Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged brown

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Alex Brown on the ODF Zero Interop problem: The discussion to limit the use of Foreign ... - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00009.html

odf interop alex-brown

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 09 Mar 09 - Cached
  • So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best valueless and at worst positively misleading. So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into resolving this problem ...
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 22 Mar 09
       
      The sad thing is that with the agreement between JTC1 and OASIS regarding ODF, it seems that SC34 has been completely cut out of the loop in terms of "fixing ODF", as you put it. I cannot see how SC34 will be able to play any part in this - besides rubber-stamping ODF 1.2 when it comes our way.
  • Gary Edwards on 09 Mar 09
     
    So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best valueless and at worst positively misleading. So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into resolving this problem ... Alex Brown What Alex fails to mention is that the "foreign elements and alien attributes" components in the ODF Section 1.5 "Compliance and Conformance" clause was originally put there in early 2003 to provide a compatibility layer for MSOffice binary documents. Without this clause, it would be impossible to convert the billions of legacy MSOffice binary documents to ODF without breaking the fidelity. Now th OASIS ODF TC wants to limit the use of the compatiblity clause. An action that would seriously cripple Microsoft's efforts to implement ODF in MSOffice 14. No surprises here. It was only a matter of time until IBM and Sun ganged up on the newest TC member, Microsoft.
  • Jesper Lund Stocholm on 22 Mar 09
     
    So I think users need to understand, very clearly, that an ODF document/app of *either* conformance class has an EXTREMELY WEAK CLAIM TO INTEROPERABILITY. The "pure ODF conformance" sticker would be at best valueless and at worst positively misleading. So what I'd like to see is some real effort from the TC going into resolving this problem ... Alex Brown What Alex fails to mention is that the "foreign elements and alien attributes" components in the ODF Section 1.5 "Compliance and Conformance" clause was originally put there in early 2003 to provide a compatibility layer for MSOffice binary documents. Without this clause, it would be impossible to convert the billions of legacy MSOffice binary documents to ODF without breaking the fidelity. Now th OASIS ODF TC wants to limit the use of the compatiblity clause. An action that would seriously cripple Microsoft's efforts to implement ODF in MSOffice 14. No surprises here. It was only a matter of time until IBM and Sun ganged up on the newest TC member, Microsoft.
Gary Edwards

Griffin Brown Weblog - ODF validation for the cognoscenti - 0 views

www.griffinbrown.co.uk/...PermaLink.aspx

brown iso jtc-sc34 odf ooxml weir

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 May 08 - Cached
  • ODF validation for the cognoscenti Just when it seemed like nobody was interested in the ODF conformance smoke test posted a few days ago, IBM's Rob Weir weighs in with a lengthy piece in response.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 May 08
     
    Rob Weir gets royally spanked. And so does the notion that ODF is somehow "interoperable". Big Time.
Paul Merrell

Rob Weir is caught in a deceit - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ormance-and-Portability-4.aspx

rob weir normative

shared by Paul Merrell on 19 May 09 - Cached
  • But at all relevant times you knew that you could not respond on the merits if Alex took the time to write the same analysis I did. I call foul. Foul 1: You accused Alex of ignorance and deceit. Foul 2: You had no informed basis for those insults.Foul 3: You knew you had no informed basis for your insults.Foul 4: You have put me to the work of repeating the conversation we already had. Shame on you, Rob Weir. The position you took was unprincipled. You are the one who has intentionally misled Alex's readers. You are caught. If you are a principled person, you will immediately retract your insults and apologize to Alex Brown for your deceit in as public a manner as you inflicted your deceit. If you do not do so, the undeniable record lies here of a man who is not man enough to take responsibility for his wrongs and apologize.
  • Ah, Marbux, what circus is complete without the clowns?
  • It seems you like to ignore requirements in order to defend Microsoft
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Do you get paid to spread FUD like this, or is it merely a dilettantish pursuit?
  • I am unable to even imagine that you would be ignorant of basic standards terminology. So why do you persist in intentionally misleading your readers?
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page