Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged comes

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
2More

ODF and differences of opinion | TalkBack on ZDNet - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11048-0.html cdf odf ooxml w3c
shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world.
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 07
     
    Lengthy comment explaining once again why we moved from ODF to CDF. 
2More

ODF backer abandons file format in favor of W3C Universal File Format alternative - Com... - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do cdf odf ooxml opendocument
shared by Gary Edwards on 31 Oct 07 - Cached
  • The OpenDocument Foundation Inc. doesn't have any control over ODF. But its embrace of the W3C's Compound Document Formats (CDF) adds a new twist to the already acrimonious debate over the possible creation of a universal file format for desktop applications.
  • Gary Edwards on 31 Oct 07
     
    Finally, people are coming to understand the concept of a universal file format
2More

Novell adds fuel to the fire in OOXML feud - News - Builder AU - 0 views

www.builderau.com.au/...0,339028227,339284338,00.htm
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Microsoft has created its own proprietary document format, Office Open XML (OOXML), as a rival to the community-developed OpenDocument Format (ODF). OOXML is used in Microsoft's latest applications suite, Office 2007. Despite some efforts by the two camps, ODF and OOXML are, for the most part, not interoperable, meaning documents that are created in one format cannot be successfully read by applications based on the other format. According to Novell's vice president of developer platforms, Miguel de Icaza, the situation won't change in the foreseeable future. Want to know more? For all the latest news, analysis and opinion on open source, click here "There's no end in sight to the ongoing disputes between the two camps," said de Icaza, speaking at XML 2007, a Microsoft-sponsored event, on Tuesday. "In 2006, there was lots of FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] about the problems behind OOXML and it went downhill from there," Icaza said. "Neither group is willing to make the big changes required for real compatibility," de Icaza added.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07
       
      What efforts are you talking about? The last time any effort was made to accomodate interoperability was in 2003 with the establishment of the ODF "Compatibilty clause" (Section 1.5). "Despite some efforts by the two camps, ODF and OOXML are, for the most part, not interoperable, meaning documents that are created in one format cannot be successfully read by applications based on the other format......" Section 1.5 authorizes the use of "foreign elements" and "alien attributes". These techniques were specifically written into ODF for handling unknown characteristics of existing MSOffice documents (binary and/or xml) on conversion to ODF. Since the Section 1.5 addition in 2003, every other suggestion to improve interop between ODF and MSOffice documents has been rejected by the OASIS ODF TC and Sub Committees. There are three problems with Section 1.5. The first is that there is only so much that can be done with foreign elements and alien attributes. There are still remaining compatibility issues relating to the basic structures of lists, tables, fields, sections and page dymnamics. The OpenDocument Foundaiton spent over a year trying to get approval for five generic elements relating to these structures, without success. As i said, there has not been a single successful comatibility - interoperability effort since 2003, although many have been proposed. The second reason for the failure of Section 1.5 is that OpenOffice only partially implements the "Compatibility Clause". OOo only recognizes "foreign elements and alien attributes" with text spans and paragraphs. The third reason is that "compatibility" is optional in ODF. The clause does not have any teeth. Applications can implement only those aspects of the spec they feel like implementing, and still be in total "compliance". This creates serious interop problem not only for MSOffice plug-in comverted documents, but also renders as
1More

Compound Document Format and OpenDocument Foundation (Updated 20071109) « Cyb... - 0 views

ctrambler.wordpress.com/...at-and-opendocument-foundation
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The first time I heard about OpenDocument Foundation people not happy with ODF is from Stephen McGibbon post about Gary Edwards disagreement with Sun. Then comes Rob Weir’s that OpenDocument Foundation had moved away from OpenDocumentFormat. With Rob Weir post I sense some crack in OpenDocument Foundation over ODF. While Weir’s post continues its tradition of building up evidence to support his argument, he is known to be a very passionate guy about ODF and is not shy about attacking opposition, any opposition to ODF. Hence, in this respect, I believe I have to exercise a certain amount of caution when Weir start attacking someone new. Today, I came across Jason Matusow’s happy rambling about how OpenDocument Foundation is unhappy about ODF and appears to be supporting a single document format. Matusow view it as an argument that the “one document format” theory does not work. More on this later. Hmmm… Did OpenDocument Foundation change direction away from ODF? and what is this Compound Document Format (CDF) thing that seems to be the new love of OpenDocument Foundation.
2More

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
1More

Open Document Format: The sad truth | Scott Mace Information Manager Journal - 0 views

scottmace.typepad.com/...open-document-f.html berlind cdf foundation mace odf ooxml opendocument
shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Open Document Format: The sad truth David Berlind has posted a massive chronicle of who said what to whom about the supposed emergence of CDF as an alternative to Open Document Format (ODF) and OOXML. I played a minor role in this saga when I spoke with Gary Edwards for Opening Move, back in April. This was before Edwards proposed CDF in place of ODF. If you haven't listened to our conversation, please do so, because the concerns Edwards raised about ODF (and OOXML) remain just as valid today. While I'm sad to see Edwards' more recent direction and assertions debunked in the press and the blogosphere, the greater tragedy is of two competing document standards -- ODF and OOXML -- now on seemingly irreversible paths to immortality, meaning we'll have translation issues between them around for several lifetimes to come.
4More

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?
4More

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.
5More

Technology News: Applications: What's Holding OpenOffice Back? - 0 views

www.technewsworld.com/...63684.html lotus symphony msoffice myths odf ooxml open source open standards openoffice
shared by Paul Merrell on 06 Jul 08 - Cached
  • Most folks see data formats as an inside-baseball issue, because they work in all-Microsoft organizations where incompatibilities are rare. The only hangup, in that case, comes when Microsoft releases new software (Office 2007 being the latest example). Invariably, the data format's been upgraded as well.
  • The data format wars have been going on for years and have provoked a substantial backlash. The anti-Microsoft crowd has an alternate data format, OpenDocument, that anyone can freely incorporate into any program, just as everyone uses the same old free, non-proprietary HTML to build Web sites.
  • Is Open XML an open standard? The arguments are pretty technical but boil down to this: Microsoft says OpenDocument is not good and that anyone will be able to implement its far more enlightened Open Office XML. Opponents say Microsoft has built into Open XML all manner of snares, deadfalls and booby traps to defend its monopoly.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • And I'm auditioning the latest open source goodie, IBM Lotus Symphony, which looks like a sweet suite. More on that next time.
  • Paul Merrell on 06 Jul 08
     
    The myths that ODF is an open standard, that Lotus Symphony is open source, and that Microsoft is the only company that manipulates "open" standards for unlawful competitive advantage continue to propagate.
1More

What to do now - Rick Jelliffe - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...what_to_do_now.html harmonization jelliffe odf ooxml
shared by Paul Merrell on 30 May 08 - Cached
  • Now that ODF and OOXML are both set to be on the ISO/IEC books, it is useful to consider what the next productive steps are. For genuine ODF Supporters who are concerned that ODF has languished a little out of the limelight during 2007, there are a lot of useful things to be done. You don’t even need to join the OASIS groups or your local National Body or SC34 to begin. I suggest here are some things that will help the ODF effort coming into ODF 1.2.

Thanks! - 16 views

started by Graham Perrin on 31 Jan 09 no follow-up yet
25More

Orcmid's Lair: Microsoft ODF Interoperability Workshop - 0 views

orcmid.com/...-interoperability-workshop.asp
shared by Graham Perrin on 13 May 09 - Cached
  • 2008-08
  • Microsoft's first built-in support
  • approach to adding Open Document Format support directly into Office 2007
  • ...20 more annotations...
  • the balancing act that Office-ODF interoperability requires
  • absence of non-disclosure agreements
  • I saw no down side
  • all ODF TC members who desired to come had a place
  • interaction with the ODF community
  • balancing of different interests: standards groups, corporations, institutions, government agencies, regulatory bodies, and general users
  • five guiding principles that govern ODF support in Word, Excel, and PowerPoint
  • priorities that apply in making trade-offs
  • a serious, open conversation is beginning
  • Balancing of competing considerations is not trivial
  • current OpenOffice.org implementations fail to check whether a formula conforms to its own extension
  • the central feature of typical document processing software is the internal, in-memory representation of the software's document model
  • features may be lost on output
  • features may be lost on input
  • rely on features that succeed with the internal representation
  • degraded or lost entirely in the chosen external representation
  • losing some of them when saving
  • Florian Reuter argued an interesting gracefully-failing extension technique that, on reflection, I believe could avoid breaking changes against earlier ODF specifications of namespaces, their elements and their attributes too
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 13 May 09
       
      I'd like to learn more about this.
  • an application being quite friendly with its own ODF but not with that of other significant implementations
  • discussions did not arrive at conclusions
  • Graham Perrin on 13 May 09
     
    I read this more than a year after the event but still, it's interesting.

Comprehensive Help and Support for Computer Beginners - 1 views

started by liza cainz on 08 Feb 11 no follow-up yet

Dependable Online Computer Repair Support - 1 views

started by liza cainz on 09 Mar 11 no follow-up yet

FixComputerpProblemsSite Surely Knows How to Fix Computer Problems! - 1 views

started by sam neilson on 11 May 11 no follow-up yet

Computer Help and Support for the Aged - 1 views

started by liza cainz on 08 Apr 11 no follow-up yet

Computer Support Service has solved Computer Glitches - 1 views

started by cmptch spprtsrvce on 23 Jun 11 no follow-up yet
« First ‹ Previous 61 - 77 of 77
Showing 20▼ items per page