Ultimately, O'Kelly said it best in his report: "The relative success
of ODF and OOXML, in any case, will be determined more by its utility and which
community effectively exploits W3C standards than it will by one or the other
more effectively navigating through ISO standards procedures."
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
1More
Standard or Not, OOXML Has a Lot Going for It | Redmond Developer News - Desmond - 0 views
1More
Burton Group Responds to Ars Technica's Angry ODF/OOXML Rebuttal - 0 views
-
Five days ago Ars Technica issued its view of the Burton Group ODF/OOXML report and made it clear that they disagreed with its findings, going with the headline, "Analyst group slams ODF, downplays Microsoft ISO abuses." We've had some questions from Burton Group clients and others about the article, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go through where we agree, where we disagree, where Ars Technica mischaracterizes what we said, and where it's wrong.
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.
1More
Collaboration and Content Strategies Blog: Response to Ars Technica's Article on the OD... - 0 views
-
Five days ago Ars Technica issued its view of the Burton Group ODF/OOXML report and made it clear that they disagreed with its findings, going with the headline, "Analyst group slams ODF, downplays Microsoft ISO abuses." We've had some questions from Burton Group clients and others about the article, so I thought it would be worthwhile to go through where we agree, where we disagree, where Ars Technica mischaracterizes what we said, and where it's wrong.
2More
What's So Bad About Microsoft? - 0 views
-
Backward Incompatibility Also contributing to Microsoft's goal of putting everybody on a perpetual upgrade cycle is the backward incompatibility in Microsoft's products. Once a small number of users adopt a new version of a Microsoft product all other users are pressured to upgrade lest they are unable to interact with files produced by the newer program. Dan Martinez summed up the situation created with the incompatibility in subsequent versions of Word when he said "while we're on the subject of file formats, let's pause for a moment in frank admiration of the way in which Microsoft brazenly built backward-incompatibility into its product. By initially making it virtually impossible to maintain a heterogenous environment of Word 95 and Word 97 systems, Microsoft offered its customers that most eloquent of arguments for upgrading: the delicate sound of a revolver being cocked somewhere just out of sight." (cited from the quote file) For a more detailed lament of how Microsoft likes to pressure its customers to keep buying the same product over and over by using backward incompatibility, see Zeid Nasser's page on 'Forced upgrading,' in the World of Word.
-
The "Backwards Compatibility" issue is all the rage at ISO, with the September vote on MS OOXML just a month away.
Microsoft and Sun (We've Been Had!) are arguing that ISO should approve MS OOXML (Microsoft OfficeOpenXML) because OOXML offers a backwards compatibility with the legacy of existing billions of binary documents.
This oft sighted history of Microsoft's reprehensible business practices is worth citing once again before the nations of the world go down that treacherous path towards ratifying Microsoft's proprietary systems and products as international standards.
5More
fr0mat.net: PLUGIN: Default to ODF - 0 views
-
This permits individuals & organizations to configure their PCs to open, save and work primarily in the ISO OpenDocument Format.
-
No, it does much more. The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!
- ...1 more comment...
-
No, it does much more. The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!
-
No, it does much more. The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!
-
No, it does much more. The default file setting feature is what will break the monopolists iron grip!
2More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
Microsoft Closer on \'Office Open\' Blessing - 0 views
www.internetnews.com/...3662681
ecma exchange iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml sharepoint vista xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
Opponents to OOXML, which include IBM (Quote) and the Open Document Foundation, have argued that Microsoft's specifications are unwieldy and that the standard application is redundant with the Open Document Format (ODF), which already exists. Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote in an open letter published earlier this month.
-
Internet News is reporting that Ecma has submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 their repsonsess to the 20 "fast track" for Ecma 376 (OOXML) objections. Nothing but blue skies and steady breeze at their back for our friends at Redmond, according to Ecma's rubber stamper in chief, Jan van den Beld.
Once again there is that ever present drum beat from Microsoft that ODF can't handle MSOffice and legacy MSOffice features - including but not mentioned the conversion to XML of those infamous billions of binary documents:
"Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address diffe
2More
Opportunity Knocks - 0 views
-
With the news that another state–California–is considering adopting open standard XML-based file formats for office documents (which could be interpreted to mandate ODF), and the continued march of governments around the world to ODF (ISO/IEC 26300:2006), their poorly-done translator is not likely to meet the standard. For one thing, it “bolts” ODF capability on, rather than building it in as a fully-native peer format. it also uses XSLT to attempt the translation when OOXML’s design is not fully usable with XSLT. I cannot see how they could have created a more error-prone method to do the conversions. This could potentially cause Microsoft’s office applications suite to be expelled from government agencies and their employees and contractors.
-
Count on Walt Hucks to nail it every time. Once again he comes through with another gem, commenting on the Mary Jo Foley interview with the slippery Tom Robertson, General Manager of laugh out loud "Interoperabiltiy and Standards" for Microsoft. I kid you not.
Microsoft describes their highly proprietary and self serving implementation of interoperbiltiy as, "Interoperability by design". Which means, only those applications, systems and services designed by Microsoft will have the needed interoperability consumers must have to make sense of the many volumes of information and information processes that drive critical day to day workflows.
Now with Ecma 376, we have a clear example of Microsoft "Standards by Design". Very sad, but it's our lot in life.
Thanks Walt, once again a great commentary,
~ge~
7More
untitled - 0 views
-
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.
53More
shared by Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
- Cached
Doug Mahugh : Standards-Based Interoperability - 0 views
blogs.msdn.com/...ds-based-interoperability.aspx
interop standard ODF OOXML Excel spreadsheet OpenFormula
shared by Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
- Cached
-
Standards-Based Interoperability
-
05 June 09
-
Interoperability without Standards
- ...46 more annotations...
-
First, let’s consider how software interoperability works when it is not standards-based. Consider the various ways that four applications can share data, as shown in the diagram to the right. There are six connections between these four applications, and each connection can be traversed in either direction, so there are 12 total types of interoperability involved.
-
As the number of applications increases, this complexity grows rapidly. Double the number of applications to 8 total, and there will be 56 types of interoperability between them:
-
through standards maintenance, transparency of implementation details, and collaborative interoperability testing.
-
-
Here’s where those workarounds will need to be implemented: Note the complexity of this diagram.
-
In the real world, interoperability is almost never achieved in this way. Standards-based interoperability is much better approach for everyone involved,
-
whether that standard is an open one such as ODF (IS26300)
-
or a de-facto standard set by one popular implementation.
-
or Open XML (IS29500)
-
The core premise of open standards-based interoperability is this:
-
each application implements the published standard as written, and this provides a baseline for delivering interoperability.
-
the existence of a standard addresses many of the issues involved, and the other issues can be addressed
-
In the standards-based scenario, the standard itself is the central mechanism for enabling interoperability between implementations: This diagram is much simpler
-
there is no question that users of other products are massively surprised by
-
How this all applies to Office 2007 SP2 I covered last summer the set of guiding principles that we used to guide the work we did to support ODF in Office 2007 SP2.
-
applied in a specific order
-
I’d like to revisit the top two guiding principles
-
Guiding Principle #1: Adhere to the ODF 1.1 Standard
-
Guiding Principle #2: Be Predictable
-
Being predictable is also known as the principle of least astonishment.
-
What about Bugs and Deviations? Of course, the existence of a published standard doesn’t prevent interoperability bugs from occurring.
-
deviations from the requirements
-
different interpretations
-
Our approach to the transparency issue has been to document the details of our implementation through published implementer notes.
-
Interoperability Testing The final piece of the puzzle is hands-on testing
-
What else would you like to know about how Office approaches document format interoperability?
-
a standard (evolved and improved as reality demands) is the proper foundation for resolving interoperabilty
-
All complex software has bugs, and some bugs can present significant challenges to interoperability. Let’s consider the case that 3 of the 4 applications have bugs that affect interoperability, as shown in the diagram to the right.
-
(1) their spreadsheets having their formulas lost when interchanged with Excel 2007
-
(2) not being able to handle the formulase received in Excel 2007's ODF output.
-
I am creating my own fantasy about the state of affairs
-
-
it is far too early to declare it to be unsuccessful
-
I cannot fault the Microsoft approach as incorrect
-
I was at the year-ago DII meeting where the guiding principles were announced and their application to spreadsheet formulas described. I applauded the principles and understood the reasoning for formulas.
-
How this would impact various groups of users and non-users (who still want to interoperate) of Office 2007 did not surface in my consciousness.
-
there is NO published standard for ODF spreadsheet formulas yet.
-
Nor is there any de-facto standard that everyone agrees on.
-
the “spaghetti diagram" method, with all of the complexity and risk of bugs that entails
-
No implementer we know of has attempted that
-
In the case of spreadsheet formulas, help is on the way -- OpenFormula is under development for use with ODF 1.2.
-
I’d like to keep this thread on-topic
-
I appreciate the post, very good
-
Visually I would rather frame it in terms of convergence, a spiral.
-
and user satisfaction.
-
I doubt someone would ever find a magic bullet to interoperability
-
New Comments to this post are disabled
-
-
© 2009 Microsoft Corporation
1More
OASIS ODF: List Proposal Enhancement Vote Deadline on Wednesday | Gary Edwards - 0 views
-
Thanks to Paul for digging this up. Who would have guessed that years later, these same issues hang like a dark shroud on the future of ODF? Note also that June 1st of 2007 was the cut off date for ODF 1.2 proposals and recommendations. The OpenFormula and Metadata SC's were rushing to make the cutoff. The List Enhancement proposal itself was just one of many enhancements submitted by Florian Reuter in November of 2006, designed to greatly improve ODF compatibility with MSOffice "ODF". By November of 2006, thanks largely to the Massachusetts Pilot Study, there were a number of ODF plug-ins for MSOffice. All were capable of producing perfectly compliant ISO 26300 ODF, but falling far short of public expectations of high fidelity interop with OpenOffice ODF. Sound familiar? Everyone knew that it was only a matter of time before Microsoft was pressed into providing MSOffice ODF support. There was no doubt that they would face the exact same interop challenges as the many independent plug-in efforts. Hence the stepped up efforts by many at the OASIS ODF to "fix" ISO 26300! At the time of the List Enhancement Proposal, we had increasing evidence from the many pilot studies that ODF was impossible to implement in business and workgroup environments where the MSOffice productivity environment was the defining platform. ODF was not designed to be compatible with MSOffice or the binary documents so critical to business processes bound to this environment. OpenXML was designed exactly to be compatible with these environments. Unless ODF fixed it's compatibility/interoperability problems there was no way for the independent plug-ins to provide a reasonable ODF implementation alternative to OpenXML. And even if Microsoft did produce an MSOffice ODF compliant with ISO 26300, these productivity environments would remain entirely locked. The world expected ODF to be compatible, interoperable, Web ready, and fully capable of cracking open the iron grip Mic
1More
Patent Ruling Against Microsoft Hinges on Meaning of Custom XML - 0 views
-
Marbux discovered this gem, joining the argument with an insightful but disagreeing post. I however agreed with the articles author, Jeff Cogswell, that both the judge and jury confused the XML pane feature set with metacode mapping claims in the now infamous i4i 449 patent. If Marbux is right, then HTML-CSS, ODF, and RDF/XML-RDFa are also infringing on this patent. Which i4i claims is not the case. Except: Here's one part of the ruling: ... Microsoft Corporation is hereby permanently enjoined from ... selling, offering to sell ... any Infringing and Future Word Products that have the capability of opening a .XML, .DOCX, or .DOCM file ("an XML file") containing custom XML. The odd wording here is "custom XML," which appears several times in the ruling. Based on the comments in response to eWEEK's articles on the ruling, as well as comments I've seen elsewhere, a great deal of people think the problem was that Microsoft uses XML as its format. But that isn't the case. The ruling focuses on the use of custom XML. The ruling is not about the fact that Word uses XML. If it did, there would be a worldwide disaster, considering how prevalent XML is. But what exactly is custom XML? To start with, let's look at the claims of the patent itself and try to make a connection. The patent, which was written back in 1994, covers a new way of providing formatting in a word processing program. To understand the claims of the patent, it's important to note the distinction between what the inventors call content and what are called metacodes (which are ultimately formatting codes).
1More
Sun-Oracle Merger Looks Bright for OpenOffice, MySQL - Reviews by PC Magazine - 3 views
-
Like most people i've been looking for a clear statement from Oracle concerning the future of MySQL and OpenOffice. Although the title is promising, this article is short on facts, long on speculation and actually raises more doubts than it answers questions. Some of the "assumptions" made by the author, Samara Lynn, are incredible. And apparently unfounded. I'll highlight with diigo the hyperbole statements. Maybe someone else has the answers? And where was Phil Boutros? intro: Although eclipsed by Apple's iPad announcement, Oracle announced yesterday its intentions with Sun products, now that the acquisition of Sun Microsystems is complete. The announcement, which was actually a planned webcast, reassured those worried over the fate of two open-source Sun products for small business: the database software, MySQL and the productivity suite, OpenOffice.org. The acquisition might make MySQL and OpenOffice.org even more competitive against costly Microsoft counterparts (SQL Server and Microsoft Office).
Online Threats and Dangers - 1 views
1More
shared by Gary Edwards on 28 Oct 09
- Cached
Gray Matter : Office and SharePoint 2010 Highlights from SharePoint Conference - 0 views
blogs.technet.com/...rom-sharepoint-conference.aspx
MSOffice-productivity msoffice-2010 sharepoint unified-productivity
shared by Gary Edwards on 28 Oct 09
- Cached
-
If there were any doubts left as to how far along Microsoft is in their efforts to create a proprietary version of the Web for Office Productivity and Business Systems, the recent SharePoint Conference should put these doubts to rest. excerpt: InfoPath 2010 and InfoPath Forms Services ....... Forms capability in Office and SharePoint is maturing rapidly. With the inclusion of BCS in SharePoint 2010 and Office 2010, InfoPath becomes even more powerful as a tool for aggregating, presenting and gathering information. Why? - People are now discovering how easy it is to bind BCS entities to a SharePoint list, and then present that list data to users in a rich InfoPath form. Because InfoPath does a great job of making complex data interaction simple for end users, it is becoming a critical component of LOB solutions managed in the SharePoint environment. Surfacing InfoPath solutions via the browser, InfoPath mobile forms, through Outlook, SharePoint Workspace or other interfaces makes the rich InfoPath experience portable and flexible. People on the floor certainly responded positively; InfoPath was a smashing success. Visit the InfoPath team blog to read about some of the solutions they were previewing. Below is an excerpt from the post:
3More
Blogger: An Antic Disposition - Post a Comment - 0 views
-
-
"practical purposes", "reference implementation" - guys, why not just cut the crap and state you want to use OpenOffice (or MS Office) or whatever? Could it be that's ... not allowed?
-
-
The New York State "OASIS approval is good enough for us" position has considerable tension with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ("ATBT") ratified by the U.S. pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agremeents Act, 19 U.S.C. 2503 and Presidential signature, and are therefore "the law of this land." Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 226 (1996). Relevant ATBT provisions are Article 2.4 (member nations must use appropriate international standards where they exist or parts of them as their technical regulations; I don't see an applicable exception); and 3.1 (member nations required to take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure compliance by "local government and non-governmental bodies within their territories" with the provisions of Article 2). http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm New York State is a "local government" within the meaning of the ATBT. Likewise, a New York State decision to adopt a standard for its internal use is a technical regulation. See definition 1 in ATBT Annex 1 and the holding in regard to the term's meaning by the WTO Appellate Council in the case of EC Asbestos, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm (para. 66-70 in the HTML version). Given that we have two relevant international standards, ISO/IEC:26300 and ISO/IEC:29500, it would seem that legally, mere "OASIS approval is [NOT] good enough" for New York State. Some people just don't get that the ATBT was intended to force government action to remove unnecessary obstacles to international trade (such as interoperability barriers) rather than just to rubber-stamp the status quo ante. The Feds have the enforcement responsibility here. -
Re "reference implementation," if you check this video of a Rob Weir presentation, at about 44 minutes, he states: " "ISO doesn't have the concept of a reference implementation." http://ooocon-kiberpipa.kiberpipa.org/media/index-2007.html#ODF_Interoperability_Robert_Weir But if you check his slides from the same presentation, at slide 22 we find, "Let's work to make OpenOffice.org be the full reference implementation for ODF!" http://www.robweir.com/blog/publications/Interoperability-Barcelona.pdf An ODF "reference implementation" controlled by a single vendor, Sun Microsystems, through its padlock on the code commit rights? Sounds like a moving interoperability target to me that a standards development organization has no control of. Not ISO. Not OASIS. The implementation tail should wag the standard dog according to Weir. Too bad New York State fell for that piece of baloney.
1More
Online brochure maker by pub HTML5 is available online for everyone - WhaTech - 0 views
-
"The press release introduces detailed capabilities of PUB HTML5's online brochure maker. The software is developed for people to prepare brochures online easily. PUB HTML5 is a leading publishing destination suitable for business owners, non-profit organizations as well as individuals. Whether you have a small scale business or a huge multinational company, you can certainly depend on PUB HTML5 for digital publishing. it is an open access HTML5 Digital Publishing Platform that allows you to convert PDF, MS Office and Open Office documents to HTML5 and jQuery based publications at no cost at all. These features make your flipbook even more attractive for the customers. Anna Lee, the chief designer of PUB HTML5 has announced a new online brochure maker (http://pubhtml5.com/digital-brochures-maker). it would make brochure designing simpler for the users. With the help of this software, you will be able to customize your catalogs, brochures and magazines online. More than six lakh users rely on PUB HTML5 for online publishing. The content published using the software program is compatible with all leading computers, laptops, tablets and mobile interfaces. Operating Systems like Android, iOS and Windows 8 also support this software quite well."
4More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats - 0 views
www.computerworld.com/...article.do
california davinci interop iso massachusetts oasis odef odf ooxml opendocument politics xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats Eric Lai and Gregg Keizer document.write(''); if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Gecko")==-1) { document.write(''); } document.write(''); if (document.getElementById('dclk999')) { document.getElementById('dclk999').src = 'http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/idg.us.cpw.desktopapplications/index;pos=imu;tile=3;sz=336x280;ord=' + ord + '?'; } document.write(''); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write('');} June 03, 2007 (Computerworld)
-
Keeping it private The other problem, Mathers said, was the jargon-laden disinformation that committee members felt they were being fed by lobbyists for both IBM and Microsoft. Although lobbyists would tell the committee one thing in private, they got cold feet when asked to verify the information publicly, under oath. "Suddenly, nobody wanted to sign witness affirmation forms and testify," he said. That undermined the credibility of each side, but it particularly damaged the position of ODF proponents. After Wyne testified publicly that in Massachusetts, only a handful of computers had thus far been converted over to using ODF, IBM declined to dispute her claims, Mathers said -- despite having earlier given "gleaming" reports on the progress of ODF in Massachusetts. "That's when I really started to question the whole bill," he said.
-
Uh Oh. They got IBM dead to rights in Massachusetts. I guess the truth about Massachusetts will be told! Finally. ODF failed in Massachusetts because there isn't a reasonable means of implementing ODF. Same in California.
-
A must read. And yes, the ODF Vendors are the reason ODF lost. They didn't provide useful solutions. In fact, the applicaitons they proposed were seen by government CIO's as cstly and disruptive "rip out and replace" non starters. In California, CIO's asked if it was even possible to implement ODF!!!
3More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
What will it be for ODF? Continuation of limited interop? Or a transition to Universa... - 0 views
lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00072.html
cdf conformance-clause interoperability marbux metadata odf odf-tc ooxml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
-
Preserving metadata! Preserving application specific information. Preserving "unknown" information inside of a document
-
-
Unless we add conformance requirements for the preservation of metadata and processing instructions, the less featureful apps will never be able to round-trip documents with the more featureful apps. Our language should require that. Personally, I believe that the software-as-an-end-point client-side office suites are dinosaurs at the end of their era. They are being finished off by a thousand cuts as users spend less and less time using them and more and more time using other apps, such as web apps. ODF either develops methods for interoperability among all apps or it will die along with the office suites. E.g., Microsoft knows this and is busily migrating its Office development budget across the Sharepoint/Exchange server hubs to the network. Meanwhile, this TC fiddles with preserving the 1995 software-as-an-endpoint vision.
-
Marbux is clearly at the top of his game here as he hammers the interoperability issue.