Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged interop

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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

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

Wizard of ODF: The Foundation on Interop and the List Proposal Vote Deadline - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00040.html

anti-trust ecis foundation odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Feb 08 - Cached
  • Oh, my. Both IBM and Sun voted for the proposal that broke the Foundation's plugin that was going to add full-fidelity native ODF file support to Microsoft Office. So it's sounding to me like at least two of the TC members who voted for the Sun/KOffice proposal didn't check in with the ECIS lawyer before they broke interoperability with Microsoft Office. Do you think Microsoft won't use this evidence in the DG Competition antitrust proceeding, Michael? Let's see, you guys are prosecuting Microsoft for not supporting ODF in Microsoft Office while you block Microsoft Office from supporting ODF. Yeah, I think DG Competition is going to hear about this one from Microsoft. They'll probably hear about what you said about compatibility being a trade off too. Oh, yeah. Microsoft's lawyers are going to love this. Look at the ECIS public statement about interoperability's importance.
  • Gary Edwards on 09 Feb 08
     
    If ever there was a discussion thread of consequence at the OASIS ODF TC, this is it. This is where the ODF interoperability nightmare burst into the daylight of a showdown vote. The interop issues were clear. OpenDocument TC members voted between interoperability and/or application specific innovation. Application specific innovation trumped interoperability. Again. And wha ta sad day it was. The thing is, the recent ECIS antit trust action against Microsoft comes at the request of IBM and Sun. They allege that Microsoft is violating standards requirements for interoeprability, and has launched a series of corrupt activities to push through a non interoperable standard. They are right. Microsoft is guilty. The problem is that Microsof tcan easily point to Sun and IBM activities at OASIS ODF, and make the same allegation! Using this thread as evidence! Furthermore, this thread is evidence that if Microsoft had tried to implement ODF, their efforts to establish interop would have been met with the same response from IBM and Sun that the OpenDocument Foundation recieved. Or so they could argue. Houston, we have a problem. IBM and Sun could have fixed the ODF interop problems at any time during the past five years. Yet, the world is waiting. Meanwhile, this willfull negligence and lack of desire to address pressing market needs for full interop has served to hold the door open for OOXML. And now these negligent acts llook to be the basis of a Microsoft counter claim. Oh well ..
Gary Edwards

A Closer Look At Those "Single Standard" Policy Mandates : Oliver Bell's weblog - 0 views

osrin.net/...ingle-standard-policy-mandates

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • 2. Achieving interoperability is rarely as straight forward as selecting a single technical standard, and many of the policy positions around the world recognize this. Applications need to be designed to work together, groups need a solid framework for collaboration and the standards need to be ready to support these two objectives.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08
       
      Hold on there Oliver. You've got the cart before the horse here. You say that, "standards need to be ready to support these two objectives". The objectives you sight are that of applications being desinged for interop (exchange) and collaboration. This observation is consistent with the vendor mantra coming out of Microsoft, Sun, and IBM: that interoperability is an application problem - not a standards issue. My view is that the only way we will have interoperability is if we design standards as totally application, platform and vendor independent. This demands a clean room approach, even to the extent of not allowing application vendors participation. At least not direct particpation where vendor business objectives might influence the standard. The first law of the Internet is that Interoperability rules. Interop must trump innovation. And innovation must be within the boundaries of the interoperability framework. Meaning, innovate on top of interop, but don't break that interop. Ever! This is exactly the opposite of how applications want to operate. They want innovation first, with interop as secondary feature based entirely on dooperative deals between vendors. That's not good enough for me or anyone else who believes that a universal fiel format is possible. The W3C approach is to focus entirely on the standards use requirements, completely shutting out application demands. With formats, this comes down to focusing on the basic document structures carried over from a few hundred years of document publication experience. The only proven formula for interop is to first write and establish the base standard. Then, let the applications adapt. Let the applications compete on how well they implement interoeprability standards, and build innovative features without disrupting or compromising that interop.
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.
Gary Edwards

EU's Kroes says further technology antitrust abuse cases pending UPDATE - Forbes.com - 0 views

www.forbes.com/...afx5098515.html

antitrust eu interop kroes odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Jun 08 - Cached
  • The commission said that as part of its antitrust investigation into interoperability with Microsoft Office it will investigate whether the announced support of ODF in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice. Kroes said on Tuesday that the commission keeps a close eye on interoperability and said the market should have the right balance of non-propriety and propriety standards. 'Standards are the foundation of interoperability'. 'Standards may, of course, be proprietary or non-proprietary. Much excellent technical development has been driven by non-proprietary standards - the internet is awash with acronyms for non-proprietary standards: HTTP, HTML and XML'.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Jun 08
     
    I wonder if the EU is aware that there is no such thing as ODF Interoperability? After more than five years of working side by side with Sun on the OASIS ODF TC, there is zero interop between KOffice ODF and OpenOffice ODF! How is it that Microsoft's joining the ODF TC somehow results in a level of application interop that has eluded and defied the efforts of two supposedly open source applications? The truth is that OpenOffice-ODF and MSOffice-OOXMl are both based on an XML encoding of the application specific binary dump. The content layers are easily exchanged with other applications, but presentation continues to defy any kind of interop. Especially what the EU expects. Check out the quotes: " The commission said that as part of its antitrust investigation into interoperability with Microsoft Office it will investigate whether the announced support of ODF in Office leads to better interoperability and allows consumers to process and exchange their documents with the software product of their choice. "Kroes said on Tuesday that the commission keeps a close eye on interoperability and said the market should have the right balance of non-propriety and propriety standards. 'Standards are the foundation of interoperability'. 'Standards may, of course, be proprietary or non-proprietary. Much excellent technical development has been driven by non-proprietary standards - the internet is awash with acronyms for non-proprietary standards: HTTP, HTML and XML'.
Gary Edwards

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

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

cdf ibm iso oasis odf ooxml opendocument openoffice sun symphony

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08 - Cached
  • In e-mailed comments, Heintzman said his criticisms about the situation have been made openly. "We think that Open Office has quite a bit of potential and would love to see it move to the independent foundation that was promised in the press release back when Sun originally announced OpenOffice," he said. "We think that there are plenty of existing models of communities, [such as] Apache and Eclipse, that we can look to as models of open governance, copyright aggregation and licensing regimes that would make the code much more relevant to a much larger set of potential contributors and implementers of the technology.... "Obviously, by joining we do believe that the organization is important and has potential," he wrote. "I think that new voices at the table, including IBM's, will help the organization become more efficient and relevant to a greater audience.... Our primary reason for joining was to contribute to the community and leverage the work that the community produces.... I think it is true there are many areas worthy of improvement and I sincerely hope we can work on those.... I hope the story coming out of Barcelona isn't a dysfunctional community story, but rather a [story about a] potentially significant and meaningful community with considerable potential that has lots of room for improvement...."
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08
       
      What Heintzman is refering to here is the incredibly disastrous "ODF Interoperability WorkShop" held at the OpenOffice Confernece in Barcelona, Spain. The Interop WorkShop was organized by IBM's Rob Weir. Incredilby he still has his job. RW put on display for all to see that special brand of ZERO interop unique to ODF. What's really surprising is that in the aftermath of this tragic display of interop illiteracy, RW initiated a new interoperabilitysub committee at the OASIS ODF Adoption TC! Interop is a technical problem, as was embarassingly demonstrated in Barcelona. Yet here they are setting up the interop solution at a marketing group! Which is a strong indication that rather than taking on the politically difficutl and vendor adverse task of binding an interoperability framework to the ODF specification, they've decided to shout down anyone who might point out that the emperor indeed has no clothes. What a sad day for ODF.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
     
    Heintzman must be referring to the Rob Weir -OASIS ODF Adoption (cough marketing-lobbying) TC event called the "ODF Interoperability Workshop". This was a day long event demonstrating for all the world to see that there is no such thing as ODF interoperability. The exchange of documents between OpenOffice 2.0, KOffice and Lotus Symphony is pathetic. The results of the day long event were so discouraging that Rob Weir took to threatening developers who attended in his efforts to keep a lid on it. I think this is called damage control :). From what i hear, it was a very long day for Rob. but that's no excuse for his threatening anyone who might publicly talk about these horrific interop problems. The public expects these problems to be fixed. But how can they be fixed if the issues can't be discussed publicly?
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jan 08
     
    Lotus Symphony is based on the OpenOffice 1.1.4 code base that IBM ripped off back when OpenOffice was under dual license - SSSL and LGPL.
Gary Edwards

An Interop Nightmare: The Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate Review of OpenOffice... - 0 views

www.nwprogressive.org/...free-openofficeorg-writer.html

ooo odf ooxml interop marbux

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Feb 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 03 Feb 09
     
    Marbux at his best! Let's hope the OASIS ODF and OpenOffice.org groups get to work on real interop, and stop with the phony baloney. It can be done, bu tnothing is going to happen until people face up to the harsh reality that today there is zero interop between ODF compliant applications. This must change .... unless of course the world decides to move to the most interoperable but high performance format ever invented: HTML-CSS. And maybe from there the world can move onto the WebKit sugarplum document model, and truly set the future of the Open Web. One thing obviously missing for the Open Web is an office suite of high performance editors capable of natively producing high end WebKit documents (or basic HTML-CSS for that matter!!!!!!!) Good on marbux. Now, can you persuade OASIS and OpenOffice to change their application specific ways? Take on the desktop as well as the future of the Open Web?
Gary Edwards

The ODF Alliance puckers up and gets smacked with the great CSS question - Where is it?... - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...odf_alliance_now_loves_me.html

harmonization hypocrisy interop iso odf odf-alliance ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08 - Cached
  • Harmonisation It is interesting that the ODF Alliance quotes Tim Bray that the world doesn’t need another way to express basic typesetting features. If it is so important, why didn’t ODF just adopt W3C CSS or ISO DSSSL conventions? Why did they adopt the odd automatic styles mechanism which no other standard uses? Now I think the ODF formating conventions are fine, and automatic styles are a good idea. But there is more than one way to make an omlette, and a good solution space is good for users. My perspective is that harmonisation (which will take multiple forms: modularity, pluralism, base sets, extensions, mappings, round-trippability, feature-matching, convergence of component vocabularies, etc, not just the simplistic common use of a common syntax) will be best achieved by continued user pressure, both on MS and the ODF side, within a forum where neither side can stymie the legitimate needs of other.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08
     
    MS-OOXML supporter Rick Jellife discusses the ODF Alliance response to Ecma's proposed disposition of ISO NB comments on OOXML. The Allaince response has recieved quite a bit of ink, wtih waves of ODF jihadists pointing to it as incontroverible evidence that they are right. Rick provides a lengthy response, most of which presents the ODF jihadis with some difficult issues they must now explain. More importantly though, RJ uncovers one of the more glaring examples proving that ODF is application specific to the core, and bound to OpenOffice. He points out that OpenOffice ODF could have chosen the W3C's highly portable and infinitely interoeprable CSS as the ODF presentation layer. This would have been a great reuse of existing standards. But that's not what happened! Instead of the widely used CSS, OpenOffice chose an incredibly application specific presentation model with the unique innovation of "automatic-styles". And with this choice came years of problematic zero interop as application after application try to exchange ODF documents with little success. Take for example KDE-KOffice. They've been a member of the OASIS ODF TC for near five years now, almost since the beginning. Yet it's impossible to exchange all but the most basic of documents with any of the OpenOffice derivaties (OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office, and Lotus Symphony - OOo 1.1.4). If after five years of active particpation and cooperative efforts, KOffice is unable to exchange ODF docuemnts with OpenOffice, how is it that somehow Microsoft Office would be able to implement ODF without similar zero interop results? Isn't the purpose of standardized formats that end users of different applications could effectively exchange documents? The truth is that both ODF and OOXML are application specific formats. And you can't harmonize, merge, map, or translate between two application specific formats without also having harmonized the appli
Gary Edwards

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Mapping documents in the binary format (.doc; .xls; .pp... - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...pt-to-the-open-xml-format.aspx

burtongroup cdf css ibm iso microsoft odf okelly ooxml opendocument openxml sun w3c xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • The second issue we had feedback on was an interest in the mapping from the binary formats into the Open XML formats. The thought here was that the most effective way to help people with this was to create an open source translation project to allow binary documents (.doc; .xls; .ppt) to be translated into Open XML. So we proposed the creation of a new open source project that would map a document written using the legacy binary formats to the Open XML formats. TC45 liked this suggestion, and here was the TC45 response to the national body comments: We believe that Interoperability between applications conforming to DIS 29500 is established at the Office Open XML-to- Office Open XML file construct level only.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      And here i was betting that the blueprints to the secret binaries would be released the weekend before the September 2nd, 2007 ISO vote on OOXML! Looks like Microsoft saved the move for when they really had to use it; jus tweeks before the February ISO Ballot Resolution Meetings set to resolve the Sept 2nd issues. The truth is that years of reverse engineering have depleted the value of keeping the binary blueprints secret. It's true that interoperability with MSOffice in the past was near entirely dependent on understanding the secret binaries. Today however, with the rapid emergence of the Exchange/SharePoint juggernaught, interop with MSOffice is no longer the core issue. Now we have to compete with E/S, and it is the E/S interfaces, protocols and document API's and dependencies tha tmust be reverse engineered. The E/S juggernaught is now surging to 70% or more of the market. These near monopoly levels of market penetration is game changing. One must reverse engineer or license the .NET libraries to crack the interop problem. And this time it's not just MSOffice. Today one must crack into the MS Stack whose core is tha tof MSOffice <> E/S. So why not release the secret binary blueprints? If that's the cost of getting the application, platform and vendor specific OOXML through ISO, then it's a small price to pay for your own international standard.
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
     
    Well well well. We knew that IBM had access to the secret binary blueprints back in 2006. Now we know that Sun ALSO had access!
    And why is this important? In June of 2006, Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez asked the OpenDocument Foundation's da Vinci Group to work with IBM on developing the da Vinci ODF plug-in clone of Microsoft's OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in. When we met with IBM they were insistent that the only way OASIS ODF could establish sufficient compatibility with MSOffice and the billions of binary documents would be to have the secret blueprints open.
    Even after we explained to IBM that da Vinci uses the same internal conversion process that the OOXML plug-in used to convert binaries, IBM continued to insist that opening up the secret binaries was a primary objective of the OASIS ODF community.
    For sure this was important to IBM and Sun, but the secret binaries were of no use to us. da Vinci didn't need them. What da Vinci needed instead was a subset of ODF designed for the conversion of those billions of binary documents! A need opposed by Sun.
    Sun of course would spend the next year developing their own ODF plug-in for MSOffice. But here's the thing: it turns out that Sun had complete access to the secret binary blueprints dating back to 2006!!!!!!
    So even though IBM and Sun have had access to the blueprints since 2006, they have been unable to provide effective conversions to ODF!
    This validates a point the da Vinci group has been trying to make since June of 2006: the problem of perfecting a high fidelity conversion between the billions of binaries and ODF has nothing to do with access to the secret binary blueprints. The real issue is that ODF was NOT designed for the conversion of those binary documents.
    It is true that one could eXtend ODF to achieve the needed compatibility. But one has to be very careful before taking this ro
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

2. WordprocessingML Reference Material - OOXML-Wiki - 0 views

www.xmlopen.org/...rocessingML_Reference_Material

odef odf officeopenxml ooxml open-document-exchange-format opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Jul 07 - Cached
  • It is desired to have improved interoperability between ODF and OOXML. However, OOXML lacks the following features:
  • It is desired to have improved interoperability between ODF and OOXML. However, OOXML lacks the following feature: image can be positioned absolutely within a frame Proposed change: Include support for this feature from ISO ODF in order to improve interoperability between the two formats.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 11 Jul 07
       
      Include support for this feature in ISO ODF is another way of saying to hell with Ecma, OASIS and the big vendors driving the ODF-OOXML bus, Micrsoft and Sun. This is delicious beyond belief. It's also the only way the world is going to get the interoperability they are demanding. The big vendors must be neutralized. The file formats must be completely independent of applications, platforms and the control of big vendors who routinely make exclussionary interoperabilty deals with each other whenever and wherever profitable.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Jul 07
     
    I promise that within a few minutes of reading this OOXML Wiki you will be wondering if this is in fact an ODF Wiki!  This is incredible.

    Fast forward to the section called, "Interoperability between ODF and OOXML", and enjoy.  They cite the problem and make an interop recommendation for each entry.  And what a recommendation it is.  Speaks volumes.

    There is definately something going on in Europe.  The EU IDABC has rejected ODF, OOXML, OASIS, Ecma and ISO!  And are now trying to write their own highly interoperable XML file format, ODEF.  an effort we will fully support with our da Vinci plugin for MSOffice. 

    Well, not only will we support ODEF, we'll write it for them if they really want to cut to the chase and get the kind of vendor independent interoperability the world hungers for.

    The British Standards Institute (BSi) is responsible for the massive research that went into this OOXML Wiki.  They have hunted down and defined the interoperability problem areas between ODF and OOXML.  Surprise surprise.  They be many. 

    The interesting part is that the BSi researchers have found massive, indeed overwhelming fault with OOXML!  Yet, instead of recommending that Ecma make the needed changes to OOXML, they instead recommend that ISO ODF make the changes!

    Not OASIS ODF!  Not Ecma OOXML.

    ISO ODf!

    The difference is all the difference in the world.  Sun does not control ISO ODF the way they control OASIS ODF.   And at ISO, all the binding of ODF to OpenOffice/StarOffice that accounts for the zero interoperability of ODF applications can be broken as needed.

    This is
Gary Edwards

Is It Game Over? - ODF Advocate Andy UpDegrove is Worried. Very Worried - 0 views

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

iso oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Jun 07 - Cached
  • This seems to me to be a turning point for the creation of global standards.&nbsp;Microsoft was invited to be part of the original ODF Technical Committee in OASIS, and chose to stand aside.&nbsp;That committee tried to do its best to make the standard work well with Office, but was naturally limited in that endeavor by Microsoft's unwillingness to cooperate.&nbsp;This, of course, made it easier for Microsoft to later claim a need for OOXML to be adopted as a standard, in order to "better serve its customers."&nbsp;The refusal by an incumbent to participate in an open standards process is certainly its right, but it is hardly conduct that should be rewarded by a global standards body charged with watching out for the best interests of all.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Jun 07
     
    Andy UpDegrove takes on the issue of Microsoft submitting their proprietary "XML alternative to PDF" proposal to Ecma for consideration as an international standard.  MS XML-PDF will compliment ECMA 376 (OOXML - OfficeOpenXML) which is scheduled for ISO vote in September of 2007.  Just a bit over 60 days from today.

    Andy points out some interesting things; such as the "Charter" similarities between MS XML-PDF and MS OOXML submisssions to Ecma:

    MS XML-PDF Scope: The goal of the Technical Committee is to produce a formal standard for office productivity applications within the Ecma International standards process which is fully compatible with the Office Open XML Formats. The aim is to enable the implementation of the Office Open XML Formats by a wide set of tools and platforms in order to foster interoperability across office productivity applications and with line-of-business systems. The Technical Committee will also be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and evolution of the standard.   Programme of Work: Produce a formal standard for an XML-based electronic paper format and XML-based page description language which is consistent with existing implementations of the format called the XML Paper Specification,…[in each case, emphasis added]

    If that sounds familiar, it should, because it echoes the absolute directive of the original OOXML technical committee charter, wh
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

Microsoft legislatively TKO's open document formats. At least stateside. | ComputerWorl... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The question we should be asking is why State CIO's and IT divisions are not backing the legislative proposals? It's not the lobbying that is killing ODF. It's the lack of support from those who would have been left with the challenge of implementing ODF solutions. The silence of the CIO's is deafening. There are three quotes i've seen batted about that pretty much say it all:
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Feb 08
     
    Since December 16th, 2002, or day one on the OASIS Open Office XML Technical Committee, now "ODF", the challenge has been to suceed in the marketplace as the best XML format for desktop productivity environments. Success was seen as a technical challenge. Could we make an XML format capable of universal interoperability? Capable of universal implementation across the domains of desktop, server, device and web platform usage?
    All that changed in May of 2005, when ODF 1.0 was approved by OASIS and sent on it's way to ISO for consideration as an international standard. Following that approval, IBM led a swarm of large corporate vendors who invaded the cozy confines of serious universal docuemnt format work. No longer was the goal to perfect the most useful and lasting structured format the world had ever seen. The IBM led wave of corporate invaders seized on a new use of ODF - the use of ODF as a government mandate to rip out and replace MSOffice!
    The politics of using standards to compete against Microsoft trumped the traditions of seeking market success through technical excellence.
    Sadly, ODF would never recover from the anti trust veiled politics of IBM. The one thing ODF absolutely had to have to technically succeed is ability to convert legacy MS binary documents. Something it was never designed to do. Somethign that clearly is not in IBM's game plan.
    As if the interoeprability problems of ODF wer not enough, IBM forged ahead with their interoeprability plan. Instead of movign interop to the forefront of ODF technical issues, IBM openned up an ODF Interoperability Sub Committee at the OASIS ODF Adoption TC. A group dedicated to the marketing and promotion of ODF.
    Incredibly IBM sees ODF interop as a marketing issue, and not the technical challenge that continues to defy application implementation efforts.
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

Wizard of ODF: OASIS invited to join Microsoft in the DIN technical report - harmoniz... - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00040.html

din eu harmonization iso oasis odf ooxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Jan 08 - Cached
  • the WG is busy working on a first draft. This'll include mainly work in Wordprocessing. Spreadsheet and Presentation is still in the very early work. So help from the ODF TC would be great --- and a liaison would make sense IMHO. To give you an idea why help from the ÓDF TC would be needed I'll briefly outline some questions which arose: * Need for more use-cases, i.e. feasable interop scenarios * Discussions of unspecified behaviour (e.g numbering in 1.0, spreadsheet formulas, compatibilty options, etc.) and their impact on interop scenarios * Questions regaring generic settings like e.eg. form:control-implementation="ooo:com.sun.star.form.component.Form", or tweaking a la http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=51726. * Possible interop problems not handled by the specs (e.g. graphics, WMF, EMF, SVM, etc.) or e.g. font metrics and font embedding. As you see there are a lot of overlapping areas with eg. the "ODF interop" we dealt with in the workshop in Barcelona. [This issue is hosted in the Adoption TC, right? Maybe this TC is also suited as a liaison partner?]
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 29 Jan 08
       
      Uh Oh. Microsoft and Novell joined the EU's call to harmonize ODF and OOXML, but Sun and IBM refused the invite. Now we have the invite in front of the OASIS ODF TC!. Is there any rock big enough for them to hide under if they also refuse?
      And if the OASIS ODF does join the EU-DIN-ISO effort, where doe stha tleave IBM, Sun and their inistance on a politically mandated "rip out and replace" as the only acceptable solution?
Gary Edwards

Office generations 1.0 - 4.0| Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: - 0 views

www.roughtype.com/...office_generati.php

carr office office20 web

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The key is to extend both functionality and interoperability without taking away any of the capabilities that users currently rely on or expect. Reducing interoperability or functionality is a non-starter, for the end user as well as the IT departments that want to avoid annoying the end user. You screw with PowerPoint at your own risk.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      Exactly! This is also the reason why ODF failed in Massachusetts! Reducing the interoperability or functionality of of any workgroup related business process is unacceptable. Which is why IBM's rip out and replace MSOffice approach as the means of transitioning to ODF is doomed. The Office 2.0 (er 3.0) crowd is at a similar disadvantage. They offer web based productivity services that leverage the incredible value of web collaboration. The problem is that these collaboration services are not interoperable with MSOffice. This disconnection greatly reduces and totally neutralizes the collaboration value promise. Microsoft of course will be able to deliver that same web based collaborative comp[uting value in an integrated package. They and they alone are able to integrate web collaboration services into existing MSOffice workgroups. In many ways this should be an anti trust issue. If governments allow Microsoft to control the interop channels into MSOffice, then Microsoft web collaboration systems will be the only choice for 550 million MSOffice workgroup users. The interop layer is today an impossible barrier for Office 2.0, Web 2.0, SaaS and SOA competitors. This is the reasoning behind our da Vinci CDF+ plug-in for MSOffice. Rather than continue banging the wall of IBM's transition to ODF through government legislated rip out and replace mandates, we think the way forward is to exploit the MSOffice plug-in architecture, using it to neutralize and re purpose existing MSOffice workgroups. The key is getting MSOffice documents into a web ready format that is useful to non Microsoft web platform (cloud) alternatives. This requires a non disruptive transition. The workgroups will not tolerate any loss of interop or functionality. We believe this can be done using CDF+ (XHTML 2.0 + CSS). Think of it as cutting off the transition of existing workgroup business p
  • Microsoft sees this coming, and one of its biggest challenges in the years ahead will be figuring out how to replace the revenues and profits that get sucked out of the Office market.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      Bingo!
  • The real problem that I see is the reduced functionality and integration. I don’t think there can be a Revolution until someone builds an entire suite of Revolutionary office products on the web. Office has had almost (or more than, don't quote me) 15 years of experience to build a tight cohesive relationship between it's products.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      Rather than replace MSOffice, why not move the desktop bound business processes to the web? Re write them to take advantage of web collaboration, universal connectivity, and universal interop.
      Once the business processes are up in the cloud, you can actually start introducing desktop alternatives to MSOffice. The trick is to write these alternative business processes to something other than .NET 3.0, MS-OOXML, and the Exchange/SharePoint Hub.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • left standing in a few years will be limited to those who succeeded in getting their products adopted and imbedded into the customers 'workflow' (for lack of a better term) and who make money from it. A silo'ed PPA is not embedded in a company's workflow (this describes 95% of the Office 2.0 companies) thus their failure is predetermined. A Free PPA is not making money thus their failure is predetermined as well. For those companies who adapt to a traditional service and support model and make it through the flurry.....would they really qualify as Office 4.0?
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
       
      Spot on! Excellent comments that go right to the heart of the matter. The Office 2.0 crowd is creating a new market category that Microsoft will easily be able to seize and exploit when the time is right. Like when it becomes profitable :)
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
     
    In this 2006 article Nick Carr lays out the history of office productivity applications, arguing the Office 2.0 is really Office 3.0 - the generation where desktop productivity office suites mesh with the Web. This article is linked to The Office question, December 18, 2007
Gary Edwards

ODF Split: Good Riddance, Good Grief, or Game Over? Michael Desmond Redmond Developer ... - 0 views

reddevnews.com/...weblog.aspx

cdf foundation odf ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 13 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Dec 07
     
    Interesting comment from Simon Phipps: maybe we'll see ODF interoperability in versions 1.3 or 1.5? Note to Simon: It's been five years now since owrk on ODF began! Why not do something about the piss poor ODF interop now? Do we really need to wait another five years? ODF interop problems can be fixed with a simple vote to change the wording in Section 1.5, the Compatibility Clause, from should to must. Today compliance is optional, and it's killing ODF!!!! And this clown says we were out of our depth? He's out there peddling zero interoperability amongst ODF ready applications, with over 550 million users unable to convert their billions MSOffice documents to ODF, and we're the ones out of our depth? Although ODF began a noble and honorable effort to gift mankind with an open universally interoperable XML strucutred format also application, platform and vendor independent, things have changed. The big vendors have taken over, and turned this once noble effort into a shameless marketing war that's invaded international politics as it has corrupted international standards orgs. Game Over! ~ge~
  • Gary Edwards on 13 Dec 07
     
    Interesting comment from Simon Phipps: maybe we'll see ODF interoperability in versions 1.3 or 1.5? Note to Simon: It's been five years now since owrk on ODF began! Why not do something about the piss poor ODF interop now? Do we really need to wait another five years? ODF interop problems can be fixed with a simple vote to change the wording in Section 1.5, the Compatibility Clause, from should to must. Today compliance is optional, and it's killing ODF!!!! And this clown says we were out of our depth? He's out there peddling zero interoperability amongst ODF ready applications, with over 550 million users unable to convert their billions MSOffice documents to ODF, and we're the ones out of our depth? Although ODF began a noble and honorable effort to gift mankind with an open universally interoperable XML strucutred format also application, platform and vendor independent, things have changed. The big vendors have taken over, and turned this once noble effort into a shameless marketing war that's invaded international politics as it has corrupted international standards orgs. Game Over! ~ge~
Gary Edwards

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
1 - 20 of 97 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page