This (slughtly cheeky) posting foreshadows what I suspect is going to be a heated debated about which implementation of ODF is more conformant and whether that matters.
Despite the potential for lots of silliness in the sort term, in the long term I think this is going to be healthy for implementations, and for ODF itself (assuming the Oracle takeover of Sun doesn't unduly impact that effort).
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
Symphony 1.3, released last week, now enables imports of documents using Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) format. However, the free-of-charge office suite does not yet let users save documents in OOXML.
Google's announcement this week that it had improved its Google Docs Web apps drew ridicule from a Microsoft official on Wednesday.
Kisslo also accused Google of not following the OpenDocument Format (ODF) spec with fidelity in Google Docs applications. The Google spokesperson called that claim "ironic" for Microsoft. (Microsoft has had its own issues staying true to the ISO/IEC-standardized version of its Office Open XML document format spec. However, the company did previously announce support for ODF in Office 2007.)
This seemingly minor spat between the two companies has deep implications. At stake may be much of Microsoft's empire, based on its two cash cows: Microsoft Office and Windows.
