, including the nature of their application dependency.  Something Microsoft is quite reluctant to do.

    The truth of the matter is that if the binary object is to be part of a specification submitted to ISO for standards consideration, then it should be fully described, including how to implement it.  Otherwise, MOOXML is just a standard for one.  A standard for Micrsoft only since they are  the only ones with the secret blueprint as to how to implement these binary objects.

  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes". Lots of comments, pro and con
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes". Lots of comments, pro and con
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    A legthy discussion of the MSOffice bound MOOXML file format. that was triggered by Rob Weir's infamous blog, "How to Hire Guillame Portes". Lots of comments, pro and con
1More

EOOXML objections - Grokdoc - 0 views

www.grokdoc.net/...EOOXML_objections ecma eooxml imported:del.icio.us iso jtc-1 microsft mooxml oasis odf
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Marbux has done some heroic work here, using the GrokDoc Wiki.  The Title is "EOOXML Objections", and it's primary purpose is to help ISO National Body Memebers evaluate the 0ver 6,000 pages of the Microsoft - ECMA Office Open XML Specification for MSOffice. 

    On January 5th, 2007, Microsoft officially submitted EOOXML to ISO under the fast track rules.  Before EOOXML can hit the fast track though, ISO provides members with a 30 day "Contradition Review Phase".   During this brief phase, ISO NB's (national standards body members) muct evaluate the proposal and post their allegations concerning contradictions and inconsistencies with other ISO products - like ODF.

    What Marbux is assembling here is a one stop shop for ISO NB's strugglign to understand the issues at stake.  It's incredible wha the has accomplished in such a short time.  But then, the clock is ticking.  February 5th is a hard and unmovable deadline. 

    The basic contradiction is thatt EOOXML is a subset of ISO existing product, ODF.  Both attempt to do the exact same thing:  provide an XML file format for desktop productivity environments such as MSOffice, OpenOffice, and WordPerfect Office.  What seriously differentiates the two is that ODF was designed expressly to be a universal file format, application and platform independent, able to transition across many different information domains connecting the legacy of desktop productivity to near everything else.  MOOXML on the other hand was designed for MSOffice and the legacy of billions of binary documents that only Micrsoft knows the secrets to converting to XML.  As such, MOOXML is designed to be application and platform bound, with these proprietary dependencies written right into the specification.

    One of the more important elements of the Marbux arguments is that the OpenDocument Foundation's daVinci Plugin and InfoSet Engine - API prove conclusively
2More

Open Stack: Game Time for OpenDocument - 0 views

openstack.blogspot.com/...ame-time-for-opendocument.html ecma eooxml iso microsoft mooxml oasis odf
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • IMHO, it all comes down to one question: > *... Is ODF able to handle everything EOOXML was designed for? Is there something you can do in EOOXML that can't be done with ODF? > Microsoft insists that the reason they developed EOOXML is that ODF is inadequate and unable to handle the advanced features of MSOffice, and, most importantly, the billions of binary legacy documents produced by the many versions of MSOffice still in production. > The answer to this question is that ODF can handle everything MSOffice can throw at it. > There are two ways of proving this. >
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The primary difference between ODF and MOOXML is that ODF was designed to be a universal file format.  MOOXML was designed to be an XML file format for MSOffice, the Win32 API, and the Vista Information Processing Chain API (.NET 3.0). 

    ODF is application and platform independent.  MOOXML is application and platform specific.  It's bound to the Windows - Vista platform. 

    Microsoft's Brian Jones recently got caugh tup in a argument with the heavily armed WMD ODF expert and combatant Sam Hiser (WMD=Words of Massive Destruction).  In their exchange, Brian got confused over this very important distinction between ODF and MOOXML.  ODF allows specific applications to place their configurations and requirements in a settings file that is separate from the content, presentation and metadata containers.  MOOXML on the other hand makes no distinction whatsoever between application specific (MSOffice only) configuration, settings, processsing instructions and systemm dependencies and the rest of the file format contents.  Application settings are bound to content, presentation, and schema containers.  So bound that Brian is seemingly unaware of what ODF has achieved.  Sam caught him by surprise, as did many others posting comments:

    Brian Jones on MOOXML support for older versions of MSOffice:  Coments by Sam the WMD Man are below.


3More

PlexNex: HUMOR: Interoperability, Choice and Open XML - 0 views

fussnotes.typepad.com/...interoperabilit.html iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • reflects the functionality in those products.
  • It is important to recognize that ODF and Open XML were created with very different design goals and that they are only two of many document format standards in use today, each of which has characteristics that are attractive to different users in different scenarios
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Sam really nailsit with this satirical commentary on the spliny whiny letter Microsoft wrote begging the world to reconsider the proprietary application and platform bound Microsoft Office Open XML file format as an international standard for office productivity suites.
4More

Link to this site | Open Document - 0 views

opendocument.xml.org/logo imported:del.icio.us oasis odf xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out.  This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs.  Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007.  The submission triggers the critically important ISO Contradiction Review Phase, where ISO members have 30 days to review the 6,000 page MEOOXML submission and post any allegations of possible contradictions or inconsistencies.

    If MEOOXML (Microsoft-ECMA Office Open XML) can pass through the contradiction without complaint,  the 6,000 page specification describing XML encoding of MSOffice specific binary processes gets to move on to the fast track phase.

    This is very sneaky stuff.  Micrsoft tried to submit MEOOXML to ISO in mid December.  Perhaps in hopes of catching an extra 20 or so days of holiday right in the midst of the critical 30 day contradiction review period.  Apparently the USA representative to ISO JTSC1 refused the submission until after the hollidays.  Still, with near zero publicity, and 6,000 pages of crap to sludge through, the review phase has begun. 

    IMHO, only the ODF experts can effectively point out the ocntradictions and inconsistencies with the MEOOXML submission.  So this is a call for Rob Weir, Florian Reuter, Patrick Durusau, Sam Hiser, David A Wheeler, Bruce D'Arcus, the legendary Daniel Vogelheim, and the infamous Marbux to step forward with the full force of their expertise. 

    Since Florian has the most experience with the hapless and tragically deceptive MS-Novel-CleverAge Translator Project, where the glaringly obvious contradictions and inconsistencies are being hastily pasted over, i'm anxious to see where his blog takes us:
    http://florianreuter.blogspot.com/

    ~ge~

  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out. This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs. Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007. The submission triggers the critical
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out. This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs. Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007. The submission triggers the critical
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The new logo for the OpenDocument wiki at XML.org is out. This page also carries a link to OASIS ODF Blogs. Nothing yet about the controversial MEOOXML submission to ISO that took place on Friday, January 5th, 2007. The submission triggers the critical
3More

OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...faq.php ecma imported:del.icio.us msxml oasis odf xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    ODF FAQ written by Michael Brauer with editing by David Faure. Excellent discussion of differences between ODF and MSXML and, the OASIS ODF TC process and the ECMA MSXML process
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    ODF FAQ written by Michael Brauer with editing by David Faure. Excellent discussion of differences between ODF and MSXML and, the OASIS ODF TC process and the ECMA MSXML process
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    ODF FAQ written by Michael Brauer with editing by David Faure. Excellent discussion of differences between ODF and MSXML and, the OASIS ODF TC process and the ECMA MSXML process
« First ‹ Previous 241 - 260 of 271 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page