Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged pdf

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
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. Microsoft was invited to be part of the original ODF Technical Committee in OASIS, and chose to stand aside. 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. 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." 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

Office 2007 won't support ISO's OOXML - SD Times On The Web - 0 views

www.sdtimes.com/...article.aspx

iso oasis odf ooxml pdf

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 May 08 - Cached
  • In a surprise move, the company also announced that it intends to participate in the OASIS ODF working group and the corresponding ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Subcommittee 34 working groups for ODF, as well as the ISO Technical Committee 171 working group for PDF, said Doug Mahugh, senior product manager for Microsoft Office.He added that Microsoft would also introduce an API to allow developers to plug their own converters for formats, such as ODF, into Office to make it the default conversion path. ODF 1.1 was chosen over the ISO-standard ODF 1.0 as a practical decision based upon interoperability with existing implementations, Mahugh explained.
    • Paul Merrell
      Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
       
      The announcement of the new API for others to use for plug-ins is not new news. It was originally made when Microsoft claimed to have gotten religion on interoperability a few months ago. The wookie is that the only conceivable reason for a new API for use by others is that Microsoft does not want to disclose the specs for its existing API. That in turn suggests that the API for use by others will have functionality different from the API used by Microsoft itself, almost certainly far less.
  • “Customers that are expecting true document fidelity from XML-based, ISO-standard document formats will continue to be disappointed,” said Michael Silver, a Gartner Research vice president. Silver observed that the most compatible formats to use today are Microsoft’s legacy binaries, and he believes that Microsoft will be unlikely to convince customers to move to OOXML in the foreseeable future.
  • Gary Edwards on 21 May 08
     
    Microsoft to support PDF, ODF 1.1 and ISO OOXML in MSOffice 14. The company will also join the OASIS ODF TC and working group for ISO PDF.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Will Support ODF! But Only If ISO Doesn't 'Restrict Choice Among Formats' - 0 views

www.betanews.com/...1181922127

ecma-376 iso microsoft odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Jun 07 - Cached
  • By Marbux posted Jun 19, 2007 - 3:16 PM Asellus sez: "I will not say OOXML is easy to implement, but saying ODF is easier to implement just by looking at the ISO specification is a fallacy." I shouldn't respond to trolls, but I will this time. Asellus is simply wrong. Large hunks of Ecma 376 are simply undocumented. And what's more, absolutely no vendor has a featureful app that writes to that format. Not even Microsoft. There's a myth that Ecma 376 is the same as the Office Open XML used by Microsoft. It is not. I've spend a few hundred hours comparing the Ecma 376 specification (the version of OOXML being considered at ISO) to the information about the undocumented APIs used by MS Office 2007 that recently sprung loose in litigation. See http://www.groklaw.net/p...Rpt_Andrew_Schulman.pdf Each of those APIs *should* have corresponding metadata in the formats, but are not in the Ecma 376 specification.
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Jun 07
     
    Incredible comment by Marbux!  With one swipe he takes out both Ecma 376 and ODF. 

    Microsoft has written a letter claiming that they will support ODF in MSOffice, but only if ISO approves Ecma 376 as a second office suite XML file format standard.  ODF was approved by ISO nearly a year ago.

    Criticizing Ecma 376 is easy.  It was designed to meet the needs of  a proprietary application, MSOffice, and, to meet the needs of the emerging MS Vista Stack of applications that spans desktop to server to device to web platforms.  It's filled with MS platform dependencies that make it impossibly non interoperable with anything not fully compliant with Microsoft owned API's.

    Criticizing ODF however is another matter entirely.  Marbux points to the extremely poor ODF interoperability record.  If MOOXML (not Ecma 376 - since that is a read only file format) is tied to vendor-application specific MSOffice, then ODF is similarly tied to the many vendor versions of OpenOffice/StarOffice.

    The "many vendor" aspect of OpenOffice is somewhat of a scam.  The interoperability that ODF shares across Novell Office, StarOffice, IBM WorkPlace, Red Office, and NeoOffice is entirely based on the fact that these iterations of OpenOffice are based on a single code base controlled 100% by Sun.  Which is exactly the case with MSOffice.  With this important exception - MOOXML (not Ecma 376) is interoperable across the entire Vista Stack!

    The Vista Stack is comprised of Exchange/SharePoint, MS Live, MS Dynamics, MS SQL Server, MS Internet Server, MS Grove, MS Collaboration Server, and MS Active Directory.   Behind these applications sits a an important foundation of shared assets: MOOXML, Smart Documents, XAML and .NET 3.0.  All of which can be worked into third party, Stack dependent applications through the Visual Studio .NET IDE.

    Here are some thoughts i wou
Gary Edwards

ODF, PDF, The Antic Waste Land, and Monica's Blue Dress - Rob Weir - 0 views

www.robweir.com/...nd-and-monicas-blue-dress.html

cdf da-vinci massachusetts odf ooxml pilot rfi

shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Nov 07 - Cached
  • An intriguing idea is whether we can have it both ways. Suppose you are in an ODF editor and you have a "Save for archiving..." option that would save your ODF document as normal, but also generate a PDF version of it and store it in the zip archive along with ODF's XML streams. Then digitally sign the archive along with a time stamp to make it tamper-proof. You would need to define some additional access conventions, but you could end up with a single document that could be loaded in an ODF editor (in read-only mode) to allow examination of the details of spreadsheet formulas, etc., as well as loaded in a PDF reader to show exactly how it was formated.
  • Gary Edwards on 22 Nov 07
     
    Intriguing?  Rob Weir knows full well that the Foundation proposed this exact same feature set as part of the da Vinci Plug-in design for Massachusetts, July of 2006!!!!!!!!!

    The Complete Feature list of the da Vinci plug-in for MSOffice that was proposed and signed off on by CIO Louis Gutierrez in early August of 2006 was well known by IBM's representatives who were working hand in hand with us at the time: Rob Weir, Don Harbison and Doug Heintzman. 

    Louis Gutierrez had asked IBM and Oracle to create a "benefactors Group" to overcome the challenge that Massachusetts ITD did not have a budget.  IBM and Oracle selected Google, Sun, Novell, Intel, and Nokia as key benefactors.  The group was provided with the complete feature set and roadmap for da Vinci development. 

    The da Vinci roadmap was the schedule announced by Louis Gutierrez in his mid year report, August 17th, 2006.

    The da Vinci plug-in feature set, in order of priority, consisted of:
    ODF iX Approval at OASISPlug-in for MS WORDAccessibility Interface for all ODF documents in MS WordPDF - ODF iX Digital Signature containerPlug-in for MS ExcelInteroperability Wizard for OpenOfficePlug-in for PowerPointXForms InterfaceThe roadmap we provided Louis and the "benefactors" was sceduled out with deliverables, test periods, and cost per deliverable.  The buy-in per "benefactor" was set at $350,000, and i
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Adobe - Release PDF for Industry Standardization FAQ - 0 views

www.adobe.com/...release_pdf_faq.html

adobe is32000

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 06 Jun 08 - Cached
  • ODF and OOXML are input formats designed for authoring documents. Those formats favor editing over preserving an exact final presentation. PDF is primarily used as an output document, designed for distribution and markup, and it favors exact final presentation over editing. PDF thus enables either of these authoring formats to be used to deliver a consistent and complete distribution of a document, keeping the exact appearance intended by the authors.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 06 Jun 08
       
      Adobe's own explanation of differences between PDF and "editable document formats"
Gary Edwards

Can a file be ODF and Open XML at the same time? (and HTML? and a Java servlet? and a P... - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/..._file_be_odf_and_open_xml.html

jellife odf ooxml pdf html OPC zip

shared by Gary Edwards on 14 Jan 09 - Cached
  • The recent bomb in the ODF world from Gary Edward’s claims that Sun successfully blocked the addition of features to ODF that would be needed for full interchange with Office are explosive not only because they demonstrate how ODF was (properly, in my view) developed to cope with the particular features of the participants, not really as a universal format, but also because the prop up Microsoft’s position that Open XML is required because it exposes particular features that ISO ODF is not capable of exposing. Both because ODF is still in progress and because sometimes the features are simply incompatible in the details.
  • Actually, ODF is about to get a new manifest along with the new metadata stuff. Because we base that on RDF, the manifest will also be RDF-based. It gives us the extensibility we want to provide (extension developers, for example, can add extra metadata they may need), without having to worry about breaking compatibility. The primary addition we've made is a mechanism to bind a stable URI to in-document content node ids and files. This is conceptually not all that different than what I see in OPC; it's just that the unique IDs are in fact URIs. Among other things, in the RDF context that allows further statements to be bound to those URIs. Bruce D'Arcus | July 29, 2007 01:02 PM
  • Gary Edwards on 14 Jan 09
     
    What Bruce doesn't explain in this highlighted clip is that Sun decided to limit the "extra metadata" developer might need to just a handful of elements Sun and IBM needed to use in OpenOffice. The original OpenDocument Foundation metadata proposal was to open up the use of metadata to the extent that metadata could be used for all aspects of presentation (formatting AND layout!).
  • Gary Edwards on 14 Jan 09
     
    This vendor specific - application specific limiting ended the last hope we had for ODF interoperability and backwards compatibility with the billions of "in-process" MSOffice documents known to be populating business processes the world over. In fact, the problem ODF adoption faces is primarily that of MSOffice bound business processes, reflected in these billions of workgroup-workflow documents.
  • Gary Edwards on 14 Jan 09
     
    Proposal to have a standard packaging for combining application specific XML formats, Open HTML, and PDF. Great comments. This July 2007 article links to a January 2009 article: http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/01/packaging-formats-of-famous-ap.html
Gary Edwards

antitrust_eu_us.pdf (application/pdf Object) - Flock - 0 views

ec.europa.eu/...antitrust_eu_us.pdf

anti-trust eu interoperability microsoft

shared by Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 27 Sep 07
     

Gary Edwards

Any objections? For Open XML standard, yes (still) - 0 views

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

ecma ecmaresponse iso

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07
     
    This brief summary of the ODF <>OOXML controversy covers the recent response by Ecma to the ISO/IEC JTC 1 National Body members who filed objections to placing Ecma 376 on an ISO fast track approval process.    This article has the actual ECMA Response PDF!  A document that is well worth reading and studying.

    Essentially Ecma has told ISO to take a hike! 

    In responding to the different objections, Ecma chose to explain their position without once offering to fix or remedy he many problems and issues that so concern the 20 different NB's filing objections.  Not once!  No compromise whatsoever, only the preachy attitude that the objecting NB's simply don't understand the wonders of Ecma 376 or what a ISO "contraditction" means.

    Take a Hike!  Up Yours!  Screw you and the horse you rode in on too! 

    Pick your metaphor, it's all the same. 

Gary Edwards

Cheers for the Prince - More Cagle Championing CDF | O'Reilly XML Blog - 0 views

www.oreillynet.com/...cheers_for_the_prince.html

cdf css prince xhtml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Dec 07 - Cached
  • In other words, I would like to lay out my printable documents in a way that’s familiar to me, for which I have tools that can support this and that can easily be changed without having to do a search and replace through a hundred distance instances of a paragraph. In short, I want CSS, acting on XHTML, generating my printed pages as readily as it displays that content to the screen. A previous blog from Michael Day about PrinceXML reminded me that I hadn’t had a chance to play with it. My previous experiences with XHTML to PDF conversion were, to put it bluntly, terrifying, and so, as I was downloading the JAR file I wasn’t expecting a lot. When I tried it, I wasn’t disappointed … I was stunned. I had taken an article that I’d recently written for XML.com and run it through Prince. It digested the ten page article and cranked out a PDF in under a second, and the quality was better than anything I’d been able to get with a straight DocBook/FO/PDF rendering. I looked up the documentation, and found that it supported the CSS 3.0 page rendering set, as well as support for columns (including columnar rules), it could be used to print SVG content embedded or linked to the main XHTML document, and it included a nice set of extension properties for handling headers and footers, internal links, rounded borders, and the full panoply of CSS selectors including nth-child (which seemingly no one supports), content search and the whole gamut of pseudo-classes.
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&nbsp;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.
Gary Edwards

Jim King's PDF-XML presentations | Adobe - 0 views

home.comcast.net/...presentations

odf ooxml pdf xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 22 Oct 07 - Cached
  • Presentations made by Jim King of Adobe Systems
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

An Antic Disposition: Cracks in the Foundation - IBM takes over ODF - 0 views

www.robweir.com/...cracks-in-foundation.html

foundation ibm odf odf-civil-war opendocument weir

shared by Gary Edwards on 24 Oct 07 - Cached
  • You must admire their tenacity. Gary Edwards and the pseudonymous "Marbux". The mythology of Silicon Valley is filled with stories of two guys and a garage founding great enterprises. And here we have two guys, and through blogs, interviews, and constant attendance at conferences, they have become some of the most-heard voices on ODF. Maybe it is partly due to the power of the name? The "OpenDocument Foundation" sounds so official. Although it has no official role in the ODF standard, this name opens doors. The ODF Alliance , the ODF Fellowship, the OASIS ODF TC, ODF Adoption TC (and many other groups without "ODF" in their name) have done far more to promote and improve ODF, yet the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. seems to score the panel invites. Not bad for two guys without a garage.
  • Gary Edwards on 24 Oct 07
     
    An eMail went out today, October 24th, 2007, nominating IBM's Rob "Show me your garage!" Weir to be the new Co Chairman of OASIS ODF TC.  So it's looks like it's true; IBM is moving to take over ODF and OpenOffice.

    Not that that's bad.  In the long run this is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to ODF and OpenOffice.  There is no way IBM's Lotus Notes business plan for ODF-OOo could be any worse than Sun's plan has turned out to be. 

    ~ge~

  • Gary Edwards on 28 Oct 07
     
    So, South Africa was watching closely the failed effort in Massachusetts to implement ODF?  And now they are determined to make it work? Good thing they left themselves a "pragmatic" out; "there are standards which we are obliged to adopt for pragmatic reasons which do not necessarily fully conform to being open in all respects."

    Massachusetts spent a full year on an ODF implementation Pilot Study only to come to the inescapable conclusion that they couldn't implement ODF without a high fidelity "round trip" capable ODF plug-in for MSOffice.  In May of 2006, Pilot Study in hand, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi, "the Request for Information" concerning the feasibility of an ODF plug-in clone of the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in for MSOffice applications. At the time there was much gnashing of teeth and grinding of knuckles in the ODf Community, but the facts were clear. The lead dog hauling the ODf legislative mandate sleigh could not make it without ODf interoperability with MSOffice. Meaning, the rip out and replace of MSOffice was no longer an option. For Massachusetts to successfully implement ODf, there had to be a high level of ODf compatibility with existing MS documents, and ODf application interoperability with existing MS applications. Although ODf was not designed to meet these requirements, the challenge could not have been any more clear. Changes in ODf would have to be made. So what happened?

    Over a year later,
Gary Edwards

Flow Document Overview - 0 views

msdn2.microsoft.com/...aa970909.aspx

cdf flash flow-document ms-ooxml pdf silverlight svg winforms xforms xps xslfo

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
     
    Uh OH! Look what Microsoft has put into the new .NET 3.0 SDK! Flow Documents is a Microsoft specific version of HTML that is part of the Windows Presentation Foundation Browser Developers Framework. XAML - XPS-XABL. It also looks as though Microsoft has reserved MS-OOXML MSOffice level integration for themselves. Another thought is that MSOffice is being positioned as a developers framework for Web 2.0 development. This docuemnt is goign to take some serious study. Bad news for IBM and Adobe for sure. PDF, Flash and AJAX are all going to be in the fight of their lives. The conversion tools are going to become of critical importance. Some initial thoughts are that we could convert MSOffice documents to CDF+; convert OpenOffice documents to CDF+; and convert Flow Documents to CDF+, using the same XHTML 2.0 - CSS desktop profile (WICD Full). Converting MS-OOXML to Flow Documents however appears to be next to impossible by design. The easy approach would be to let the da Vinci plug-in perfect an internal conversion to either CDF+ or Flow. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft provides a Flow plug-in for MSOffice. I doubt it, but perhaps there will be a demand from Flow developers. da Vinci could of course be configured to produce Flow Documents. At first glance, my assumption would be that the ability to convert native MSOffice documents and allication genrated Flow Documents to CDF+ would be the most important course to take. We''ll see. This is no doubt explosive stuff. Microsoft is truly challenging the W3C for the Web.
Gary Edwards

Inside PDF: CDF - 0 views

blogs.adobe.com/...cdf.html

adobe cdf odf ooxml pdf

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • The real technical content of the CDF recommendations is in details of how to glue these various (XML markup) languages together once they all have been processed into their respective DOMs. It establishes conventions for how a script might reach across DOM boundaries, how events might get propagated across DOM boundaries and stuff like that. I won't go into this any deeper because you will get more accurate information by just reading the W3C documents. But the main idea of CDF is to bring these variously defined content types into a uniform "framework" so that scripts can operate more at a document level instead of being confined to their own document child.
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.
Gary Edwards

Is ODF the new RTF or the new .DOC? Can it be both? Do we need either? - O'Reilly Broad... - 0 views

broadcast.oreilly.com/...ocument-file-format-lands.html

odf ooxml html-css-svg

shared by Gary Edwards on 24 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Unless governments and other stakeholders can get beyond the narrow view of documents and interoperability as merely being exchanging data from one similar application to another, and move towards the view that documents and web resources need to be end points on the same interoperable spectrum, we are selling ourselves short. It is here that standards bodies should be more help: but I don't know that they can be unless there is a stronger commitment to supporting each others' visions better. W3C's mission statement is concerned with bringing the web to its full potential, and W3C have traditionally used this to justify shying away from old-fashioned compound file-based issues: the lack of standards for the *SP (JSP, ASP, PHP) class of documents is a symptom of this, and it is notable that much of XML's uptake came because it did take care of practical production issues (i.e. issues pertaining to the document as it existed before being made available as a resource —PIs and entities—and after it had been retrieved—character encodings.) The industry consortia such as ECMA and OASIS are organized around interest groups on particular standards, which makes it easy to fob off discussion of interoperability. And even ISO, where the availability are topic-based working groups with very broad interests should provide a more workable home for this kind of effort, have a strong disinclination to seek out work that involves liaison with other standards groups: satisfying two sets of procedures and fitting in with two sets of deadlines and timetables can be impractical and disenfranchising for volunteers and small-business/academic experts.
  • Gary Edwards on 24 Oct 08
     
    Jon Bosak, who founded the XML and ODF efforts among many other achievements, recently wrote an article concerning the position of ODF, Open XML and PDF Jon's public writings are rare, well-considered and always of interest. As with other Sun-affiliated people in recent times, Jon has been exemplary in that even though he has a side, he does not take sides. I think I can agree with much of what he says, though I would note Don't forget about HTML.
Gary Edwards

NYS Open Records Discussion Must Recognize Technical Requirements - 0 views

www.ibiblio.org/...nys-open-records-policy.html

ajax cdf odf ooxml pdf webkit

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Oct 08 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Oct 08
     
    While the workgroup failed to decide between "choice" (Microsoft's mantra) and "openness" (the ODF mantra), predictably punting this question to a new Electronic Records Committee, it did issue a number of interesting findings, the most important of which reads as follows: In the office suite format debate, there currently is no compelling solution for the State's openness needs. The State needs open standards and formats. Simultaneously, the State needs electronic records to be preserved in their original formats whenever possible. Many Request for Public Comments commenters, particularly in response to the e-discovery questions, stated preserving a record in the same format as it was created results in a more faithful record and diminishes the possibility of expensive e-discovery disputes. This is important to ensure future generations of New Yorkers can access the permanently valuable electronic records being created today. Moreover, State Archives emphasizes creating records in open formats makes it easier to preserve their essential characteristics and demonstrates they are authentic (i.e., they were created in the course of State government business and have not been altered without proper authorization). I imagine that the workgroup must have found some level of solace in arriving at the one conclusion that all the experts seem to agree on: that electronic documents should be published using the same format in which they are created. If this principle held true for state documents, it would reduce the job of the new Electronic Records Committee to deciding between three alternatives: (1) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in OOXML, (2) require all state agencies to create and publish their documents in ODF, or (3) allow each agency to decide which of these formats, OOXML or ODF, they will use in creating and publishing their documents. Unfortunately, this central assumption is incorrect, and adopting it as a basi
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Oct 08
     
    Jon Bosak on the recent New York State decision to support both ODF and OOXML. Jon makes an important distinction between application editable formats such as ODF and OOXML, and, publishing formats like PDF. He does not cover HTML-CSS as either an editing or publishing format even though it is clearly used as both to the tune of over 4 billion documents. Goog arguments from a world reknown expert.
Paul Merrell

untitled - 0 views

www.dpawson.co.uk/...090612.html

ODF specificity quality testability

shared by Paul Merrell on 18 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work That is the way quality specifications are written. For example, ISO/IEC's JTC 1 Directives (link to PDF) requires that international standards designed for interoperability "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." With that clarity, conformance is testable and can provide confidence of interoperability. A suite of tests may be developed and applied to an implementation to determine which tests pass, which fail, and hence arrive at an objective pronouncement on conformance of an implementation against the entirety of the specification.
  • In a quality specification, it should be feasible to select a normative paragraph, identify a conformance test for it, and make a clear statement that this test proves that an implementation meets (or fails to meet) that requirement. Call it a test plan: define the tests (test specification), define the expected set of results, and define what constitutes a "pass" of each test that establishes conformance. The plan then provides the matrix of test spec against requirement. Simple.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Rob Weir of IBM chaired (apology for the misuse of that last word) the formation list and then simply announced what the charter would be rather than seeking consensus among the list participants. As part of this process before that charter was produced and while I still naively believed that consensus was a goal, I sat down with ODF 1.1 and did a paragraph-by-paragraph review for testability. The numbers were quite revealing. I completely reviewed only the first four major sections and found very few clear requirements. The majority were mere statements with no normative language used to identify what was required or optional. Implementors would have to make their own interpretation.
  • It's ironic that the chair viewed as good news the fact that there were far fewer testable paragraphs than he had predicted. But his prediction of 10,000 test cases is probably far closer to how many testable paragraphs there should be; my counts were actually bad news.
  • All of the above leads to the interesting question of just how the chair expects to accomplish much that is useful in regard to ODF conformance testing before the specification is amended to tighten up the language and add clear requirements. The syntax conformity is already handled by validation against the schema, but the semantics are woefully under-specified.
  • Summary: ODF 1.1 isn't verifiable as a specification. From a fairly cursory review of the latest draft, ODF 1.2 will follow the same path. With OASIS now being more demanding regarding conformance requirements on every specification and with ISO/IEC taking a closer interest in liaison with the ODF TC, I find it hard to see how the ODF TC co-chairs can maintain this view toward verification.
Gary Edwards

OOXML in Norway: The haywire process | Geir Isene : Straight talk on IT - 0 views

blogs.freecode.no/isene

interoperability iso odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 28 Aug 07 - Cached
  • I had read the essay by Jon Bosak (SUN Microsystems) on why SUN voted as it did in the US. He lays out a very different strategy. His view is that the battle is lost to completely reject OOXML as an ISO standard. ISO can only reject it with comments, and that is equivalent to giving Microsoft a todo-list on how to fix the draft so as to get it approved. Microsoft has sufficient manpower to easily tackle that. Most of us had missed what Mr. Bosak saw: OOXML promises interoperability with earlier closed binary formats (the Word Doc, older Excel file formats etc.). But it doesn’t deliver. How on earth could someone be able to convert old binary files to the new format without having the specification of the old formats and a mapping to OOXML. If you are to translate some text from Chinese to English, it doesn’t much help to only know English.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 28 Aug 07
       
      A "Yes with comments" is a yes for the ISO approval of MS-OOMXL. If ISO approves MS-OOXML, it won't matter what Bosak's "comments" strategy is. Microsoft and the Vista Stack will be off to the races. The full disclosure of the MS binary document secret blueprint won't matter much at that point.
  • “Ah c’mon Bosak, you are chickening out, we must stop this dead in the track”
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 28 Aug 07
       
      There you go Geir!

      Sun and Bosak have held the door open for MS-OOXML since 2002, when Sun blocked an effort to write the ODF Charter to include as a priority, "compatibility with existing file formats". This of course would include the billions of legacy MS binary documents.

      The thing is that those who work in the conversion-translation field will tell you that it is currently impossible to pipe converted legacy binary documents and OOXMl docs for that matter into ODF. Just as Microsoft claims, ODF in it's current state is insufficient and unable to handle the rich feature set of the MSOffice developers platform.

      The problem could of course be easily fixed by the inclusion in ODF of five structural generics. In the past year, there have been no less than five iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF TC for discussion and consideration. As uber universal interop expert Florian Reuter points out in his blog, these iX proposals did not fare so well.

      What Florian doesn't point out is that it was Sun who opposed any and all efforts to improve compatibility with existing Microsoft binary and OOXML documents. Just as they have done for nearly five years now.

      Sort of puts the Sun-Bosak support for ISO approval of MS-OOXML in a different light. ~ge~
  • Gary Edwards on 28 Aug 07
     
    see the sticky notes on this one
1 - 20 of 37 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page