Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged interop

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

GullFOSS: It's our way or the highway. So what if new cool features = Zero Interop? D... - 0 views

blogs.sun.com/...what%27s_up_in_the_writer

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • When such new features that enhance the interoperability require enhancements to the Open Document file format we will propose the necessary changes to the OASIS Open Document TC. This way not only OpenOffice.org but also Open Document benefits from our efforts. Florian Reuter, who now works for Novell, lists some of the changes we have in mind in his blog . So there are a lot of common ideas how we can improve the interoperability between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Word documents and I hope we can work together with Florian here.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The chuckleheads at Sun's StarOffice/OpenOffice Hamburg office respond to Florian's comprehensive lis tof suggestions to greatly improve ODF interoperability. 
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Make no mistake about it. Microsoft is absolutely right about three things: .... Compatibility with existing file formats is not an ODF concern. .... Sun controls the OASIS ODF TC. .... Sun makes certain that ODF is bound tightly to the OpenOffice feature set. Sun's view of interoperability is that of a one way street. Documents can be converted into ODF-OOo/SO, but they are guaranteed to break during any kind of document routing or round tripping. This is also the reason why the Sun "external" plugin for MSOffice fails. One way conversion simply isn't enough to crack the hold MSOffice has on critical day to day business processes. The only way to that is with a conversion process able to maintain high level fidelity while round tripping. As the EU IDABC has figured out, the ODF-OOo/SO specification is loaded with interoperability break points. That's why they are turning to ODEF, which can be seen as a version of ODF that is truly application independent and optimized for interoperability. ~ge~
Gary Edwards

We've Been Had! - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...9027164

iso odef odf ooxml openwave xhtml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • There is nothing open about MOOXML, and it should have never made it to consideration as an international standard. But one has to ask, what is up with Sun? The John Bosak comment is just as much cause for concern as the fact that the nations of the world would dare consider OOXML as an international standard. All i can say is that we've been had. Sun and Microsoft have worked us royally, and only now, at the last moment, does the fog of confusion clear and we can see it all.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Yeah.  I said this!  And i still think ODF has what it takes to become a universal file format.  But only if the "interoperability enhancment" proposals are made part of the specification.  You can't talk your way to universal interop.   It has to go into the spec!

    OBTW, for you idiots who think i support OOXML as a standard?  You're idiots.  I support the quest for a universal file format that is totally application, platform and vendor independent.  The requirements, demands and criticisms we make of OOXML should be applied to every file format up for universal file format consideration.  Including ODF.  Including XHTML+ (XHTML, CSS3, RDF).  Including the EU IDABC "ODEF".

    The one area where i differ from most universal interoperability seekers is that i fully believe the big vendors have left open a loop hole we can exploit.  The plugin architecture is fully able to convert a big vendors application to produce our beloved but elusive universal file format. 

    This is important because the big vendors control "interoperability" by contolling the big vendor standards consortia, and, the major applications.  It's a double edged sword.

    The ubiquitous plugin architecture enables universal interop seekers to exploit the applications any way we want.  What's missing is a truly open "universal" standards process that is outside the reach of big vendors. 

    Personally i like the recent GPL3 process as a model on which to base emerging universal standards work.  Somehow the big vendors must be neutralized.  Otherwise, we;ll never see the universal inteop the world so desires.

    idiots,
    ~ge~

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.   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

Microsoft Watch - Corporate - Microsoft's Stunning Court Defeat - 0 views

www.microsoft-watch.com/...fts_stunning_court_defeat.html

anti-trust cdf interoperability microsoft odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • "The Court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably. The absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated."
  • Here, U.S. oversight of Microsoft will continue until at least November 2009, largely because of server protocol licensing. The so-called "California group" of states—those that didn't settle the U.S. antitrust case—and other parties will likely ask the court here to align the two disclosure programs, extending the ruling's impact well beyond Europe.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      I wonder if this is correct? My understanding is that the California Group will be brushed aside by the Feds?
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Microsoft Watch Joe Wilcox is on the job.  This particular hgihlighted quote speaks volumes.  The USA anti trust settlement famously allowed Microsoft to commercialize interoperability through expensive licenses -  $8 Million per year for just the basic package.

    It looks like the EU would force those interoperability API's out into the open.  I wonder how this position will impact the November 12 th hearing on lifting the USA anti trust oversight?  We have the EU saying the monopolist is illegally maintaining their monopoly through various interop barricades.  And, the USA about to declare that the interop barricades no longer exists, therefore, the monopolist should be free to wreck havoc. 

    The stage looks set for a vey dramatic final act.

Gary Edwards

Microsoft Will Support ODF! But Only If It Doesn't 'Restrict Choice Among Formats' - 0 views

www.betanews.com/...1181922127

ecma-376 interoperability iso marbux microsoft odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • By Marbux posted Jun 19, 2007 - 3:16 PM Asellus sez: "I will not say OOXML is easy to implement, but saying ODF is easier to implement just by looking at the ISO specification is a fallacy." I shouldn't respond to trolls, but I will this time. Asellus is simply wrong. Large hunks of Ecma 376 are simply undocumented. And what's more, absolutely no vendor has a featureful app that writes to that format. Not even Microsoft. There's a myth that Ecma 376 is the same as the Office Open XML used by Microsoft. It is not. I've spend a few hundred hours comparing the Ecma 376 specification (the version of OOXML being considered at ISO) to the information about the undocumented APIs used by MS Office 2007 that recently sprung loose in litigation. See http://www.groklaw.net/p...Rpt_Andrew_Schulman.pdf Each of those APIs *should* have corresponding metadata in the formats, but are not in the Ecma 376 specification.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Incredible comment by Marbux!  With one swipe he takes out both Ecma 376 and ODF. 

    Microsoft has written a letter claiming that they will support ODF in MSOffice, but only if ISO approves Ecma 376 as a second office suite XML file format standard.  ODF was approved by ISO nearly a year ago.

    Criticizing Ecma 376 is easy.  It was designed to meet the needs of  a proprietary application, MSOffice, and, to meet the needs of the emerging MS Vista Stack of applications that spans desktop to server to device to web platforms.  It's filled with MS platform dependencies that make it impossibly non interoperable with anything not fully compliant with Microsoft owned API's.

    Criticizing ODF however is another matter entirely.  Marbux points to the extremely poor ODF interoperability record.  If MOOXML (not Ecma 376 - since that is a read only file format) is tied to vendor-application specific MSOffice, then ODF is similarly tied to the many vendor versions of OpenOffice/StarOffice.

    The "many vendor" aspect of OpenOffice is somewhat of a scam.  The interoperability that ODF shares across Novell Office, StarOffice, IBM WorkPlace, Red Office, and NeoOffice is entirely based on the fact that these iterations of OpenOffice are based on a single code base controlled 100% by Sun.  Which is exactly the case with MSOffice.  With this important exception - MOOXML (not Ecma 376) is interoperable across the entire Vista Stack!

    The Vista Stack is comprised of Exchange/SharePoint, MS Live, MS Dynamics, MS SQL Server, MS Internet Server, MS Grove, MS Collaboration Server, and MS Active Directory.   Behind these applications sits a an important foundation of shared assets: MOOXML, Smart Documents, XAML and .NET 3.0.  All of which can be worked into third party, Stack dependent applications through the Visual Studio .NET IDE.

    Here are some thoughts i wou
Gary Edwards

Commercializing Interoperability -- Linux leaders plot hapless counterattack on Microsoft - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html

interoperability iso linux odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument patents xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Is Microsoft commercializing "interoperability"? Is interoperability through privileged access to the interop API's now a strategic asset to be traded with partners in crime?
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The first post in the ZDNet series discussing the many deals Microsoft is cutting with prominent LiNUX vendors.  My point is that interoperability plays a prominent role in each of these deals, and, the deals also involve partners supporting Microsoft directed interop between OpenOfficeXML and OpenDocument.  Coincidence? 

    I think not!

Gary Edwards

Between a rock and a hard place: ODF & CIO's - Where's the Love? - 0 views

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

cio government microsoft oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • So I'm disappointed. And not just on behalf of open documents, but on behalf of the CIOs of this country, who are now caught between a rock and a hard place, without a paddle to defend themselves with if they won't to do anything new, innovative and necessary, if a major vendor's ox might be gored in consequence. After the impressive lobbying assault mounted over the past six months against open document format legislation, I expect you won't be hearing of many state IT departments taking the baton back from their legislators.    And who can blame them? If they tried, it wouldn't be likely to be anything as harmless as an open document format that would bite them in the butt.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Andy Updegrove weighs in on the wave of ODF legislative failures first decribed by Eric Lai and Gregg Keizer compiled the grim data in a story they posted at ComputerWorld last week titled  Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats.


    Andy believes that it is the failure of state legislators to do their job that accounts for these failures.  He provides three reasons for this being a a failure of legislative duty.  The most interesting of which is claim that legislators should be protecting CIO's from the ravages of aggressve vendors. 


    The sad truth is that state CIO's are not going to put their careers on the line for a file format after what happened in Massachusetts.


    Andy puts it this way, "
      

    And second, in a situation like this, it is a cop out for legislatures to claim that they should defer to their IT departments to make decisions on open formats.  You don't have to have that good a memory to recall why these bills were introduced in the first place: not because state IT departments aren't a good place to make such decisions, but because successive State CIOs in Massachusetts had been so roughly handled in trying to make these very decisions that no state CIO in his or her right mind was likely to volunteer to be the next sacrificial victim.
    As both Peter Quinn and Louis Gutierrez both found out, trying to make responsible standards-related decisions whe
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

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Reclaim Its Mojo In 2008 -- InformationWeek - 0 views

www.informationweek.com/...showArticle.jhtml

cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Instead of fighting standards, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) needs to get on board now more than ever. With open, Web-based office software backed by the likes of IBM (NYSE: IBM) (think Lotus Symphony) and Google (NSDQ: GOOG) now a viable option, users—especially businesses frustrated by Microsoft's format follies (many are discovering that OOXML is not even fully backwards-compatible with previous versions of Microsoft Word)--can now easily switch to an online product without having to rip and replace their entire desktop infrastructure.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      This article discusses how Microsoft might change their ways and save the company. This particular quote concerns Microsoft support for standards, and their fight to push MS OOXML through ISO as an alternative to ISO approved ODF 1.0.
      The thing is, ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents, of which there are billions. Nor was ODF designed to be implemented by MSOffice. ODF was designed exactly for OpenOffice, which has a differnet model for impementing basic docuemnt structures than MSOffice.
      So a couple of points regardign this highlight:
      The first is that IBM's Lotus Symphony is NOT Open Source. IBM ripped off the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base back when it was dual licensed under both SSSL and LGPL. IBM then closed the source code adding a wealth of proprietary eXtensions (think XForms and Lotus Notes connections). Then IBM released the proprietary Symphony as a free alternative to the original Open Source Community "OpenOffice.org".
      If Microsoft had similarly ripped off an open source community, there would be hell to pay.
      Another point here is the mistaken assumption that users can easily switch from MSOffice to an on-line product like Google Docs or ZOHO "without having to rip our and replace their entire desktop infrastructure."
      This is a ridiculous assumption defied by the facts on the ground. Massqchusetts spent two years trying to migrate to ODF and couldn't do it. Every other pilot study known has experienced the same difficulties!
      The thing about Web 2.0 alternatives is that these services can not be integrated into existing business processes and MSOffice workgroup bound activities. The collaborative advantages of Web 2.0 alternatives are disruptive and outside existing workflows, greatly marginalizing their usefulness. IF, and that's a big IF, MSOffice plug-ins were successful in the high fidelity round trip conversion of wor
  • Microsoft in 2008 could make a bold statement in support of standards by admitting that its attempt to force OOXML on the industry was a mistake and that it will work to develop cross-platform compatibility between that format and the Open Document Format
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      It's impossible to harmonize two application specific file formats. The only way to establish an effective compatibility between ODF and OOXML would be to establish a compatibility between OpenOffice and MSOffice.
      The problem is that neither ODF or OOXML were developed as generirc file formats. They are both application specific, directly reflecting the particular implementation models of OOo and MSOffice.
      Sun and the OASIS ODF TC are not about to compromise OpenOffice feature sets and implmentation methods to improve interop with MSOffice. Sun in particular will protect the innovative features of OpenOffice that are reflected in ODF and stubbornly incompatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents. This fact can easily be proven be any review of the infamous "List Enhancement Proposal" that dominated discussions at the OASIS ODF TC from November of 2006 through May of 2007.
      So if Sun and the OASIS ODF TC refuse to make any efforts towards compatibility and imporved interop with MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts seekign conversion to ODF, then it falls to Microsoft to alter MSOffice. With 550 million MSOffice desktops involved in workgroup bound business processes, any changes would be costly and disruptive. (Much to the glee of Sun and IBM).
      IBM in particular has committed a good amount of resources and money lobbying for government mandates establishing ODF as the accepted format. this would of course result in a massively disruptive and costly rip out and replace of MSOffice.
      Such are the politics of ODF.
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

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.
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.
Gary Edwards

Cutting corners - the realpolitik of ODF standardisation? - The Wayback Machine Roars R... - 0 views

notes2self.net/...446.aspx

odf interoperability james-clark oasis

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 May 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 08 May 09
     
    From Notes2Self 2006 post we discover once again that ODF Interop problems are not new. Back in early February 2005, top ranking OASIS Executive James Clark made a comment to the OASIS OpenDocument technical Committee about the lack of interoperability for spreadsheet documents:

    ".... I really hope I'm missing something, because, frankly, I'm speechless.  You cannot be serious. You have virtually zero interoperability for spreadsheet documents. OpenDocument has the potential to be extraodinarily valuable and important standard. I urge you not to throw away a huge part of that potential by leaving such a gaping hole in your specification...". Claus Agerskov further commented that this provided a means of creating lock-in (my emphasis)

    "OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets"
Gary Edwards

Groklaw - Digging for Truth : The problem with XML document formats - 0 views

www.groklaw.net/comment.php

odf ooxml html webkit groklaw alex-brown document-wars

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Apr 09 - Cached
  • The problem with that, as I understand it, is that the transitional spec is pretty much unimplementable by anybody except MS
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 15 Apr 09
       
      Well, herein lies the problem, dude ... you don't understand it.
  • Gary Edwards on 16 Apr 09
     
    Wow! The ODF peasants with pitchforks are have taken to the streets, and ISO document expert Alex Brown is taking them on. The volumes of traffic generated by any discussion of the ISO XML document wars continues to amaze. It's very one sided though. The basic problem seems to be that ISO has accepted two XML document format standards, OOXML and ODF, with OOXML being held to a higher set of expectations than ODF. Alex would do well if he could step back from the OOXML - ODF war, and move the discussion to something like the theoretical IDABC ODEF: the European "Open Document Exchange Formats" design. With ODEF as single set of XML format requirements against which both OOXML and ODF can be measured and compared, Alex might be able to neutralize the heated emotions of angry Open Source - Open Standards - Open Web supporters, who mistakenly think ODF measures up to ODEF expectations and requirements. Trying to compare ODF to OOXML isn't getting us anywhere. At some point, we have to ask ourselves what is it that we want from a standardized XML document format. Having participated in both the Massachusetts pilot study and the California pilot discussions, i have to say that the public expectations were that XML formats would have a basic set of characteristics: open markup; structured separation of content, presentation and logic; high level interoperability (exchange), and Web ready. These are basic "must have" expectations. XML formats were expected to be "better" than 1998 HTML-CSS. But when we apply the basic set of expectations, todays HTML+ (webkit HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JS, JS Libs) turns out to be a far better format. Where the XML formats really fall off the wagon are the interoperability and Web ready expectations. For the life of me i don't see how anyone can compare ODF or OOXML interoperability with that of HTML+. And of course, HTML+ is the native language/for
  • Gary Edwards on 16 Apr 09
     
    Jesper Lund Stocholm was kind enough to point out that, once again, GrokLaw is stoking the fires of the XML document wars. This time PJ takes on Alex Brown, of the ISO SC34 document standards group convenor. And Alex responds ... and responds ... and responds. of course, the attacks keep coming! I left Jesper a rather lengthy comment at: http://tinyurl.com/document-wars
Gary Edwards

ODF - the state of play - The future of ODF under OASIS, now that the... - 1 views

www.it-director.com/...-that-the-standards-war-is-won

ODF msooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Nov 15 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Nov 15
     
    "ODF - open document format - is an open, XML-based rich document format that has been adopted as the standard for exchanging information in documents (spreadsheets, charts, presentations and word processing documents), by many governments and other organisations (see, for example, here), including the UK Government. This is despite strong opposition by Microsoft; but I have seen Microsoft's proposed "open XML" standard and, frankly, it is huge and horrid (in the word of standards, these go together). If I remember correctly, the early draft I saw even incorporated recognition of early Excel leap-year bugs into the standard. ODF is now a pukka ISO standard, maintained by OASIS, under the proud banner: "The future is interoperability". My personal thoughts, below, are prompted by an ODF session at ApacheCon Core titled "Beyond OpenOffice: The State of the ODF Ecosystem" held by Louis Suárez-Potts (community strategist for Age of Peers, his own consultancy, and the Community Manager for OpenOffice.org, from 2000 to 2011), and attended by very few delegates - perhaps a sign of current level of interest in ODF within the Apache community. Nevertheless, and I am talking about the ODF standard here, not Apache Open Office (which is currently my office software of choice) or its Libre Office fork (which seems to be where the excitement, such as it is, is, for now), the standards battle, or one battle, has been won; we have a useful Open Document Format, standardised by a recognised and mature standards organisation, and even Microsoft Office supports it. That's good. So what could be the problem? Well, I don't care whether I use ODF from Open Office, Libre Office or even Office 365, I just want to be sure that everyone else can read my ODF documents (with a .odt, .ods or .odp extension, for text, presentation or spreadsheet, respectively), with whatever software they like; and that they'll either see exactly the functionality and formatting I see; or a well defined (an
Gary Edwards

LibreOffice 4.3 boosts document compatibility | InfoWorld - 0 views

www.infoworld.com/...ts-document-compatibility.html

OOXML OpenXML Office-Interop Office-Compatibility Office 365 LibreOffice

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Mar 16
     
    "Version 4.3 of LibreOffice, the free and open source productivity suite developed by the Document Foundation and derived from the OpenOffice.org project, was released today. Aside from the usual array of bug fixes and new features designed to make it more cross-compatible with Microsoft Office, version 4.3 has features that give files from legacy Macintosh productivity software a new lease on life. Take control! 30 essential OS X command-line tips Go beyond the graphical user interface and take full advantage of Mac OS X at the command line READ NOW Most of the improvements around file handling in 4.3 involve better support for various aspects of the Office Open XML (OOXML) format used by Microsoft for its productivity software. LibreOffice users have often complained of opening Word 2010 or Word 2013 documents and finding that the formatting had been mangled or features like annotations hadn't survive being resaved in LibreOffice. Version 4.3 preserves many more of the attributes used in OOXML documents, such as style attributes for text and images. Also new to this edition of LibreOffice is import support for document formats created by a slew of legacy Macintosh applications: BeagleWorks, ClarisWorks, Claris Resolve, GreatWorks, MacWorks, SuperPaint, and Wingz. Likewise, Microsoft Works spreadsheets and databases -- not just word processing documents -- can now also be imported into LibreOffice. Another change, which might not directly affect many users but hints at how the refactoring of LibreOffice's code is reaching many legacy issues, involves the lengths of paragraphs. Previously, paragraphs in a LibreOffice document couldn't exceed 65,000 characters due to a bug in the underlying OpenOffice.org code that had persisted for over a decade and remained unclosed. Other changes include comments that can now be "printed in the document margin, formatted in a better way, and imported and exported," according to the Document Foundation; better behaviors for sp
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

IBM undeterred by setbacks to ODF adoption | InfoWorld | News | 2007-06-08 | By China M... - 0 views

www.infoworld.com/...etbacks-to-ODF-adoption_1.html

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • You might think the steady defeat of bills in several U.S. states to mandate the use of free interoperable file formats might dampen the spirits of IBM, one of the prime supporters of ODF (OpenDocument Format). Far from it, said IBM's Bob Sutor, who sees the recent news as par for the course in the evolution of any open standard.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Thus spoke the little Dutch Boy, his finger in the dike, his confidence large.  Meanwhile, people with half a brain were heading for the high ground.  California, Texas, Massachusetts and the EU IDABC come to mind.  Hello bob!  Can you say ODEF?
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

» OpenDocument or OpenXML: Do you care? | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/BTL

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • A week or so ago, I published a podcast at IT Conversation with Scott Mace interviewing Gary Edwards about OpenDocument. Edwards is the president of the OpenDocument Foundation. OpenDocument Foundation is a non-profit that works to promote the OpenDocument file format–an XML file format for office documents. There’s no question that businesses want an XML-based file format for office data. The question, naturally, is which XML-based file format. Microsoft has it’s own XML-based file format called OpenXML.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Excellent coverage of a very important interview!
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 94 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page