Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged formats

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

ongoing · Life Is Complicated - 0 views

www.tbray.org/...Mixup

iso microsoft oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Fortunately for Microsoft, the DaVinci plugin is coming, which will enable Microsoft office applications to comply with ISO 26300. We all understand the financial issues that prompted the push to make OOXML a standard (see Tim's comment above and http://lnxwalt.wordpress.com/2007/01/21/whose-finances-are-on-the-line/ for more on this) and ensure continued vendor lock-in. However, OOXML is not the answer.
  • ODF can handle everything and anything Microsoft Office can throw at it. Including the legacy billions of binary documents, years of MSOffice bound business processes, and even tricky low level reaching add-ons represented by assistive technologies.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

    I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

    I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

    I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Hi guys,

    There is an interesting discussion triggered by Tim Bray's "ongoing · Life Is Complicated" blog piece.  Our good friend Mike Champion has some interesting comments defending ISO/IEC approval of MS Ecma 376 based on many arguments.  But this one seems to be the bottom line;

    <mike> "there is not an official standard for one that (in the opinion of the people who actually dug deeply into the question, and I have not) represents all the features supported in the MS Office binary formats and can be efficiently loaded and processed without major redesign of MS Office.

    ..... So, if you want a clean XML format that represents mainstream office document use cases, use ODF. If you want a usable XML foormat that handles existing Word documents with full fidelity and optimal performance in MS Office, use OOXML. If you think this fidelity/performance argument is all FUD, try it with your documents in Open Office / ODF and MS Office 2007 / OOXML and tell the world what you learn." </mike>

    Mike's not alone in this.  This seems to be the company line for Microsoft's justification that ISO/IEC should have two conflicting file formats each pomising to do the same thing, becaus eonly one of those formats can handle the bilions of binary documents conversion to XML with an acceptable fidelity. 

    This is not true, and we can prove it.  And if we're right  that you can convert the billions of binaries to ODF without loss of fidelity, then there was no "technology" argument for Microsoft not implementing ODF natively and becoming active in the OASIS ODF TC process to improve application interoperability.

    <diigo_
Gary Edwards

Three Stages of XML Migration: The OpenDocument Challenge - 0 views

docs.google.com/View

iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • "Open document formats: I get it! But how do I get there? Discuss."
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Eventually i suspect the truth will come out concerning ODF and the events in Massachusetts.  Migration is difficult and our friends in Redmond are not about to lend a hand.  The problem is the starting point, the MSOffice desktop productivity environment.  A starting point owned and controlled entirely by Microsoft.  The challenge is to get from the overwhelming dominance of proprietary Microsoft binary documents and into an open XML universal file format that any application, running on any platform can interactively read, render and write to.

    Microsoft has decided to keep secret the blueprint to these billions of binary documents, reserving exclusively for themselves the right to convert then to XML.  Of course, the only version of XML Microsoft will convert them to is the wholly owned and controlled OOXML file format. 

    Microsoft refuses to cooperate in any way with the conversion of these legacy binary documents to the only truly open XML universal file format, OASIS OpenDocument.  Which leaves the world with a near insolvable problem; how to get from where we are today, with the boot of a ruthless monopolist on the neck of our information and information processes, to where we really desire to be -  with our digital civilization in the hands of open standards, and out of the control of proprietary applications and platform vendors.

    This document describes what the OpenDocument Foundation learned in Massachusetts about the challenge of migrating to ODF. 

Gary Edwards

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Office Open XML final draft!!! - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...final-draft_210021002100_.aspx

drawingml eooxml imported:del.icio.us msoffice odf vml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • # re: Office Open XML final draft!!! @ Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:46 PM The past incarnations of DrawingML have been chaotic. It would be interesting, out of curiosity, to get an accurate history of what changed over time, perhaps to better understand what is supported in what. Here is my take, I am pretty sure I got at least 50% of it wrong :-) - pre-Windows 95 era, Word, Excel and Powerpoint use their own vector drawing layer used to draw shapes, pictures, diagrams, art and charts. Powerpoint, acquired by Microsoft in 1987, has by far the advanced drawing layer (bi-linear gradients, opacity, ...), codenamed Escher (in reference of the famous mathematician). - In Office 95, it is decided to reuse the Powerpoint vector graphics layer in Word and Excel. Migration begins. - Migration ends with Office 97 where both Word, Excel and Powerpoint use the same vector graphics layer, publicly known as MSO (mso97.dll) - In Office 2000, it's all craze about internet and Word tries to export WYSIWYG html. For that end, mark up extensions must be added to account for the MSO drawing layer. Hence the VML (Vector Markup language). Excel and Powerpoint don't support it. Internet Explorer natively supports VML (Internet Explorer's Direct animation vector drawing layer dismissed for performance reasons). - In Office XP, VML migration ends and both Word, Excel and Powerpoint support VML whenever a document is saved as a "Single web page archive" (.mhtml extension). - In Office 2003, nothing changes. - In Office 12, MSO gets rewritten with backwards compatibility in mind. The vector drawing layer uses more sophisticated drawing functionalities which makes it easier to draw themed, 3D realistic &nbsp;objects. Technically, the differences are akin to the differences between GDI and GDI+. This new shared library is known as E2O and the corresponding mark up language is known as Drawing ML (Ecma TC45 specs). - In Office 14, ??? perhaps the drawing layer is rewritten, again, to 1) use WPF 2) to allow plugins, hence enabling much more sophisticated do-it-yourself scenarios. Use cases : custom charts ; BI analysis tools. Stephane Rodriguez
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Stephen Rodriguez gives a quick history of the MSO <> VML <> DrawingML transition in the Microsoft Product line. Note that MSOffice produces two versions of EOOXML file formats. On import os a legacy document, MSOffice will convert the doc and produce a
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Stephen Rodriguez gives a quick history of the MSO <> VML <> DrawingML transition in the Microsoft Product line. Note that MSOffice produces two versions of EOOXML file formats. On import os a legacy document, MSOffice will convert the doc and produce a
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Stephen Rodriguez gives a quick history of the MSO <> VML <> DrawingML transition in the Microsoft Product line. Note that MSOffice produces two versions of EOOXML file formats. On import os a legacy document, MSOffice will convert the doc and produce a
Alex Brown

Doug Mahugh : Tracked Changes - 0 views

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

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

Microsoft offers Office 2010 file format 'ballot' to stop EU antitrust probe - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...lot_to_stop_EU_antitrust_probe

Microsoft European Commission antitrust office productivity undertaking

shared by Paul Merrell on 07 Aug 09 - No Cached
  • In a proposal submitted to the European Commission two weeks ago, Microsoft spelled out a range of promises related to Office, its desktop and server software, and other products to address antitrust concerns first expressed by officials in January 2008.
  • Beginning with the release of Office [2010], end users that purchase Microsoft's Primary PC Productivity Applications in the EEA [European Economic Area] in both the OEM and retail channel will be prompted in an unbiased way to select default file format (from options that include ODF) for those applications upon the first boot of any one of them," Microsoft said in its proposal [download Word document]
  • Paul Merrell on 07 Aug 09
     
    Microsoft's proposed undertaking for resolving the ECIS complaint to the European Commission regarding its office productivity software can be downloaded from this linked web page. I've given it a quick skim. Didn't see anything in it for anyone but competing big vendors. E.g., no profiling of data formats for interop of less and more featureful implementations, no round-tripping provisions. Still, some major concessions offered.
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Groklaw - When Would You Use OOXML and When ODF? -- What is OOXML For? - 0 views

www.groklaw.net/article.php

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09 - Cached
  • The legacy formats are just popped into an OOXML wrapper
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      Funny how often this old canard is brought out. Do people really belive it?
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      I actually think is is - to some extent - true. Apart from stuff like DrawingML, CustomML etc, OOXML is a transformation of the binary stuff and hence in essence the same document format. "Someone" told me the other day that he had knowledge of a company that didn't use the "xml-ness" of OOXMLto manipulate OOXML-files but simply considered them TEXT-files. They could do this because OOXML is very close to the binary formats.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      True, but the stuff inside is XML -- I think there's a widespread view that OOXML is a lot of lightly wrapped BLOBs
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      Ok - you are possibly correct. Somehow content in a file called printerSettings.bin seem to attract higher disturbance than base64-encoded, binary attribute values with attribute name "printerSettings"
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      Actually, I think the phrase someone coined that "OOXML is just the binary document formats dressed up in angle brackets" fits just fint :o)
  • Whoa, whoa, whoa! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 02:21 AM EDT
  • Whoa, whoa, whoa! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:17 AM EDT
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Apr 09
     
    It fits just fine for most of the spec but there are also major chunks that include descriptive element and attribute names, for example, the compatibility markup volume. My sense is that these are areas where new features were introduced in Office 2007. But they kind of fly in the face of the Microsoft claims back when that the abbreviated markup was deliberately chosen to maximize execution speed. If so, why isn't all the markup in abbreviated form?
Gary Edwards

The collective comments of gary.edwards's as posted on CNET - 0 views

www.cnet.com/8705-4_1-0.html

cnet ge odf ooxml webkit html

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Apr 09 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Apr 09
     
    Wow. i had no idea this existed until one of the attorney's working on the New York State XML format pilot study started asking questions based on this link. In particular he was interested in a further explanation for this particular clip:
Gary Edwards

The Education of Gary Edwards - Rick Jelliffe on O'Reilly Broadcast - 0 views

broadcast.oreilly.com/...education-of-gary-edwards.html

odf rick-jelliffe ge ooxml html webkit foundation cdf

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09
     
    I wonder how i missed this? Incredibly, i have my own biographer and i didn't know it! The date line is September, 2008, I had turned off all my ODF-OOXML-OASIS searches and blog feeds back in October of 2007 when we moved the da Vinci plug-in to HTML+ using the W3C CDF model. Is it appropriate to send flowers to your secret biographer? Maybe i'll find some time and update his work. The gap between October 2007 and April of 2009 is filled with adventure and wonder. And WebKit!

    "....One of the more interesting characters in the recent standards battles has been Gary Edwards: he was a member of the original ODF TC in 2002 which oversaw the creation of ODF 1.0 in 2005, but gradually became more concerned about large vendor dominance of the ODF TC frustrating what he saw as critical improvements in the area of interoperability. This compromised the ability of ODF to act as a universal format."

    "....Edwards increasingly came to believe that the battleground had shifted, with the SharePoint threat increasingly needing to be the focus of open standards and FOSS attention, not just the standalone desktop applications: I think Edwards tends to see Office Open XML as a stalking horse for Microsoft to get its foot back in the door for back-end systems....."

    "....Edwards and some colleagues split with some acrimony from the ODF effort in 2007, and subsequently see W3C's Compound Document Formats (CDF) as holding the best promise for interoperability. Edwards' public comments are an interesting reflection of an person evolving their opinion in the light of experience, events and changing opportunities...."

    ".... I have put together some interesting quotes from him which, I hope, fairly bring out some of the themes I see. As always, read the source to get more info: ..... "

Gary Edwards

Microsoft's Quest for Interoperability and Open Standards - 0 views

www.cmswire.com/...-and-open-standards-004220.php

webkit interop open-web open-standards microsoft

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09
     
    Interesting article discussing the many ways Microsoft is using to improve the public perception that they are serious about interoperability and open formats, protocols and interfaces. Rocketman attended the recent ISO SC34 meeting in Prague and agrees that Microsoft has indeed put on a new public face filled with cooperation, compliance and unheard of sincerity.

    He also says, "Don't be fooled!!!"

    There is a big difference between participation in vendor consortia and government sponsored public standards efforts, and, actual implementation at the product level. Looking at how Microsoft products implement open standards, my take is that they have decided on a policy of end user choice. Their applications offer on the one hand the choice of aging, near irrelevant and often crippled open standards. And on the other, the option of very rich and feature filled but proprietary formats, protocols and interfaces that integrate across the entire Microsoft platform of desktop, devices and servers. For instance; IE8 supports 1998 HTML-CSS, but not the advanced ACiD-3 "HTML+" used by WebKit, Firefox, Opera and near every device or smartphone operating at the edge of the Web. (HTML+ = HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JS, JS Libs).

    But they do offer advanced .NET-WPF proprietary alternative to Open Web HTML+. These include XAML, Silverlight, XPS, LINQ, Smart Tags, and OOXML. Very nice.

    "When an open source advocate, open standards advocate, or, well, pretty much anyone that competes with Microsoft (news, site) sees an extended hand from the software giant toward better interoperability, they tend to look and see if the other hand's holding a spiked club.

    Even so, the Redmond, WA company continues to push the message that it has seen the light regarding open standards and interoperability...."

Gary Edwards

Roambi Flow turns your business information into gorgeous iPad reports | VentureBeat - 0 views

venturebeat.com/...roambi-flow-launch

Roambi-Flow visually-immersive HTML+ iOS Web-Compound-Documents

shared by Gary Edwards on 16 May 11 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 16 May 11
     
    Now that's what i'm talking about!  Business documents published in an advanced Web Productivity RIA format.  Roambi Flow targets the iPAD with business reports based on SalesForce.com and other business productivity platforms hosting basic business intelligence and information.  Roambi packages the reports in the increasingly popular visually immersive webzine style similar to FlipBoard, Zite, TreeSaver, OnSwipe, Push Pop, Instapaper, Readability, Pulse, PressJack, TweetMag, Sports Illustrated and the NYTimes iOS editions.  Beautifully done.   My guess is that the underlying format is the visually rich and interactive HTML+ (HTML5-CSS3-JSON-JavaScript-Canvas/SVG). excerpt:  After revolutionizing the way companies can interact with their business data on the go with its Roambi app, San Diego-based startup Mellmo is now aiming to let you use that data to create gorgeous interactive reports and presentations with its new iPad app and publishing platform Roambi Flow. The move is the next step in Mellmo's plan to make business intelligence (BI) more accessible, and dare I say it, sexy. Mellmo's initial Roambi app integrates with existing BI systems, including Salesforce and SAP, letting business owners and executives easily make sense of their data with interactive charts, graphs and more. Now with Roambi Flow, that data can be used to create magazine-quality reports and presentations that can be shared more easily with any iPad user.
Paul Merrell

EUROPA - Press Releases - Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against MathWorks - 1 views

europa.eu/...pressReleasesAction.do

interop DG Competition antitrust European Commission

shared by Paul Merrell on 04 Mar 12 - No Cached
Marc Lijour liked it
  • Brussels, 1 March 2012 - The European Commission has opened a formal investigation to assess whether The MathWorks Inc., a U.S.-based software company, has distorted competition in the market for the design of commercial control systems by preventing competitors from achieving interoperability with its products. The Commission will investigate whether by allegedly refusing to provide a competitor with end-user licences and interoperability information, the company has breached EU antitrust rules that prohibit the abuse of a dominant position. The opening of proceedings means that the Commission will examine the case as a matter of priority. It does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. The investigation follows a complaint alleging that MathWorks had refused to provide a competitor with end-user software licences and accompanying interoperability information for its flagship products "Simulink" and "MATLAB", thereby preventing it from lawfully reverse-engineering in order to achieve interoperability with these two products.
  • As in the Microsoft case (see IP/04/382 and MEMO/04/70 and MEMO/07/359), the issue of software interoperability is central to this investigation. The Commission's investigation will focus on whether MathWorks' behaviour has prevented competitors from achieving interoperability with its widely used products and thereby hindered competition in breach of Article 102 TFEU. In this context, it is recalled that the European Directive 2009/24/EC on the legal protection of computer programmes also aims to foster interoperability by allowing for reverse-engineering for interoperability purposes provided that the software at issue was lawfully acquired.
  • Background MathWorks' "Simulink" and "MATLAB" software products are widely used for designing and simulating control systems. Control systems are deployed in many innovative industries such as in cruise control or anti-lock braking systems (ABS) for cars. Article 102 TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position which may affect trade and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in the Antitrust Regulation (Council Regulation No 1/2003) which can be applied by the Commission and by the national competition authorities of EU Member States. The Commission has informed MathWorks and the Member States' competition authorities that it has formally opened proceedings in this case.
  • Paul Merrell on 04 Mar 12
     
    Commission v. MIcrosoft Redux.
Gary Edwards

State's move to open document formats still not a mass migration - 0 views

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

california davinci interop iso massachusetts oasis odef odf ooxml opendocument politics xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • June 08, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Only a tiny fraction of the PCs at Massachusetts government agencies are able to use the Open Document Format (ODF) for Office Applications, despite an initial deadline of this month for making sure that all state agencies could handle the file format.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Use of ODF remains minimal on government PCs in Massachusetts
    Eric Lai ....... June 8, 2007

    Bummer!  Do you think IBM is silent on this because they are busy cutting sweetheart deals with MS?  Are they going to hang Sun on this?  I'm sure that by next week IBM will have to respond to ODEF.   This just keeps getting better.  So in both Texas and California they wonder if it's even possible to implement ODF solutions.  No one wants to get into that hole with Massachusetts.

    ~ge~


Gary Edwards

The Age of OOXML Computing - thanks a pant load Sun! - 0 views

www.cxotoday.com/...551-82889-906.html

odf odf-ix officeopenxml ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Why does Microsoft want another standard, what's the rationale? There are at least 4 good reasons why: *ODF started out and was completed as an XML format, specifically supporting OpenOffice with a tight scope around that product. *It wasn't until 2005 that the spec was offered up as a general XML office document format and consequently renamed to ODF. *No opportunity existed for Microsoft to actually participate in this full process - given the original scope, the 6 months between the re-naming of the spec to ODF, and its subsequent approval by OASIS as a standard. *The scope of the ODF spec never included even the basic requirements that Microsoft required to support a fully open format, and nor did the OASIS technical committee want to include these requirements.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Erwin's StarOffice Tango has an exhaustive response to this Microsoft Q&A. Correcting false statements by Microsoft
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for... - 0 views

www.infotechfrance.com/...affichage_signets.pl

cdf interoperability iso odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocment standards

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
  • Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years.&nbsp;&nbsp; Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Here's the meat of the French convergence proposal.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?

    The plan has four parts:

    "Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."

    "Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."

    "Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."

    Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."




    So there you go.  A solution that removes ODF and OOXML from the clam
Gary Edwards

Butcher this! -- Microsoft legislatively TKO's open document formats. - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html

documents government iso odef odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - 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.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The title here has nothing to do with the content.  The original title is, "Politics is only a small part of this story". 

    It's been a while since i last posted to the ZDNet TalkBack, and was totally thrown by the TalkBack formating needs.  My first post dropped all line breaks, and came out as one long run on sentence.

    Now maybe that's the way i write, (and think), but at least with some formatting i can hide that fact!

    Still, "Butcher This!" is not a bad title. 

    ~ge~

Gary Edwards

Frankly Speaking: Microsoft's Cynicism - Flock - 0 views

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

cdf iso odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • In July, Jones was asked on his blog whether Microsoft would actually commit to conform to an officially standardized OOXML. His response: “It’s hard for Microsoft to commit to what comes out of Ecma [the European standards group that has already OK’d OOXML] in the coming years, because we don’t know what direction they will take the formats. We’ll of course stay active and propose changes based on where we want to go with Office 14. At the end of the day, though, the other Ecma members could decide to take the spec in a completely different direction. ... Since it’s not guaranteed, it would be hard for us to make any sort of official statement.”
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Then why is Microsoft dragging us through this standardization nonsense? Is this nothing more than thinly veiled assault on open standards in general?
  • To at least some people at Microsoft, this isn’t about meeting the needs of customers who want a stable, solid, vendor-neutral format for storing and managing documents. It’s just another skirmish with the open-source crowd and rivals like IBM, and all that matters is winning.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      The battle between OOXML and ODF is very much about two groups of big vendor alliances. Interestingly, both groups seek to limit ODF interoperability, but for different reasons.

      See: The Plot To Limit ODF Interop
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Good commentary from Frank Hayes of Computerworld concerning a very serious problem. Even if ISO somehow manages to approve MS-OOXML, Microsoft has reserved the right to implement whatever extension of Ecma-OOXML they feel like implementing. The whole purpose of this standardization exercise was to bring interoperability, document exchange and long term archive capability to digital information by separating the file formats from the traditions of application, platform and vendor dependence.

    If Microsoft is determined to produce a variation of OOXML that meets the needs of their proprietary application-platform stack, including proprietary bindings and dependencies, any illusions we might have about open standards and interoeprability will be shattered.  By 2008, Microsoft is expected to have over a billion MS-OOXML ready systems intertwined with their proprietary MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web applications. 

    How are we to interoperate/integrate non Microsoft applications and services into that MS Stack if the portable document/data/media transport is off limits?  If you thought the MS Desktop monopoly posed an impossible barrier, wait until the world gets a load of the MS Stack!

    Good article Frank.

    ~ge~

Gary Edwards

Indecision in Redmond as Web apps charge : Office 2.0 and Google Apps - 0 views

weblog.infoworld.com/...013777.html

cdf html odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • the fact is that Redmond could own this new space if it wanted to. All it would need to do is push interoperability and integration between lightweight Web versions of Office applications and its desktop fatware. Advanced features would be absent from the lightweight versions, but the company could ensure any Office doc would load on the Web -- whatever new desktop service packs and upgrades might appear -- and online document management could be integrated with Windows for offline access.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Great quote from Eric Knorr.  He hits the nail on the head here, pointing out the problem Office 2.0  Web Apps and SaaS apps face:  If these Web wonders have interoperability and high fidelity document exchange with MSOffice, their collaborative features are value added wonders for existing business processes and workgroup-workflow scenarios.  If, on the other hand they lack this level of interop - integration with MSOffice documents and processes, the value add becomes a problematic split in a business process.  The only way to overcome that kind of a split is to take the entire process.  Which is difficult for lightweight mashup happy web wonders to do.

    Which leaves each and every one of these Office 2.0 - Web 2.0 - Saas Apps vulnerable to Microsoft.  As long as Micrsoft owns the interop-integration keys to MSOffice, the web wonders live a precarious life.  At any time Microsoft can swoop in and take it all.

    Today, the MSOffice OOXML file format displays perfectly in a browser.  It's 100% web ready, but only the MS Stack of applications gets to play.  Web wonders are not likely to recieve a Redmond invite now or ever.

    Which brings us to the issue of the da Vinci plug-in for MSOffice.  da Vinci is a clone of the OOXML plug-in for MSOffice, and fully leverages the same internal conversion process that OOXML enjoys.  It can achieve the same high fidelity "round trip" conversion that OOXML is capable of.  Maybe even better. 

    The problem for da Vinci isn't conversion fidlelity.  Nor is it capturing  business process important VBa scripts, macros, OLE, and security settings.  da Vinci can do that just fine.  The problem is that da Vinci cannot pipe MSOffice developer platform documents into ODF!!  For the love of five generic eXtensions, called the iX "interoperability enhancements", which the OASIS ODF TC blew off, ODF
Gary Edwards

State's move to open document formats still not a mass migration - 0 views

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

california iso lai massachusetts oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Only a tiny fraction of the PCs at Massachusetts government agencies are able to use the Open Document Format (ODF) for Office Applications, despite an initial deadline of this month for making sure that all state agencies could handle the file format.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Hey, nice comments!
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Eric Lai keesp pokign at that Massachusetts hornets nest. One of these days he's going to crack it open, and it will be back to square one for the ODF Community.  Still missing from his research is the infoamous 300 page pilot study and accompanying web site where comments and professional observations document a year long study concernign the difficulties of implementing ODF solutions and making the migration.  <br><br>

    The study was focused on OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office, and a IBM WorkPlace prototype.<br><br>

    The results of the year long pilot have never seen the public light of day.  But ComputerWorld is one of the media orgs that successfully filed a court action to invoke the freedom of information act in Massachusetts.  How come they can't find the Pilot Study?<br><br>

    At the end of the pilot study period, Massachusetts issued their infamous RFi; the request for information regarding the possiblity of a ODF plugin for MSOffice!  Meaning, the Pilot Study did not go well for the heroes of ODF - OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office and WorkPlace.  Instead, Massachusetts sought an ODF plugin that would no doubt extend the life of MSOffice for years to come.  No rip out and replace here folks!<br><br>

    ~ge~
Gary Edwards

But can they implement ODF? South African Government Adopts ODF (and not OOXML) - 0 views

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

cdf ms-ooxml odf opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • That said, it goes on to acknowledge that “there are standards which we are obliged to adopt for pragmatic reasons which do not necessarily fully conform to being open in all respects.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    So, South Africa was watching closely the failed effort in Massachusetts to implement ODF?  And now they are determined to make it work? Good thing they left themselves a "pragmatic" out; "there are standards which we are obliged to adopt for pragmatic reasons which do not necessarily fully conform to being open in all respects."

    Massachusetts spent a full year on an ODF implementation Pilot Study only to come to the inescapable conclusion that they couldn't implement ODF without a high fidelity "round trip" capable ODF plug-in for MSOffice.  In May of 2006, Pilot Study in hand, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi, "the Request for Information" concerning the feasibility of an ODF plug-in clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in for MSOffice applications. At the time there was much gnashing of teeth and grinding of knuckles in the ODf Community, but the facts were clear. The lead dog hauling the ODf legislative mandate sleigh could not make it without ODf interoperability with MSOffice. Meaning, the rip out and replace of MSOffice was no longer an option. For Massachusetts to successfully implement ODf, there had to be a high level of ODf compatibility with existing MS documents, and ODf application interoperability with existing MS applications. Although ODf was not designed to meet these requirements, the challenge could not have been any more clear. Changes in ODf would have to be made. So what happened?

    Over a year later,
Gary Edwards

IBM's Potempkin Village | Florian Reuter's Weblog - Flock - 0 views

florianreuter.blogspot.com/...ibms-symphony.html

ibm oasis odf odf-civil-war opendocument weird

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • I think that contradicts the SISSL :-)
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Recently IBM held a ODF Interoperability Workshop at the OpenOffice annual conference in Barcelona, Spain. The Workshop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. In this blog, uber document processing expert Florian Reuter opens the lid for a peek at what really happened at the Workshop. And it wasn't "interoperability". As a Novell employee, Florian is unable to comment publicly as to what really happened in Barcelona. But to those who are not under IBM's oppressive thumb, the results of this fiasco are laughable. Sure IBM and Rob Weir are busy threatening individuals, and bribing the press to suppress the reality of this horrific ODF ZERO Interop demonstration. But that doesn't mean those who really care can't talk about it. The OpenDocument Foundation has of course been screaming about the ODF interop problems. But we've been focused on the big picture of world wide market requirements; the need for ODF to be compatible with existing file formats and interoperable with existing applications - including Microsoft documents and applications. Of course, this level of interoperability was outside the scope of ODF purpose and work. We apologize for daring to suggest that real world implementation issues are important and ought to be considered. but there remains the issue of ODF interoperability which also sucks beyond belief. The exact same principles apply. ODF interop depends on complete application independence, and ODF remains bound to OpenOffice. Now i'm someone who has publicly championed ODF interoperability. I've spent years championing the fact that ODF can meet all market requirements for interoperability. And whatever credibility i thought i might have is now destroyed by that very public and very in your face lack of interoperability.

    So here i am, with any credibility i might have ever had resting on the pretensions of a self proclaimed clown (a hef="http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=antic">his description not mine). Can R
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Let's do this again:

    Recently IBM held a ODF Interoperability Workshop at the OpenOffice annual conference in Barcelona, Spain. The Workshop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. In this blog, uber document processing expert Florian Reuter opens the lid for a peek at what really happened at the Workshop. And it wasn't "interoperability".

    As a Novell employee, Florian is unable to comment publicly as to what really happened in Barcelona. But to those who are not under IBM's oppressive thumb, the results of this fiasco are laughable. Sure IBM and Rob Weir are busy threatening individuals, and bribing the press to suppress the reality of this horrific ODF ZERO Interop demonstration. But that doesn't mean those who really care can't talk about it.

    The OpenDocument Foundation has of course been screaming about the ODF interop problems. But we've been focused on the big picture of world wide market requirements; the need for ODF to be compatible with existing file formats and interoperable with existing applications - including Microsoft documents and applications.

    Of course, this level of interoperability was way outside the scope of ODF purpose and work. We apologize for daring to suggest that real world implementation issues are important and ought to be considered. But there remains the issue of ODF interoperability which also sucks beyond belief.

    The exact same principles apply. ODF interop depends on complete application independence, and ODF remains bound to OpenOffice.

    Now i'm someone who has publicly championed ODF interoperability. I've spent years championing the fact that ODF can meet all market requirements for interoperability. And whatever credibility i thought i might have is now destroyed by that very public and very in your face lack of interoperability.

    So here i am, with any credibility i might have ever had resting on the pretensions of a self proclaimed clown (http://wordnet.princ
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 100 of 253 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page