Standardization by Corporation
Maybe i spoke to soon. This just came in from ISO, the resignation letter of the SC34WG1 Chairman who has completed his three year term.
There is a fascinating statement at the end of the Martin Bryan letter. "The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible..."
When corporations join open standards or open source efforts, they arrive with substantial but most welcome financial and expert resources. They also bring marketshare and presence. And, they bring business objectives. They have a plan.
As long as the corporate plan is aligned with the open standards - open source community work, all is fine. In fact it's great. For sure though there will come a time when the corporate plan asserts it's direction, and there is possible conflict. At this point, the very same wealth of resources that were cause for celebration can become cause for disappointment and disaster.
One of the more troubling things i've noticed is that corporations treat everything as a corporate asset to be traded, bartered and dealt for shareholder advantage and value. This includes patents and interoperability issues which not surprisingly are wrapped into open standards and open source efforts. Rather than embrace the humanitarian – community of shared interest drivers of open standards and open source, corporations naturally plot to get maximum value out of the resources they commit.
A primary example of this is Sun's use of OpenOffice, ODF, and an anti trust settlement disaster that left them at the mercy of Microsoft.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
2More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting... - 0 views
talkback.zdnet.com/;jsessionid=lpZyhV8gwAfQR3UXAr
bryan cdf ecma ibm iso mary-jo microsoft oasis odf ooxml opendocument sun w3c zdnet
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
Will ISO follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML? I think so. If they continue on their current path of big vendor sponsored document wars, ISO will beocme irrelevant. Sooner or later the ISO National Bodies must take back the standards process from corporate corruption and influence. One thing is clear. Neither Microsoft or IBM is about to compromise. IBM has had many chances to improve ODF's interoperability with Microsoft Office and the Office documents, but has been steadfast in their stubborn refusal to concede an inch. Microsoft hides behind their legacy installed base of over 550 million MSOffice desktops. There simply isn't a pragmatic or cost effective way of transitioning the installed base to ODF without either seriously re writing and replacing those applications, or, changing ODF to be compatible. The marketplace is clear on what they intend on doing. Pragmatism will rule. Productivity trumps standards initiatives whenever they are out of sink. In the face of this clear marketplace intent, one would think IBM might compromise on ODF. No way! They are intent on using ODF to force a market wide rip out and replace of MSOffice. Most people assume that there are two opposing groups at war here; the Microsoft OOXML group vs. the IBM ODF group. This isn't an accurate view at all. There is a third, middle group of developers working the treacherous space of conversion - the no man'sland between OOXML MSOffice and ODF OpenOffice. The conversion group know the problems involved, and are actually trying to dliver marketplace facing solutions. The vendors of course are in this war to the bitter end, and could care less about the damage they cause to end users. It's also true that the conversion group seeks to bridge desktop productivity into the larger, highly interoeprable web platform. It's also possible that ISO will chose to merge
1More
OpenDocument Foundation Dissolves, Leaving Projects in Disarray - Scott Fulton Beta News - 0 views
-
But in serving as that "glue," the Foundation's founders had recently said they believed CDF could fulfill the original goals of the ODF format - goals they described as having been circumvented by their current backers, perhaps in the effort to keep OOXML from being considered an equal player. To that end, they established what had been called the da Vinci Project, whose stated goal was to build a better bridge between OOXML and ODF than Microsoft itself is working on, using CDF as a go-between.Today, the da Vinci Project appears dead, as its home pages on Google were also struck down.
2More
Greg McNevin : Open Document Foundation Abandons Namesake, Closes up Shop - 0 views
-
The decision to go with CDF has left some industry commentators scratching their heads, with arstechnica.com’s Ryan Paul noting that the decision is curious as CDF doesn't support “the full range of functionality required for office compatibility”. Paul does add, however, that the formats broad use of formats such as XHTML and SVG does give it a compelling edge.
-
The W3C's Chris Lilley, IBM and the lawyer for OASIS have been making quite a bit of noise claiming that CDF doesn't support "the full range of functionality required for office compatibility".
This a strange claim, especially when considering IBM as the primary source. CDF WiCD Full 1.0 is a desktop profile for CDF. Other profiles include WICD Mobile and WICD Core. The call for implementations for WICD core, mobile and full went out on Monday, November 12, 2007.
To understand cdf, one must first get a handle on the terms used to describe cdf technologies.
..... CDF= compound document formats
..... CDRF= compound document by reference framework
..... WICD = Web Integration Compound Document
..... CDR using WICD = Compound Document by Reference using a WICD profile, (Core, Full or Mobile)
..... Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
..... WICD Core 1.0
..... WICD Mobile 1.0 Profile
..... WICD Full 1.0 Profile
The WICD Full 1.0 Profile is the "DESKTOP" profile for CDF.
Some interesting Quotes:
"WICD Full 1.0 is targeted at desktop agents".
"The WICD Full 1.0 profile is designed to enable rich multimedia content on desktop and high capability handheld agents."
From the Compound Document by Reference Use Cases and Requirements Version 1.0 :
"The capability to view documents with preserved formatting, layout, images and graphics and interactive features such as zooming in and out and multi-page handling."
"
<
2More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- No Cached
Does ODF 1.2 Metadata Solve the Interop Problem? - Microsoft starts rolling out more O... - 0 views
talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html
afnor cdf iso maryjo merger metadata odf ooxml opendocument talkback zdnet
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- No Cached
-
Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2 Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe. The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission. You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects. Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint. Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
-
A Second response to Mary Jo's, "Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators" is also posted here. The title is "Standardization by Corporation". Shish-Ka-Bob makes the assertion the ODF 1.2 metadata model will enable lossless two way conversion between MSOffice and ODF. While it's true that that intent was a key component of the original July of 2006 Metadata Requirements, the proposal was eventually stripped from the final submission made in April of 2007. I try to explain to Shish how that came about. The second post here, "Standardization by Corporation", is a follow on to statements made to Shish. The statements have to do with the events at ISO, and what i think will eventually happen. IMHO, ISO will follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML. To do this they will remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter. A derpressing but nevertheless very true concern. In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300). ~ge~
1More
Open Document Format: The sad truth | Scott Mace Information Manager Journal - 0 views
-
Open Document Format: The sad truth David Berlind has posted a massive chronicle of who said what to whom about the supposed emergence of CDF as an alternative to Open Document Format (ODF) and OOXML. I played a minor role in this saga when I spoke with Gary Edwards for Opening Move, back in April. This was before Edwards proposed CDF in place of ODF. If you haven't listened to our conversation, please do so, because the concerns Edwards raised about ODF (and OOXML) remain just as valid today. While I'm sad to see Edwards' more recent direction and assertions debunked in the press and the blogosphere, the greater tragedy is of two competing document standards -- ODF and OOXML -- now on seemingly irreversible paths to immortality, meaning we'll have translation issues between them around for several lifetimes to come.
4More
Did the W3C acknowledge CDF's potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-... - 0 views
-
Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through. If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.
-
Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.
-
The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):
- ...1 more annotation...
-
So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?
2More
GOSCON Goes Global with Open Document Controversy - 0 views
-
Open Document Format The panel discussion will focus on a single question: what should the user community do, what actions should they take in light of competing Open Document Formats? Each of our industry experts will be asked to present their practical response.
-
GOSCON panel moderator Andy Stein has decided to kick it open, and let the public question the five participants from IBM, Sun, Microsoft, Adobe and those guys without a garage, the OpenDocument Foundation.
2More
ODF Split Shakes Up Document Battle | Redmond Developer News Michael Desmond - 0 views
-
The ongoing file format battle between proponents of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) took a surprising turn lthis week, when a key ODF proponent announced that it intended to abandon the ISO-approved specification. The move by the OpenDocument Foundation comes less than two months after Microsoft lost a key ISO vote to approve OOXML as a standard.
1More
ODF calls time on da Vinci coding | The Register Lucy Sherriff - 0 views
-
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."
1More
ODF and differences of opinion - ZDNet John Carrol - John Le'Bracage - 0 views
-
Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world. The chickens came home to roost when Massachusetts started a year long pilot study regarding the implementation of ODF. The study began shortly after the OASIS approval of ODf 1.0, and ended in May of 2006. The results were nothing short of a disaster for ODF.
2More
ODF and differences of opinion | TalkBack on ZDNet - 0 views
-
Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world.
2More
ODF backer abandons file format in favor of W3C Universal File Format alternative - Com... - 0 views
-
The OpenDocument Foundation Inc. doesn't have any control over ODF. But its embrace of the W3C's Compound Document Formats (CDF) adds a new twist to the already acrimonious debate over the possible creation of a universal file format for desktop applications.
-
Finally, people are coming to understand the concept of a universal file format
2More
South Africa, Netherlands and Korea striding toward ODF - 0 views
-
In Belgium, for instance, the government is using plug-ins to enable Microsoft Office to read and save files in ODF, Marcich said. The same plug-ins are being used in Massachusetts, which was the first governmental body to move to ODF. One prominent ODF backer, the unrelated Open Document Foundation, said in late October that it would stop backing ODF in favor of a more viable universal format called the Compound Document Format (CDF). Marcich said that "won't have any effect on the alliance or on ODF" adoption. Moreover, CDF, which is a World Wide Web Consortium format, differs greatly in features and goals than ODF. "We're talking about apples and oranges here," he said.
-
This ComputerWorld article is referenced by the State of New York in their request for information
-
2More
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
- Cached
Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself? - 0 views
www.computerworld.com/...article.do
cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
- Cached
-
This quote from Chalres Schultz is ridiculous. Because Novell is not allowed to commit code to OpenOffice, they must maintain a separate code base of extensions and improvements. With each build of OpenOffice, Novell must reintegrate their changes into the code base, making for a managerial nightmare. When Novell does have improvements that Sun wants though, there is no end to the hoops of fire the Sun developers will jump through to get it. The Field Enhancement routine written by Novell's Florian Router is one of those improvements that Sun had to have. Sun even went so far as to arguing for changes in the way ODF implements fields to accomodate the Novell improvements! It's important to note however that Sun did not support the ODF Field Enhancements UNTIL Novell agreed to donate Florian's code to OpenOffice!!!!!! Proving conclusively what i have been arguing for years: Sun does not allow for any changes to ODF unless and until those changes can be implemented by OpenOffice. The ODF Field Enhancements needed by Florian's fix to OpenOffice were originally proposed on July 12th, 2006, when Florian was the CTO of the OpenDocument Foundation. These changes to the way ODF implements fields were needed by the da Vinci plug-in as part of our efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts. so here we have a rather direct example of Sun refusing improvements to ODF when needed by another application (da Vinci), but supporting those exact same changes when it is OpenOffice that can be improved!!! The arguments that the OpenOffice.org Community isn't open also apply to the OASIS ODF TC work!!!!!!
-
Good catch by Eric!
This link is to the infamous Sun statement of support for MS OOXML issued by Jon Bosak when ISO DIS 2900 was voted on by the US delegation to ISO.
The statement is important because it directly references the core issue: MS OOXML was written for MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts bound to that application suite. ODF on the other hand was written to OpenOffice.
Because ODF was not designed for the conversion of those billions of MSOffice documents, conversion is next to impossible. The implementation of ODF in MSOffice is next to impossible. The loss of information, especially the presentation-layout information, is so severe as to be intolerable in the real world.
This leaves the real world, where MSOffice dominates over 550 million desktops, unable to implement ODF. In light of this real world problem, Sun's Bosak urges support for MS OOXML as an ISO standard!!!
So we have this situation at OASIS ODF where Sun is in control of both ODF and OpenOffice, refusing in all cases to compromise the linkage or accomodate the much needed interoperability enhancemnts seeking to improve the conversion of billions of documents to ODF. And publicly supporting MS OOXML as the only pragmatic alternative to the situation Sun is responsible for!
3More
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
- Cached
Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself? - 0 views
www.computerworld.com/...article.do
cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
- Cached
-
In e-mailed comments, Heintzman said his criticisms about the situation have been made openly. "We think that Open Office has quite a bit of potential and would love to see it move to the independent foundation that was promised in the press release back when Sun originally announced OpenOffice," he said. "We think that there are plenty of existing models of communities, [such as] Apache and Eclipse, that we can look to as models of open governance, copyright aggregation and licensing regimes that would make the code much more relevant to a much larger set of potential contributors and implementers of the technology.... "Obviously, by joining we do believe that the organization is important and has potential," he wrote. "I think that new voices at the table, including IBM's, will help the organization become more efficient and relevant to a greater audience.... Our primary reason for joining was to contribute to the community and leverage the work that the community produces.... I think it is true there are many areas worthy of improvement and I sincerely hope we can work on those.... I hope the story coming out of Barcelona isn't a dysfunctional community story, but rather a [story about a] potentially significant and meaningful community with considerable potential that has lots of room for improvement...."
-
Heintzman must be referring to the Rob Weir -OASIS ODF Adoption (cough marketing-lobbying) TC event called the "ODF Interoperability Workshop". This was a day long event demonstrating for all the world to see that there is no such thing as ODF interoperability. The exchange of documents between OpenOffice 2.0, KOffice and Lotus Symphony is pathetic. The results of the day long event were so discouraging that Rob Weir took to threatening developers who attended in his efforts to keep a lid on it. I think this is called damage control :). From what i hear, it was a very long day for Rob. but that's no excuse for his threatening anyone who might publicly talk about these horrific interop problems. The public expects these problems to be fixed. But how can they be fixed if the issues can't be discussed publicly?
-
Lotus Symphony is based on the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base that IBM ripped off back when OpenOffice was under dual license - SSSL and LGPL.
4More
OOXML/ODF: Just One Battlefield in a Much Bigger War | Linux Today - 2 views
-
If the OOXML format in its current form cannot get made into a true ISO standard, it could lock Microsoft out of any future plays in what could be the biggest IT revolution to date. Here are the pieces of the puzzle that fit together for me:
-
"Amazon SimpleDB is a web service for running queries on structured data in real time."
-
"Structured data." And what's a good way to contain such data? In well-built structured data file format of course. Like, for instance, the Open Document Format (ODF). And who has a vested interest in ODF? IBM certainly does. And so does Sun. And these two companies, along with Google, Microsoft, and I'm sure many others, realize that if cloud computing does indeed take off, then it will be the file format that makes the whole thing work. Which is why Microsoft feels it must get their format standardized. Even with tactics that ironically have started to attract the attention of the EU again. How else can they get a piece of the cloud pie?
-
Partly right. The MS plan is actually much bigger than Brian Profitt suggests. The MSOffice 2007 SDK is fille dwith new API's, the most interesting of which are the ones connecting MSOffice to XAML and the Windows Presentation Foundation layer. The killer component though is the OOXML <> fixed/flow translator component with related API's. fixed/flow is a new web format that is 100% proprietary. It's at the heart of the Microsoft cloud, enabling developers to easily transition between OOXML and IE browsers able to serve fixed/flow pages to devices, desktops and just about any kind re purposing publication - content management system imaginable. If ISO approves OOXML, then they've standardized MSOffice as a legitamate Web editor - enterprise publication, content management, archive management front end. Instead of producing W3C compliant (X)HTML - CSS web pages though, the MSOffice Web editor will produce the proprietary fixed/flow format via the OOXML translation component we can now see in the SDK. What we don't see in the MSOffice SDK is the use of W3C technologies such as (X)HTML, CSS, SVG, XForms, SMiL, XSL, XSL-FO. Instead of Mozilla XUL or Adobe Flex, we find XAML and Silverlight. IMHO, Microsoft is making their run for the Web. Key to this run is ISO approval of OOXML. Once that happens, there will be no need for MS product compliance with W3C standards. The break will be complete. The We forever split into the Windows Web, and the Firefox - Apache Tomcat Web. And never the twain shall meet.
-
1More
Compound Document Formats Group Charter - 0 views
-
be widely implementable in browsers and authoring tools
7More
Harmonizing ODF and OOXML using NameSpaces | Tim Bray's Thought Experiment - 0 views
-
First, what if Microsoft really is doing the right thing? Second, how can we avoid having two incompatible file formats? [Update: There’s been a lot of reaction to this piece, and I addressed some of those points here.]
-
On the technology side, the two formats are really more alike than they are different. But, there are differences: O12X’s design center, Microsoft has said repeatedly, is capturing the exact semantics of the billions of existing Microsoft Office documents. ODF’s design center is general-purpose reusability, and leveraging existing standards like SVG and MathML and so on.
-
OOXML, or to put it more accurately "O12X" as Tim suggests, is designed to capture the exact semantics of MSOffice 12. In fact, OOXML is an XML encoding of the MSOffice 12 in-memory-binary-representation dump. When it comes to representing older versions of MSOffice documents, OOXML must use legacy compatibility settings" to capture the semantics. And it's not an exacting science to say the least. The thing is, OpenOffice ODF uses the same technique resulting in application specific ODF documents with over 150 un docuemnted, unspecified "compatibility settings". After years of requests from the OASIS ODF Technical Committee to document these application specific settings, Sun has yet to provide any kind of response. And this kills ODF interoperability. Especially concerning KOffice. There is also the issue of OASIS ODF high-jacked namespaces. When ODF applications reference a namespace, the actual URL is high-jacked with http://oasis-open.org/???? replacing the proper namespace of http://W3C.org/???? This high-jacking impacts the oDF reuse of important W3C technologies such as XForms, SVG, MathML, and SMiL. So where's the problem you ask? Well, when a developer imports or tries to process an OpenOffice ODF document, they rely on say the W3C XForms specification for their understanding. OpenOffice however seriously constrains the implementation of XForms, SVG, MathML, RDFa and RDF/XML. This should be reflected in the new namespace. However, if you follow the high-jacked URL, you'll find that there is nothing there. There is no specification describing how OpenOffice implements XForms in ODF! This breaks developer libraries, breaks ODF interoperability between ODF applications, and, offends the W3C to no end. So i think it might be fair to say that at this point, neither ODF or OOXML have come close to fulfilling their design objectives.
-
-
The capabilities of ODF and O12X are essentially identical for all this basic stuff. So why in the flaming hell does the world need two incompatible formats to express it? The answer, obviously, is, “it doesn’t”.
-
Exactly!! Except for one thing that Tim misses: the presentation layers of both ODF and OOXML are application specific. It is also the application specific nature of OpenOffice ODF presnetation layer that prevents interoperability with KOffice ODF! There is near zero interop between OpenOffice and KOffice, and KOffice has been a contributing member of the OASIS ODF TC for FIVE YEARS! It's the presentation layer Tim. ODF and OOXML are application specific formats because their presentation layers are woefully applicaiton specific and entirely reflective of each applications layout engine and feature set implementation model. I often imagine what ODF would be like if back in 2001, Sun had chosen to implement CSS as the OpenOffice presentation layer instead of the quirky but innovative, and 100% application specific automatic-styles presentation layer we now see in ODF. Unlike ODF's "automatic-styles", CSS is a totally application independent presentation model prized exactly for it's universal interoperability!
-
- ...1 more annotation...
-
The ideal outcome would be a common shared office-XML dialect for the basics—and it should be ODF (or a subset), since that’s been designed and debugged—then another extended vocabulary to support Microsoft features , whether they’re cool new whizzy features or mouldy old legacy features (XML Namespaces are designed to support exactly this kind of thing). That way, if you stayed with the basic stuff you’d never need to worry about software lock-in; the difference between portable and proprietary would be crystal-clear. And, for the basic stuff that everybody uses, there’d be only one set of tags. This outcome is technically feasible. Who could possibly be against it?
-
Bingo! ODF and OOXML should strip off the application specific complexities and seek a neutral generic XML representation of basic document structures common to ALL documents. Then, use the XML NameSpace mechanism to extend (with proper descriptions) the generic to include the volumes of application specific features that now fill each format. One thing i disagree with Tim about. And that's that the interop of ODF and OOXML is hopelessly broken. The OpenDocument Foundation tried for over a year to close the compatibility gap between ODF and MSOffice binary - xml documents. The OASIS ODF TC would have none of it. IBM and Sun are set on a harsh course of highly disruptive and costly rip-out-and-replace of MSOffice based on government mandates for ODF. There is no offer of compromise to be had. On the Microsoft side, even if they did want to compromise (a big IF), there is that problem of over 550 million MSOffice workgroup-workflow desktops to contend with. The thing is, the only way to harmonize, merge, convert or translate between two application specific formats is to actually harmonize the applications themselves. While the generic subset is a worthy goal, the process would be fraught with real world concerns that the existing application workflows are not disrupted. My proposal? Demand that ODF and OOXML application vendors provide format options for PDF, and the W3C's family of formats: (X)HTML5, (X)HTML - CSS, and CDF (XHTML-CSS-XForms-SVG-SMil-MathML). That will do it. We might never see the quality of interoperability we had hoped for in a desktop application to application scenario. But we can and should fully expect high quality interop at the higher level of the Web. You can convert an application specific format to a generic like CDF. By setting up conversion channels to the same CDF profile within MSOffice, OpenOffice, KOffice, Symphony, and Google Docs, we can achieve the universal interoperabil
-
2More
shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Mar 08
- Cached
Notes on Breaking the Web to Ride the Fifth Wave - 1 views
community.zdnet.co.uk/...,1000000565,2000542666b,00.htm
ie-8 iso microsoft msoffice odf ooxml sdk xaml
shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Mar 08
- Cached
-
garyedwards's Discussions Breaking the Web Talkback: Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary'
-
Somehow i got involved in this discussion and ended up posting a number of comments explaining the how and why behind Microsoft's push for ISO approval of MS-OOXML. I have been working on a paper titled, "Breaking the Web to Ride the Great Wave". Breaking the Web is what will happen once ISO approves MS-OOXML. The MIcrosoft Stack of Web Servers (Exchange, SharePoint, MS-SQL Server) are integrated into the MSOffice-Outlook desktop. The MS desktop dominates much of the document workflows and business processes of the commercial world. ISO approval of the MSOffice specific MS-OOXML will legitamize MSOffice as an editor of standardized web ready docuemnts. But how MS-OOXML docuemnts become "Web REady" is tricky. In the December 2007 MSOffice SDK beta, we see how this is done. The SDK provides a conversion component for the quick high fidelity conversion of MS-OOXML documents to XAML. XAML is a proprietary part of the WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) layer of the .NET framework, and is easily paried with Silverlight. Sometimes XAML is referred to as "fixed/flow". XAML is an MS proprietary replacement for the W3C's (X)HTML. Billions of MSOffice docuemnts will make their way to the Web using this SDK converter. The path for transitioning the monopolist hold on desktop business processes to the monopolist stack of web servers is set with this converter. ISO approval of MS-OOXML will enable Microsoft to dodge brining their desktop editor into compliance with advancing W3C standards such as (X)HTML, CSS 3, XForms, SVG and RDF. Instead of these open standards, transitioning business processes will be locked into MS only dependencies; XAML, Silverlight, WinForms, and Smart Tags. The breaking of the web results in a consumer/business cloud dependent on MS proprietary technologies that are out of the reach of Firefox, Apache, Java, and Adobe technologies. Google won't be able to penetrate the business stack, and will be kept very busy trying to defen