Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Document Wars
Rss Feed
Sort By: Most Recent | Popular Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jesper Lund Stocholm

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

www.groklaw.net/article.php

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09 - Cached
  • The legacy formats are just popped into an OOXML wrapper
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      Funny how often this old canard is brought out. Do people really belive it?
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      I actually think is is - to some extent - true. Apart from stuff like DrawingML, CustomML etc, OOXML is a transformation of the binary stuff and hence in essence the same document format. "Someone" told me the other day that he had knowledge of a company that didn't use the "xml-ness" of OOXMLto manipulate OOXML-files but simply considered them TEXT-files. They could do this because OOXML is very close to the binary formats.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 28 Apr 09
       
      True, but the stuff inside is XML -- I think there's a widespread view that OOXML is a lot of lightly wrapped BLOBs
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      Ok - you are possibly correct. Somehow content in a file called printerSettings.bin seem to attract higher disturbance than base64-encoded, binary attribute values with attribute name "printerSettings"
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 28 Apr 09
       
      Actually, I think the phrase someone coined that "OOXML is just the binary document formats dressed up in angle brackets" fits just fint :o)
  • Whoa, whoa, whoa! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 02:21 AM EDT
  • Whoa, whoa, whoa! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 01 2009 @ 03:17 AM EDT
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Apr 09
     
    It fits just fine for most of the spec but there are also major chunks that include descriptive element and attribute names, for example, the compatibility markup volume. My sense is that these are areas where new features were introduced in Office 2007. But they kind of fly in the face of the Microsoft claims back when that the abbreviated markup was deliberately chosen to maximize execution speed. If so, why isn't all the markup in abbreviated form?
Jesper Lund Stocholm

ECIS zdokumentovalo monopolní chování MS - 0 views

www.abclinuxu.cz/...ovalo-antimonopolni-chovani-ms

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 24 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Řekněme, že jsem to špatně pojmenoval, ale je to totéž o čem mluvíte Vy. Pokud se podíváte např. na http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/01/Embrace-and-extend---SVG-revisited.aspx, tak možná o celé situaci pochopíte víc, než z nějakého příspěvku, který jste silně vytrhnul z kontextu.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 24 Apr 09
       
      I always find it amusing when I am quoted in languages I do not understand a single word of. :o)
Alex Brown

Groklaw - Digging for Truth - 0 views

www.groklaw.net/comment.php

shared by Alex Brown on 22 Apr 09 - Cached
  • I'm convinced they knew about it already, although it's only a guess
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 22 Apr 09
       
      "Reasoning", Groklaw style !
  • the fact that Microsoft would have received a copy
Alex Brown

Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » Blog Archive » News of the Weird (A... - 0 views

standardsandfreedom.net/...news-of-the-weird-april-issue

shared by Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09 - No Cached
  • I just don’t get it
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09
       
      Neither do I: but then this is not the first signal of a less than unanimous attitude towards document formats from the Old Firm.
  • The Durban 2 conference in Geneva makes me think of a bizarre mashup of the first Durban conference and what I experienced at the OOXML BRM
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09
       
      Not the first time somebody seems to have got confused between issues of tynanny and totalitarianism, and ... document formats. What price perspective?
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 21 Apr 09
       
      Actually I didn't know Charles participated in the BRM?
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 21 Apr 09
       
      He didn't - this is something that Andy Updegrove published at the tim too. What price reality?
  • Alex is right. National transposition is a procedural relic. We should get the specs right out of software vendors and just skip this standardization crap that only justifies to pay useless consultants whose status is construed as some kind of impartial judge. This kind of failed processes have led us to believe that standards and norms could be somehow trusted; as it unfortunately turns out, it stops to be true when strongly applied pressure by one large private monopoly meets the weak morals of the ones in charge of ensuring the process is being duly respected. Thank you Alex, for spelling out the truth. Your lack of impartiality and your strange behaviour during the OOXML standardization process have clarified how poorly qualified you are at patronizing others and lecturing on the ISO and other standards bodies’ processes. I wish you good luck for your next job at Microsoft.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 23 Apr 09
       
      Ah, the sound of a dummy being being spat out ...
Alex Brown

Gray Matter : Rethinking ODF leadership - 0 views

blogs.technet.com/...rethinking-odf-leadership.aspx

shared by Alex Brown on 06 May 09 - Cached
  • Is it time for Rob to step down as chair? I think so.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 06 May 09
       
      That's raising the stakes quite a bit ...
Gary Edwards

Cutting corners - the realpolitik of ODF standardisation? - The Wayback Machine Roars R... - 0 views

notes2self.net/...446.aspx

odf interoperability james-clark oasis

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 May 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 08 May 09
     
    From Notes2Self 2006 post we discover once again that ODF Interop problems are not new. Back in early February 2005, top ranking OASIS Executive James Clark made a comment to the OASIS OpenDocument technical Committee about the lack of interoperability for spreadsheet documents:

    ".... I really hope I'm missing something, because, frankly, I'm speechless.  You cannot be serious. You have virtually zero interoperability for spreadsheet documents. OpenDocument has the potential to be extraodinarily valuable and important standard. I urge you not to throw away a huge part of that potential by leaving such a gaping hole in your specification...". Claus Agerskov further commented that this provided a means of creating lock-in (my emphasis)

    "OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets"
Alex Brown

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.
Paul Merrell

Los Angeles Times - latimes.com - 0 views

www.latimes.com/...st12-2009may12,0,5794982.story

antitrust IBM Google DoJ

shared by Paul Merrell on 13 May 09 - Cached
  • The Obama administration put large companies on notice that it would be tougher on mergers and attempts to stifle competition, restoring the type of aggressive antitrust enforcement of the 1990s that led to the landmark government case against Microsoft Corp.
  • Among those likely to feel the heat of federal inquiries are technology companies, such as chip maker Intel Corp., Internet giant Google Inc. and longtime tech leader IBM Corp.
Graham Perrin

Where is there an end of it? | Notes on Document Conformance and Portability #3 - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ormance-and-Portability-3.aspx

shared by Graham Perrin on 13 May 09 - Cached
  • a calm look at some of the issues
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 13 May 09
       
      Still, not all of the subsequent comments are calm…
  • Microsoft’s implementation decision
  • an implementation of ODF which does not interoperate with other available implementations
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • on the face of it
  • in the interests of the users
  • abandoning the “convention”
  • these ODF implementations have limited interoperability
  • more or less
  • unsafe for any mission-critical data
  • ODF implementations can actually cut it,
  • legacy support as an option
  • this interoperability fiasco has been allowed to happen within the context of a standard
  • some real problems with basic spreadsheet interoperability among ODF products using undocumented extensions
  • behave better
  • good news
  • work is underway to fix this problem: ODF 1.2
  • people may disagree in good faith
  • does not, in fact, conform
  • Rob’s statement that “SP2's implementation
  • is mistaken on this point
  • no grounds for complacency about the sufficiency of the ODF specification
  • keen to see defects, such as conformance loopholes, fixed in the next published ODF standard
  • I urge all other true supporters to read the drafts and give feedback to make ODF better for the benefit of everyone
  • Microsoft is the only one of seven main ODF implementations that fail to achieve interoperability in ODF formulas
Graham Perrin

Next round of ODF vs OOXML… « CyberTech Rambler - 0 views

ctrambler.wordpress.com/...next-round-of-odf-vs-ooxml

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
  • approval of an standard that wasn’t ready
  • no one at ISO listened
  • The whole OOXML thing is a collection of mistakes
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • in the time frame taken to approve it
  • by National Body to trust that BRM has influence
  • by BRM for not attending to every concerns of national bodies
  • for not incorporating BRM resolutions in the published standard
  • OOXML is fundamentally intended to document a format for a pre-existing technology and feature set of recent proprietary systems.
  • years for IS29500 to have a really good debugged version
  • years for ODF to have a good, complete debugged version
  • the nature of big standards
  • sad about OOXML meeting
  • Apple, Oracle and British Library did not even bothered to turn up
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    Found myself blocked from commenting on that blog entry for some reason. Here's the comment I tried to post. @ctrambler "Between vendor-heavy or user-heavy, I choose vendor-heavy. It is after all, a office document format designed for office application. Linking with other systems is important, but it is not the ultimate aim." That statement bespeaks lack of familiarity with what an IT standard *IS.* But it is a lack of familiarity shared by all too many who work on IT standards. Standards are about uniformity, not variability. An international standard must by law specify [i] all characteristics [ii] of an identifiable product or group of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms. WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. 66-70, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm And IT standards in particular must "clearly and unambiguously specify all conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, (5th Ed., v. 3.0, 5 April 2007) pg. 145, http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf Absent such specifications, a standard is a standard in name only. A standard is intended to establish a market in standardized goods, creating economic efficiency and competition. This is perhaps most simply illustrated with weights and measures, where a pound of flour must weigh the same regardless which vendor sells the product. But we can also see it in the interoperability context, e.g., with standardized nuts, bolts, and wrenches. Absent sufficient specificity to enable and require interoperability, ODF and OOXML create technical barriers to trade rather than promoting competition. And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a v
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    (continuation). . And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade." http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#articleII So while I agree that linking IT systems may not invariably be the ultimate goal, sufficient specificity in an IT standard to do so is in fact a threshold user and legal requirement. Otherwise, one has vendor lock-in and definition of the standard is controlled by the vendor with the largest market share, not the standard itself. Neither ODF nor OOXML met than threshold for eligibility as international standards and still do not. In both cases, national standardization bodies voted to adopt the standards without paying heed to fundamental legal and user requirements.
Graham Perrin

Front-page: Microsoft now attempts to sabotage ODF - 0 views

www.noooxml.org/...t-now-attempts-to-sabotage-odf

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
Alex Brown

There is no end, but addition: Alex Brown's weblog - SC 34 Meetings, Jeju Island, Korea... - 0 views

www.adjb.net/comments.php

shared by Alex Brown on 12 May 09 - Cached
  • There seems to be a view abroad that to be a friend of ODF one cannot criticise it. This has done enormous damage, I believe, the result of which will become plain over the coming months as implemenations which are strictly conformant will demonstrate non-substitutablity. When this happens the blame will lie at the feet of the specification.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 12 May 09
       
      Oh my prophetic soul!
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    Prophetic indeed, but it didn't even require a crystal ball to see that one coming down the track. There is something about a technical specification that allows the vendor with the largest market share to define it that invites this kind of thing.
Gary Edwards

IBM Wins Pyrrhic Format Battle Over Microsoft | Michael Hickins - 0 views

industry.bnet.com/...c-format-battle-over-microsoft

ge odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 May 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 May 09
     
    Michael Hickins has an interesting angle on the document wars: ...... "By releasing a new service pack for Office that includes support for the open document format (ODF), Microsoft appears to be complying with European demands that it play well with others, while putting to rest accusations by IBM that it is still trying to maintain a monopoly over document formats. But forgive IBM for failing to cheer an apparent victory in its long-running document format war with Microsoft; IBM is busy attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, probably because it's now run out of excuses for failing to capture significant market share against Word and Excel....." I've got two comment below the article: "Hoist on our own petard"
Graham Perrin

Doug Mahugh : 1 + 2 = 1? - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...1-2-1.aspx

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
Graham Perrin liked it
  • five prioritized guiding principles for Office’s ODF implementation
  • When Will Office Support OpenFormula?
  • nobody knows yet when ODF 1.2 will be published as an OASIS or ISO standard
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • risk that the results might not be the same
  • Open XML / ODF Translator Add-Ins for Office can be used with Office 2007 SP2
  • Sun ODF Plugin
  • apparently works with SP2
Gary Edwards

The real state of ODF Interoperability? There is none : Comments from the Northwest P... - 0 views

www.nwprogressive.org/...free-openofficeorg-writer.html

marbux odf ooxml interoperability

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 May 09 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 09 May 09
     
    Marbux nails it again in the comments section of this obscure review. In particular, he sites Shah, Rajiv C. and Kesan, Jay P., Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples (September 2008), Link to paper on SSRN (compatibility fidelity comparisons of ODF implementations testing only a very small set of word processing features). "...Switching documents, I go through similar travails with the published ODF 1.1 specification, using both the PDF and ODT versions. Bottom line: I can't get either document into WordPerfect X3 or X4 using any rich text format. So I convert the document to plain text using Symphony and get my work done. That is the real state of ODF interoperability. There is no such thing. But that does not stop the vested interests from claiming that there is. E.g.:"
Alex Brown

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).
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Front-page: What is the definition of an "existing document"? - 0 views

www.noooxml.org/...nition-of-an-existing-document

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 20 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Can you provide a definition of what an "existing documents" means?
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 20 Apr 09
       
      "Existing documents" refer to both binary Microsoft Office documents as well as ECMA-376 1st Ed. documents.
  • Alex Brown on 20 Apr 09
     
    This is defined in the scope of OOXML: ISO/IEC 29500 defines a set of XML vocabularies for representing word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations. On the one hand, the goal of ISO/IEC 29500 is to be capable of faithfully representing the pre-existing corpus of word-processing documents, spreadsheets and presentations that had been produced by the Microsoft Office applications (from Microsoft Office 97 to Microsoft Office 2008, inclusive) at the date of the creation of ISO/IEC 29500.
Gary Edwards

NYS Open Records Discussion Must Recognize Technical Requirements - 0 views

www.ibiblio.org/...nys-open-records-policy.html

ajax cdf odf ooxml pdf webkit

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Oct 08
     
    While the workgroup failed to decide between "choice" (Microsoft's mantra) and "openness" (the ODF mantra), predictably punting this question to a new Electronic Records Committee, it did issue a number of interesting findings, the most important of which reads as follows: In the office suite format debate, there currently is no compelling solution for the State's openness needs. The State needs open standards and formats. Simultaneously, the State needs electronic records to be preserved in their original formats whenever possible. Many Request for Public Comments commenters, particularly in response to the e-discovery questions, stated preserving a record in the same format as it was created results in a more faithful record and diminishes the possibility of expensive e-discovery disputes. This is important to ensure future generations of New Yorkers can access the permanently valuable electronic records being created today. Moreover, State Archives emphasizes creating records in open formats makes it easier to preserve their essential characteristics and demonstrates they are authentic (i.e., they were created in the course of State government business and have not been altered without proper authorization). I imagine that the workgroup must have found some level of solace in arriving at the one conclusion that all the experts seem to agree on: that electronic documents should be published using the same format in which they are created. If this principle held true for state documents, it would reduce the job of the new Electronic Records Committee to deciding between three alternatives: (1) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in OOXML, (2) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in ODF, or (3) allow each agency to decide which of these formats, OOXML or ODF, they will use in creating and publishing their documents. Unfortunately, this central assumption is incorrect, and adopting it as a basi
« First ‹ Previous 441 - 460 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page