Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged jelliffe

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Paul Merrell

Is our idea of "Open Standards" good enough? Verifiable vendor-neutrality - O'Reilly XM... - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...ur_idea_of_open_standards.html

dita docbook interop jelliffe odf ooxml uof vendor neutrality

shared by Paul Merrell on 23 May 08 - Cached
  • Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
     
    In light of the Microsoft announcement of ODF support, a prescient July, 2007 blog article by Rick Jelliffe deserves revisiting. Jelliffe surveyed the pressure points for various players that he saw in the File Format War and made a set of suggestions that bear a remarkable resemblance to subsequent events. The goal he recommended for eGovernment and open standards advocates was to push to get ODF and OOXML out of the hands of Ecma and OASIS and into the hands of ISO for harmonization work, arguing that it is the most vendor-neutral eligible forum for such work.
Paul Merrell

What to do now - Rick Jelliffe - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...what_to_do_now.html

harmonization jelliffe odf ooxml

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

Open Malaysia: Rick Jelliffe - myths debunked? - 0 views

www.openmalaysiablog.com/...rick_jelliffe_m.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Jun 07 - Cached
  • Additionally, ODF was not ratified with SVG, MathML, XLink, Zip and other W3C standards all together at the same time. Instead the prior W3C standards were already well established and approved in their own right and in their own time with the relevant experts of their specific domains vetting it. MSOOXML also incorporates proposed "standards" which failed in the marketplace and now is offered a "backdoor" to standardisation process by piggy backing this nebulous specification. (See VML vs SVG, and MathML vs Microsoft Office MathML) So there is a myth being built that ODF and its constituent parts are just as large as MSOOXML, and therefore MSOOXML is OK. I for one would rather MSOOXML be even larger; to cater for unknown tags like "lineWrapLikeWord6" or a Macro specification. However what troubles me is that the special relationship between Ecma and ISO should be abused with the fast tracking of this large specification.
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Jun 07
     
    Yoon Kit brings up an interesting point about the ISO consideration of MSOOXML (Ecma 376);  ISO approval of MSOOXML would backdoor a good many MS proprietary technologies that compete directly with W3C XML standards.

    YK gives the example of MS VML, which competes with the W3C SVG standard used by ODF.  He could have also cited that legacy versions of MSOffice (98-2003) make use of VML as the default graphic format, while MSOffice 2003 9with XML plugin) and MSOffice 2007 (by default) implements DrawingML as the replacement for VML. 

    So, would ISO approval of Ecma 376 backdoor VML and DrawingML in as "standards"?  Or MSOffice MathML?   One has to wonder since they are essential to MSOOXML.

1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page