Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged matusow

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

OOXML and ISO: The Process Challenge - A Predictable Path | Matusow's Blog - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...llenge-a-predictable-path.aspx

iso jtc-1 ooxml open-standards

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Apr 08 - Cached
  • Where can we expect challenges?
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Apr 08
     
    Scott B responds to Matusow blathering with a list of ISO changes that should be made given the OOXML fiasco, but won't.
Gary Edwards

ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML - zdnet thread - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5206-12558-0.html

cdf iso microsoft ms-ooxml odf opendocuemnt

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07 - Cached
  • But we also oppose adoption of ODF 1.2 as an ISO standard in the form we expect it to emerge from OASIS.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07
       
      Bad phrasing. We would really like to see ODF 1.2 succeed at ISO, but this would require compliance with ISO Interoperability Requirements. Today, ODF 1.2 is not compliant with those requirements, and we fully expect it to be defeated at ISO due to the obvious shortcoming. In May of 2006, ISO Directorate issued a clear and unequivocal statement tha tODF must conform to ISO Interoeprability Requirements. ODF 1.2 work was closed in July of 2007, without the needed changes.
  • As a result of the latest infighting, is Microsoft now all-but-guaranteed that OOXML will sail through the ISO standardization vote in Feburary 2008 because ODF — and its backers — will be in disarray? This has nothing to do with the outcome of the Ballot Resolution Meeting.
  • Matusow sounds reasonable only if you are not a file format congnoscenti. He uses an appeal to ignorance. A single universal set of formats is entirely feasible from a technical standpoint; e.g., the example of HTML. But the chances of getting there by opening application-specific formats are dim at best, as the ODF experience teaches. You might acquire an entirely different perspective if you spent some time viewing the short sets of slides from the IDABC Open Document Exchange Formats Workshop 2007, which laid down the market requirements for 21 European government IT national bodies. http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474 (.) I particularly recommend Dr. Barbara Held's report to the plenary session linked from this page, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6704/5935 and the four workshop reports linked from the bottom of this page, http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6702/5935 (.) Those slides reflect a lot of careful research into the issue you and Matusow discuss.
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Oct 07
     
    Hey, great comments! 
Gary Edwards

Front-page: Matusow backs the French proposal? - 0 views

www.noooxml.org/...usow-backs-the-french-proposal

afnor cdf merger odf ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • But markets and governments understand that Open Document is the appropriate standard to replace the old Microsoft binary formats for office communication.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07
     
    When did this happen? Th eonly thing markets and government pilot studies show is that it's IMPOSSIBLE to convert existing MSOffice documents to ODF. And even if you are able to do a lossy conversion, there is no way to convert back again without serious loss processing specific informaiton. (round tripping - which is critical to business process document exchange and routing).
Paul Merrell

Matusow's Blog : Open XML, ODF, PDF, and XPS in Office - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...odf-pdf-and-xps-in-office.aspx

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Cached
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      Whoopee! Everyone gets to add vendor-specific extensions to standards like ODF to enable some quality of Sharepoint/Exchange/Outlook interop in their apps, just as soon as Microsoft gets around to offering adequate specfications. History teaches that may be a very long time, and of course the relevant Microsoft patent RAND terms apply, because the disclosures are made outside the context of a standard that requires otherwise. And of course the OASIS RF on RAND policy does not forbid new ODF features subject to RAND terms and the policy is silent on the subject of vendor-specific extensions. Methinks FOSS may have just lost its "open standard" ODF.
  • Office is NOT implementing ODF 1.0 from ISO. That spec is not representative of the marketplace today, it is not what is implemented in OpenOffice, it is not what IBM is using for Symphony, and it is not referenced in the Massachusetts ETRM policy.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      As I have been arguing, there are no full featured implementations in existence of the ISO/IEC:26300 OpenDocument standard and every government that has adopted the international standard as its own internal standard or procurement specification is subject to legal challenge because of the lack of implementations.
  • In my opinion, the continued interest in innovation presented by those solutions will speak much louder than the formats themselves.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      You can have standards and you can have innovation. But you can't have interop if you embrace and extend standards. The need for stable, fully-specified formats for document interchange purposes apparently is not part of Microsoft's plan. Scant wonder, neither ODF nor OOXML is designed for document interchange among competing vendors' apps. They are both standards designed to allow a single vendor to maintain dominant market share among implementors of those standards. Microsoft will soon diominate market share in both so-called "standards." The embrace of a standard is necessary to extend and extinguish it.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • While this is a big deal announcement for the Office product team (check out Doug Mahugh's blog), my take on it is predictably focused on the longer-term interoperability factors.
  • the API that will allow ANY document format to register itself with Office and be set as the default will be made available as planned. Additionally, the work with DAISY and other specialized document formats will move forward as well.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      I was wrong. The API is for more than ODF plugo-ins.
  • The documentation of client/server protocols for Office-related technologies (such as SharePoint and Exchange/Outlook communications) will remain available to the public.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
     
    "Clearly the Press Announcement today from Microsoft will bring about another wave of discourse on the future of document formats. " Jason Matusow presents the long-term view of the announcement's significance.
Paul Merrell

BetaNews | Microsoft's Matusow and Mahugh on Office's move to open format support - 0 views

www.betanews.com/...2

compatibility mode mahugh matusow microsoft native file support apis odf

shared by Paul Merrell on 27 May 08 - Cached
  • DOUG MAHUGH, program manager for ISO 29500-based products, Microsoft: One thing to be very clear about here is this: When we say, "support for ODF in [Office] SP2," we intend to write very compliant ODF documents when you save a document. However, it's not a given that everything you can do in the Office UI is savable under ODF. As you're alluding to, there are things -- SmartArt, conditional formatting, things like that -- that we have in Office and that are popular features, where there is no way to save those in ODF, currently.The way we're approaching that, I can share a little bit with you: We're not throttling the UI, as you describe, where certain things are disabled. Rather, at the time you save, we're telling you, "Hey, you're saving in this other format; some information in this document may be lost." That sort of thing. And let me tell you why we made the decision to do it in that particular way: There are situations where some of that functionality may be very useful to the user, even though it can't be serialized out to the format that they're saving in.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 27 May 08
       
      One might suppose that the new API discussed on the following page will similarly not allow developers to set a compatability mode in Office apps. Note that the existing APIs do allow that, so one might suspect that disabling the ability to set a compatibility mode is one of the reasons for the new API.
  • The engineering decisions that were made in the original creation of ODF represent the engineering pathway and the innovations that were happening in the OpenOffice space. The engineering decisions and development pathway for Open XML represents that which was happening in [Microsoft] Office, and the feature sets are not in parity. In fact, there's a superset of features within the Microsoft Office set, but there are certainly features that are exclusive to OpenOffice that do not get covered in Microsoft Office.
  • We really hope to see ODF move to JTC 1 / SC 34 maintenance
Gary Edwards

OOXML: MSOffice Open XML - Where The Rubber Meets The Road | Matusow's Blog - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...the-rubber-meets-the-road.aspx

iso matusow msoffice ooxml open-standards

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Apr 08 - Cached
  • There can be no doubt that OOXML, as a standard, has severe flaws.   It is incomplete, platform specific, application specific, full of contradictions, fails to adhere to existing standards, untestable, and presents a moving target for any IT worker.  There is not an organization in existence, including Microsoft, that promises to actually implement the full standard.  Much of this is due to the fact the final version doesn't actually exist on paper yet, but a large fraction is also do to the patchwork nature of the product. The reason governments and companies wanted a 'office apps' standard in the first place was to release an avalanche of data from aging applications.  OOXML shows every appearance of being created to prevent this escape, not enable it.   The immaturity of the standard means that it remains a gamble to see if older documents will remain readable or not.  The lack of testing means there is no way to determine what docs actually adhere to it or not.  The ignoring of existing standards guarantees compatibility problems.  All of these factors are handy for the owner of the biggest share of existing documents, as it forces users to continue to use only _their_ application or risk danger from every other quarter.
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Apr 08
     
    Perhaps the single best comment i've ever read concerning OOXML and the value of standards. Very concise and too the point. Thanks you Scott B!
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Apr 08
     
    ISO NB's approved MS-OOXML not because it meets ISO Interoperability Requirements. It doesn't. OOXML doesn't even come close. They approved OOXML because it's the best deal they can get given the MSOffice predicament their governments are caught in. Governments got the binary blueprints they have been insisting on, but didn't get the mapping of those binaries to OOXML. Governemnts also took control of OOXML, with Patrick Durusau and the JTC-1 now in copmplete control of the specifications future. Sadly though, Durusau and company will not be able to make the interop changes they know are required by ISO and related World Trade Agreements. The OOXML charter prevents any changes that would degrade in any way compatibility with MSOffice! This charter lock was on full display in the Microsoft - Ecma response to Geneva BRM comment resolutions, with Microsoft refusing to address any comments that would alter compliance with MSOffice. Durusau has always believed that a one to one mapping between OOXML and ODF is possible. Just prior to the Geneva BRM though, the EU DIN Workgroup released their preliminary report on harmonization, which they found to be a next to impossible task given the applicaiton specific nature of both ODF and OOXML. The DIN Report no doubt left the mapping-harmonization crowd (lead by Durusau) with few choices other than to take control of OOXML and figure out the binary to OOXML mappings for themselves, wih the hope that somewhere down the road OpenOffice will provide OOXML documents. Meaning, governments are not looking at open standards for XML documents as much as they are looking to crack the economic hammer lock Microsoft has on the desktop.
Gary Edwards

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

ctrambler.wordpress.com/...at-and-opendocument-foundation

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

BetaNews | Microsoft's Matusow and Mahugh on Office's move to open format support - 0 views

www.betanews.com/...3

compatibility mode mahugh microsoft native file support apis

shared by Paul Merrell on 27 May 08 - Cached
  • One of the most intriguing parts of today's development, especially for open source developers and ODF proponents, concerns Microsoft's upcoming release of its API's for document format plug-ins for the forthcoming "Office 14:"
  • A second scenario is, perhaps there's a format that we have not implemented or supported in Office, but for whatever reason, a particular organization wants to support that format. They can write their own support and integrate it into Office, so that it's very seamless; and from the user experience point of view, it just looks like yet another format Office supports.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 27 May 08
       
      But will developers be able to set compatibility modes so that functionality in MS Office that can not be saved to another document format is not available? If not, there can be no ireliable nterchange of documents between different IT systems without loss of fidelity.
  • The APIs, BetaNews learned, will be released under the auspices of the interoperability initiatives the company launched in February. Those apply to documentation and information (note, not programs) that Microsoft says it will freely release to developers without them having to obtain a license; and those initiatives apply to Microsoft's "high-volume software" -- and certainly Office qualifies as that. A careful read of these initiatives' wording would indicate that Microsoft leaves itself no option for using intellectual property leverage against anyone who should make a format plug-in for Office 14 -- even a "better Open XML than Open XML," since that's no longer Microsoft's property either.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page