Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged CDF

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Greg McNevin : Open Document Foundation Abandons Namesake, Closes up Shop - 0 views

www.idm.net.au/story.asp

cdf odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Nov 07 - Cached
  • The decision to go with CDF has left some industry commentators scratching their heads, with arstechnica.com’s Ryan Paul noting that the decision is curious as CDF doesn't support “the full range of functionality required for office compatibility”. Paul does add, however, that the formats broad use of formats such as XHTML and SVG does give it a compelling edge.
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Nov 07
     
    The W3C's Chris Lilley, IBM and the lawyer for OASIS have been making quite a bit of noise claiming that CDF doesn't support "the full range of functionality required for office compatibility". 

    This a strange claim, especially when considering IBM as the primary source.  CDF WiCD Full 1.0 is a desktop profile for CDF.  Other profiles include WICD Mobile and WICD Core.  The call for implementations for WICD core, mobile and full went out on Monday, November 12, 2007. 

    To understand cdf, one must first get a handle on the terms used to describe cdf technologies.
    ..... CDF= compound document formats
    ..... CDRF= compound document by reference framework
    ..... WICD = Web Integration Compound Document
    ..... CDR using WICD = Compound Document by Reference using a WICD profile, (Core, Full or Mobile)
    ..... Compound Document by Reference Framework 1.0
    ..... WICD Core 1.0
    ..... WICD Mobile 1.0 Profile
    ..... WICD Full 1.0 Profile

    The WICD Full 1.0 Profile is the "DESKTOP" profile for CDF.
    Some interesting Quotes:

    "WICD Full 1.0 is targeted at desktop agents".

    "The WICD Full 1.0 profile is designed to enable rich multimedia content on desktop and high capability handheld agents."

    From the Compound Document by Reference Use Cases and Requirements Version 1.0 :

    "The capability to view documents with preserved formatting, layout, images and graphics and interactive features such as zooming in and out and multi-page handling."

    "
    <
Gary Edwards

Open Document Foundation Gives Up | Linux Magazine - 0 views

www.linux-magazine.com/...n_document_foundation_gives_up

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 16 Nov 07 - Cached
  • The reasons for the move to CDF was improved compatibility with Microsoft’s OOXML format the foundation claimed at the time. Cris Lilley from W3C contradicted. CDF is not an office format, and thus not an alternative to the Open Document Format. This turn-down is likely the reason for the abrupt ditching of the foundation.
  • Gary Edwards on 16 Nov 07
     
    I've got to give this one extra points for creativity!  All anyone has to do is visit the W3C web sites for CDF WICD Full 1.0 to realize that there is in fact a CDf profile for desktops.  CDF WICD Mobile is the profile for devices.

    My guess is that Chris Lilley is threading the needle here.  IBM, Groklaw, and the lawyer for OASIS have portrayed the Foundation's support for CDF WICD Full as a replacement for ODF - as in native file format for OpenOffice kind of replacement.  Mr. Lilley insists that CDF WiCD Full was not designed for that purpose.  It's for export only!  As in a conversion of native desktop file formats.

    Which is exactly what the da Vinci group was doing with MSOffice.  The Foundation's immediate interest in CDF WICD was based on the assumption that a similar conversion would be possible between OpenOffice ODF and CDF WICD.

    The Foundation's thinking was that if the da Vinci group could convert MSOffice documents and processes to CDF WICD Full, and, a similar conversion of OpenOffice ODF documents and processes to CDF WICD could be done, then near ALL desktop documents could be converted into a highly interoperable web platform ready format.

    Web platform ready documents from OpenOffice?  What's not to like?  And because the conversion between ODF and CDF WICD Full is so comparatively clean, OpenOffice would in effect, (don't go native file format now) become ahighly integrated rich client end user interface to advancing web platforms.

    The Foundation further reasoned that this conversion of OpenOffice ODF to CDF WICD Full would solve many of the extremely problematic interoperability problems that plague ODF.  Once the documents are in CDF WICD Full, they are cloud ready and portable at a level certain to diminish the effects of desktop applications specific feature sets and implementation models.

    In Massachusetts, the Foundation took
Gary Edwards

okay ... seriously now ... what is this supposed to be? - 229 views

Gary Thank you for the insightful (and exhaustive) overview. Question. Would you allow me to publish all or part of your response on my practice management blog at http://dcbalpm.wordpress.com? Or...

OpenDocument

started by mazyar hedayat on 01 Sep 07 3 follow-ups, last by Gary Edwards on 16 Apr 08
Gary Edwards

Behind Putting the OpenDocument Foundation to Bed (without its supper) : Updegroove | L... - 0 views

linux-foundation.org/...tion-to-bed-without-its-supper

cdf foundation marbux odf ooxml updegrove

shared by Gary Edwards on 30 May 08 - Cached
  • CDF is one of the very many useful projects that W3C has been laboring on, but not one that you would have been likely to have heard much about. Until recently, that is, when Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser and Marbux, the management (and perhaps sole remaining members) of the OpenDocument Foundation decided that CDF was the answer to all of the problems that ODF was designed to address. This announcement gave rise to a flurry of press attention that Sam Hiser has collected here. As others (such as Rob Weir) have already documented, these articles gave the OpenDocument Foundation’s position far more attention than it deserved. The most astonishing piece was written by ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley. Early on in her article she stated that, “the ODF camp might unravel before Microsoft’s rival Office Open XML (OOXML) comes up for final international standardization vote early next year.” All because Gary, Sam and Marbux have decided that ODF does not meet their needs. Astonishing indeed, given that there is no available evidence to support such a prediction.
  • Gary Edwards on 30 May 08
     
    Uh?  The ODF failure in Massachusetts doesn't count as evidence that ODF was not designed to be compatible with existing MS documents or interoperable with existing MSOffice applications?

    And it's not just the da Vinci plug-in that failed to implement ODF in Massachusetts!  Nine months later Sun delivered their ODF plug-in for MSOffice to Massachusetts.  The next day, Massachusetts threw in the towel, officially recognizing MS-OOXML (and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in) as a standard format for the future.

    Worse, the Massachusetts recognition of MS-OOXML came just weeks before the September 2nd ISO vote on MS-OOXML.  Why not wait a few more weeks?  After all, Massachusetts had conducted a year long pilot study to implement ODF using ODF desktop office sutie alternatives to MSOffice.  Not only did the rip out and replace approach fail, but they were also unable to integrate OpenOffice ODF desktops into existing MSOffice bound workgroups.

    The year long pilot study was followed by another year long effort trying to implement ODF using the plug-in approach.  That too failed with Sun's ODF plug-in the final candidate to prove the difficulty of implementing ODF in situations where MSOffice workgroups dominate.

    California and the EU-IDABC were closely watching the events in Massachusetts, as was most every CIO in government and private enterprise.  Reasoning that if Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF, California CIO's totally refused IBM and Sun's effort to get a pilot study underway.

    Across the pond, in the aftermath of Massachusetts CIO Louis Guiterrez resignation on October 4th, 2006, the EU-IDABC set about developing their own file format, ODEF.  The Open Document Exchange Format splashed into the public discussion on February 28th, 2007 at the "Open Document Exchange Workshop" held in Berlin, Germany.

    Meanwhile, the Sun ODF plug-in is fl
  • Gary Edwards on 30 May 08
     
    Marbux sets the record straight. These are the facts: Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) ..... http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/4
  • Gary Edwards on 30 May 08
     
    Response from the OpenDocument Foundation setting the record straight. See "copmments" with this bookmark
Gary Edwards

CDF: Computable Document Format for Interactive Content from Wolfram - 0 views

www.wolfram.com/cdf

CDF Wolfram visually-immersive visually-interactive-documents FlipBoard

shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Jul 11 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 22 Jul 11
     
    Introducing the Computable Document Format Today's online documents are like yesterday's paper-flat, lifeless, inactive. Instead, the Computable Document Format (CDF) puts easy-to-author interactivity at its core, empowering readers to drive content and generate results live. Launched by the Wolfram Group, the CDF standard is a computation-powered knowledge container-as everyday as a document, but as interactive as an app. Adopting CDF gives ideas a broad communication pipeline-accelerating research, education, technical development, and progress.
Gary Edwards

CDF: The common format you've never heard of - O'Reilly XML Blog - Flock - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...he_common_format_youve_ne.html

cdf odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 30 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Quick! Do you use the Compound Document Format?! You, know, CDF … surely you use CDF, right? Chances are pretty good that you have no idea about what I’m talking about. Everyone knows Microsoft’s word document format and Adobe’s PDF, chances are pretty good that if you’re reading this on XML.com you’ve heard of ODF and OOXML, especially after the fairly rancorous discussions about ISO status for these two formats. Yet CDF, hmmmm … that’s a rough one. Didn’t it belong to Corel, once upon a time?
  • CDF was in the news recently with the implosion of the Open Document Foundation, originally established to endorse ODF, though in its death throes it briefly highlighted the CDF format as perhaps a better format for documents than either OOXML or ODF. This is admittedly one of those areas where it may be justified in looking at XHTML especially and going “huh”? How can that be a full document format - it’s used for web pages, after all - you wouldn’t want to use it to mark up a full book, would you? Document formats are a lot like religions - people are ready to defend them to the death if need be, yet at the same time it becomes easy to dismiss certain religions that don’t even seem to be religions at all (such as my personal favorite, the rather philosophical Tao). Could you mock up a brochure in XHTML and CSS? Actually, it turns out that its surprisingly easy to do just that - especially if you throw a little SVG into the mix and allow the possibility of embedding XHTML within SVG (for all those odd little bits of rotation and other special effects).
Gary Edwards

ConsortiumInfo.org - Putting the OpenDocument Foundation to Bed (without its supper) - ... - 0 views

www.consortiuminfo.org/...article.php

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 14 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Here's what Chris Lilley had to say, reconstructed from my notes (in other words, this is not a direct quote): So we were in a meeting when these articles about the Foundation and CDF started to appear, and we were really puzzled.&nbsp; CDF isn't anything like ODF at all – it's an "interoperability agreement," mainly focused on two other specifications - XHTML and SVG.&nbsp; You'd need to use another W3C specification, called Web Interactive Compound Document (WICD, pronounced "wicked"), for exporting, and even then you could only view, and not edit the output.&nbsp; The one thing I'd really want your readers to know is that CDF (even together with WICD) was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use, as an office format.&nbsp; Here are some other takeaways from my conversation with Chris: Although they would be welcome to become members, Neither Gary, Sam nor Marbux are members of W3C or the CDF working group The W3C has never been contacted by anyone from the Foundation about CDF.&nbsp; After the articles began appearing, the W3C sent an inquiry to the Foundation, and received only a general reply in response The CDF working group was not chartered to achieve conversion between formats Although he hasn't spent a lot of time trying to unravel what Gary has written on the subject, he can't make any sense out of why the Foundation thinks that CDF makes sense as a substitute for ODF
Gary Edwards

Harmonization and Interop: The dizzying dance of ODF, OOXML, and CDF - 0 views

digg.com/...izzying_dance_of_ODF_OOXML_CDF

cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml uic w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08 - Cached
  • With the ISO BRM fast approaching, the harmonization of ODF and OOXML is all the rage. The legendary marbux takes on this discussion arguing that ODF and OOXML both lack the interoperability framework needed to meet ISO directives describing interop requirements. He argues that interop between MSOffice and OpenOffice can be achieved using CDF.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08
     
    Will the real universal document format please stand up! Comments on the recent article posted by the Universal Interoperability Council: "Putting Andy Updegrove to bed without his supper". The UIC article is well worth your time. It is extremely well referenced and researched. The arguments put forth counter claims by IBM and OASIS that the W3C's CDF format can not be used to represent desktop productivity environment documents. Not surprisingly, IBM and OASIS argue that the OpenOffice specific ODF is the only alternative to Microsoft Office specific OOXML. The UIC argues that the full range of MSOffice legacy binary documents and emerging XML documents can fully be represented in CDF - something that not even the most ardent of ODF jihadists would claim as an ODF capabilitiy. The truth is that ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice binary and xml documents.
Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | All about Microsoft | ZDNet.com - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft

burtongorup cdf css garyedwards maryjo odf okelly ooxml w3c xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • “ODF represents laudable design and standards work. It’s a clean and useful design, but it’s appropriate mostly for relatively unusual scenarios in which full Microsoft Office file format fidelity isn’t a requirement. Overall, ODF addresses only a subset of what most organizations do with productivity applications today.” The report continues: “ODF is insufficient for complex real-world enterprise requirements, and it is indirectly controlled by Sun Microsystems, despite also being an ISO standard. It’s possible that IBM, Novell, and other vendors may be able to put ODF on a more customer-oriented trajectory in the future and more completely integrate it with the W3C content model, but for now ODF should be seen as more of an anti-Microsoft political statement than an objective technology selection.”
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      Mary Jo takes on the recently released Burton Group Report comparing OOXML and ODF. Peter O'Kelly, one of the Burton Group authors, once famously said, "ODF is a great format if you live in an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist!" This observation speaks to the core problem facing ODF and those who seek to implement the ODF standard: ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents. Nor was ODF designed to work with MSOffice applications. Another way of saying this is to state that ODF was not designed to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications and bound processes. The truth is that ODF was designed for OpenOffice/StarOffice. It is an application specific format. Both OOXML and ODF do a good job of separating content from presentation (style). The problem is that the presentation - layout layers of both ODF and OOXML remains bound to specific applications producing it. While the content layers are entirely portable and can be exchanged without information loss, the presentation layers can not. Microsoft makes no bones about the application specific design and purpose of OOXML. It's stated right in the Ecma 376 charter that OOXML was designed to be compatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents in MSOffice specific binary formats. The situation however is much more confusing with ODF. ODF is often promoted as being application, platform and vendor independent. After five years of development though, the OASIS ODF TC has been unable to strip ODF of it's OpenOffice/StarOffice specific aspects. ODF 1.0 - ISO 26300 had three areas that were under specified; meaning these areas were described in syntax only, and lacked the full semantics demanded by interoperable implementations. Only OpenOffice and StarOffice code base applications are able to exchange documents with an acceptable fidelity. The three under specified areas of ODF are: Lists (numbered), F
Gary Edwards

CDF and WICD FAQ - Flock - 0 views

www.w3.org/cdf-faq.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Nov 07 - Cached
  • What is CDF's relationship with ODF and OOXML? They occupy different spaces. ODF and OOXML are office applications formats, while CDF is a W3C Working Group defining a framework for extensibility on the Web. Compound Documents such as WICD may be appropriate as ODF/OOXML export formats for Web presentation.
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Nov 07
     
    Thanks to the CDF Workgroup! 
Gary Edwards

ODF Civil War: Bulll Run - Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - OASIS ODF - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00072.html

metadata odf odf-civil-war ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 07 - Cached
  • From our perspective it would be better to aim for doing the job in ODF 1.2, even if that requires delay. We will oppose ODF 1.2 at ISO unless the interoperability warts are cleaned up. What the market requires is no longer in doubt. See the slides linked above and further presentations linked from this page, &lt; http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474/5935&gt;. Substantial progress toward those goals would seem to be mandatory to maintain Europe's preference for a harmonized set of file formats that uses ODF to provide the common functionality. Delaying commencement of such work enhances the likelihood that governments will tire of waiting for ODF to become interoperable with MS Office and simply go with MOOXML. We may not be able to force Microsoft to participate in the harmonization work, but we will be in a far better position if we have done everything we can in aid of that interoperability without Microsoft's assistance. As the situation stands, we have what is known in the U.S. as a "Mexican stand-off," where neither side has taken a solitary step toward what Europe has requested. We have decided to do that work via a fork of ODF; it is up to this TC whether it wishes to cooperate in that effort.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 07
     
    This is the famous marbux response to Sun regarding Sun's attempt to partially implement ODF 1.2 XML-RDF metadata.  It's a treasure.

    There is one problem with marbux's statement though.  We had decided long ago not to fork ODF even if the five iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals were refused by the OASIS ODF TC.   This assurance was provided to Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez witht he the first ODF iX proposal submitted on July 12th, 2006.  Louis ended up signing off on three iX proposals before his resignation October 4th, 2006.

    The ODF iX enhancements were essential to saving ODF in Massachusetts.  Without them, there was no way our da Vinci plug-in could convert existing MSOffice documents and processes to ODF with the needed round trip fidelity.

    For nearly a year we tried to push through some semblance of the needed iX enhancements.  We also tried to push through a much needed Interoperability Framework, which will be critical to any ISO approval of ODF 1.2.

    Our critics are correct in that every iX effort was defeated, with Sun providing the primary opposition. 

    Still rather than fork ODF, we are simply going to move on. 

    On October 4th, 2006, all work on ODF da Vinci ended - not to be resumed unless and until we had the ODF iX enhancements we needed to crack the MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business process barrier.

    In April of 2007, with our OASIS membership officially shredded by OASIS management, bleeding from the List Enhancement Proposal doonybrook, and totally defeated with our hope - the metadata XML-RDF work, we threw in the towel.

    Since then we've moved on to CDF, the W3C Compound Document format.  Incredibly, CDF is able to do what ODF can not.  With CDF we can solve the three primary problems confronting governments and MSOffice bound workgroups everywhere. 

    The challenge for these g
Gary Edwards

Harmonization Wars : Is it jetlag? | Brian Jones: Open XML- Open Document Formats - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...is-it-jetlag.aspx

harmonization jones odf ooxml opendocument openxml weir

shared by Gary Edwards on 01 Feb 08 - Cached
  • if you actually read the Ecma response, you'll see that TC45's position is actually quite the opposite. Harmonization is not as simple as just adding a few tags here and there. It's going to be a lot of hard work, and the German Standard Body (DIN) is already working on the first step, which is to identify the differences. This isn't something to take lightly. Here is Ecma's full response to this issue (emphasis added): There are currently several XML-based document formats in use, each designed to address a different set of goals or requirements. These include ISO/IEC IS 26300 (ODF), China's UOF, and ECMA-376 (DIS 29500 – Open XML). All these formats have numerous implementations in multiple tools and multiple platforms (Linux, Windows, Mac OS, hand-held devices). The Ecma Response Document from the Fast Track 30-Day contradiction phase for DIS29500 addressed the question of harmonization by explaining the differences between the ODF and Open XML formats as follows:
  • Gary Edwards on 01 Feb 08
     
    Brian Jones responds to Rob Weir's very strange demand that he be put in charge of any harmonization effort involving ODF and OOXML.
    In his response, Brian points to the Ecma official statement in support of harmonization provided in February of 2007. The harmonization response was directed at ISO National Body members objecting to the proposed fast tracking of OOXML.
    In late February -early March of 2007, the EU held an "interoeprability Workshop" in Berlin, Germany.The session was attended by IBM, Sun and Microsoft, as well as Ecma and OASIS.
    The EU took a very hard line position on "harmonization", embracing a position put forward by the French ISO NB group known as AFNOR. The WorkShop was followed by the EU establishment of DIN Workgroup NIA-01-34, headed by the Fraunhoffer Fokus Institute.
    The DIN WG sent out invites to all the major players, with Microsoft and Novell accepting the invitation to particpate in the harmonizatioon effort. IBM and Sun refused the invitation.
    Recently DIN invited the OASIS ODF Technical Committee to join the harmonization effort. The OASIS TC responded by asking Novell developer (and DIN participant) Florian Reuter to act as liaison to DIN. ODF grand puba Rob Weir himself put forward this request.
    Here's the thread: http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200801/msg00040.html
    Now it looks like the grand puba is backtracking! Rob Weir wants to put himself in charge of harmonization. And we all know where that would lead.
    Harmonization will be difficult. It might even be impossible. As indicated by the Ecma statement Brian copiies in his post.
    The dynamics of harmonization are fairly simple to understand; you can't harmonize two application specific formats without also harmonizing the applications. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the presentation layers (styles) of both ODF
Gary Edwards

Barr: What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation? - Linux.com - 0 views

www.linux.com/121034

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Nov 07 - Cached
  • The OpenDocument Foundation, founded five years ago by Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser, and Paul "Buck" Martin (marbux) with the express purpose of representing the OpenDocument format in the "open standards process," has reversed course. It now supports the W3C's Compound Document Format instead of its namesake ODF. Yet why this change of course has occurred is something of a mystery.
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Nov 07
     
    More bad information, accusations and smearing innuendo.  Wrong on the facts,  Emotionally spent on the conclussions.  But wow it's fun to see them with their panties in such a twist.

    The truth is that ODF is a far more "OPEN" standard than MS-OOXML could ever hope to be.  Sam's Open Standards arguments for the past five years remain as relevant today as when he first started makign them so many years ago.

    The thing is, the Open Standards requirements are quite different than the real world Implementation Requirements we tried to meet with ODF.

    The implementation requirements must deal with the reality of a world dominated by MSOffice.  The Open Standards arguments relate to a world as we wish it to be, but is not.

    It's been said by analyst advising real world CIO's that, "ODF is a fine open standards format for an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist".

    If you live in that alternative universe, then ODF is the way to go.  Just download OpenOffice 2.3, and away you go.  Implementation is that easy.

    If however you live in this universe, and must deal with the impossibly difficult problem of converting existing MSOffice documents, applications and processes to ODF, then you're screwed. 

    All the grand Open Standards arguments Sam has made over the years will not change the facts of real world implmentation difficulities.

    The truth is that ODF was not designed to meet the real world implmentation requirements of compatibility with existing Microsoft documents (formats) and, interoperability with existing Microsoft Office applications.

    And then there are the problmes of ODF Interoperability with ODF applications.  At the base of this problem is the fact that compliance in ODF is optional.  ODF applications are allowed to routinely destroy metadata information needed (and placed into the markup) by other applications.<b
Gary Edwards

Flow Document Overview - 0 views

msdn2.microsoft.com/...aa970909.aspx

cdf flash flow-document ms-ooxml pdf silverlight svg winforms xforms xps xslfo

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
     
    Uh OH! Look what Microsoft has put into the new .NET 3.0 SDK! Flow Documents is a Microsoft specific version of HTML that is part of the Windows Presentation Foundation Browser Developers Framework. XAML - XPS-XABL. It also looks as though Microsoft has reserved MS-OOXML MSOffice level integration for themselves. Another thought is that MSOffice is being positioned as a developers framework for Web 2.0 development. This docuemnt is goign to take some serious study. Bad news for IBM and Adobe for sure. PDF, Flash and AJAX are all going to be in the fight of their lives. The conversion tools are going to become of critical importance. Some initial thoughts are that we could convert MSOffice documents to CDF+; convert OpenOffice documents to CDF+; and convert Flow Documents to CDF+, using the same XHTML 2.0 - CSS desktop profile (WICD Full). Converting MS-OOXML to Flow Documents however appears to be next to impossible by design. The easy approach would be to let the da Vinci plug-in perfect an internal conversion to either CDF+ or Flow. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft provides a Flow plug-in for MSOffice. I doubt it, but perhaps there will be a demand from Flow developers. da Vinci could of course be configured to produce Flow Documents. At first glance, my assumption would be that the ability to convert native MSOffice documents and allication genrated Flow Documents to CDF+ would be the most important course to take. We''ll see. This is no doubt explosive stuff. Microsoft is truly challenging the W3C for the Web.
Gary Edwards

Inside PDF: CDF - 0 views

blogs.adobe.com/...cdf.html

adobe cdf odf ooxml pdf

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The real technical content of the CDF recommendations is in details of how to glue these various (XML markup) languages together once they all have been processed into their respective DOMs. It establishes conventions for how a script might reach across DOM boundaries, how events might get propagated across DOM boundaries and stuff like that. I won't go into this any deeper because you will get more accurate information by just reading the W3C documents. But the main idea of CDF is to bring these variously defined content types into a uniform "framework" so that scripts can operate more at a document level instead of being confined to their own document child.
Paul Merrell

Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council - 0 views

www.universal-interop-council.org/...4

cdf foundation updegrove w3c wicd

shared by Paul Merrell on 27 May 08 - Cached
  • by OASIS attorney Andy Updegrove claimed that W3C Compound Document Formats: [i] are non-editable formats; [ii] are not designed for conversions to other formats; and [iii] are therefore unsuitable as office formats. Updegrove could not have been more wrong.
  • Shorn to essentials, Updegrove in effect argues for the existence of some sort of immaculately conceived data, that data cannot be generated by software editing tools if a homo sapiens operating a keyboard is somehow involved.
  • Conversions — Updegrove hedged somewhat on this issue, attributing a statement to Lilly that the "CDF working group was not chartered to achieve conversion between formats." But one might as well argue that because claw hammers were designed to drive and pull nails they can not be used to hit anything else.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • To suggest that only W3C WICD profiles can be used with the Framework either flows from or is an appeal to ignorance. There is no wiggle room between those two conclusions.
  • While the Framework specification does require that markup languages combined to create conforming documents be profiled following strict rules, there is no requirement that the profiles thus used superset one or more of the WICD profiles. It may be preferable to do so for purposes of compatibility and interoperability with web applications, but to repeat, that is not required. In fact, virtually any plain text-based markup language that can be profiled can be used within the structure of the Framework. But more importantly, a combination of cutting edge W3C markup language versions such as XHTML 2.0, CSS 3.0, XForms, SVG, etc. can, with only trivial extensions, serve as the full-featured metalanguage superset every expert who has spoken to the subject agrees is necessary to convert between ODF and OOXML with high fidelity.
  • ODF and OOXML are designed for apps from the sneaker net era. Do we choose formats designed for the dinosaurs or formats designed for tomorrow's needs? ODF and OOXML are about the past; CDF is about the future. And yes, there are fully interoperable editors in that future.
Gary Edwards

Slamming the door shut on MS OOXML - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00033.html

cdf interoperability iso odf odf-tc officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 24 Aug 07 - Cached
  • So your goal is a networked world where metadata is routinely trashed by apps developed by those who are too dumb or otherwise disabled to preserve metadata and only the big boys get to do interoperability, right? So if I send you a document for your editing, I can't count on getting it back with xml:id attributes intact. No thanks, Patrick. That sounds way too much like how things have worked ever since office productivity software first came on the market. In your world, interoperability belongs only to those who can map features 1:1 with the most featureful apps. And that is precisely why OpenDocument never should have been approved as a standard. Your kind of interoperability makes ODF a de facto Sun Microsystems standard wearing the clothing of a de jure standard. Why not just standardize the whole world on Microsoft apps and be done with it? Are two monopolies maintained by an interoperability barrier between them better than one? Fortunately, we don't have to debate the issue because the Directives resolve the issue. You lose under the rules of the game.
  • Gary Edwards on 24 Aug 07
     
    Marbux on metadata and the language of universal interoperability: Few people are aware of the raging debate that has pushed ODF to the edge. The OASIS ODF TC is split between those who support Universal Interoperability, and those who insist on continuing with limited ODF interoperability.

    ODF (OpenDocument), formally known as Open Office XML, began it's standards life in the fall of 2002 when Sun submitted the OpenOffice file format to OASIS for consideration as a office suite XML fiel format standard. The work on ODF did not start off as a clean slate in that there were near 600 pages of application specific specification from day one of the standards work. The forces of universal interop have sought for years to separate ODF from the application specific features and implementation model of OpenOffice that began with those early specification volumes, and continues through the undue influence Sun continues to have over the ODF specification work.

    Many mistakenly believed that submission of ODF to ISO and subsequent approval as an international standard would provide an effective separation, putting ODF on the track of a truly universal file format.

    Marbux is one of those Universal Interop soldiers who has dug in his heels, cried to the heavens that enough is enough, and demanded the necessary changes to ODF interoperability language.

    This post he recently submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC is a devastating rebuttal to the arguments of those who support the status quo of limited interoperability.

    In prior posts, marbux argues that ISO directives demand without compromise universal interoperability. This demand is also shared by the World Trade Organization directives regarding international trade laws and agreements. Here he brings those arguments together with the technical issues for achieving universal interop.

    It's a devastating argument.

Gary Edwards

Blake Matheny : OpenDocument Foundation to Drop ODF for W3C CDF WICD | Blogging success - 0 views

blogging.compendiumblog.com/...ocument-foundation-to-drop-odf

cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Now, Sam Hiser, VP of the ODF, has said that he sees the W3C standard CDF (Compound Document Format) as a more viable universal format than ODF. He stated simply that, "ODF is not the open format with the open process we thought it was". Why is this significant? First, I think it speaks to how important the W3C is and has become over the past several years. The number of web standards in particular that have been formalized by the W3C is remarkable, whether they have been successful or not. Second, it (CDF) addresses an issue that I see on a daily basis in my role here at Compendium Blogware.
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 07
     
    Wow!  Does Blake Matheny ever get it!  Maybe it's time for the W3C CDF Community to speak up?  
Gary Edwards

War rages on over Microsoft's OOXML plans: Insight - Software - ZDNet Australia - 0 views

www.zdnet.com.au/...0,139023769,339284737,00.htm

australia cdf interop iso microsoft odf ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 07 - Cached
  • "We feel that the best standards are open standards," technology industry commentator Colin Jackson, a member of the Technical Advisory committee convened by StandardsNZ to consider OOXML, said at the event. "In that respect Microsoft is to be applauded, as previously this was a secret binary format." Microsoft's opponents suggest, among a host of other concerns, that making Open XML an ISO standard would lock the world's document future to Microsoft. They argue that a standard should only be necessary when there is a "market requirement" for it. IBM spokesperson Paul Robinson thus describes OOXML as a "redundant replacement for other standards". Quoting from the ISO guide, Robinson said that a standard "is a document by a recognised body established by consensus which is aimed at achieving an optimum degree of order and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits". It can be argued that rather than provide community benefit, supporting multiple standards actually comes at an economic cost to the user community. "We do not believe OOXML meets these objectives of an international standard," Robinson said.
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 07
     
    "aimed at achieving an optimum degree of order .... and .... aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits:. Uh, excuse me Mr. Robinson, tha tsecond part of your statement, the one concerning optimum community benefits - that would also disqualify ODF!! ODF was not designed to be compatible with the 550 million MSOffice desktops and their billions of binary docuemnts. Menaing, these 550 million users will suffer considerable loss of information if they try to convert their existing documents to ODF. It is also next to impossible for MSOffice applications to implement ODF as a fiel format due to this incompatbility. ODF was designed for OpenOffice, and directly reflects the way OpenOffice implements specific document structures. The problem areas involve large differences between how OpenOffice implments these structures and how MSOffice implements these same structures. The structures in question are lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics. It seems to me that "optimum community benefits" would include the conversion and exchange of docuemnts with some 550 million users!!!! And ODF was clearly not designed for that purpose!
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 07
     
    I don't agree with this statement from Microsoft's Oliver Bell. As someone who served on the OASIS ODF Technical Committee from it's inception in November of 2002 through the next five years, i have to disagree. It's not that Microsoft wasn't welcome. They were. It's that the "welcome" came with some serious strings. Fo rMicrosoft to join OASIS would have meant strolling into the camp of their most erstwhile and determined competitors, and having to ammend an existing standard to accomodate the implementation needs of MSOffice. There is simply no way for the layout differences between OpenOffice and MSOffice to be negotiated short of putting both methodologies into the spec. Meaning, the spec would provide two ways of implementing lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. A true welcome would have been for ODF to have been written to accomodate these diferences. Rather than writing ODF to meet the implementation model used by OepnOffice, it would have been infinitely better to wrtite ODF as a totally application independent file format using generic docuemnt structures tha tcould be adapted by any application. It turns out that this is exactly the way the W3C goes about the business of writing their fiel format specifications (HTML, XHTML, CSS, XFORMS, and CDF). The results are highly interoperable formats that any applciation can implement.
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Dec 07
     
    You can harmonize an application specific format with a generic, applicaiton independent format. But you can't harmonize two application specific formats!!!!
    The easy way to solve the document exchange problem is to leave the legacy applications alone, and work on the conversion of OOXML and ODF docuemnts to a single, application independent generic format. The best candidate for this role is that of the W3C's CDF.
    CDF is a desription of how to combine existing W3C format standards into a single container. It is meant to succeed HTML on the Web, but has been designed as a universal file format.
    The most exciting combination is that of XHTML 2.0 and CSS in that it is capable of handling the complete range of desktop productivity office suite documents. Even though it's slightly outside the W3C reach, the most popular CDF compound is that of XHTML, CSS and JavaScript. A combination otherwise known as "AJAX".
Gary Edwards

Did the W3C acknowledge CDF's potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-... - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind

berlind cdf foundation heintzman odf ooxml opendocument schepers w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through. If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.
  • Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.
  • The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?
1 - 20 of 132 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page