Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items matching "repair" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
2More

GullFOSS - 0 views

blogs.sun.com/...etter_odf_support_in_microsoft
shared by Paul Merrell on 15 May 09 - Cached
  • I normally don't post my ODF Plugin news and information on GullFOSS, but so many people complain (everywhere, including in OOo mailing lists) about the bad ODF support in Microsoft Office 2007 SP2, that I thought it might be a good idea to post some information about the ODF Plugin here... The Sun ODF Plugin for Microsoft Office, which is based on OpenOffice.org, adds support for ODF to Microsoft Office 2000 and newer versions. So you don't have to use the very latest Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 version (in case you really need Microsoft Office for some reason) , where ODF support is insufficient anyway.
  • Paul Merrell on 15 May 09
     
    Like IBM, Sun bad mouths Microsoft ODF support rather than repairing the relevant defects in the ODF specification. This despite no one yet having come forward with an example of non-conformance that withstands scrutiny. So what should have been bug reports filed against the specification is instead wielded as an advertising weapon against competitors. This is simply more "OOo defines what is valid ODF" horse puckey.
7More

Doug Mahugh : Tracked Changes - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...tracked-changes.aspx
shared by Alex Brown on 14 May 09 - Cached
  • Much was made during the IS29500 standards process of the difference in the size of the ODF and Open XML specifications.  This is a good example of where that difference comes from: in this case, a concept glossed over in three vague sentences of the ODF spec gets 17 pages of documentation in the Open XML spec.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 14 May 09
       
      This is the nub; OOXML may be overweight, but ODF is severely undernourished as a spec.
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Alex, I know from your previous writings that you do not regard OOXML as completely specified. But your post might be so misinterpreted. In my view, neither ODF nor OOXML has yet reached the threshold of eligibility as an international standard, completely specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, Annex I. . OOXML is ahead of ODF in some aspects of specificity, but the eligibility finish line remains beyond the horizon for both.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Alex Brown on 14 May 09
     
    Paul, that's right - though so far the faulty things in OOXML turn out to be more round the edges as opposed to ODF's central lapses. Still, it's early days in the examination of OOXML so I'm reserving making any firm call on the comparative merits of the specs until I have read a lot (a lot) more. Is there an area of OOXML you'd say was particularly underbaked? I'm quite interested in the fact that neither of these beasts specify scripting languages ...
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Hi, Alex, Most seriously, there are no profiles and accompanying requirements to enable less featureful apps to round trip documents with more featureful apps, a la W3C Compound Document by Reference Framework. That's an enormous barrier to market entry and interoperability. That defect reacts synergistically with the dearth of semantic conformity requirements, with the incredible number of options including those 500+ identified extension points, and with a compatibility framework for extensions that while a good start leaves implementers far too much discretion in assigning and processing compatibility attributes. There are also major harmonization issues with other standards that get in the way of transformations, where Microsoft originally rolled its own rather than embracing existing open standards. I think it not insignificant that OOXML as a whole is available only under a RAND-Z pledge rather than being available for the entire world. The patent claims need to be identified and worked around or a different rights scheme needs Microsoft management's promulgation. This is a legal interoperability issue as opposed to technical, but an interoperability barrier nonetheless, an "unnecessary obstacle to international trade" in the sense of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. And absent a change by Microsoft in its rights regime, the work-arounds are technical. This is not to suggest that ODF lacks problems in regard to the way it implements standards incorporated by reference. The creation of unique OASIS namespaces rather than doing the needed harmonizing work with the relevant W3C WGs is a large ODF tumor in need of removal and reconstructive surgery. I'm not sure what is happening with the W3C consultation in that regard. I worked a good part of the time over several months comparing ODF and Ecma 376, evaluating their comparative suitability as document exchange formats. I gave up when it climbed well past 100 pages in length because the de
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    1. Full-featured editors available that are capable of not generating application-specific extensions to the formats? 2. Interoperability of conforming implementations mandatory? 3. Interoperability between different IT systems either demonstrable or demonstrated? 4. Profiles developed and required for interoperability? 5. Methodology specified for interoperability between less and more featureful applications? 6. Specifies conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability? 7. Interoperability conformity assessment procedures formally established and validated? 8. Document validation procedures validated? 9. Specifies an interoperability framework? 10. Application-specific extensions classified as non-conformant? 11. Preservation of metadata necessary to achieve interoperability mandatory? 12. XML namespaces for incorporated standards properly implemented? (ODF-only failure because Microsoft didn't incorporate any relevant standards.) 13. Optional feature interop breakpoints eliminated? 14. Scripting language fully specified for embedded scripts? 15. Hooks fully specified for use by embedded scripts? 16. Standard is vendor- and application-neutral? 17. Market requirement -- Capable of converging desktop, server, Web, and mobile device editors and viewers? (OOXML better equipped here, but its patent barrier blocks.)
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Didn't notice that my post before last was chopped at the end until after I had posted the list. Then Diigo stopped responding for a few minutes. Anyway, the list is short summation of my research on the comparative suitabilities of ODF 1.1 and Ecma 376 as document exchange formats, winnowed to the defects they have in common except as noted. The research was never completed because in the political climate of the time, the world wasn't ready to act on the defects. The criteria applied were as objective as I could make them; they were derived from competition law, JTC 1 Directives, and market requirements. I think the list is as good today in regard to IS 29500 as it was then to Ecma 376, although I have not taken an equally deep dive into 29500. You might find the list useful, albeit there is more than a bit of redundancy in it.
2More

RE: [office] ODF 1.2 drafts/Committee Draft Ballot - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00051.html
shared by Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09 - Cached
  • I'm running the version we'll be releasing shortly, which has ODF 1.1 support, and it identifies the problem and offers to repair it
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09
       
      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).
12More

Groklaw - When Would You Use OOXML and When ODF? -- What is OOXML For? - 0 views

www.groklaw.net/article.php
shared by Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09 - Cached
  • If you say Groklaw is an echo chamber, for example, it has insulting connotations
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      It's also true; but never mind
  • Groklaw deserves respect
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      The level of self-delusion here is truly scary
  • on a committee set up to help a national body
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 29 Apr 09
       
      Oh? I'd be interested to know which NB was nuts enough to appoint Groklaw as an advisor!
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • among others
  • Microsoft (and Alex Brown) are working within JTC1/SC34
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 11 Jun 09
       
      Aha, a new line of attack. It is, though, the Countries who want to have the Standard reflect the documents they actually have ...
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Apr 09
     
    The more interesting issue to me is whose voice Groklaw echoes. On the document format war, it's seemed since I stopped contributing articles to Groklaw a few years ago that it is the IBM public relations department's voice being echoed. I'll save for another day the topic of whether the echo chamber is self-delusional or deliberately intended to delude readers.
  • Alex Brown on 29 Apr 09
     
    ... and who it's aimed at. It's not as if Groklaw carries any weight (is it?)
  • Paul Merrell on 30 Apr 09
     
    Groklaw throws a pretty good punch. E.g., it launched ODF vs. Microsoft XML formats as a public issue. The blog is very influential with trade press reporters who are sympathetic to open source software. And Groklaw has done some good reporting, albeit with evident bias. Its chronicles of the SCO vs. IBM and Novell saga is undoubtedly the most thorough out there. But on ODF and OOXML, the coverage has been presented entirely as a black hat/white hat issue, ODF being perfect and designed for interoperability but OOXML as being pure evil. See e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080417104016186 (""If you want true interoperability, you need to implement ODF. Seriously. Any limitations to interoperability are entirely on Microsoft's side of the aisle, and the whole world knows it"). Intended or not, Groklaw justly deserves much credit for forestalling public oversight of the ODF TC's utter failure to deal with interoperability issues effectively and credit for keeping the oversight focus solely on OOXML. You'll find no coverage of ODF bugs on Groklaw, only ODF hugs and kisses. I see the blog as having substantially delayed ODF's repair. Groklaw has an enormous readership and particularly among citizen activists who approach ODF as a political cause rather than as a technical specification. But the Groklaw flavor of ODF v. OOXML propaganda remains consistent with that of IBM VP Bob Sutor.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page