Group items tagged

Short slide deck of Barbara Held's February 28th, 2007 EU IDABC presentation. She introduces ODEF, the "Open Document Exchange Format" which is designed to replace both ODF and OpenOfficeXML. ComputerWorld recently ran a story about the end of ODF, as they covered the failure of six "legislative" initiatives designed to mandate ODF as the official file format. While the political treachery surrounding these initiatives is a story in and of itself, the larger story, the one that has world wide reverberations, wasn't mentioned. The larger ODF story is that ODF vendors are losing the political battles because they are unable to provide government CIO's with real world solutions. Here are three quotes from the California discussion that really say it all: "Interoperability isn't just a feature. It's the basic requirement for getting your XML file format and applications considered"..... "The challenge is that of migrating our existing documents and business processes to XML. The question is which XML? OpenDocument or OpenXML?" ....... "Under those conditions, is it even possible to implement OpenDocument?" ....... Bill Welty, CIO California Air Resource Board wondering if there was a way to support California legislative proposal AB-1668. This is hardly the first time the compatibility-interoperability issue has challenged ODf. Massachusetts spent a full year on a pilot study testing the top tier of ODF solutions: OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office and IBM's WorkPlace (prototype). The results were a disaster for ODF. So much so that the 300 page pilot study report and accompanying comments wiki have never seen the light of day. In response to the disastrous pilot study, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi; a "request for information" about whether it's possible or not to write an ODF plugin for MSOffice applications. The OpenDocument Foundation responded to the RFi with our da Vinci plugin. The quick descriptio

ODF officially died on February 28, 2007, at the Advanced eGovernment Conference in Berlin.  Hellow ODEF

There must be something in the air.  The end user inspired idea that applications should be able to exchange documents perfectly preserving the presentation (man percieved appearance as opposed to machine interpreted layout-rendering) is gaining a rabid momentum.

Yesterday it was the Intel ODF Test Suite results falling into the hands of Microsoft, who is now using the results to argue that OpenOffice doesn't fully support - implement ODF.  The Intel ODF Test Suite is notable in that the test is near 100% about comparative  "presentation" :: an object to object ocmparison of a KOffice document to an OpenOffice rendering of that document and vice versa.

Today we have the EU IDABC hosting a continent wide conference discussing the same  issue :: the "exchange" of ODF documents.  They've even gone so far as to coin a new term; ODEF - OpenDocument Exchange Format!

This morning i also recieved an invite to join a new OASIS discussion list, "The DocStandards Interoperability List".  The issue?  The converision and exchange of documents between different standards.

And then there is the cry for help from Sophie Gautier.  This is an eMail that has worked it's way up to both the OASIS ODF Adoption TC and OASIS ODF Mainline TC discussion lists.  The problem is that Microsoft is presenting the Intel ODF Test Results to EU govenrments.  Sophie needs a response, and finds the truth hard to fathom.

Last week the legendary document processing expert Patrick Durusau jumped into the ODF "Lists" embroglio with his concern that the public has a different idea about document exchange - interoperability than the ODF TC.  A very different idea.  The public expects a visual preservation of the documents presentation qual

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

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

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?

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~

The chuckleheads at Sun's StarOffice/OpenOffice Hamburg office respond to Florian's comprehensive lis tof suggestions to greatly improve ODF interoperability. 

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~

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~

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

Excellent coverage of a very important interview!

The Knowledge Base description and history of OpenDocuemnt

The August 28th, 2006 article about Massachusetts decision to use addon plugins.  ComputerWorld - Caarol Sliwa

Uh Oh.  They got IBM dead to rights in Massachusetts.  I guess the truth about Massachusetts will be told!  Finally.  ODF failed in Massachusetts because there isn't a reasonable  means of implementing ODF.  Same in California.

A must read.  And yes, the ODF Vendors are the reason ODF lost.  They didn't provide useful solutions.  In fact, the applicaitons they proposed were seen by government CIO's as cstly and disruptive "rip out and replace" non starters.  In California, CIO's asked if it was even possible to implement ODF!!!

Incredible.  The tile alone says it all.  And the poster commenting on IBM and secret disaster that happened in Massachusetts has it right.  I wonder who that commenter is anyway?

Homepage for EIOffice, a complete JAVA clone of MSOffice.  This stuff is excellent!  Easily surpasses OpenOffice in terms of file format conversion and compatibilitiy.  EIOffice is fully capable of "round tripping" documents with MSOffice users without compromising fideltiy.  Supports UOF but not ODF or MOOXML

The OpenDocument Foundation "Universal Interoperability Framework" Proposal has not been submitted to the OASIS ODF TC as of this bookmarking.  But this version is complete except for a closing summation.

Wow, what a story! Slashdotted twice:

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=258073&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=20064251#20153479

This section of the Slashdot discussion of the LinuxWorld "Game Over" article concerns itself with RTF and Microsoft. ACME 376 "decodes" and converts MS RTF to XML encoded RTF. The full da Vinci process follows this chain: imbr<>MS RTF<>ACME 376<>InfoSet = output target file format MS RTF is the internal structuring stage that all in-memory-binary-representation are sent through with any conversion. Including the conversion of imbr to OOXML The OOXML plugin process looks like this: imbr<>MS RTF<>OOXML The da Vinci ODF process looks like this: imbr<>MS RTF<>ACME<>InfoSet<>ODF The da Vinci CDF process outputs to CDF instead of ODFThe reason we need to output to something other than ODF is that the OASIS ODF TC has no interest in provisioning the ODF specification with much needed iX "interoperability eXtensions". the iX eXtensions were designed to accomodate the high fidelity "round trip" conversion of existing MS documents to ODF while establishing a high level of interoperability with existing MS applications and workgroup processes.

Whoa, another must read analysis of OOXML. This one is provided by the University of Toronto, with a focus on "accessibility" issues. Not surprisingly, OOXML fails on nearly all counts.

The authors recommend that we go back to work on improving ODF and the accessibility of ODF ready applications.