To be fair, Microsoft seeks to solve real world problems with respect to helping customers glean more value from their information. But the approach depends on enterprises adopting an end-to-end Microsoft stack—vertically from desktop to server and horizontally across desktop and server products. The development glue is .NET Framework, while the informational glue is OOXML.
Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url
18More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
Microsoft Watch Finally Gets it - It's the Business Applications!- Obla De OBA Da - 0 views
www.microsoft-watch.com/...obla_de_oba_da.html
odef odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument vista-stack
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
-
OOXML is the transport - a portable XML document model where the "document" is the interface into content/data/ and media streaming.
The binding model for OOXML is "Smart Documents", and it is proprietary!
Smart Documents is how data, streaming media, scripting-routing-workflow intelligence and metadata is added to any document object.
Think of the ODF binding model using XForms, XML/RDF and RDFA metadata. One could even use Jabber XMP as a binding model, which is how we did the Comcast SOA based Sales and Inventory Management System prototype.
Interestingly, Smart Documents is based on pre written widgets that can simply be dragged, dropped and bound to any document object. The Infopath applicaiton provides a highly visual means for end users to build intelligent self routing forms. But Visual Studio .NET, which was released with MSOffice 2007 in December of 2006. makes it very easy for application and line of business integration developers to implement very advanced data binding using the Smart Document widgets.
I would also go as far to say that what separates MSOOXML from Ecma 376 is going to be primarily Smart Documents.
Yes, there are .NET Framework Libraries and Vista Stack dependencies like XAML that will also provide a proprietary "Vista Stack" only barrier to interoperability, but Smart Documents is a killer.
One company that will be particularly hurt by Smart Documents is Google. The reason is that the business value of Google Search is based on using advanced and closely held proprietary algorithms to provide metadata structure for unstrucutred documents.
This was great for a world awash in unstructured documents. By moving the "XML" structuring of documents down to the author - workgroup - workflow application level though, the world will soon enough be awash in highly structured documents that have end user metadata defining document objects and
-
-
Microsoft seeks to create sales pull along the vertical stack between the desktop and server.
-
The vertical stack is actually desktop - server - device - web based. The idea of a portable XML document is that it must be able to transition across the converged application space of this sweeping stack model.
Note that ODF is intentionally limited to the desktop by it's OASIS Charter statement. One of the primary failings of ODF is that it is not able to be fully implemented in this converged space. OOXML on the other hand was created exactly for this purpose!
So ODF is limited to the desktop, and remains tightly bound to OpenOffice feature sets. OOXML differs in that it is tightly bound to the Vista Stack.
So where is an Open Stack model to turn to?
Good question, and one that will come to haunt us for years to come. Because ODF cannot move into the converged space of desktop to server to device to the web information systems connected through portable docuemnt/data transport, it is unfit as a candidate for Universal File Format.
OOXML is unfi as a UFF becuase it is application - platform and vendor bound.
For those of us who believe in an open and unencumbered universal file format, it's back to the drawing board.
XHTML+ (XHTML + CSS3 + RDF) is looking very good. The challenge is proving that we can build plugins for MSOffice and OpenOffice that can fully implement XHTML+. Can we conver the billions of binary legacy documents and existing MSOffice bound business processes to XHTML+?
I think so. But we can't be sure until the da Vinci proves this conclusively.
One thign to keep in mind though. The internal plugins have already shown that it is possible to do multiple file formats. OOXML, ODF, and XML encoded RTF all have been shown to work, and do so with a level of two way conversion fidelity demanded by existing business processes.
So why not try it with XHTML+, or ODEF (the eXtended version of ODF en
-
-
Microsoft's major XML-based format development priority was backward compatibility with its proprietary Office binary file formats.
-
This backwards compatibility with the existing binary file formats isn't the big deal Micrsoft makes it out to be. ODF 1.0 includes a "Conformance Clause", (Section 1.5) that was designed and included in the specification exactly so that the billions of binary legacy documents could be converted into ODF XML.
The problem with the ODF Conformance Clause is that the leading ODF application, OpenOffice, does not fully support and implement the Conformance Clause.
The only foreign elements supported by OpenOffice are paragraphs and text spans. Critically important structural document characteristics such as lists, fields, tables, sections and page breaks are not supported!
This leads to a serious drop in conversion fidelity wherever MS binaries are converted to OpenOffice ODF.
Note that OpenOffice ODF is very different from MSOffice ODF, as implemented by internal conversion plugins like da Vinci. KOffice ODF and Googel Docs ODF are all different ODF implementations. Because there are so many different ways to implement ODF, and still have "conforming" ODF documents, there is much truth to the statement that ODF has zero interoperabiltiy.
It's also true that OOXML has optional implementation areas. With ODF we call these "optional" implementation areas "interoperabiltiy break points" because this is exactly where the document exchange presentation fidelity breaks down, leaving the dominant market ODF applicaiton as the only means of sustaining interoperabiltiy.
With OOXML, the entire Vista Stack - Win32 dependency layer is "optional". No doubt, all MSOffice - Exchange/SharePoint Hub applications will implement the full sweep of proprietary dependencies. This includes the legacy Win32 API dependencies (like VML, EMF, EMF +), and the emerging Vista Stack dependencies that include Smart Documents, XAML, .NET 3.0 Libraries, and DrawingML.
MSOffice 2007 i
-
- ...6 more annotations...
-
Microsoft's backwards compatibility priority means the company made XML-based format decisions that compromise the open objectives of XML. Open Office XML is neither open nor XML.
-
True, but a tricky statement given that the proprietary OOXML implementation is "optional". It is theoretically possible to implement Ecma 376 without the prorpietary dependencies of MSOffice - Exchange/SharePoint Hub - Vista Stack "OOXML".
In fact, this was first demonstrated by the legendary document processing - plugin architecture expert, Florian Reuter.
Florian has the unique distinction of being the primary architect for two major plugins: the da Vinci ODF plugin for MSOffice, and, the Novell OOXML Translator plugin for OpenOffice!
It is the Novell OOXML Translator Plugin for OpenOffice that first demonstrated that Ecma 376 could be cleanly implemented without the MSOffice application-platform-vendor specific dependencies we find in every MSOffice OOXML document.
So while Joe is technically correct here, that OOXML is neither open nor XML, there is a caveat. For 95% of all desktops and near 100% of all desktops in a workgroup, Joe's statment holds true. For all practical concerns, that's enough. For Microsoft's vaunted marketing spin machine though, they will make it sound as though OOXML is actually open and application-platform-vendor independent.
-
-
Microsoft got there first to protect Office.
-
No. I disagree. Microsoft needs to move to XML structured documents regardless of what others are doing. The binary document model is simply unable to be useful to any desktop- to server- to device- to the web- transport!
Many wonder what Microsoft's SOA strategy is. Well, it's this: the Vista Stack based on OOXML-Smart Documents-.NET.
The thing is, Microsoft could not afford to market a SOA solution until all the proprietary solutions of the Vista Stack were in place.
The Vista Stack looks like this:
..... The core :: MSOffice <> OOXML <> IE <> The Exchange/SharePoint Hub
..... The services :: E/S HUb <> MS SQL Server <> MS Dynamics <> MS Live <> MS Active Directory Server <> MSOffice RC Front End
The key to the stack is the OOXML-Smart Documents capture of EXISTING MSOffice bound business processes and documents.
The trick for Microsoft is to migrate these existing business processes and documents to the E/S Hub where line of business developers can re engineer aging desktop LOB apps.
The productivity gains that can be had through this migration to the E/S Hub are extraordinary.
A little over a year ago an E/S Hub verticle market application called "Agent Achieve" came out for the real estate industry. AA competed against a legacy of twenty years of contact management based - MLS data connected desktop shrinkware applications. (MLS-Multiple Listing Service)
These traditional desktop client/server productivity apps defined the real estate business process as far as it could be said to be "digital". For the most part, the real estate transaction industry remains a paper driven process. The desktop stuff was only useful for managing clients and lead prospecting. No one could crack the electronic documents - electonic business transaction model. This will no doubt change with the emer
-
-
Microsoft can offer businesses many of the informational sharing and mining benefits associated with the markup language while leveraging Office and supporting desktop and server products as the primary consumption conduit.
-
Okay, now Joe has the Micrsoft SOA bull by the horns. Why doesn't he wrestle the monster down?
-
-
By adapting XML
-
The requirements of these E/S Hub systems are XP, XP MSOffice 2003 Professional, Exchange Server with OWL (Outlook on the Web) , SharePoint Server, Active Directory Server, and at least four MS SQL Servers!
In Arpil of 2006, Microsoft issued a harsh and sudden End-of-Life for all Windows 2000 - MSOffice 2000 systems in the real estate industry (although many industries were similarly impacted). What happened is that on a Friday afternoon, just prior to a big open house weekend, Microsoft issued a security patch for all Exchange systems. Once the patch was installed, end users needed IE 7.0 to connect to the Exchange Server Systems.
Since there is no IE 7.0 made for Windows 2000, those users relying on E/S Hub applications, which was the entire industry, suddenly found themselves disconnected and near out of business.
Amazingly, not a single user complained! Rather than getting pissed at Microsoft for the sudden and very disruptive EOL, the real estate users simply ran out to buy new XP-MSOffice 2003 systems. It was all done under the rational that to be competitive, you have to keep up with technology systems.
Amazing. But it also goes to show how powerfully productive the E/S Hub applications can be. This wouldn't have happened if the E/S Hub applications didn't have a very high productivity value.
When we visited Massachusetts in June of 2006, to demonstrate and test the da Vinci ODF plugin for MSOffice, we found them purchasing en mass E/S Hubs! These are ODF killers! Yet Microsoft sales people had convinced Massachusetts ITD that Exchange/SahrePoint was a simple to use eMail-calendar-portal system. Not a threat to anyone!
The truth is that in the E/S Hub ecosystem, OOXML is THE TRANSPORT. ODF is a poor, second class attachment of no use at the application - document processing chain level.
Even if Massachusetts had mandated ODF, they were only one E/S Hub Court Doc
-
-
Microsoft will vie for the whole business software stack, a strategy that I believe will be indisputable by early 2009 at the latest.
-
Finally, someone who understands the grand strategy of levergaing the desktop monopoly into the converged space of server, device and web information systems.
What Joe isn't watching is the way the Exchange/SharePoint Server connects to MS SQL Server, Active Directory Server, MS LIve and MS Dynamics.
Also, Joe does not see the connection between OOXML as the portable XML document/data transport, and the insidiously proprietary Smart Documents metadata - data binding system that totally separates MSOOXML from Ecma 376 OOXML!
-
-
I'm convinced that Office as a platform is an eventual dead end. But Microsoft is going to lead lots of customers and partners down that platform path.
-
Yes, but the new platform for busines process development is that of MSOffice <> Exchange/SharePoint Hub.
The OOXML-Smart Docs transport replaces the old binary document with OLE and VBA Scripts and Macros functionality. Which, for the sake of brevity we can call the lead Win32 API dependencies.
One substantial difference is that OOXML-Smart Docs is Vista Stack ready, while the Win32 API dependencies were desktop bound.
Another way of looking at this is to see that the old MSOffice platform was great for desktop application integration. As long as the complete Win32 API was available (Windows + MSOffice + VBA run times), this platform was great for workgroups. The Line of Business integrated apps were among the most brittle of all client/server efforts, bu they were the best for that generation.
The Internet offers everyone a new way of integrating data, content and streaming media. Web applications are capable of loosly coupled serving and consuming of other application services. Back end systems can serve up data in a number of ways: web services as SOAP, web services as AJAX/REST, or XML data streams as in HTTPXMLRequest or Jabber P2P model.
On the web services consumption side, it looks like AJAX/REST will be the block buster choice, if the governance and security issues can be managed.
Into this SOA mash Microsoft will push with a sweeping integrated stack model. Since the Smart Docs part of the OOXML-Samrt Docs transport equation is totally proprietary, but used throughout the Vista Stack, it will provide Microsoft with an effective customer lockin - OSS lockout point.
-
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).
4More
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
Slashdot | Pro-ODF Legislation Loses In Six States - 0 views
it.slashdot.org/article.pl
california davinci interop iso massachusetts oasis odef odf ooxml opendocument politics xml
shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
- Cached
-
If this is the case then it greatly increases the scope of the bill from being a simple switch from MS Office to OpenOffice to a massive effort involving the definition of many new XML schemata, developing, testing and debugging software to handle the new schemata, creation of documentation, deployment of and training for the new software, etc., etc.
-
Another document format is not needed. This was already obvious before blogs took off, but to be promoting now is unforgivably stupid and irresponsible. Try and explain to an average person why all the typing they just did cannot even be viewed in a Web browser, they will not get it. Saving the user's typing as DOC or ODF is a con. The storage of text, styled text, graphics, photos, even movies (MPEG-4 H.264-AAC) has been solved. Your document format is ready it is HTML 4.01 Strict, CSS 2.1, and JS 1.5, there is nothing in the 1980's technology of MS Word that cannot be stored this way.
-
Bravo! Here's someone who gets it. XHTML + CSS3 + RDFa + RDF/XML is the winner. ODF is tied to OpenOffice, Sun's machiavellian monopolist machinations, and bound to a desktop only implementation range that is so retro 1995. MOOXML of course is bound to the MS Vista Stack, where desktop, server, device and web informaiton are all interoperable if only your speak perfect MOOXML, XAML, Smart Tags, and .NET
-
-
Incredible. The tile alone says it all. And the poster commenting on IBM and secret disaster that happened in Massachusetts has it right. I wonder who that commenter is anyway?
1More
The MSOffice 2007 XML Extension Pack :: Business Process binding on steroids - 0 views
-
This is a screen shot of the new business process interface for MSOffice 2007. Writing add-ons, scripts, and line of business integration apps was never so easy. This is also how Smart Document based metadate, data binding, services binding, and workflow binding can quickly be added to any document object. Very cool. The ODF alternative to the highly proprietary Smart Documents functionality is the open XForms implementation model and, the new Metadata RDF/XML RDFa enhancements. True to form, ODF has chosen to reuse existing W3C standards. Smart Documents is proprietary, and it is set to be a Lotus Notes "intelligent document" killer. It's also the way Microsoft will slam the door on Google search. The Smart Documents metadata model will provide Microsoft network share croppers with the kind of search, re-use and re-purpose tools Googlers only dream about.
2More
Home - Berkman Center for Internet & Society - 0 views
-
There were 5 successive Roundtables. Each roundtable was led by 5 short presentations before the topic was opened to the floor for general discussion. The first roundtable focused on "What is ODF, and why are open document standards important". There were many questions regarding how open standards affect competition and innovation, whether ODF is in fact the best standard, issues of archiving and interoperability with ODF as well as how ODF addresses/will address concerns of accessibility for disabled persons. The second Roundtable discussed how various software developers were responding to ODF and the third roundtable focused on whether governments or non-governmental and consumer organizations should systematically use procurement policy to promote ODF. The following roundtable was a lively discussion on whether national or global "agreements" can play a role in promoting ODF and how. During that roundtable as well as the last one on "Reflections and next steps", there were discussions of future work and strategies on ODF in a new international forum, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to be held in Athens, Greece, October 30 - November 3, 2006.
-
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School held an Open Document Conference, October 23rd, 2006. Just a few weeks after the October 4th, 2006 resignation of Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez. This is the summary report of organizer Manon Ress. Sam Hiser represented the OpenDocument Foundation. The ZERO Interop problems that plague ODF implementation were not discussed. Strangely :) Another point not discussed is the fact that ODF is not an Internet file format. It's a desktop office suite only format. This constraint is written into the ODF charter. Interestingly, one of the problems of making ODF Web ready is that of highjacked W3C standards. Highjacking occurs when a specification or application takes existing W3C standards and changes the namespace reference to it's own. This is what ODF does. The reason for doing this is to constrain and limit the W3C standard to just those aspects implemented by the ODF reference application, OpenOffice. XForms, SVG, SMiL, XHTML, RDF/XML and RDFa are problematic examples of W3C namespaces that have been highjacked by ODF to meet the specific implementation constraints of OpenOffice. This impacts developers who rely on standard libraires to do conversions and processing. The libraries are built to the proper W3C namespace, and unfortunately assume that ODF complies. It doesn't, So developers have to investigate how OpenOffic eimplements XForms and SVG, and build special ODF libraries before they can use ODF on the Web. It can be done, i think. But it's a train wreck of a mess guaranteed to destroy the high level of web interoperability users and developers expect.
-
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
-
4More
Is ODF designed to be not implementable without source code? - Wouter - 0 views
-
How come I am the one to notice how deficient ODF really is?
-
-
Exactly! It's not that ODF is under-specified. It's that ODF can't be fully specified until OpenOffice is completely documented and capable of supporting expected features. There is this famous quote from Sun's Svante Schubert that pretty much says it all; "Nothing goes into the ODF specification unless it's supported by OpenOffice". The statement was made at a meeting of the OASIS ODF Metadata SC while discussing the controversial use of "XML ID". IBM's Elias Torres, of RDFa fame, was passionately arguing that use of the XML ID should be left open to all developers. Sun had taken the position that XML ID should be limited to only a handful of elements supported by OpenOffice. The discussion acutally got far worse than the quote would indicate. Elias compromised his arguments suggesting that we should allow developers to have at it with XML ID for at least one year, and then revisit the issue. This suggestion lead to a discussion of how developers implementing elements with metadata would notify the metadata sub committee of their use case. A discussion list was proposed. The idea being that developers would send in their use cases and the oligarchs on the sub c would approve or disprove. Incredibly, this suggestions was shot down by Bruce d'Arcus (OpenDocument Foundation). Bruce thought that any developer needing metadata support for particular elements should have to join the OASIS ODF Metadata SC like everyone else before their needs would be considered. ( i.e. - like the other oligarchs). At the next weeks meeting, Rob Weir showed up with a list of 14 spreadsheet related elements that IBM needed XML ID support for. Sun representatives Svante Schubert and Michael Brauer immediately approved the use, agreeing that OpenOffice would support that implementation. This how things work at OASIS ODF. Ever wonder why SVG or XForms support in ODF is so limited? It's because the specification directly reflects the limits of the OpenOffice implement
-
Sorry. Diigo cut my comment off about half way through. I've complained to Wade and Maggie about this problem, especially how it impacts and cripples the "Group Auto-Blog Post" feature . Months have gone by. Yet still the issue remains.