Document Wars

Official Statement from the OpenDocument Foundation to OASIS

Official statement from the OpenDocument Foundation on leaving OASIS

An honest misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape! ... A response to David Berlind relating to false claims made by IBM and the W3C regarding direct correspondence concerning CDF being used as an interchange format. Instead of arguing about who said what when, let's just go to the record and see exactly what the W3C's Doug Schepers said to us in an eMail introducing himself. Keep in mind that we did not contact the W3C or Mr. Schepers. The following eMail was most welcome, but entirely unsolicited.

What Web business systems really need are advanced desktop editors capable of producing business process rich compound documents in the language of the Web: HTML5/CSS3/JavaScript........

How Does Word Web App Get Better With Silverlight? Faster load performance, since typically fewer bytes need to be downloaded before showing the document. Improved text fidelity at 100% zoom. This includes better text spacing and rendering. Greatly improved text fidelity at other zoom levels not 100%. Text will respect settings set in cleartype tuner, so you're able to determine how much (if any) cleartype you'd like to see. The cleartype tuner is available on the web for older versions of Windows, and is included in Windows 7. Improved accuracy of hit highlighting in Find.

Microsoft's proposed undertaking for resolving the ECIS complaint to the European Commission regarding its office productivity software can be downloaded from this linked web page. I've given it a quick skim. Didn't see anything in it for anyone but competing big vendors. E.g., no profiling of data formats for interop of less and more featureful implementations, no round-tripping provisions. Still, some major concessions offered.

Standardisation is one of the key facilitators for interoperability of networks, services and equipment. Interoperability in this sense has gained increasing attention and demand inthe market-place. Thus, in response to market-driven needs interoperability is becomingan important requirement in standards projects.This white paper examines the standards development process as well as the actors involved and proposes a set of recommendations in standards development that will help to address interoperability challenges that may occur and can be observed instandardisation. At the same time it provides an agreed industry position on key aspects for standards development. Observing these recommendations - as is done by a lot of actors in standardisation already, including formally established standards setting bodies - may help to increase the level of interoperability in standardisation. This white paper aims at strengthening the awareness to observe interoperability issues at an early stage and make those issues an important consideration as part of the standards-setting process. EICTA's recommendations for the standards development process:

Diagrams here are eye-catching.

Referred from http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fileformat.info%2Fformat%2Fcloud.htm?tab=comment&uname=grahamperrin

Another good article form Michael Hickins, this time linking the success of Google Wave to the success of Microsoft OOXML. Rob Weir jumps in to defend , well, i'm not sure. I did however respond. Excerpt: Developers hoping to hitch a ride on Google's Wave have discovered that Microsoft may have unwittingly helped them resolve the single greatest problem they needed to overcome in order to challenge the dominance of Office. When Microsoft set out to create Office 2007 using a brand new code base - Office Open XML (OOXML) - it needed to accomplish two goals: make it compatible with all previous versions of Office, and have it accepted as a standard file format for productivity tools so that governments could continue using it while complying with rules forcing them to use standards-based software. ..... Depending on your perspective, either Microsoft has sowed the seeds of its own undoing, or international standards bodies succeeded in forcing Microsoft to open itself up. Either way, Microsoft has given away the key to compatibility with Office documents, allowing all comers to overcome the one barrier that has heretofore prevented customers from dumping Microsoft's Office suite.

Glynn Moody, who is quoted in the article, obviously does not understand what was involved in Massachusetts. Sam Hiser, also quoted, was deeply and personally involved. OOXML wasn't even on the horizon then. Microsoft Office 2003 wrote to a flat XML format that was irrelevant in any event. What Massachusetts wanted --- and deserved from the ODF community --- was an ability to integrate OpenOffice.org with business processes that were already thoroughly bound to Microsoft Office. The problem was in fact solved by the OpenDocument Foundation's ODF plug-ins for Microsoft Office, but the project had to be ditched because Sun would neither adapt OOo nor allow ODF to be adapted for the purpose. Gary Edwards and I wrote an in-depth and heavily-referenced article on why ODF failed in Massachusetts. http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/072307-opendocuments-grounded.html (.) Those who do not comprehend that integration of data created by end point solutions and stored in legacy data silos is a fundamental requirement in service oriented architectures will never comprehend why interoperability is so vitally important. They wind up being unwitting advocates of incredibly expensive rip out and replace solutions. Good luck, particularly in the current economic climate. The wonderment is why anyone believes that Microsoft Office can be toppled by ODF from its monopoly position without ultra-high fidelity interoperability with Microsoft Office. Too much "what works well enough for me works well enough for anyone" mindset, I suspect.

This article compliments the previous publication, "The better Office Alternative - Softmaker Office". Good stuff! Excerpt: "It's the question that vexes free open source software advocates and commercial competitors around the globe: Why is Microsoft Office so difficult to dislodge from its perch atop the IT heap? Is it the exclusive bundling deals? The deep Software Assurance entrenchment? Steve Ballmer's backroom deal with the devil?" "The answer, of course, is none of the above (though some evidence of a Microsoft-Hell alliance exists). Rather, it's the Office ecosystem -- the vast library of third-party add-ons and vertical solutions built (with copious encouragement from Microsoft) on Office's extensive programmatic model -- that makes Microsoft's suite so hard to kill."