Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged notes

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Gmail - [office] Clarification for frame formatting property style:flow-with-text - Flock - 0 views

mail.google.com/mail

foundation imported:del.icio.us oasis odf opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Some notes on the history of this feature in OpenOffice.org Writer:Prior to OpenOffice.org 2.0, text frames, embedded object and graphicsare clipped/captured inside its layout environment and flow with thetext flow, if possible. The reason for this was, that the contentstructure also determines the layout structure - e.g. a paragraph insidea page header have to stay inside the page header.Shapes (drawing objects in OpenOffice.org) unfortunately doesn't followthis rule.For OpenOffice.org 2.0, we needed to unify text frames, embeddedobjects, graphics and shapes. Thus, this frame formatting property hasbeen proposed. This need was also influenced by interoperabilityrequests for the binary Microsoft Word file format and the MicrosoftWord layout.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Aha!  I mentioned in an earlier bookmark that Sun was involved in the Belgium ODF - OOXML Pilot Study.  It was disclosed by Peter V. (Belgium Consultant to Peter Strick's group) that Sun was proposing changes to the ODF 1.2 specification, after the close date, to improve the conversion fidelity problem their plug-in is having in the trials.  We tried to do the same thing to save ODF in Massachusetts.  Sun didn't have a plug-in for the Massachusetts trials, and opposed our iX interop enhancements and extensions.  I guess they are beginning to understand why the iX proposals are so important? 

    If you can't convert MS binaries and xml to ODF, then there is no use in the real world for ODF.  It's that simple.   In California, the CIO's routinely refer to this problem as, "ODF is impossible to implement".

    ~ge~

  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
Gary Edwards

Comments Received in Response to JTC 1 N 8455 - 30 Day Review for Fast Track Ballot ECM... - 0 views

www.incits.org/...DIS29500.htm

ecma376 iso/iec iso26300 odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Well, this is interesting.

    What part of "Executive Board" makes you think they read 6,000 page XML specifications? <ge>

    I think, in the best bureaucratic tradition, they argued definitions until they convinced themselves that they didn't need to do anything.  They decided that one standard contradicts another standard only if the proposed standard causes the existing standard not to work.  This is from analogy with the Chinese WAPI WiFi networking standard last year that was defeated because the protocol caused radio interference with existing 801.11 networks.  So they said that OOXML did not contradict ODF because both files could exist on the same disk without interfering with each other.   You will note that thiss argument can be used for every XML format, every programming language, every operating system, in fact every software standard, since software is ultimately data, and data can be segregated on disks.  So they essentially chose a definition so narrow that it nullified the concept of "contradiction" for most of what JTC1 has authority over.<!-- D(["mb","<div><br><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><ge>  Wait a second.   You cannot have a OOXML document and a ODF document sitting on the same disk without having them interfer with each other.  We just proved that with our tests of both ACME 374 and ODF Da Vinci plugin on the latest release of MSOffice Word 2007.\n</span><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\">OOXML clearly does interfere with the loading of an ODF file into MSWord 2007.  In prior versions of MSWord (98, 2000, XP, 2003
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Closer on &#0092;'Office Open&#0092;' Blessing - 0 views

www.internetnews.com/...3662681

ecma exchange iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml sharepoint vista xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Opponents to OOXML, which include IBM (Quote)&nbsp;and the Open Document Foundation, have argued that Microsoft's specifications are unwieldy and that the standard application is redundant with the Open Document Format (ODF), which already exists. Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote in an open letter published earlier this month.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Internet News is reporting that Ecma has submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 their repsonsess to the 20 "fast track" for Ecma 376 (OOXML) objections.  Nothing but blue skies and steady breeze at their back for our friends at Redmond, according to Ecma's rubber stamper in chief, Jan van den Beld.

    Once again there is that ever present drum beat from Microsoft that ODF can't handle MSOffice and legacy MSOffice features - including but not mentioned the conversion to XML of those infamous billions of binary documents:
    "Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address diffe
Gary Edwards

Open Sources | InfoWorld | The Future of Lock-in | May 17, 2006 08:56 AM | By Matt Asay - 0 views

weblog.infoworld.com/...the_future_of_l.html

eooxml exchange imported:del.icio.us notes odf sharepoint

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Whoa, Matt Asay knocks one out of the ballpark! Finally a Web 2.0 provider who understands the importance of the Exchange/SharePoint Hub, and the long term lockin of critical day to day business processes that Microsoft has brewing. One thing he doesn't
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Whoa, Matt Asay knocks one out of the ballpark! Finally a Web 2.0 provider who understands the importance of the Exchange/SharePoint Hub, and the long term lockin of critical day to day business processes that Microsoft has brewing. One thing he doesn't
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Whoa, Matt Asay knocks one out of the ballpark! Finally a Web 2.0 provider who understands the importance of the Exchange/SharePoint Hub, and the long term lockin of critical day to day business processes that Microsoft has brewing. One thing he doesn't
Paul Merrell

Rob Weir is caught in a deceit - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ormance-and-Portability-4.aspx

rob weir normative

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 May 09 - Cached
  • Ah, Marbux, what circus is complete without the clowns?
  • It seems you like to ignore requirements in order to defend Microsoft
  • Do you get paid to spread FUD like this, or is it merely a dilettantish pursuit?
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • I am unable to even imagine that you would be ignorant of basic standards terminology. So why do you persist in intentionally misleading your readers?
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.
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering : Open XML: One Year In - 1 views

blogs.technet.com/...open-xml-one-year-in.aspx

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09 - Cached
  • What is noteworthy about this investment is that we’re working closely with members of JTC 1 SC 34 ( the standards body responsible with Open XML maintenance ) to identify and resolve backward compatibility issues related to this new functionality.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09
       
      I think it is worth noting, that quite a few of the independant experts of WG4 have argued against usage of ISO-dates in T.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 47 of 47
Showing 20▼ items per page