Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged interoperability

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Xandros, Inc. - Xandros to Provide Enhanced Interoperability Between Standardized XML D... - 0 views

www.marketwire.com/...release.do

quickd

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 07 - Cached
  • Xandros, the leading provider of intuitive Linux solutions and cross platform interoperability tools, today announced it will join Microsoft and other companies to build and ship open source translators between documents stored in Ecma Office Open XML and Open Document Formats. The translators, being developed through the Open XML/ODF Translator project, will be made available to Xandros users via the Xandros Networks update facility. Every Xandros product that includes OpenOffice.org will be equipped with the translators. This announcement underscores the shared view of Xandros and Microsoft that competing office productivity applications should make it easy for customers to exchange files with one another and allow them to use their operating system and office productivity applications of choice. "This is good news for customers. Xandros and Microsoft share the view that competing office productivity applications should make it easy for customers to exchange files with one another," said Tom Robertson, general manager for Interoperability and Standards at Microsoft. "Mixed system environments are becoming more common, and we believe in delivering interoperability by design for the benefit of our customers. Our ongoing collaborative relationships with commercial open source companies like Xandros help us achieve that goal." "We are delighted to join forces with Microsoft and others to provide interoperability between standardized XML document formats," said Andreas Typaldos, Xandros CEO. "The work of the world is done using various document formats as well as operating systems, so it is vital to provide our customers with the means interoperate with ease in this diverse environment."
  • Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 07
     
    You have to read this!  Xandros is taking this interoperability garbage seriously!
Gary Edwards

Groklaw - Microsoft, antitrust and innovation, by Georg Greve - 0 views

www.groklaw.net/article.php

antitrust interoperability microsoft odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07 - Cached
  • Interoperability: The second abusive practice the Commission found Microsoft guilty of is the deliberate obstruction of interoperability, generally achieved through arbitrary and willful modification of Open Standards. This makes it impossible for competitors to write interoperable software. This is to the detriment of customers, who find themselves locked into the products of one vendor, the antithesis of competition.
  • It might look much worse in the light of public statements that Microsoft will not even commit to standards that it has proposed itself, such as the recent Microsoft OfficeOpenXML (OOXML) format it wants approved by ISO. The less people talk about the interoperability side of the case, the better for Microsoft. Otherwise people might connect MS-OOXML to the fact that Microsoft initiated the standardisation effort in the workgroup server area to open the market and later started obstruction of interoperability on its own standard to drive the innovator out of the market.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07
       
      Great point. I think tha tanytime a big vendor embraces an open standard they should committ to full public documentation and explanation of any eXtensions to their implementaiton of that standard. Interoperability matters!
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07
     
    Excellent explanation of Microsoft's problems in Europe.  One can only hope that the successor to the Bush Administration is paying attention. 
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML - The Final Act - 0 views

www.idm.net.au/story.asp

din fraunhofer harmonization iso odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The format war between Microsoft’s Open Office XML (OOXML) and the open source OpenDocument Format (ODF) has flared up again, right before the looming second OOXML ISO vote in March.
  • “ISO has a policy that, wherever possible, there should only be one standard to maximise interoperability and functionality. We have an international standard for digital documentation, ODF,” IBM’s local government programs executive Kaaren Koomen told AustralianIT.
  • ODF has garnered some criticism for being a touch limited in scope, however, one of its strengths is that it has already been accepted as a worldwide ISO standard. Microsoft’s format on the other hand, has been criticised for being partially proprietary, and even a sly attempt by the software giant to hedge its bets and get in on open standards while keeping as many customers locked into its solutions as possible.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      A "touch limited in scope"? Youv'e got to be kidding. ODF was not defined to be compatible with the billions of MSOffice binary (BIN) documents. Nor was it designed to further interoperability with MSOffice.
      Given that there are over 550 million MSOffice desktops, representing upwards of 95% of all desktop productivity environments, this discrepancy of design would seem to be a bit more than a touch limited in scope!
      Many would claim that this limitation was due to to factors: first that Microsoft refused to join the OASIS ODF TC, which would have resulted in an expanded ODF designed to meet the interoperability needs of the great herd of 550 million users; and second, that Microsoft refused to release the secret binary blueprints.
      Since it turns out that both IBM and Sun have had access to the secret binary blueprints since early 2006, and in the two years since have done nothing to imptove ODF interop and conversion fidelity, this second claim doesn't seem to hold much water.
      The first claim that Microsoft didn't participate in the OASIS ODF process is a bit more interesting. If you go back to the first OASIS ODF Technical Committee meeting, December 16th, 2002, you'll find that there was a proposal to ammend the proposed charter to include the statemnt that ODF (then known as Open Office XML) be compatible with existing file formats, including those of MSOffice. The "MSOffice" reference was of course not included because ODF sought to be application, platform and vendor independent. But make no mistake, the discussion that day in 2002 was about compatibility and the conversion of the legacy BIN's into ODF.
      The proposal to ammend the charter was tabled. Sun objected, claiming that people would interpret the statement as a direct reference to the BIN's, clouding the charter's purpose of application, platform and vendor independence. They proposed that the charter ammendment b
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      Will harmonization work? I don't think so. The problem is that the DIN group is trying to harmonize two application specific formats. OpenOffice has one way of implementing basic document structures, and MSOffice another. These differences are directly reflected in the related formats, ODF and OOXML. Any attempts to harmonize ODF and OOXML will require that the applications, OpenOffice and MSOffice, be harmonized! There is no other way of doing this unless the harmonized spec has two different methods for implementing basic structures like lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. Not to mention the problems of feature disparities. If the harmonized spec has two different implementation models for basic structures, interoeprability will suffer enormously. And interoperability is after all the prupose of the standardization effort. That brings us to a difficult compromise. Should OpenOffice compromise it's "innovative" features and methods in favor of greater interoperability with MSOffice and billions of binary documents? Let me see, 100 million OpenOffice installs vs. 550 MSOffice installs bound to workgroup-workflow business processes - many of which are critical to day to day business operations? Sun and IBM have provided the anser to this question. They are not about to compromise on OpenOffice innovation! They believe that since their applications are free, the cost of ODF mandated "rip out and replace" is adequately offset. Events in Massachusetts prove otherwise! On July 2nd, 2007, Sun delivered to Massachusetts the final version of their ODF plug-in for MSOffice. That night, after reviewing and testing the 135 critical documents, Massachusetts made a major change to their ETRM web site. They ammended the ETRM to fully recognize OOXML as an acceptable format standard going forward. The Massachusetts decision to overturn th
  • ...1 more annotation...
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
       
      The Burton Group did not recommend that ISO recognize OOXML as a standard! They pointed out that the marketplace is going to implement OOXML by default simply because it's impossible to implement ODF in situations where MSOffice dominates. ISO should not go down the slippery slope of recognizing application-platform-vendor specific standards. They already made that mistake with ODF, and recognizing OOXML is hardly the fix. What ISO should be doign is demanding that ODF fully conform with ISO Interoeprability Requirements, as identified in the May 2006 directive! Forget OOXML. Clean up ODF first.
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Feb 08
     
    Correcto mundo! There should be only one standard to maximise interoeprability and functionality. But ODF is application specific to the way OpenOffice works. It was not designed from a clean slate. Nor was the original 2002 OpenOffice XML spec designed as an open source effort! Check the OOo source code if you doubt this claim. The ONLY contributors to Open Office XML were Sun employees! What the world needs is in fact a format standard designed to maximise interoperability and functionality. This requires a total application-platofrm-vendor independence that neither ODF or OOXML can claim. The only format that meets these requirements is the W3C's family of HTML-XML formats. These include advancing Compound Docuemnt Framework format components such as (X)HTML-5, CSS-3, XForms, SVG and SMiL.. The W3C's CDF does in fact meet the markeplace needs of a universal format that is open, unencumbered and totally application, platform and vendor independent. The only trick left for CDF is proving that legacy desktop applications can actually implement conversions from existing in-memory-binary-representations to CDF without loss of information.
Gary Edwards

Universal Interoperability Framework for OpenDocument - 0 views

docs.google.com/Doc

cdf interop interoperability iso odef odf opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07 - Cached
  • SUMMARY: The OpenDocument Foundation proposes that the OASIS Office TC begin now to create an interoperability framework for inclusion in OpenDocument v. 1.2. This document, one of a series of planned proposals, proposes first steps towards a comprehensive interoperability framework and OpenDocument conformance requirements.  This proposal is designed to bring ODF v. 1.2 into compliance with current ISO Interoperability Requirements.
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07
     
    The OpenDocument Foundation "Universal Interoperability Framework" Proposal has not been submitted to the OASIS ODF TC as of this bookmarking.  But this version is complete except for a closing summation.
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

ODF Alliance on the Microsoft Disposition of ISO Comments on OOXML - 0 views

www.odfalliance.org/...isposition%20of%20Comments.pdf

brm odf odf-alliance ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 30 Jan 08 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 30 Jan 08
     
    The ever audacious and prevaricating lobbyist group known as the ODF Alliance has posted their critique of Ecma's (Microsoft's) proposed disposition of ISO comments rejecting OOXML. The critique's appeal to ignorance is breath-taking in scope. E.g., whilst slamming DIS-29500 on the subject of interoperability, the same document pushes for harmonization using the following argument: "Harmonization starts from looking at where the two formats overlap - and there is a significant, perhaps 90 percent or more, area where OOXML and ODF do overlap - and expressing this functional overlap identically. This common functionality between ODF and OOXML would also include a common extensibility mechanism. The remaining 10 percent of the functionality, where these standards do not overlap, would represent the focus of the harmonization effort. That portion of it which represents a widespread need could be brought into the core of ODF. That remaining portion which only serves one vendor's needs, such as flags for deprecated legacy formatting options, could be represented using the common extensibility mechanism." And precisely how do vendor-specific extensions aid interoperability, particularly when the proposed "harmonization" does not require profiles and an interoperability framework?
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

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

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

cdf foundation marbux odf ooxml updegrove

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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~
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

Billions of Legacy Binary Documents -- gary_edwards's comment on "Linux leaders pl... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-3513-0.html

ecma-376 iso microsoft odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Jun 07 - Cached
  • The point is that ODF has to be flexible enough so that the demand side of the equation can successfully convert their MSOffice documents to ODF. More important than simple one-way conversion is the need for high fidelity round trip conversion.
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Jun 07
     
    This is a follow up comment to a question cocerning my previous post, "commercialization of interoperability".  The question from "mosborne" is as follows:

    A different viewI'm not on the ODF TC, but I have followed its evolution through the information publicly available at Oasis.

    My outside view of some of the various interoperability discussions you mention is different than yours. I saw a resistance to adoption of features if the sole reason was because OOXML did it that way. The dissenting members wanted a more substantial reason, not simply to add OOXML "features" to ODF.

    If the goal is to simply make ODF like OOXML, then what is the point? You would have conceded all control to Microsoft since they have effective control of OOXML.It's an interesting question, but not well informed.  The threads at OASIS ODF having to do with interoperability are focused on efforts to have our cake and eat it too. 

    The List Enhancement Proposal thread played out over a six month period.  And yes, it is true that Sun fought the Novell proposal because they felt new and innovative features for OpenOffice/StarOffice were more important than the interoperability CIO's and IT departments are demanding.   But that misses the more important point that Novell was able to craft their interoperability proposal exactly so that the precious advanced feature sets of applications that command les sthan 1% marketshare would be accommodated.

    What Sun and most others on the ODF TC don't get is that the markets have no use for these new and innovative feature sets unless and until they can transition their documents and business processes out of MSOffice.  If workgroup bound end users can't do that first, it won't matter how
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Watch - Corporate - Microsoft's Stunning Court Defeat - 0 views

www.microsoft-watch.com/...fts_stunning_court_defeat.html

anti-trust cdf interoperability microsoft odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Sep 07 - Cached
  • "The Court considers that the Commission was correct to conclude that the work group server operating systems of Microsoft's competitors must be able to interoperate with Windows domain architecture on an equal footing with Windows operating systems if they are to be capable of being marketed viably. The absence of such interoperability has the effect of reinforcing Microsoft's competitive position on the market and creates a risk that competition will be eliminated."
  • Here, U.S. oversight of Microsoft will continue until at least November 2009, largely because of server protocol licensing. The so-called "California group" of states—those that didn't settle the U.S. antitrust case—and other parties will likely ask the court here to align the two disclosure programs, extending the ruling's impact well beyond Europe.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 17 Sep 07
       
      I wonder if this is correct? My understanding is that the California Group will be brushed aside by the Feds?
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Sep 07
     
    Microsoft Watch Joe Wilcox is on the job.  This particular hgihlighted quote speaks volumes.  The USA anti trust settlement famously allowed Microsoft to commercialize interoperability through expensive licenses -  $8 Million per year for just the basic package.

    It looks like the EU would force those interoperability API's out into the open.  I wonder how this position will impact the November 12 th hearing on lifting the USA anti trust oversight?  We have the EU saying the monopolist is illegally maintaining their monopoly through various interop barricades.  And, the USA about to declare that the interop barricades no longer exists, therefore, the monopolist should be free to wreck havoc. 

    The stage looks set for a vey dramatic final act.

Gary Edwards

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

www.universal-interop-council.org/?q=node/2

cdf ibm interop oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08 - Cached
  • In late 2007, an article 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. But unfortunately, the erroneous Updegrove article was widely publicized by the usual occupants of the IBM cheering section (1) in the stadium where the latest big vendor game for the Incompatible File Format Cup is being played, IFFC Games Stadium.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Feb 08
     
    Great article from the Universal Interoperability Council arguing the case for CDF as a universally interoperable format capable of fully representing desktop productivity environment documents. The UIC arguments are of course opposed by IBM and the lawyer for OASIS, Andy Updegrove.
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

OOXML and ODF: The next step | [odf-discuss] Marbux Responds! - 0 views

lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/...007308.html

interop interoperability iso marbux odf ooxml opendocument-fellowship

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08 - Cached
  • The issue we were discussing -- and what I believe the ODEF conference was very much concerned with -- was whether ODF plus vendor-specific extensions will be classified as conformant ODF. The market requirement is for "Exchange Formats" and document-level interoperability. I could repose my question as whether ODF v. 1.2 will "clearly and unambiguously specify interoperability requirements essential to achieve the interoperability," as required by JTC 1 Directives. As you noted in an earlier post in this thread, you can't do interoperability if you use vendor extensions. > I see a standard as providing a shared vocabulary for buyers and sellers > to express their requirements. You are in error. This is a matter controlled by law rather than by personal opinion. Standards are all about the substitutability of goods, weights, and measures. A standard specifies all characteristics of a product, weight, or measure in mandatory terms so there is uniformity. Standards are the antithesis of product differentiation. Their very purpose is to eliminate product differentiation.
  • Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08
     
    Excellent legal argument by the legendary marbux concerning OOXML and ODF itneroperability. Covers ISO Interop Requirements and the demands of International Trade Agreements. Key to this thread is ODF v 1.2 and what must be done to bring ODF into legal compliance with International demands.
  • Gary Edwards on 09 Apr 08
     
    Outstanding analysis and research by the legendary marbux
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.
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

Europe: Microsoft's behavior has changed, interop docs already complete | Tech Policy &... - 0 views

www.betanews.com/...1236178252

odf opendocument office-formats microsoft eu interoperability

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 09
     
    "In light of changes in Microsoft's behaviour, the increased opportunity for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision," this morning's statement reads, "the Commission no longer requires a full time monitoring trustee to assess Microsoft's compliance. In future, the Commission intends to rely on the ad hoc assistance of technical consultants. "Microsoft has an ongoing obligation to supply complete and accurate interoperability information as specified in the Commission's 2004 Microsoft Decision," the EC goes on. "However, given that the original set of interoperability information has already been documented by Microsoft, increased opportunities through private enforcement provisions in Microsoft's license agreements for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts, and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision, the nature of the technical assistance that the Commission requires is now of a more ad hoc character."
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Microsoft Expands List of Formats Supported in Microsoft Office: Move enhances customer... - 0 views

www.microsoft.com/...05-21ExpandedFormatsPR.mspx

microsoft msoffice 14 msoffice 2007 odf pdf xps

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 22 May 08 - Cached
  • REDMOND, Wash. — May 21, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. is offering customers greater choice and more flexibility among document formats, as well as creating additional opportunities for developer and competitors, by expanding the range of document formats supported in its flagship Office productivity suite.
  • With the release of Microsoft Office 2007 Service Pack 2 (SP2) scheduled for the first half of 2009, the list will grow to include support for XML Paper Specification (XPS), Portable Document Format (PDF) 1.5, PDF/A and Open Document Format (ODF) v1.1.
  • It will also allow customers to set ODF as the default file format for Office 2007. To also provide ODF support for users of earlier versions of Microsoft Office (Office XP and Office 2003), Microsoft will continue to collaborate with the open source community in the ongoing development of the Open XML-ODF translator project on SourceForge.net.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      The wookie here is the lack of native ODF support in older versions of MS Office, together with the earlier-announced intent to develop a new special API for other vendors to add native file suport via MS Office plug-ins. As part of its previous effort to backport OOXML support to earlier versions of Office and to port it to Office for the Mac, Microsoft engineers internally added OOXML support using the Office 2003 native file support to the Office 2003 native file support plug-in APIs, ripped it out of Office 2003 for Office 2007, wrapped it as a module with the same interface as the older APIs, then back and cross ported the module to the earlier versions and Office for the Mac. The new APIs for use by competitors must of necessity be integrated with the existing module. Anytime Microsoft needs to issue a bug fix for OOXML in the earlier versions, it would seem that the most efficient manner for Micriosoft to do so would be a patch for all versions that support OOXML. A patch that adds ODF support for the other Office versions would seem to be a fairly trivial task that could be rolled out with the patches that bring the older versions up to date with the final version of ISO/IEC OOXML In my view, the only conceivable reason for the new APIs is to limit the Office functionality available to competitors who write plug-ins for Office.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 02 Jun 08
       
      Another key point in the silver lining here is that Microsoft will add native support for ODF to Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 "and beyond". However support for ODF in previous versions of Microsoft Office will not be native but through the CleverAge Converter on SourceForge. It will in other words be XSLT-based translation of ODF to/from OOXML with the known issues with translation such as bad quality and performance. http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/05/Document-translation-sucks-(When-Rob-is-right2c-hes-right).aspx
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • “Microsoft’s support for ODF in Office is a great step that enables customers to work with the document format that best meets their needs, and it enables interoperability in the marketplace,” said Roger Levy, senior vice president and general manager of Open Platform Solutions for Novell Inc. “Novell is proud to be an industry leader in cross-platform document interoperability through our work in the Document Interoperability Initiative, the Interop Vendor Alliance and with our direct collaboration with Microsoft in our Interoperability Lab. We look forward to continuing this work for the benefit of customers across the IT spectrum.”
  • Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    Microsoft press announcement: REDMOND, Wash. - May 21, 2008 - Microsoft Corp. is offering customers greater choice and more flexibility among document formats, as well as creating additional opportunities for developer and competitors, by expanding the range of document formats supported in its flagship Office productivity suite.
  • Jesper Lund Stocholm on 02 Jun 08
     
    Microsoft press announcement: REDMOND, Wash. - May 21, 2008 - Microsoft Corp. is offering customers greater choice and more flexibility among document formats, as well as creating additional opportunities for developer and competitors, by expanding the range of document formats supported in its flagship Office productivity suite.
Graham Perrin

Where is there an end of it? | Notes on Document Conformance and Portability #3 - 0 views

www.adjb.net/...ormance-and-Portability-3.aspx

shared by Graham Perrin on 13 May 09 - Cached
  • a calm look at some of the issues
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 13 May 09
       
      Still, not all of the subsequent comments are calm…
  • Microsoft’s implementation decision
  • on the face of it
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • an implementation of ODF which does not interoperate with other available implementations
  • some real problems with basic spreadsheet interoperability among ODF products using undocumented extensions
  • abandoning the “convention”
  • these ODF implementations have limited interoperability
  • more or less
  • unsafe for any mission-critical data
  • does not, in fact, conform
  • legacy support as an option
  • this interoperability fiasco has been allowed to happen within the context of a standard
  • in the interests of the users
  • behave better
  • good news
  • work is underway to fix this problem: ODF 1.2
  • people may disagree in good faith
  • ODF implementations can actually cut it,
  • Rob’s statement that “SP2's implementation
  • is mistaken on this point
  • no grounds for complacency about the sufficiency of the ODF specification
  • keen to see defects, such as conformance loopholes, fixed in the next published ODF standard
  • I urge all other true supporters to read the drafts and give feedback to make ODF better for the benefit of everyone
  • Microsoft is the only one of seven main ODF implementations that fail to achieve interoperability in ODF formulas
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 172 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page