Group items tagged problems - OpenDocument

Home - Berkman Center for Internet & Society - 0 views

cyber.law.harvard.edu/...home

shared by Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07 - Cached

There were 5 successive Roundtables. Each roundtable was led by 5 short presentations before the topic was opened to the floor for general discussion. The first roundtable focused on "What is ODF, and why are open document standards important". There were many questions regarding how open standards affect competition and innovation, whether ODF is in fact the best standard, issues of archiving and interoperability with ODF as well as how ODF addresses/will address concerns of accessibility for disabled persons. The second Roundtable discussed how various software developers were responding to ODF and the third roundtable focused on whether governments or non-governmental and consumer organizations should systematically use procurement policy to promote ODF. The following roundtable was a lively discussion on whether national or global "agreements" can play a role in promoting ODF and how. During that roundtable as well as the last one on "Reflections and next steps", there were discussions of future work and strategies on ODF in a new international forum, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to be held in Athens, Greece, October 30 - November 3, 2006.
- Gary Edwards on 18 Dec 07
  
  The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School held an Open Document Conference, October 23rd, 2006. Just a few weeks after the October 4th, 2006 resignation of Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez. This is the summary report of organizer Manon Ress. Sam Hiser represented the OpenDocument Foundation. The ZERO Interop problems that plague ODF implementation were not discussed. Strangely :) Another point not discussed is the fact that ODF is not an Internet file format. It's a desktop office suite only format. This constraint is written into the ODF charter. Interestingly, one of the problems of making ODF Web ready is that of highjacked W3C standards. Highjacking occurs when a specification or application takes existing W3C standards and changes the namespace reference to it's own. This is what ODF does. The reason for doing this is to constrain and limit the W3C standard to just those aspects implemented by the ODF reference application, OpenOffice. XForms, SVG, SMiL, XHTML, RDF/XML and RDFa are problematic examples of W3C namespaces that have been highjacked by ODF to meet the specific implementation constraints of OpenOffice. This impacts developers who rely on standard libraires to do conversions and processing. The libraries are built to the proper W3C namespace, and unfortunately assume that ODF complies. It doesn't, So developers have to investigate how OpenOffic eimplements XForms and SVG, and build special ODF libraries before they can use ODF on the Web. It can be done, i think. But it's a train wreck of a mess guaranteed to destroy the high level of web interoperability users and developers expect.
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School held an Open Document Conference, October 23rd, 2006. Just a few weeks after the October 4th, 2006 resignation of Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez. This is the summary report of organizer Manon Ress. Sam Hiser represented the OpenDocument Foundation. The ZERO Interop problems that plague ODF implementation were not discussed. Strangely :) Another point not discussed is the fact that ODF is not an Internet file format. It's a desktop office suite only format. This constraint is written into the ODF charter. Interestingly, one of the problems of making ODF Web ready is that of highjacked W3C standards. Highjacking occurs when a specification or application takes existing W3C standards and changes the namespace reference to it's own. This is what ODF does. The reason for doing this is to constrain and limit the W3C standard to just those aspects implemented by the ODF reference application, OpenOffice. XForms, SVG, SMiL, XHTML, RDF/XML and RDFa are problematic examples of W3C namespaces that have been highjacked by ODF to meet the specific implementation constraints of OpenOffice. This impacts developers who rely on standard libraires to do conversions and processing. The libraries are built to the proper W3C namespace, and unfortunately assume that ODF complies. It doesn't, So developers have to investigate how OpenOffic eimplements XForms and SVG, and build special ODF libraries before they can use ODF on the Web. It can be done, i think. But it's a train wreck of a mess guaranteed to destroy the high level of web interoperability users and developers expect.</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel

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~

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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~</div>

...

Cancel
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~

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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~</div>

...

Cancel

Doug Mahugh : Office support for document format standards - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...document-format-standards.aspx

interop microsoft odf strategy

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 08 - Cached

Third-party translators. We anticipate that some developers may want to take over the default ODF load and save paths, so that they can plug in their own translators for ODF, and we'll be providing an API in SP2 that enables this scenario. This means that if a developer disagrees with the details of our approach and would like to implement ODF for Office in a different way, they're free to do so and can set it up such that when a user opens an ODT attached to an email or from their desktop, it will be loaded through their ODF code path.
- Paul Merrell on 22 May 08
  
  The Third-party translators discussion of the forthcoming new API suggests that it is for ODF only, and thereby implicitly that it will not be a tool for accessing the full functionaolity of MS Word, i.e., that only the functionality specified in ODF 1.1 will be available. E.g., no control of Sharepoint functionality or manipulation of the Microsoft cloud through the API from OpenOffice.org via ODF. .
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The Third-party translators discussion of the forthcoming new API suggests that it is for ODF only, and thereby implicitly that it will not be a tool for accessing the full functionaolity of MS Word, i.e., that only the functionality specified in ODF 1.1 will be available. E.g., no control of Sharepoint functionality or manipulation of the Microsoft cloud through the API from OpenOffice.org via ODF. .</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
- Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08
  
  The Microsoft cloud depends heavily on OOXML, and that is likely not going to change. Are you saying that you'd prefer a plug-in mechanism in SharePoint as well? I believe the protocols used by SharePoint are included in the specs now provided. Won't that do (apart from the non-commercial usage of the specs)
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The Microsoft cloud depends heavily on OOXML, and that is likely not going to change. Are you saying that you'd prefer a plug-in mechanism in SharePoint as well? I believe the protocols used by SharePoint are included in the specs now provided. Won't that do (apart from the non-commercial usage of the specs)</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel
If you're an Office 2007 user, the image above probably looks pretty familiar. But look close, and you'll see some Save-As options you've not seen before here: OpenDocument, and (unless you have the existing add-in) PDF & XPS.
...

Cancel
There is new information today about the planned release of v2.0 of the ODF translator on the ODF translator team blog. The SourceForge translator projects will continue to move forward, and Microsoft will continue to be an active participant in these projects.
...

Cancel
...2 more annotations...
This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2.
...

Cancel
- Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
  
  Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong. On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip. The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy. There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy. I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong. On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip. The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy. There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy. I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
- Paul Merrell on 23 May 08
  
  Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong. On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip. The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy. There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy. I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong. On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip. The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy. There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy. I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functional</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel

Paul Merrell on 22 May 08

"This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">"This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."</div>

...

Cancel
Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 May 08

"This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">"This is a screen shot of a pre-release copy of SP2 (Service Pack 2) for the 2007 Microsoft Office System, showing the new document format standards that we'll be supporting starting with SP2."</div>

...

Cancel

Microsoft Office for 91 percent off! | Computerworld Blogs - 0 views

blogs.computerworld.com/soft_office_for_91_percent_off

microsoft office pricing

shared by Paul Merrell on 28 May 08 - Cached

The New York Times' Bits tech blog is reporting that anyone with a .edu e-mail address, whether they are a current student or not, can buy Microsoft Office Ultimate for $60, or 91% off until May 16.
...

Cancel
1) The Web site to purchase Office Ultimate at a discount is called "The Ultimate Steal." 2) Microsoft's senior VP in charge of Office Chris Capossela confirmed to the Times that anyone with a .edu e-mail address is eligible for the discount. Most colleges and universities grant their alumni graduates .edu e-mail addresses.
...

Cancel
I ordered just before it was supposed to end the first time at the end of April. I had not problem except that it took forever for the DVD to arrive. I was never asked to show any other proof of enrollment except giving them my .edu address. I also downloaded the exe and had no problems with it (got the DVD just in case though).
...

Cancel

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 on 13 May 09
  
  Still, not all of the subsequent comments are calm…
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Still, not all of the subsequent comments are calm…</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel
Microsoft’s implementation decision
...

Cancel
on the face of it
...

Cancel
...21 more annotations...
an implementation of ODF which does not interoperate with other available implementations
...

Cancel
some real problems with basic spreadsheet interoperability among ODF products using undocumented extensions
...

Cancel
abandoning the “convention”
...

Cancel
these ODF implementations have limited interoperability
...

Cancel
more or less
...

Cancel
unsafe for any mission-critical data
...

Cancel
does not, in fact, conform
...

Cancel
legacy support as an option
...

Cancel
this interoperability fiasco has been allowed to happen within the context of a standard
...

Cancel
in the interests of the users
...

Cancel
behave better
...

Cancel
good news
...

Cancel
work is underway to fix this problem: ODF 1.2
...

Cancel
people may disagree in good faith
...

Cancel
ODF implementations can actually cut it,
...

Cancel
Rob’s statement that “SP2's implementation
...

Cancel
is mistaken on this point
...

Cancel
no grounds for complacency about the sufficiency of the ODF specification
...

Cancel
keen to see defects, such as conformance loopholes, fixed in the next published ODF standard
...

Cancel
I urge all other true supporters to read the drafts and give feedback to make ODF better for the benefit of everyone
...

Cancel
Microsoft is the only one of seven main ODF implementations that fail to achieve interoperability in ODF formulas
...

Cancel

Desktop Computer Support Gets Rid of Viruses - 2 views

One day, the computers at my small book shop suddenly went crazy. It displays weird characters on the screen and then shut down instantly. I could not do anything about it except to call my trusted...

computer virus support

started by Desktop Computer Support on 01 Aug 11 no follow-up yet

My Savior Every Time I Have Computer Problems - 1 views

Computer Tech Help and Support computer technical help and support services are the best computer help you can have for your PC. Their top quality PC technicians are very helpful and they really kn...

help and support

started by Computer Techhelp on 22 Sep 11 no follow-up yet

My Trusted PC Tech Support Provider - 1 views

Computer Assistance Online services are the best. They know how to fix all types of computers issues, even the most complicated ones. I was never wrong when I signed up for their computer assistanc...

computer assistance

started by seth kutcher on 08 Sep 11 no follow-up yet

PC Tech Support Now Really Helps - 2 views

I am a father of two and my wife is working abroad. There came a time when my computer experienced a breakdown which really cut off my daily chatting session with my wife through Skype. I reported ...

virus protection tech support PC technical

started by pctech spportnow on 12 Jul 11 no follow-up yet

Fast and Accurate Computer Help to the Rescue - 1 views

I was about to start my presentation when my computer to hung up on me. It was really a big inconvenience for me, not to mention very embarrassing. Good thing I was able to renew my subscription to...

computer technical help

started by James Stewart on 13 Oct 11 no follow-up yet

Asia Times Online :: Operation Tomahawk The Caliph - 0 views

www.atimes.com/...MID-01-240914.html

war & peace Syria ISIL al-Nusra Israel U.S.-foreign-policy Khorasan

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Sep 14 - No Cached

The Tomahawks are finally flying again - propelled by newspeak. 42 Tomahawks fired from a Sixth Fleet destroyer parked in Mare Nostrum, plus F-22s raising hell and Hellfires spouted by drones, that's a neat mini-Shock and Awe to honor Caliph Ibrahim, aka Abu Bakr al -Baghdadi, self-declared leader of Islamic State. It's all so surgical. All targets - from "suspected" weapons depots to the mayor's mansion in Raqqah (the HQ of The Caliph's goons) and assorted checkpoints - were duly obliterated, along with "dozens of", perhaps 120, jihadis. And praise those "over 40" (Samantha Power) or "over 50" (John Kerry) international allies in the coalition of the unwilling; America is never alone, although in this case mightily escorted, de facto, only by the usual Gulf petrodollar dictatorships and the realm of <a href='http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a9473bc7&amp;cb=%n' target='_blank'><img src='http://asianmedia.com/GAAN/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=36&amp;cb=%n&amp;n=a9473bc7&amp;ct0=%c' border='0' alt='' ></a> King Playstation, Jordan, all none too keen to engage in "kinetic activities".
...

Cancel
Aseptic newspeak aside, no one has seen or heard a mighty Gulf Cooperation Council air force deployed to bomb Syria. After all the vassals are scared as hell to tell their own populations they are - once again - bombing a fellow Arab nation. As for Damascus, it meekly said it was "notified" by the Pentagon its own territory would be bombed. Nobody really knows what the Pentagon is exactly telling Damascus. The Pentagon calls it just the beginning of a "sustained campaign" - code for Long War, which is one of the original denominations of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) anyway. And yes, for all practical purposes this is a coalition of one. Let's call it Operation Tomahawk The Caliph.
...

Cancel
Hold your F-22s. Not really. The tomahawking had barely begun when an Israeli, made in USA Patriot missile shot a Syrian Su-24 which had allegedly "violated" Israeli air space over the Golan Heights. How about that in terms of sending a graphic message in close coordination with the Pentagon? So this is not only about bombing The Caliph. It is a back-door preamble to bombing Bashar al-Assad and his forces. And also about bombing - with eight strikes west of Aleppo - a ghost; an al-Qaeda cell of the mysterious Khorasan group. No wonder global fans of the Marvel Comics school of geopolitics are puzzled. Two simultaneous villains? Yep. And the other bad guy is even more evil than The Caliph.
...

Cancel
...5 more annotations...
Astonishing mediocrity Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, has defined Khorasan as "a group of extremists that is comprised of a number of individuals who we've been tracking for a long time." The Obama administration's unison newspeak is that Khorasan includes former al-Qaeda assets not only from across the Middle East - including al-Qaeda in Iraq and Jabhat al-Nusra - but also Pakistan, as in an ultra-hardcore extension of the Pakistani Taliban.
...

Cancel
What a mess. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is the embryo of ISIS, which turned into IS. Jabhat al-Nusra is the al-Qaeda franchise in Syria, approved by CEO Ayman al-Zawahiri. Both despise each other, and yet Khorasan holds the merit of bundling Caliph's goons and al-Qaeda goons together. Additionally, for Washington Jabhat al-Nusra tend to qualify as "moderate" jihadis - almost like "our bastards". Too messy? No problem; when in doubt, bomb everybody. The Caliph, then, is old news. Those ghostly Khorasan goons are the real deal - so evil that the Pentagon is convinced their "plotting was imminent" leading to a new 9/11.
...

Cancel
Khorasan is the perfect ghost in the GWOT machine; the target of a war within a war. Because Obama in fact launched two wars - as he sent two different notifications to Congress under the War Powers Resolution to cover both The Caliph and Khorasan. And what's in a name? Well, a thinly disguised extra demonization of Iran, why not - as historic Khorasan, the previous Parthia, stretched from mainly Iran towards Afghanistan. Khorasan is theoretically led by The Joker, sorry, al-Qaeda honcho Muhsin al-Fadhli, born in Kuwait in 1981, a "senior facilitator and financier" to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, in the priceless assessment of the State Department. Although Ayman al-Zawahiri, ever PR-conscious, has not claimed the credit, the Pentagon is convinced he sent al-Fadhli to the Syrian part of the Caliphate to attract Western jihadis with EU passports capable of evading airport security and plant bombs on commercial jets.
...

Cancel
The Treasury Department is convinced al-Fadhli even led an al-Qaeda cell in Iran - demonization habits die hard -, "facilitating" jihadi travel to Afghanistan or Iraq. And what a neat contrast to the Society of the Spectacle-addicted Caliph. Khorasan is pure darkness. Nobody knows how many; how long they've existed; what do they really want. By contrast, there are about 190,000 live human beings left in bombed out Raqqa. Nobody is talking about collateral damage - although the body count is already on, and The Caliph's slick PR operation will be certainly advertising them on YouTube. As for The Caliph's goons, they will predictably use Mao tactics and dissolve like fish in the sea. The Pentagon will soon be bombing vast tracts of desert for nothing - if that's not the case already. There is no "Free Syrian Army" - that Qatari myth - anymore. There are no "moderate" jihadis left in Syria. They are all fighting for The Caliph or for al-Zawahiri. And still the Obama administration extracted a Congressional OK to train and weaponize "moderate rebels".
...

Cancel
US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power - Undisputed Queen of Batshit Craziness - at least got one thing right. Their "training" will "service these troops in the same struggle that they've been in since the beginning of this conflict against the Assad regime." So yes - this "sustained campaign" is the back door to "Assad must go" remixed. People who are really capable of defeating The Caliph's goons don't tomahawk. They are the Syrian Arab Army (roughly 35,000 dead so far killed in action against ISIS/ISIL/IS and/or al-Qaeda); Hezbollah; Iranian Revolutionary Guards advisers/operatives; and Kurdish militias. It won't happen. This season's blockbuster is the Empire of Chaos bombing The Caliph and the ghost in the GWOT machine. Two tickets for the price of one. Because we protect you even from "unknown unknown" evil.
...

Cancel

Paul Merrell on 24 Sep 14

Pepe Escobar at his finest.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Pepe Escobar at his finest. </div>

...

Cancel

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 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.
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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.</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel
“Ah c’mon Bosak, you are chickening out, we must stop this dead in the track”
- 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~
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">There you go Geir! <br><br>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.<br><br> 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.<br><br> 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. <br><br> 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.<br><br> Sort of puts the Sun-Bosak support for ISO approval of MS-OOXML in a different light. ~ge~</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 28 Aug 07

see the sticky notes on this one

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">see the sticky notes on this one</div>

...

Cancel

Slamming the door shut on MS OOXML - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00033.html

cdf interoperability iso odf odf-tc officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 24 Aug 07 - Cached

So your goal is a networked world where metadata is routinely trashed by apps developed by those who are too dumb or otherwise disabled to preserve metadata and only the big boys get to do interoperability, right? So if I send you a document for your editing, I can't count on getting it back with xml:id attributes intact. No thanks, Patrick. That sounds way too much like how things have worked ever since office productivity software first came on the market. In your world, interoperability belongs only to those who can map features 1:1 with the most featureful apps. And that is precisely why OpenDocument never should have been approved as a standard. Your kind of interoperability makes ODF a de facto Sun Microsystems standard wearing the clothing of a de jure standard. Why not just standardize the whole world on Microsoft apps and be done with it? Are two monopolies maintained by an interoperability barrier between them better than one? Fortunately, we don't have to debate the issue because the Directives resolve the issue. You lose under the rules of the game.
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 24 Aug 07

Marbux on metadata and the language of universal interoperability: Few people are aware of the raging debate that has pushed ODF to the edge. The OASIS ODF TC is split between those who support Universal Interoperability, and those who insist on continuing with limited ODF interoperability.

ODF (OpenDocument), formally known as Open Office XML, began it's standards life in the fall of 2002 when Sun submitted the OpenOffice file format to OASIS for consideration as a office suite XML fiel format standard. The work on ODF did not start off as a clean slate in that there were near 600 pages of application specific specification from day one of the standards work. The forces of universal interop have sought for years to separate ODF from the application specific features and implementation model of OpenOffice that began with those early specification volumes, and continues through the undue influence Sun continues to have over the ODF specification work.

Many mistakenly believed that submission of ODF to ISO and subsequent approval as an international standard would provide an effective separation, putting ODF on the track of a truly universal file format.

Marbux is one of those Universal Interop soldiers who has dug in his heels, cried to the heavens that enough is enough, and demanded the necessary changes to ODF interoperability language.

This post he recently submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC is a devastating rebuttal to the arguments of those who support the status quo of limited interoperability.

In prior posts, marbux argues that ISO directives demand without compromise universal interoperability. This demand is also shared by the World Trade Organization directives regarding international trade laws and agreements. Here he brings those arguments together with the technical issues for achieving universal interop.

It's a devastating argument.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Marbux on metadata and the language of universal interoperability: Few people are aware of the raging debate that has pushed ODF to the edge. The OASIS ODF TC is split between those who support Universal Interoperability, and those who insist on continuing with limited ODF interoperability. <br><br> ODF (OpenDocument), formally known as Open Office XML, began it's standards life in the fall of 2002 when Sun submitted the OpenOffice file format to OASIS for consideration as a office suite XML fiel format standard. The work on ODF did not start off as a clean slate in that there were near 600 pages of application specific specification from day one of the standards work. The forces of universal interop have sought for years to separate ODF from the application specific features and implementation model of OpenOffice that began with those early specification volumes, and continues through the undue influence Sun continues to have over the ODF specification work. <br><br> Many mistakenly believed that submission of ODF to ISO and subsequent approval as an international standard would provide an effective separation, putting ODF on the track of a truly universal file format.<br><br> Marbux is one of those Universal Interop soldiers who has dug in his heels, cried to the heavens that enough is enough, and demanded the necessary changes to ODF interoperability language.<br><br> This post he recently submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC is a devastating rebuttal to the arguments of those who support the status quo of limited interoperability.<br><br> In prior posts, marbux argues that ISO directives demand without compromise universal interoperability. This demand is also shared by the World Trade Organization directives regarding international trade laws and agreements. Here he brings those arguments together with the technical issues for achieving universal interop.<br><br> It's a devastating argument.<br><br> </div>

...

Cancel

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.
...

Cancel
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
...

Cancel

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!).

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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!).</div>

...

Cancel
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.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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.</div>

...

Cancel
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

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">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: <a href="http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/01/packaging-formats-of-famous-ap.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/01/packaging-formats-of-famous-ap.html</a></div>

...

Cancel

The Merging of SOA and Web 2.0: 2 - 0 views

www.eweek.com/...0,1895,2158559,00.asp

2.0 ajax mashup odf ooxml soa web

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 07 - Cached

In many cases, the mashups' data or information sources have incompatible formats so integration becomes a problem.
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 15 Jul 07

Great article series from eWeek. A must read. But it all comes down to interoperability across two stack models: The Microsoft Vista Stack, and an alternative Open Stack model that does not yet exist!

Incompatible formats become a nightmare for the kind of integration any kind of SOA implementation depends on, let alone the Web 2.0 AJAX MashUps this article focuses on.

I wonder why eWEEK didn't include the Joe Wilcox Micrsoft Watch Article, "Obla De OBA Da". Joe hit hard on the connection between OOXML and the Vista Stack. He missed the implications this will have on MS SOA solutions. Open Source SOA solutions will be locked out of the Vista Stack. And with 98% or more of existing desktop business processes bound to MSOffice, the transition of these business processes to the Vista Stack will no doubt have a dramatic impact on the marketplace. Before the year is out, we'll see Redmond let loose with a torrent of MS SOA solutions. The only reason they've held back is that they need to first have all the Vista Stack pieces in place.

I don't think Microsoft is being held back by OOXML approval at ISO either. ISO approval might have made a difference in Europe in 2006, but even there, the EU IDABC has dropped the ISO requirement. For sure ISO approval means nothing in the US, as California and Massachusetts have demonstrated.

All that matters to State CIO's is that they can migrate exisiting docuemnts and business processes to XML. The only question is, "Which XML? OOXML, ODF or XHTML+".

The high fidelity conversion ratio and non disruptive OOXML plugin for MSOffice has certainly provided OOXML with the edge in this process. <br

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Great article series from eWeek. A must read. But it all comes down to interoperability across two stack models: The Microsoft Vista Stack, and an alternative Open Stack model that does not yet exist!<br><br>Incompatible formats become a nightmare for the kind of integration any kind of SOA implementation depends on, let alone the Web 2.0 AJAX MashUps this article focuses on.<br><br>I wonder why eWEEK didn't include the Joe Wilcox Micrsoft Watch Article, "Obla De OBA Da". Joe hit hard on the connection between OOXML and the Vista Stack. He missed the implications this will have on MS SOA solutions. Open Source SOA solutions will be locked out of the Vista Stack. And with 98% or more of existing desktop business processes bound to MSOffice, the transition of these business processes to the Vista Stack will no doubt have a dramatic impact on the marketplace. Before the year is out, we'll see Redmond let loose with a torrent of MS SOA solutions. The only reason they've held back is that they need to first have all the Vista Stack pieces in place. <br><br>I don't think Microsoft is being held back by OOXML approval at ISO either. ISO approval might have made a difference in Europe in 2006, but even there, the EU IDABC has dropped the ISO requirement. For sure ISO approval means nothing in the US, as California and Massachusetts have demonstrated. <br><br>All that matters to State CIO's is that they can migrate exisiting docuemnts and business processes to XML. The only question is, "Which XML? OOXML, ODF or XHTML+".<br><br>The high fidelity conversion ratio and non disruptive OOXML plugin for MSOffice has certainly provided OOXML with the edge in this process. <br</div>

...

Cancel

Malte Timmermann's Blog - 0 views

blogs.sun.com/malte

shared by Gary Edwards on 14 Jul 07 - Cached

Q: Why doesn't it support Office 2007?A: Well, basically, it does, but there is an issue in Word's 2007 Filter API handling. You can save to ODF, but when you try to open ODF, Word ignores the installed filters and tries to open with it's own filters. Of course Word can't, so you get an error message "The Office Open XML file <name> cannot be opened because there are problems with the content". This even happens if you explicitly select the ODF filter! I hope Microsoft will fix this issue with the next service pack. If not, we will work around this bug by doing the same kind of integration like in PowerPoint and Excel.
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 14 Jul 07

The reason da Vinci was broke in Office 2007

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">The reason da Vinci was broke in Office 2007<br></div>

...

Cancel

Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats - 0 views

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 09 Jun 07 - Cached

Microsoft trounces pro-ODF forces in state battles over open document formats Eric Lai and Gregg Keizer   document.write(''); if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Gecko")==-1) { document.write(''); } document.write(''); if (document.getElementById('dclk999')) { document.getElementById('dclk999').src = 'http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/idg.us.cpw.desktopapplications/index;pos=imu;tile=3;sz=336x280;ord=' + ord + '?'; } document.write(''); if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0)|| navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV") >= 0) {document.write('');} June 03, 2007 (Computerworld)
...

Cancel
Keeping it private The other problem, Mathers said, was the jargon-laden disinformation that committee members felt they were being fed by lobbyists for both IBM and Microsoft. Although lobbyists would tell the committee one thing in private, they got cold feet when asked to verify the information publicly, under oath. "Suddenly, nobody wanted to sign witness affirmation forms and testify," he said. That undermined the credibility of each side, but it particularly damaged the position of ODF proponents. After Wyne testified publicly that in Massachusetts, only a handful of computers had thus far been converted over to using ODF, IBM declined to dispute her claims, Mathers said -- despite having earlier given "gleaming" reports on the progress of ODF in Massachusetts. "That's when I really started to question the whole bill," he said.
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 09 Jun 07

Uh Oh. They got IBM dead to rights in Massachusetts. I guess the truth about Massachusetts will be told! Finally. ODF failed in Massachusetts because there isn't a reasonable means of implementing ODF. Same in California.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Uh Oh. They got IBM dead to rights in Massachusetts. I guess the truth about Massachusetts will be told! Finally. ODF failed in Massachusetts because there isn't a reasonable means of implementing ODF. Same in California.<br></div>

...

Cancel
Gary Edwards on 09 Jun 07

A must read. And yes, the ODF Vendors are the reason ODF lost. They didn't provide useful solutions. In fact, the applicaitons they proposed were seen by government CIO's as cstly and disruptive "rip out and replace" non starters. In California, CIO's asked if it was even possible to implement ODF!!!

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">A must read. And yes, the ODF Vendors are the reason ODF lost. They didn't provide useful solutions. In fact, the applicaitons they proposed were seen by government CIO's as cstly and disruptive "rip out and replace" non starters. In California, CIO's asked if it was even possible to implement ODF!!!<br></div>

...

Cancel

The X Factor: ODF, OOXML, CDF | Redmond Developer News - 0 views

reddevnews.com/...article.aspx

cdf odf ooxml w3c xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 16 Oct 07 - Cached

XML expert, consultant and Microsoft MVP Don Demsak argues that both technologies share a fundamental flaw-they're not really striving to be standards at all. "I think this whole OOXML versus ODF thing is a non-issue. Both formats are just serialization formats for the object models they're associated with, and are not designed as impartial, interoperable formats," Demsak writes in an e-mail. Gary Edwards, president of the OpenDocument Foundation, which drives ODF development, believes codified document standards should not carry forward old flaws and application nuances. "The world is not a clean slate, but it's going to somehow make that transition of existing documents, applications and processes to XML," he says in an e-mail. "To us, that is an open XML file format consistent with the continuing work of the W3C that also meets the following criteria: open, unencumbered, universally interoperable, totally application-platform-vendor independent, with an acceptable citizen-driven governance," Edwards writes.
...

Cancel
Being XML, it should be easy to convert between the two formats."
- Gary Edwards on 16 Oct 07
  
  UH, excuse me. ODF and OOXML might be XML, but they are both application specific XML. Converting between the two means somehow being able to reconcile the different application models for handling basic document sturctures such as lists, fields, tables, sections, and page dynamics. The problem is that the two file formats are irreconcilable on these issues. What's needed is a move towards a basic generic elements/attribute model able to layer these application specific nuances into a more flexible attibute descriptive. Or, we could just move to XML/RDF and never look back :)
  
  <div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">UH, excuse me. ODF and OOXML might be XML, but they are both application specific XML. Converting between the two means somehow being able to reconcile the different application models for handling basic document sturctures such as lists, fields, tables, sections, and page dynamics. The problem is that the two file formats are irreconcilable on these issues. What's needed is a move towards a basic generic elements/attribute model able to layer these application specific nuances into a more flexible attibute descriptive. Or, we could just move to XML/RDF and never look back :)</div>
  
  ...
  
  Cancel
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 16 Oct 07

Now you're talking!

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Now you're talking!<br></div>

...

Cancel

Ecma Responds « Opportunity Knocks - 0 views

lnxwalt.wordpress.com/...ecma-responds

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Mar 07 - Cached

No, the real problem to me is that Microsoft wants to position OOXML as just a base format that their implementation is based on. And that the implementation adds all the other parts that are supposed to be non-XML, which includes VBA macros, OLE, DRM, password-protection, …
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 20 Mar 07

Walt Hucks and Stephane Rodriguez have taken on the MS Ecma response to ISO/IEC JTC S1 National Bodies objections and contradiciton findings that were filed at the end of the ISO/IEC Ecma 376 fast track - contradiction review phase.

The one - two punch Walt and Stephane provide is the clearest statement yet of what's really behind th eenormity of Microsoft's effort to establish their own international standards for XML file formats. In particular, they discuss the issue of business processes bound to the MSOffice - VBA API layer through macros, scripts, OLE, DRM, and password protection type mechnaisms.

They also point out that Ecma 376 is just a baseline file format that will be eXtended by MS Applications on implementation. It is the this collection of embedded system specific processing instructions that bind current business processewss to MSOffice, and will hold the monopoly base of 500 million desktops intact as MS makes the tranistion from desktop shrinkwrap sales to server side systems and services stacks.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Walt Hucks and Stephane Rodriguez have taken on the MS Ecma response to ISO/IEC JTC S1 National Bodies objections and contradiciton findings that were filed at the end of the ISO/IEC Ecma 376 fast track - contradiction review phase. <br><br>The one - two punch Walt and Stephane provide is the clearest statement yet of what's really behind th eenormity of Microsoft's effort to establish their own international standards for XML file formats. In particular, they discuss the issue of business processes bound to the MSOffice - VBA API layer through macros, scripts, OLE, DRM, and password protection type mechnaisms.<br><br>They also point out that Ecma 376 is just a baseline file format that will be eXtended by MS Applications on implementation. It is the this collection of embedded system specific processing instructions that bind current business processewss to MSOffice, and will hold the monopoly base of 500 million desktops intact as MS makes the tranistion from desktop shrinkwrap sales to server side systems and services stacks.<br><br></div>

...

Cancel

Is Open Source Dying? - 0 views

www.eweek.com/...0,1895,2148866,00.asp

iso linux odf ooxml open-source xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 07 - Cached

But behind the scenes, things are not quite as rosy. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which lived up to its left-leaning credentials (didn't Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer famously upbraid open-source proponents for being Communists?) broke important ground by mandating that state agencies switch to open-source platforms. There's just one problem: They can't seem to manage the transition. Sources close to the situation tell me that former state CIO Peter Quinn's resignation happened at least in part because of delaying tactics by vendors who publicly support open source but do their best to scuttle it behind the scenes.
...

Cancel

Gary Edwards on 21 Jun 07

Interesting topic which i've covered more fully with the OpenStack Blog : Connecting the Dots

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Interesting topic which i've covered more fully with the OpenStack Blog : Connecting the Dots<br></div>

...

Cancel

Group items tagged