Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged standards

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

From Open Source to Open Standard: The OASIS OpenDocument Format - 0 views

idealliance.org/...03-02-02

imported:del.icio.us michaelbrauer odf opendocument openoffice sun

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The history of OpenDocument by Michael Brauer,
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The history of OpenDocument by Michael Brauer,
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The history of OpenDocument by Michael Brauer,
Gary Edwards

NewsForge | SCALE Announces Workshop On Open Standards For Government - 0 views

technology.newsforge.com/...173230.shtml

imported:del.icio.us oasis odf xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    OpenDocument Fellowship, Gary Edwards - OpenOffice.org, J. David eisenberg - Fellowship
Gary Edwards

What is RDF and what is it good for? - 0 views

www.rdfabout.com/intro

metadata odf rdf rdf_xml semantic w3c web xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • On the Semantic Web, computers do the browsing for us. The SemWeb enables computers to seek out knowledge distributed throughout the Web, mesh it, and then take action based on it. To use an analogy, the current Web is a decentralized platform for distributed presentations while the SemWeb is a decentralized platform for distributed knowledge. RDF is the W3C standard for encoding knowledge.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Exellent introduction to RDF and the Semantic Web!
Gary Edwards

ODF and differences of opinion | John Carroll - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/carroll

cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • the OpenDocument Foundation had decided to back away from work on ODF in favor of CDF (a W3C-backed standard) out of a belief that ODF wouldn’t achieve the real-world interoperability goals the OpenDocument Foundation was originally created to achieve
Gary Edwards

International Digital Publishing Forum (formerly Open eBook Forum) - Flock - 0 views

www.idpf.org

universal-format

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) is the trade and standards association for the digital publishing industry.
Gary Edwards

Prince: What's New - Docuemnt Publishing on Steroids with XHTML - CSS 3.0 (CDF+) - 0 views

www.princexml.com

cagle cdf css w3c xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Prince is a computer program that converts XML and HTML into PDF documents. Prince can read many XML formats, including XHTML and SVG. Prince formats documents according to style sheets written in CSS. Standards support HTML, CSS, SVG, MathML Web enabled Load documents, style sheets, images and fonts over HTTP Publishing features Hyphenation, crop marks, columns, page floats and footnotes Eye candy Rounded borders, small caps, CMYK and RGBA colors
Paul Merrell

untitled - 0 views

www.dpawson.co.uk/...090612.html

ODF specificity quality testability

shared by Paul Merrell on 18 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work That is the way quality specifications are written. For example, ISO/IEC's JTC 1 Directives (link to PDF) requires that international standards designed for interoperability "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." With that clarity, conformance is testable and can provide confidence of interoperability. A suite of tests may be developed and applied to an implementation to determine which tests pass, which fail, and hence arrive at an objective pronouncement on conformance of an implementation against the entirety of the specification.
  • In a quality specification, it should be feasible to select a normative paragraph, identify a conformance test for it, and make a clear statement that this test proves that an implementation meets (or fails to meet) that requirement. Call it a test plan: define the tests (test specification), define the expected set of results, and define what constitutes a "pass" of each test that establishes conformance. The plan then provides the matrix of test spec against requirement. Simple.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Rob Weir of IBM chaired (apology for the misuse of that last word) the formation list and then simply announced what the charter would be rather than seeking consensus among the list participants. As part of this process before that charter was produced and while I still naively believed that consensus was a goal, I sat down with ODF 1.1 and did a paragraph-by-paragraph review for testability. The numbers were quite revealing. I completely reviewed only the first four major sections and found very few clear requirements. The majority were mere statements with no normative language used to identify what was required or optional. Implementors would have to make their own interpretation.
  • It's ironic that the chair viewed as good news the fact that there were far fewer testable paragraphs than he had predicted. But his prediction of 10,000 test cases is probably far closer to how many testable paragraphs there should be; my counts were actually bad news.
  • All of the above leads to the interesting question of just how the chair expects to accomplish much that is useful in regard to ODF conformance testing before the specification is amended to tighten up the language and add clear requirements. The syntax conformity is already handled by validation against the schema, but the semantics are woefully under-specified.
  • Summary: ODF 1.1 isn't verifiable as a specification. From a fairly cursory review of the latest draft, ODF 1.2 will follow the same path. With OASIS now being more demanding regarding conformance requirements on every specification and with ISO/IEC taking a closer interest in liaison with the ODF TC, I find it hard to see how the ODF TC co-chairs can maintain this view toward verification.
Paul Merrell

PC Pro: News: Google Docs accommodates Office 2007 file formats - 0 views

www.pcpro.co.uk/...-office-2007-file-formats.html

Google Docs OOXML

shared by Paul Merrell on 02 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Google has added support for the DOCX and XLSX file formats to the Google Docs office suite.
  • Google has now rectified this situation following the ratification of the Open XML standard last year, but anybody looking to import the PPTX files used by PowerPoint 2007 will need to wait. The files can be converted into a Google Docs-friendly format, but you'll lose formatting, themes and transition effects.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft planned to bury XML developer, says federal judge | The Industry Standard - 0 views

m.thestandard.com/...l-developer-says-federal-judge

i4i custom-xml ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Aug 09
     
    Maybe the most informative article to date regarding the Microsoft-i4i "custom XML" patent infringement case.  Greg Keizer is trying to dig into the trial records and judicial response.  Looks like for Microsoft, it's business as usual. excerpt: Microsoft knew of the patent held by i4i as early as 2001, but instead set out to make the Canadian developer's software "obsolete" by adding a feature to Word, according to court documents.
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?
Graham Perrin

Doug Mahugh : 1 + 2 = 1? - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...1-2-1.aspx

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
Graham Perrin liked it
  • five prioritized guiding principles for Office’s ODF implementation
  • When Will Office Support OpenFormula?
  • nobody knows yet when ODF 1.2 will be published as an OASIS or ISO standard
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • risk that the results might not be the same
  • Open XML / ODF Translator Add-Ins for Office can be used with Office 2007 SP2
  • Sun ODF Plugin
  • apparently works with SP2
Alex Brown

An Antic Disposition - 2 views

www.robweir.com/blog

shared by Alex Brown on 04 May 09 - Cached
  • If your business model requires only conformance and not actually achieving interoperability, then I wish you well. But remember that conformance and interoperability are not mutually exclusive options. An application can be conformant to a standard and also be interoperable, if you use the legacy formula namespace and syntax. So the desire to be conformant is not an excuse for not also being interoperable, or at least not a valid excuse.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 04 May 09
       
      Also known as "do as I do, not as I say". Of course the real culprit here is ODF itself - not an idea which Rob devotes any time to ...
  • Leadership entails foreseeing and preventing problems, not simply reacting to them.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 16 Oct 09
       
      Yup! So we need a parallel change in the PAS process in preparation for a submission of ODF
Alex Brown

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

www.groklaw.net/article.php

shared by Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09 - Cached
  • If you say Groklaw is an echo chamber, for example, it has insulting connotations
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      It's also true; but never mind
  • Groklaw deserves respect
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      The level of self-delusion here is truly scary
  • on a committee set up to help a national body
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 29 Apr 09
       
      Oh? I'd be interested to know which NB was nuts enough to appoint Groklaw as an advisor!
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • among others
  • Microsoft (and Alex Brown) are working within JTC1/SC34
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 11 Jun 09
       
      Aha, a new line of attack. It is, though, the Countries who want to have the Standard reflect the documents they actually have ...
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Apr 09
     
    The more interesting issue to me is whose voice Groklaw echoes. On the document format war, it's seemed since I stopped contributing articles to Groklaw a few years ago that it is the IBM public relations department's voice being echoed. I'll save for another day the topic of whether the echo chamber is self-delusional or deliberately intended to delude readers.
  • Alex Brown on 29 Apr 09
     
    ... and who it's aimed at. It's not as if Groklaw carries any weight (is it?)
  • Paul Merrell on 30 Apr 09
     
    Groklaw throws a pretty good punch. E.g., it launched ODF vs. Microsoft XML formats as a public issue. The blog is very influential with trade press reporters who are sympathetic to open source software. And Groklaw has done some good reporting, albeit with evident bias. Its chronicles of the SCO vs. IBM and Novell saga is undoubtedly the most thorough out there. But on ODF and OOXML, the coverage has been presented entirely as a black hat/white hat issue, ODF being perfect and designed for interoperability but OOXML as being pure evil. See e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080417104016186 (""If you want true interoperability, you need to implement ODF. Seriously. Any limitations to interoperability are entirely on Microsoft's side of the aisle, and the whole world knows it"). Intended or not, Groklaw justly deserves much credit for forestalling public oversight of the ODF TC's utter failure to deal with interoperability issues effectively and credit for keeping the oversight focus solely on OOXML. You'll find no coverage of ODF bugs on Groklaw, only ODF hugs and kisses. I see the blog as having substantially delayed ODF's repair. Groklaw has an enormous readership and particularly among citizen activists who approach ODF as a political cause rather than as a technical specification. But the Groklaw flavor of ODF v. OOXML propaganda remains consistent with that of IBM VP Bob Sutor.
Jesper Lund Stocholm

An Antic Disposition: Protocols, Formats and the Limits of Disclosure - 2 views

www.robweir.com/...ols-formats-and-limits-of.html

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 13 Oct 09 - Cached
  • it strips out ODF spreadsheet formulas
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 13 Oct 09
       
      Telling ellision. I think Rob means "OpenOffice.org spreadsheet formulas" ...
  • interoperability is achieved by converging on a common interpretation of the format
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 13 Oct 09
       
      Or, rather more effectively, by drafting the standard competently enough that the need for "intepretation" is, in practice, eliminated ...
  • However, from an interoperability perspective, MCE doesn't cut it. MCE is really just hand waving and pixie dust.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 14 Oct 09
       
      That is absolutely correct - MCE is not an interop tool or panacea - it is a compatibility-tool.
Paul Merrell

Microsoft opens Outlook format, gives programs access to mail, calendar, contacts - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...cess_to_mail_calendar_contacts

Microsoft Outlook interop de facto standards

shared by Paul Merrell on 28 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Microsoft on Monday said it will provide patent- and license-free use rights to the format behind its Outlook Personal Folders opening e-mail, calendar, contacts and other information to a host of applications such as antimalware or cloud-based services.
  • Documenting and publishing the .pst format could open up entirely new feature sets for programs such as search tools for mining mailboxes for relevant corporate data, new security tools that scan .pst data for malicious software, or e-discovery tools for meeting compliance regulations, according to Microsoft officials.
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Oct 09
     
    The ripples from the European Commission v. Microsoft decision continue to flow. The catch, of course, is that the patent rights will almost certainly be subject to the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, a weasel-worded document that actually grants no rights. http://law.bepress.com/unswwps/flrps/art71/ But someone with some clout will push that issue sooner or later.
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.
Gary Edwards

Why Microsoft Azure could have the last laugh in the cloud wars | CITEworld - 0 views

www.citeworld.com/...t-laugh-in-the-cloud-wars.html

rdsdk Office-365 Cloud-Productivity-Platform

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Venture capitalist Brad Feld recently wrote an interesting post predicting the end of Amazon's dominance of the cloud computing market, and concluded, "it’s suddenly a good time to be Microsoft or Google in the cloud computing wars." I'd go one step farther. Using Feld's arguments, I'd say that Microsoft is in the driver's seat. More like this The dark side of the cloud price wars between Amazon, Google, and Microsoft The rise, fall, and rehabilitation of Internet Explorer Microsoft, Apple, and Google battle for the mobile enterprise Featured Resource Presented by Citrix Systems 10 essential elements for a secure enterprise mobility strategy Best practices for protecting sensitive business information while making people productive from Learn More First, the price war. Microsoft and Google are on approximately equal ground when it comes to cutting prices -- both have highly profitable core businesses that they can use to subsidize a price war in cloud infrastructure, even to the point of sustaining losses for a while to gain market share. Amazon does not. 
  • Second, the quality argument. Like Feld, we've also pointed out that there are niche cloud providers that do a better job than the big guys at providing infrastructure-as-a-service for specific verticals, but when you move all the way up the stack to full software-as-a-service applications, Microsoft has an edge among the big three with Office 365.
  • Google has been making inroads into smaller businesses with Google Apps for almost a decade now, Microsoft remains the standard in the biggest and most profitable business customers -- as this recent investigation from Dan Frommer at Quartz showed, only one company in the Fortune 50 uses Google Apps. (That company happens to be Google itself.) 
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • But then comes the fourth argument. Feld points out that once companies get to $200,000 per month of cloud-infrastructure spend, it's actually significantly cheaper to build their own data centers
  • The third argument, support, is mostly a wash. While Amazon's support may be terrible (I have no evidence of this, but I'm taking Feld's word for it), Microsoft and Google and their respective ecosystem partners do a decent job of supporting customers on their stacks.
  • It's unclear how the Google Cloud Platform helps that business. Are customers using Google's cloud somehow more likely to advertise with Google? I don't see it. Are Google advertising customers demanding to run other workloads on Google technology? I don't see it.
  • There's one more point favoring Microsoft. Google's core business is selling online advertising. That business makes up about 90% of Google's revenue, and it has enviably high operating margins -- around 30%, based on Google's 2011 financial report. (I picked 2011 because that was before Google bought Motorola Mobility, which changed the margin structure.)
  • Microsoft is the only one of the big three players with an on-premise offering -- Windows Server and the rest of the Microsoft infrastructure family. Maybe the exact break-even point will change as the cloud price wars continue, but Microsoft has the most pieces customers would need to move from all-cloud to a hybrid or on-premise solution. Or, for that matter, for existing on-premise customers to begin experimenting moving some workloads to the cloud.
  • Meanwhile, while Azure almost certainly offers lower margins than, say, on-premises Windows Servers, it's necessary -- customers are moving workloads to the cloud, and Microsoft needs a competitive offering there to keep them on the Microsoft stack so they continue to buy other Microsoft products. Plus, as I argued in point four, today's Azure customers could become tomorrow's on-premise Microsoft infrastructure customers.
  • In other words, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Engine both lower the profit margins of their parent companies. But Azure is clearly strategic while Cloud Engine, as far as I can tell, is not. Who's more likely to keep investing in and improving its cloud? 
  • right now, Microsoft's chances look pretty good to me. No wonder they put the cloud guy in charge of the company.
« First ‹ Previous 181 - 199 of 199
Showing 20▼ items per page