Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged application-specific

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Is HTML in a Race to the Bottom? A Large-Scale Survey of Open Web Formats - 0 views

dsonline.computer.org/...index.jsp

cdf css html ooxml xaml xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Apr 08 - Cached
  • The "race to the bottom" is a familiar phenomenon that occurs when multiple standards compete for acceptance. In this environment, the most lenient standard usually attracts the greatest support (acceptance, usage, and so on), leading to a competition among standards to be less stringent. This also tends to drive competing standards toward the minimum possible level of quality. One key prerequisite for a race to the bottom is an unregulated market because regulators mandate a minimum acceptable quality for standards and sanction those who don't comply.1,2 In examining current HTML standards, we've come to suspect that a race to the bottom could, in fact, be occurring because so many competing versions of HTML exist. At this time, some nine different versions of HTML (including its successor, XHTML) are supported as W3C standards, with the most up-to-date being XHTML 1.1. Although some versions are very old and lack some of the newer versions' capabilities, others are reasonably contemporaneous. In particular, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 both have "transitional" and "strict" versions. Clearly, the W3C's intent is to provide a pathway to move from HTML 4.01 to XHTML 1.1, and the transitional versions are steps on that path. It also aims to develop XHTML standards that support device independence (everything from desktops to cell phones), accessibility, and internationalization. As part of this effort, HTML 4.01's presentational elements (used to adjust the appearance of a page for older browsers that don't support style sheets) are eliminated in XHTML 1.1. Our concern is that Web site designers might decline to follow the newer versions' more stringent formatting requirements and will instead keep using transitional versions. To determine if this is likely, we surveyed the top 100,000 most popular Web sites to discover what versions of HTML are in widespread use.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Apr 08
       
      The summary statement glosses over the value of a highly structured portable XML document. A value that goes far beyond the strict separation of content and presentation. The portable document model is the essential means by which information is exchanged over the Web. It is the key to Web interop. Up till now, Web docuemnts have been very limited. With the advent of XHTML-2, CSS-3, SVG, XForms and CDF (Compound Document Framework for putting these pieces together), the W3C has provisioned the Web with the means of publishing and exchanging highly interactive but very complex docuemnts. The Web documents of the future will be every bit as complex as the publishing industry needs. The transition of complex and data rich desktop office suite documents to the Web has been non existent up till now. With ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML, Microsoft is now ready to transition billions of business process rich "office" documents to the Web. This transition is accomplished by a very clever conversion component included in the MSOffice SDK. MS Developers can easily convert OOXML documents to Web ready XAML documents, adn back again, without loss of presentation fidelity, or data. No matter what the complexity! The problem here is that while MSOffice-OOXML is now an ISO/IEC International Standard, XAML "fixed/flow" is a proprietary format useful only to the IE-8 browser, the MS Web Stack (Exchange, SharePoint, MS SQL, and Windows Server), and the emerging MS Cloud. Apache, J2EE, Mozilla Firefox, Adobe and Open Source Servers in general will not be able to render these complex, business process rich, office suite documents. MSOffice-OOXML itself is far to complicated and filled with MS application-platform-vendor specific dependencies to be usefully converted to Open Web XHTML-CSS, ePUB or CDF. XAML itself is only the tip of the iceberg. The Microsoft Web Stack also implements Silverlight, Smart Tags and other WPF - .NET
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Apr 08
     
    What makes the Internet so extraordinary is the interoperability of web ready data, content, media and the incredible sprawl of web applications servicing the volumes of information. The network of networks has become the information system connecting and converging all information systems. The Web is the universal platform of access, exchange and now, collaborative computing. This survey exammines the key issue of future interoperability; Web Document Formats.
Gary Edwards

Can IBM save OpenOffice.org from itself? - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • OpenOffice.org's biggest foe may be Microsoft Office, but critics say the open-source organization has, from its inception, also been one of its application suite's own worst enemies -- a victim of a development culture that differs radically from the open-source norm. Observers now wonder if IBM's entry into OpenOffice.org can make the necessary changes.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      good article from Eric Lai of ComputerWorld. Written on the eve of the infamous Barcelona OpenOffice.org developers conference, Eric argues that OOo isn't a real open source community. Instead, OOo is a owned and operated by Sun.
      One of the more important control points Sun insists on is that of commit rights and project managers. Only Sun employees have these rights and can hold these important positions..
      The more important point is made by Marbux (below: ODF is an application specific format designed exactly for OpenOffice. While other applications might partially implement ODF, interoperability and successful ODF document exchange require the OOo code base!
      From Marbux: This is the only article I've found to date where IBM (Heintzman) flat out says IBM wants changes in OOo licensing, more in line with the Eclipse and Apache licenses. See pg. 2. Significant because it feeds the meme that IBM's own ODF-based development goal is proprietary closed source built on the OOo code base, e.g., Symphony, et cet.
      And that has huge signficance once you realize that ODF is not the real standard; the OOo code base is the real ODF standard. Look around the world and you see that ODF adoption decisions by governments are all in reality decisions to go with StarOffice, OOo, or OOo clones. I haven't, for example, seen a single instance where a government decided to ride with KOffice. Why would they, with the interop issues between KOffice and OOo? The fact that OOo's code base is the real ODF standard will figure strongly in the comments. Couple it with Sun's iron-fisted control of the OOo code base, and you have vendor lock-in with a Microsoft partner.
      But with 70 developers committed in China, where developers salaries are inexpensive, IBM will soon be in a position to threaten to fork the OOo code base using proprietary extensions. Is that their real tactic to force changes in licensing and gov
Gary Edwards

Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/;jsessionid=lpZyhV8gwAfQR3UXAr

bryan cdf ecma ibm iso mary-jo microsoft oasis odf ooxml opendocument sun w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Standardization by Corporation Maybe i spoke to soon. This just came in from ISO, the resignation letter of the SC34WG1 Chairman who has completed his three year term. There is a fascinating statement at the end of the Martin Bryan letter. "The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible..." When corporations join open standards or open source efforts, they arrive with substantial but most welcome financial and expert resources. They also bring marketshare and presence. And, they bring business objectives. They have a plan. As long as the corporate plan is aligned with the open standards - open source community work, all is fine. In fact it's great. For sure though there will come a time when the corporate plan asserts it's direction, and there is possible conflict. At this point, the very same wealth of resources that were cause for celebration can become cause for disappointment and disaster. One of the more troubling things i've noticed is that corporations treat everything as a corporate asset to be traded, bartered and dealt for shareholder advantage and value. This includes patents and interoperability issues which not surprisingly are wrapped into open standards and open source efforts. Rather than embrace the humanitarian – community of shared interest drivers of open standards and open source, corporations naturally plot to get maximum value out of the resources they commit. A primary example of this is Sun's use of OpenOffice, ODF, and an anti trust settlement disaster that left them at the mercy of Microsoft.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07
     
    Will ISO follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML? I think so. If they continue on their current path of big vendor sponsored document wars, ISO will beocme irrelevant. Sooner or later the ISO National Bodies must take back the standards process from corporate corruption and influence. One thing is clear. Neither Microsoft or IBM is about to compromise. IBM has had many chances to improve ODF's interoperability with Microsoft Office and the Office documents, but has been steadfast in their stubborn refusal to concede an inch. Microsoft hides behind their legacy installed base of over 550 million MSOffice desktops. There simply isn't a pragmatic or cost effective way of transitioning the installed base to ODF without either seriously re writing and replacing those applications, or, changing ODF to be compatible. The marketplace is clear on what they intend on doing. Pragmatism will rule. Productivity trumps standards initiatives whenever they are out of sink. In the face of this clear marketplace intent, one would think IBM might compromise on ODF. No way! They are intent on using ODF to force a market wide rip out and replace of MSOffice. Most people assume that there are two opposing groups at war here; the Microsoft OOXML group vs. the IBM ODF group. This isn't an accurate view at all. There is a third, middle group of developers working the treacherous space of conversion - the no man'sland between OOXML MSOffice and ODF OpenOffice. The conversion group know the problems involved, and are actually trying to dliver marketplace facing solutions. The vendors of course are in this war to the bitter end, and could care less about the damage they cause to end users. It's also true that the conversion group seeks to bridge desktop productivity into the larger, highly interoeprable web platform. It's also possible that ISO will chose to merge
Gary Edwards

The better Office alternative: SoftMaker Office bests OpenOffice.org ( - Soft... - 1 views

news.idg.no/...art.cfm

shared by Gary Edwards on 30 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Frankly, from Microsoft's perspective, the danger may have been overstated. Though the free open source crowd talks a good fight, the truth is that they keep missing the real target. Instead of investing in new features that nobody will use, the team behind OpenOffice should take a page from the SoftMaker playbook and focus on interoperability first. Until OpenOffice works out its import/export filter issues, it'll never be taken seriously as a Microsoft alternative. More troubling (for Microsoft) is the challenge from the SoftMaker camp. These folks have gotten the file-format compatibility issue licked, and this gives them the freedom to focus on building out their product's already respectable feature set. I wouldn't be surprised if SoftMaker got gobbled up by a major enterprise player in the near, thus creating a viable third way for IT shops seeking to kick the Redmond habit.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 30 Jun 09
       
      This quote is an excerpt from the article :)
  • Gary Edwards on 30 Jun 09
     
    Finally! Someone who gets it. For an office suite to be considered as an alternative to MSOffice, it must be designed with multiple levels of compatibility. It's not just that the "feature sets" that must be comparable. The guts of the suite must be compatible at both the file format level, and the environment level. Randall put's it this way; "It's the ecosystem stupid". The reason ODF failed in Massachusetts is that neither OpenOffice nor OpenOffice ODF are designed to be compatible with legacy and existing MSOffice applications, binary formats, and, the MSOffice productivity environment. Instead, OOo and OOo-ODF are designed to be competitively comparable. As an alternative to MSOffice, OpenOffice and OpenOffice ODF cannot fit into existing MSOffice workgroups and producitivity environments. Because it s was not designed to be compatible, OOo demands that the environment be replaced, rebuilt and re-engineered. Making OOo and OOo-ODF costly and disruptive to critical day-to-day business processes. The lesson of Massachusetts is simple; compatibility matters. Conversion of workgroup/workflow documents from the MSOffice productivity environment to OpenOffice ODF will break those documents at two levels: fidelity and embedded "ecosystem" logic. Fidelity is what most end-users point to since that's the aspect of the document conversion they can see. However, it's what they can't see that is the show stopper. The hidden side of workgroup/workflow documents is embedded logic that includes scripts, macros, formulas, OLE, data bindings, security settings, application specific settings, and productivity environment settings. Breaks these aspects of the document, and you stop important business processes bound to the MSOffice productivity environment. There is no such thing as an OpenOffice productivity environment designed to be a compatible alternative to the MSOffice productivity environment. Another lesson from Massach
Gary Edwards

5 Things Microsoft Must Do To Reclaim Its Mojo In 2008 -- InformationWeek - 0 views

www.informationweek.com/...showArticle.jhtml

cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Instead of fighting standards, Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) needs to get on board now more than ever. With open, Web-based office software backed by the likes of IBM (NYSE: IBM) (think Lotus Symphony) and Google (NSDQ: GOOG) now a viable option, users—especially businesses frustrated by Microsoft's format follies (many are discovering that OOXML is not even fully backwards-compatible with previous versions of Microsoft Word)--can now easily switch to an online product without having to rip and replace their entire desktop infrastructure.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      This article discusses how Microsoft might change their ways and save the company. This particular quote concerns Microsoft support for standards, and their fight to push MS OOXML through ISO as an alternative to ISO approved ODF 1.0.
      The thing is, ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice documents, of which there are billions. Nor was ODF designed to be implemented by MSOffice. ODF was designed exactly for OpenOffice, which has a differnet model for impementing basic docuemnt structures than MSOffice.
      So a couple of points regardign this highlight:
      The first is that IBM's Lotus Symphony is NOT Open Source. IBM ripped off the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base back when it was dual licensed under both SSSL and LGPL. IBM then closed the source code adding a wealth of proprietary eXtensions (think XForms and Lotus Notes connections). Then IBM released the proprietary Symphony as a free alternative to the original Open Source Community "OpenOffice.org".
      If Microsoft had similarly ripped off an open source community, there would be hell to pay.
      Another point here is the mistaken assumption that users can easily switch from MSOffice to an on-line product like Google Docs or ZOHO "without having to rip our and replace their entire desktop infrastructure."
      This is a ridiculous assumption defied by the facts on the ground. Massqchusetts spent two years trying to migrate to ODF and couldn't do it. Every other pilot study known has experienced the same difficulties!
      The thing about Web 2.0 alternatives is that these services can not be integrated into existing business processes and MSOffice workgroup bound activities. The collaborative advantages of Web 2.0 alternatives are disruptive and outside existing workflows, greatly marginalizing their usefulness. IF, and that's a big IF, MSOffice plug-ins were successful in the high fidelity round trip conversion of wor
  • Microsoft in 2008 could make a bold statement in support of standards by admitting that its attempt to force OOXML on the industry was a mistake and that it will work to develop cross-platform compatibility between that format and the Open Document Format
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
       
      It's impossible to harmonize two application specific file formats. The only way to establish an effective compatibility between ODF and OOXML would be to establish a compatibility between OpenOffice and MSOffice.
      The problem is that neither ODF or OOXML were developed as generirc file formats. They are both application specific, directly reflecting the particular implementation models of OOo and MSOffice.
      Sun and the OASIS ODF TC are not about to compromise OpenOffice feature sets and implmentation methods to improve interop with MSOffice. Sun in particular will protect the innovative features of OpenOffice that are reflected in ODF and stubbornly incompatible with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents. This fact can easily be proven be any review of the infamous "List Enhancement Proposal" that dominated discussions at the OASIS ODF TC from November of 2006 through May of 2007.
      So if Sun and the OASIS ODF TC refuse to make any efforts towards compatibility and imporved interop with MSOffice and the billions of binary docuemnts seekign conversion to ODF, then it falls to Microsoft to alter MSOffice. With 550 million MSOffice desktops involved in workgroup bound business processes, any changes would be costly and disruptive. (Much to the glee of Sun and IBM).
      IBM in particular has committed a good amount of resources and money lobbying for government mandates establishing ODF as the accepted format. this would of course result in a massively disruptive and costly rip out and replace of MSOffice.
      Such are the politics of ODF.
Gary Edwards

Home - Berkman Center for Internet & Society - 0 views

cyber.law.harvard.edu/...home

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • 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.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      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.
Gary Edwards

IBM's Stance Against OpenXML Is Increasingly Confusing : Oliver Bell's weblog - 0 views

osrin.net/...nxml-is-increasingly-confusing

cdf heintzman ibm odf ooxml opendocument openxml symphony weir

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Events have played out in the media and in the blogosphere over the last couple of weeks that represent a breakdown of some of those anti-OpenXML arguments that have been played back so frequently over the last year. Arguments that there is a lack of demand for Open XML, the specification is too complex to implement, the specification can’t be deployed cross platform and the long running but baseless claim that the Ecma-376 specification might be encumbered by IPR and patent threats all appear to have been cast aside as big blue steps up to meet the demands of their own customers and the market in general. Here is a blow by blow review of the relevant activity over the last two weeks…
Paul Merrell

Gray Matter : Microsoft adds "Save as ODF" to Office 2007 Service Pack 2 - 0 views

blogs.technet.com/...ffice-2007-service-pack-2.aspx

interop microsoft odf strategy

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Cached
  • There are really two central catalysts for these actions. One of these is the feedback we have received from the regulatory environment. There is a high degree of interest in our working with other software vendors to improve information exchange through the use of standardized technologies.
  • In our early testing we are observing that every product implementing these standards has some level of variation from the written spec. If you've been around standards for a while, you'll know this is common, and requires dialog to establish best practices & patterns. This is our reason for joining the OASIS, AIIM and ISO committees,
  • Because ODF side-stepped the compatibility question, we were left to solve (continue solving) that challenge elsewhere; the aversion to dealing with legacy content created a real problem for customers who want to transition to more open file formats.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Office 14 will update our support for IS29500. The timing for this might seem strange, but I do hope the rationale is clear. ODF 1.1 is a completed specification. The final version of IS29500 is not published today. While we do support a significant portion of IS29500 already, the BRM changes and other issues raised in public forums will inform us on how to best move forward with IS29500… and it gives me a little time to address the compatibility considerations that will be an important part of any file format related changes in Office.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    Microsoft's Gray Knowlton on the reasons for the Redmond decision to provide native support for ODF 1.1. But most noteworthy, I think, is Knowlton's statement indicating that Microsoft aims at improving interop through best practices & patterns, i.e., application-level interop initiatives, as opposed to amending the ODF standard to specify conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability, as required by JTC 1 Directives, international law, and antitrust law. In other words, big vendor negotiations around interop rather than giving software users and independent developers a seat at the table.
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

Issue 51726: OpenOffice ODF Graphics Nightmare - 0 views

www.openoffice.org/...show_bug.cgi

application-specific din florian-reuter graphics odf openoffice

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Currently, the above given specification is a draft and has to be adjusted. Beside the change of the context menu and the navigator it's is needed to adjust the import of the XML file formats (OpenDocument and OpenOffice.org) and the export to the OpenOffice.org file format. The import needs adjustment, because the existence of name is used to distinguish Writer graphics/text boxes and Draw graphics/text boxes. The new criterium is now, that Draw graphics/text boxes of Writer documents doesn't have a parent style. The export to the OpenOffice.org file format needs adjustment, because a Writer document in the OpenOffice.org file format doesn't contain names for shapes.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08
       
      The EU DIN effort to harmonize or merge ODF and OOXML has uncovered some incredible inconsistencies in OpenOffice ODF tht will break interop every time, guaranteed. This particular issue has to do with problems naming graphics, and the hack solution now in use. It's hacks like this that make it impossible to convert MSOffice binaries to ODF.
Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | A pos on both your houses! - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

application-specific cdf ge odf ooxml pox

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability. But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts! Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”.
Gary Edwards

OOXML vs ODF: where next for interoperability? | Reg Developer - 0 views

www.regdeveloper.co.uk/...ooxml_vs_odf

foundation iso microsoft odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Mar 08 - Cached
  • 'A diversion from the real end game – the taking of the internet' Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation has a fascinating post on the important of Microsoft Office compatibility to the success of the ISO-approved Open Document formats. It is in places a rare voice of sanity: People continue to insist that if only Microsoft would implement ODF natively in MSOffice, we could all hop on down the yellow brick road, hand in hand, singing kumbaya to beat the band. Sadly, life doesn’t work that way. Wish it did. Sure, Microsoft could implement ODF - but only with the addition of application specific extensions to the current ODF specification … Sun has already made it clear at the OASIS ODF TC that they are not going to compromise (or degrade) the new and innovative features and implementation model of OpenOffice just to be compatible with the existing 550 million MSOffice desktops.
Gary Edwards

Re: [office-metadata] Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - 0 views

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

conformance-clause interoperability marbux metadata odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 23 Aug 07 - Cached
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 23 Aug 07
       
      Preserving metadata! Preserving application specific information. Preserving "unknown" information inside of a document
  • Unless we add conformance requirements for the preservation of metadata and processing instructions, the less featureful apps will never  be able to round-trip documents with the more featureful apps. Our language should require that. Personally, I believe that the software-as-an-end-point client-side office suites are dinosaurs at the end of their era. They are being finished off by a thousand cuts as users spend less and less time using them and more and more time using other apps, such as web apps. ODF either develops methods for interoperability among all apps or it will die along with the office suites. E.g., Microsoft knows this and is busily migrating its Office development budget across the Sharepoint/Exchange server hubs to the network. Meanwhile, this TC fiddles with preserving the 1995 software-as-an-endpoint vision.
  • Gary Edwards on 23 Aug 07
     
    Marbux is clearly at the top of his game here as he hammers the interoperability issue.
Gary Edwards

Ecma Responds « Opportunity Knocks - 0 views

lnxwalt.wordpress.com/...ecma-responds

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Mar 07 - Cached
  • No, the real problem to me is that Microsoft wants to position OOXML as just a base format that their implementation is based on. And that the implementation adds all the other parts that are supposed to be non-XML, which includes VBA macros, OLE, DRM, password-protection, …
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Mar 07
     
    Walt Hucks and Stephane Rodriguez have taken on the MS Ecma response to ISO/IEC JTC S1 National Bodies objections and contradiciton findings that were filed at the end of the ISO/IEC Ecma 376 fast track - contradiction review phase.  

    The one - two punch Walt and Stephane provide is the clearest statement yet of what's really behind th eenormity of Microsoft's effort to establish their own international standards for XML file formats.  In particular, they discuss the issue of business processes bound to the MSOffice - VBA API layer through macros, scripts, OLE, DRM, and password protection type mechnaisms.

    They also point out that Ecma 376 is just a baseline file format that will be eXtended by MS Applications on implementation.  It is the this collection of embedded system specific processing instructions that bind current business processewss to MSOffice, and will hold the monopoly base of 500 million desktops intact as MS makes the tranistion from desktop shrinkwrap sales to server side systems and services stacks.

Gary Edwards

The French AFNOR Proposal to Merge ODF and MS-OOXML - 0 views

docs.google.com/Doc

cdf ecma florian-reuter interop iso oasis odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07 - Cached
  • Summary Statement:  Hey, this is an excellent plan!  We can fully support this effort, even though the ISO National Bodies still have to work their way through the treacherous big vendor consortia controlled channels of OASIS ODF and Ecma 376.  Bringing the big vendor applications to heel is not going to be easy.  Merging ODF and MS-OOXML however is a worthwhile effort - one that the conversion and translator plug-in communities have been working on for the past three years!  It can be done!  And all it takes is five generic elements added to the existing ODF 1.2 specification ........
Gary Edwards

ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does | Slashdot - 0 views

tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl

durusau iso odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Mar 08 - Cached
  • IMHO, the change in Patrick's position is entirely due to the realization that it is impossible to map between OOXML and ODF. I don't know this for sure, but when i read the German Standards Group (DIN) report on harmonization, authorized by the EU-IDABC and provided to ISO, i couldn't help but wonder how Patrick would react. The report definitively ends his OOXML ODF mapping dream.Many wonder why mapping is impossible. I had more than a few discussions with Patrick on this. His point was that a schema is a schema. As long as the syntax and semantics are fully documented, no problemo. My point is that both ODF and OOXML are application specific; and, both are woefully lacking in "semantic" documentation. Add to this problem that both ODF and OOXML lack an interoperability framework with any semblance of compliance teeth, and the whole mapping issue becomes an impossible solution. Especially if interop is the goal.
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Mar 08
     
    ge comments about Patrick Durusau and his surprising change of position in support of ISO approval of OOXML
Gary Edwards

California may join rush of states toward ODF - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07 - Cached
  • Like the other two measures, the bill in the California Assembly doesn't list any specific document formats that could be used. But as in Minnesota and Texas, the introduction of such a bill appears to be another potential win for backers of the Open Document Format (ODF) for Office Applications.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07
     
    Good article about the opening salvo in what promises to be a long, hard fought war with Microsoft.  Unlike what has happened in the EU and Massachusetts, this time our friends in Redmond are politically facing off on the home turf of their powerful enemies in Silicon Valley, which stretches from the south of market area (SOMA) all the way down the San Francisco peninsula to San Jose, arching around the entire Bay area.

    If you thought it was raining dollars from Redmond in Massachusetts as the great monopolist moved to successfully shut down the entire Information Technology budget, including HomeLand Security projects, the battle of California promises to be the el nino of perfect storms.  I'm confident though that California CIO Clark Kelso and five star brigadiere general Bill Welty will stand tall against the storm.  I can hardly wait for the forces to move into place and the action begin.  What a show this is going to be.

    Meanwhile, what's at stake here is all the marbles of our digital future.  Forcing Microsoft to accept and fully implement the OpenDcoument XML file format is something the great monopolist has shown they will fight to the bitter end.  Brace yourselves!

Gary Edwards

ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML - zdnet thread - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5206-12558-0.html

cdf iso microsoft ms-ooxml odf opendocuemnt

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07 - Cached
  • But we also oppose adoption of ODF 1.2 as an ISO standard in the form we expect it to emerge from OASIS.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07
       
      Bad phrasing. We would really like to see ODF 1.2 succeed at ISO, but this would require compliance with ISO Interoperability Requirements. Today, ODF 1.2 is not compliant with those requirements, and we fully expect it to be defeated at ISO due to the obvious shortcoming. In May of 2006, ISO Directorate issued a clear and unequivocal statement tha tODF must conform to ISO Interoeprability Requirements. ODF 1.2 work was closed in July of 2007, without the needed changes.
  • As a result of the latest infighting, is Microsoft now all-but-guaranteed that OOXML will sail through the ISO standardization vote in Feburary 2008 because ODF — and its backers — will be in disarray? This has nothing to do with the outcome of the Ballot Resolution Meeting.
  • Matusow sounds reasonable only if you are not a file format congnoscenti. He uses an appeal to ignorance. A single universal set of formats is entirely feasible from a technical standpoint; e.g., the example of HTML. But the chances of getting there by opening application-specific formats are dim at best, as the ODF experience teaches. You might acquire an entirely different perspective if you spent some time viewing the short sets of slides from the IDABC Open Document Exchange Formats Workshop 2007, which laid down the market requirements for 21 European government IT national bodies. http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474 (.) I particularly recommend Dr. Barbara Held's report to the plenary session linked from this page, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6704/5935 and the four workshop reports linked from the bottom of this page, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6702/5935 (.) Those slides reflect a lot of careful research into the issue you and Matusow discuss.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07
     
    Hey, great comments! 
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

Does ODF 1.2 Metadata Solve the Interop Problem? - Microsoft starts rolling out more O... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

afnor cdf iso maryjo merger metadata odf ooxml opendocument talkback zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - No Cached
  • Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2 Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe. The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission. You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects. Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint. Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07
     
    A Second response to Mary Jo's, "Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators" is also posted here. The title is "Standardization by Corporation". Shish-Ka-Bob makes the assertion the ODF 1.2 metadata model will enable lossless two way conversion between MSOffice and ODF. While it's true that that intent was a key component of the original July of 2006 Metadata Requirements, the proposal was eventually stripped from the final submission made in April of 2007. I try to explain to Shish how that came about. The second post here, "Standardization by Corporation", is a follow on to statements made to Shish. The statements have to do with the events at ISO, and what i think will eventually happen. IMHO, ISO will follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML. To do this they will remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter. A derpressing but nevertheless very true concern. In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300). ~ge~
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 60 of 64 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page