Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items matching "rand" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

The trap is set! Phony OASIS Messaging standard OK'd for Web services - 0 views

weblog.infoworld.com/...012609.html

apache ipr iso microsoft oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument rand web-services ws xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • OASIS considers WS-ReliableMessaging critical for SOA, in that it can handle a variety of SOA requirements. WS-ReliableMessaging can be extended to enable integration with capabilities such as security. SOAP binding for interoperability is included. WS-ReliableMessaging is part of a series of Web services specifications dubbed WS-* that have been championed by companies such as Microsoft.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Check out the comments below this article.  There are links to Ian Foster of Globus and to the Marbux license disseration posted with the OpenDocument Foundation's NO VOTE at OASIS.
Gary Edwards

ODF calls time on da Vinci coding | The Register Lucy Sherriff - 0 views

www.theregister.co.uk/...odf_davinci_code

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The Open Document Foundation (ODF) has quietly ended all work on its da Vinci project after failing to secure approval from the Organisation for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS). The da Vinci project was to develop a class of plug-ins that would allow users "to create and edit CDF (compound document format) files in their existing Microsoft Office installations". That is to say, a user could save a .odt file within Word as easily as if it were a .doc format. document.write('\x3Cscript src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.software.4159/applications;'+RegExCats+GetVCs()+'pid='+RegId+';'+RegKW+'maid='+maid+';test='+test+';pf='+RegPF+';dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=' + rand + '?" type="text/javascript">\x3C\/script>'); However, the organisation now says all work has ceased because OASIS has not granted approval of its generic extensions. Without this approval, ODF says: "We can not effectively convert existing Microsoft documents, applications and processes to ODF. The loss of fidelity and feature - business process specific information is too great."
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.  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.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page