Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue.  Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected.  Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of the ISO/IEC JTSC1 committee that reviewed ODF and will be responsible for MS Ecma 376, requested the clarification.

Rick J provides a nice framework for approachign the "contradiction definition" issue, but fails to provide an expert opinion on MS Ecma 376. 

Anyone familiar with Rick's comments in the past will come away from this article much surprised.  He went all wobbly when it came time to make the call on MS Ecma 376.  This kind of wishy washy opinion is hardly what we've come to expect. 

I guess the shill contract incuded much more than pasting up Wikipedia to make Microsoft look like an honest broker of information technologies. 

~ge~

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue. Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected. Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of

Microsoft Wikipedia Shill Rick Jelliffe weighs in on the "contradiction" definition issue. Rick is well known XML expert, and prior to his contracting out as a hired shill for Microsoft, was much respected. Patrick Durusau, ODF editor and co chairman of

There you go!  The Micrsoft plot to take over the Internet in a nutshell, with XAML and EOXML at the point of the spear.

Funny how everyone knows what Micrsoft's intentions are, even having identified the tehcnoliges to be used, but still no one can stop them.  How did this recidivist reprobate get so outside the rule of law and beyond the reach of good men?

EOXML (MS Ecma 376) must be stopped at ISO/IEC, if only to slow down this worldwide train wreck they plan for our beloved and open Internet.

The war is over?  When did Microsoft surrender?  And when did they sign the official terms of surrender?

The terms of surrender are simple. Microsoft must agree to fully support and implement ODF as a native file format in all versions of MSOffice qualified for the current OOXML compatibility kit. Furthermore, MSOffice must offer end users the choice of selecting ODF as the default MSOffice file format.

Those are the terms of surrender, and i for one don't see how the Microsoft or Novell Translator plugin's qualify?  These things are garbage!

What if an MSOffice user was to work on a document, save it to OOXML only to open it later to find a near totally useless and corrupted document with a conversion fidelity equal to that achieved by the hapless MCN Translator Plugins?

Right.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  Until these idiotic MCN Translators can achieve a conversion fidelity between ODF and OOXML acceptable to MSOffice users - comparable to native documents use and expectations, they should be regarded for what they are: an experimentation proving conclusively that OOXML is not even close to being interoperable with ODF.

~ge~

Excellent article about Vista and MSOffice "System" 2007 as development platforms.  The author provides one of the better explanations of how MSOffice 2007 and SharePoint "Hub" are connected and joined at the hip.  Hey, i invented tha tterm "Hub"!  Or so i thought.  I guess some things are just obvious.

My use of the term "Hub" to describe an XML turnstile where backend information meges with portal interfaces, email, messaging, and document storage/collaboration goes back to the 2003 "Sales and Inventory" management system prototype we built for Comcast.  Desktops connect to the hub through XML documents, XForms and Jabber XMPP data binding, and browsers.  Great stuff - the way SOA should be done!

The primary difference between ODF and MOOXML is that ODF was designed to be a universal file format.  MOOXML was designed to be an XML file format for MSOffice, the Win32 API, and the Vista Information Processing Chain API (.NET 3.0). 

ODF is application and platform independent.  MOOXML is application and platform specific.  It's bound to the Windows - Vista platform. 

Microsoft's Brian Jones recently got caugh tup in a argument wIth the heavily armed WMD ODF expert and combatant Sam Hiser (WMD=Words of Massive Destruction).  In their exchange, Brian got confused over this very important distinction between ODF and MOOXML.  ODF allows specific applications to place their configurations and requirements in a settings file that is separate from the content, presentation and metadata containers.  MOOXML on the other hand makes no distinction whatsoever between application specific (MSOffice only) configuration, settings, processsing instructions and systemm dependencies and the rest of the file format contents.  Application settings are bound to content, presentation, and schema containers.  So bound that Brian is seemingly unaware of what ODF has achieved.  Sam caught him by surprise, as did many others posting comments:

Brian Jones on MOOXML support for older versions of MSOffice:  Coments by Sam the WMD Man are below.

Nice catch by Stephan Jaensch.  He caught Brian Jones trying wriggle out of corner Rob Weir has trapped the mighty Microsoft Blogmeister in.  The last line of Stephan's question to Brian Jones says it all; the incompleteness and undocumented aspects of the EOOXML specification give Microsoft an incredibly unfair competitive advantage regarding the billions of binary MSOffice documents in circulation and vital to critical day to day business operations the world over. 

The quote from Stephan:  "I still haven't seen any answer to this valid criticism. it's a competitive advantage for Microsoft since the standard is incomplete and your company is the only one that has the missing parts."

The response from Brian?  We're waiting.  We've been waiting.  With each passing day the EOOXMl specification looks more like a monopolist endagered species protection order than the open standard Microsoft is trying to palm it off as.

The marbux comment:

See particularly section 6.8 and its discussion of "etiquettes," which sounds like CDF profiles to me.

This 1998 academic paper on open standards could give us a solid foundation to build our arguments for Universal Interop from. I may have forwarded this link before, roughly a year ago. Here is the abstract of the paper:

This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all.

it builds upon a previous work by Bruce Perens. Well worth the read.

Standardisation is one of the key facilitators for interoperability of networks, services and equipment. Interoperability in this sense has gained increasing attention and demand inthe market-place. Thus, in response to market-driven needs interoperability is becomingan important requirement in standards projects.This white paper examines the standards development process as well as the actors involved and proposes a set of recommendations in standards development that will help to address interoperability challenges that may occur and can be observed instandardisation. At the same time it provides an agreed industry position on key aspects for standards development. Observing these recommendations - as is done by a lot of actors in standardisation already, including formally established standards setting bodies - may help to increase the level of interoperability in standardisation. This white paper aims at strengthening the awareness to observe interoperability issues at an early stage and make those issues an important consideration as part of the standards-setting process. EICTA's recommendations for the standards development process:

Marbux nails it again in the comments section of this obscure review. In particular, he sites Shah, Rajiv C. and Kesan, Jay P., Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples (September 2008), Link to paper on SSRN (compatibility fidelity comparisons of ODF implementations testing only a very small set of word processing features). "...Switching documents, I go through similar travails with the published ODF 1.1 specification, using both the PDF and ODT versions. Bottom line: I can't get either document into WordPerfect X3 or X4 using any rich text format. So I convert the document to plain text using Symphony and get my work done. That is the real state of ODF interoperability. There is no such thing. But that does not stop the vested interests from claiming that there is. E.g.:"

Good article from Aaron Ricadela. The focus is on Java, Sun's hardware-Server business, and Oracle's business objectives. No mention of OpenOffice or ODf though. There is however an interesting quote from IBM regarding the battle between Java and Microsoft .NET. Also, no mention of a OpenOffice-Java Foundation that would truly open source these technologies.

When we were involved with the Massachusetts Pilot Study and ODF Plug-in proposals, IBM and Oracle lead the effort to open source the da Vinci plug-in. They put together a group of vendors known as "the benefactors", with the objective of completing work on da Vinci while forming a patent pool - open source foundation for all OpenOffice and da Vinci source. This idea was based on the Eclipse model.

One of the more interesting ideas coming out of the IBM-Oracle led "benefactors", was the idea of breaking OpenOffice into components that could then be re-purposed by the Eclipse community of developers. The da Vinci plug-in was to be the integration bridge between Eclipse and the Microsoft Office productivity environment. Very cool. And no doubt IBM and Oracle were in synch on this in 2006. The problem was that they couldn't convince Sun to go along with the plan.

Sun of course owned both Java and OpenOffice, and thought they could build a better ODF plug-in for OpenOffice (and own that too). A year later, Sun actually did produce an ODF plug-in for MSOffice. it was sent to Massachusetts on July 3rd, 2007, and tested against the same set of 150 critical documents da Vinci had to successfully convert without breaking. The next day, July 4th, Massachusetts announced their decision that they would approve the use of both ODF and OOXML! The much hoped for exclusive ODF requirement failed in Massachusetts exactly because Sun insisted on their way or the highway.

Let's hope Oracle can right the ship and get OpenOffice-ODF-Java back on track.

"......To gain

It fIts just fine for most of the spec but there are also major chunks that include descriptive element and attribute names, for example, the compatibilIty markup volume. My sense is that these are areas where new features were introduced in Office 2007. But they kind of fly in the face of the Microsoft claims back when that the abbreviated markup was deliberately chosen to maximize execution speed. If so, why isn't all the markup in abbreviated form?

Interesting article discussing the many ways Microsoft is using to improve the public perception that they are serious about interoperability and open formats, protocols and interfaces. Rocketman attended the recent ISO SC34 meeting in Prague and agrees that Microsoft has indeed put on a new public face filled with cooperation, compliance and unheard of sincerity.

He also says, "Don't be fooled!!!"

There is a big difference between participation in vendor consortia and government sponsored public standards efforts, and, actual implementation at the product level. Looking at how Microsoft products implement open standards, my take is that they have decided on a policy of end user choice. Their applications offer on the one hand the choice of aging, near irrelevant and often crippled open standards. And on the other, the option of very rich and feature filled but proprietary formats, protocols and interfaces that integrate across the entire Microsoft platform of desktop, devices and servers. For instance; IE8 supports 1998 HTML-CSS, but not the advanced ACiD-3 "HTML+" used by WebKit, Firefox, Opera and near every device or smartphone operating at the edge of the Web. (HTML+ = HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JS, JS Libs).

But they do offer advanced .NET-WPF proprietary alternative to Open Web HTML+. These include XAML, Silverlight, XPS, LINQ, Smart Tags, and OOXML. Very nice.

"When an open source advocate, open standards advocate, or, well, pretty much anyone that competes with Microsoft (news, site) sees an extended hand from the software giant toward better interoperability, they tend to look and see if the other hand's holding a spiked club.

Even so, the Redmond, WA company continues to push the message that it has seen the light regarding open standards and interoperability...."

ODF was created on the principles that interoperability and innovation were paramount, and that these are based on open standards. Not coincidentally, ODF's creation coincided with the growing support of open ICT architectures, which grew from the Web model where the standardization of HTML, an open, royalty-free standard, enabled the Web to be an open platform that enabled much innovation on top of it. The key was interoperability, or the ability of multiple parties to communicate electronically, without the need to all run the same application software or operating system. Also critical to the development of ODF was the introduction of OpenOffice.org, the open source office suite that first implemented the format, and the rise of XML as a widely supported foundational standard for describing structured data.

REST creator Roy Fielding weighs in on CMIS, the Content Management Interoperability Services standard proposed by pay-to-play OASIS members and big RDBMS vendors; EMC, IBM and Microsoft.  Note, Roy works for Day Software, which has been acquired by Adobe. The CMIS proposal is suspiciously similar to the Sursen UOML OASIS Standard that ISO rejected!!!  excerpt: CMIS is a thin veneer on RDBMS-based data repositories that provides a data model for document-like objects within filesystem-like folders, basic file versioning, and access via SQL queries and local object references. it is exactly the kind of document model one would expect within a legacy document management system that is backed by a large relational database and authored via Microsoft Office applications. No surprise, given the sponsors, and there are plenty of good reasons why folks would want to support such data models.