Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged talkback

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Butcher this! -- gary_edwards's comment on "ComputerWorld: Microsoft legislatively TKO'... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Jul 07 - Cached
  • The question we should be asking is why State CIO's and IT divisions are not backing the legislative proposals? It's not the lobbying that is killing ODF. It's the lack of support from those who would have been left with the challenge of implementing ODF solutions. The silence of the CIO's is deafening.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Jul 07
     
    The title here has nothing to do with the content.  The original title is, "Politics is only a small part of this story". 

    It's been a while since i last posted to the ZDNet TalkBack, and was totally thrown by the TalkBack formating needs.  My first post dropped all line breaks, and came out as one long run on sentence.

    Now maybe that's the way i write, (and think), but at least with some formatting i can hide that fact!

    Still, "Butcher This!" is not a bad title. 

    ~ge~

Gary Edwards

Does ODF 1.2 Metadata Solve the Interop Problem? - Microsoft starts rolling out more O... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

afnor cdf iso maryjo merger metadata odf ooxml opendocument talkback zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - No Cached
  • Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2 Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe. The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission. You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects. Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint. Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07
     
    A Second response to Mary Jo's, "Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators" is also posted here. The title is "Standardization by Corporation". Shish-Ka-Bob makes the assertion the ODF 1.2 metadata model will enable lossless two way conversion between MSOffice and ODF. While it's true that that intent was a key component of the original July of 2006 Metadata Requirements, the proposal was eventually stripped from the final submission made in April of 2007. I try to explain to Shish how that came about. The second post here, "Standardization by Corporation", is a follow on to statements made to Shish. The statements have to do with the events at ISO, and what i think will eventually happen. IMHO, ISO will follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML. To do this they will remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter. A derpressing but nevertheless very true concern. In fact, the OpenDocument Foundation was created specifically to address our concerns about the undue influence big application vendors were exerting on ODF following the April 30th, 2005 approval of ODF 1.0 (which went on to become ISO 26300). ~ge~
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

Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - marbux - ge comments | ZDNet UK - 0 views

news.zdnet.co.uk/...0,1000000121,39348282,00.htm

google interop odf ooxml opendocument zd-uk

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Feb 08 - Cached
  • Interoperability and the binary ODF conversion di... garyedwards Sorry, the comment was cut short. Here'... garyedwards
  • ODF and OOXML are standards in... Marbux
Gary Edwards

Commercializing Interoperability -- gary_edwards's comment on "Linux leaders plot count... - 0 views

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 07 - Cached
  • Is Microsoft commercializing "interoperability"? Is interoperability through privileged access to the interop API's now a strategic asset to be traded with partners in crime?
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 07
     
    The first post in the ZDNet series discussing the many deals Microsoft is cutting with prominent LiNUX vendors.  My point is that interoperability plays a prominent role in each of these deals, and, the deals also involve partners supporting Microsoft directed interop between OpenOfficeXML and OpenDocument.  Coincidence? 

    I think not!

Gary Edwards

Singing Kumbaya -- gary_edwards's comment on "Linux leaders plot counterattack on Micro... - 0 views

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 07 - Cached
  • have you noticed that IBM is softening their position on "harmonization"? There are a number of events to consider that might have influenced this change in tone:
  • Gary Edwards on 15 Jun 07
     
    More in that same "LiNUX Leaders plot counter attack on Microsoft" thread at ZDNet.  This time the issue is what has caused IBM to sing a differnet tune?  The tune known as "harmoniation".
Gary Edwards

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

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

ecma-376 iso microsoft odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xml

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

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

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

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

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

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

ODF tied to OpenOffice? Say it isn't so! -- gary.edwards's comment on "IBM Symphony fal... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535-0.html

ibm lotus-symphony odf ooxml openoffice

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Sep 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Sep 07
     
    Good discussion on IBM's recent release of OpenOffice as Lotus Symphony. OpenOffice Community Marketing Lead, John McCreesh, steps into it though with an errant quote. Sadly, i have to take him to task.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft legislatively TKO's open document formats. At least stateside. | ComputerWorl... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 02 Feb 08 - Cached
  • The question we should be asking is why State CIO's and IT divisions are not backing the legislative proposals? It's not the lobbying that is killing ODF. It's the lack of support from those who would have been left with the challenge of implementing ODF solutions. The silence of the CIO's is deafening. There are three quotes i've seen batted about that pretty much say it all:
  • Gary Edwards on 02 Feb 08
     
    Since December 16th, 2002, or day one on the OASIS Open Office XML Technical Committee, now "ODF", the challenge has been to suceed in the marketplace as the best XML format for desktop productivity environments. Success was seen as a technical challenge. Could we make an XML format capable of universal interoperability? Capable of universal implementation across the domains of desktop, server, device and web platform usage?
    All that changed in May of 2005, when ODF 1.0 was approved by OASIS and sent on it's way to ISO for consideration as an international standard. Following that approval, IBM led a swarm of large corporate vendors who invaded the cozy confines of serious universal docuemnt format work. No longer was the goal to perfect the most useful and lasting structured format the world had ever seen. The IBM led wave of corporate invaders seized on a new use of ODF - the use of ODF as a government mandate to rip out and replace MSOffice!
    The politics of using standards to compete against Microsoft trumped the traditions of seeking market success through technical excellence.
    Sadly, ODF would never recover from the anti trust veiled politics of IBM. The one thing ODF absolutely had to have to technically succeed is ability to convert legacy MS binary documents. Something it was never designed to do. Somethign that clearly is not in IBM's game plan.
    As if the interoeprability problems of ODF wer not enough, IBM forged ahead with their interoeprability plan. Instead of movign interop to the forefront of ODF technical issues, IBM openned up an ODF Interoperability Sub Committee at the OASIS ODF Adoption TC. A group dedicated to the marketing and promotion of ODF.
    Incredibly IBM sees ODF interop as a marketing issue, and not the technical challenge that continues to defy application implementation efforts.
Gary Edwards

garyedwards's Discussions at ZDNet.co.uk Community - 0 views

community.zdnet.co.uk/...,1000000565,2000542666b,00.htm

iso microsoft msoffice odf ooxml xaml

shared by Gary Edwards on 21 Mar 08 - Cached
  • garyedwards's Discussions Breaking the Web Talkback: Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary'
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary'... - 0 views

www.zdnet.co.uk/...282-39001068c-20091889o,00.htm

brm google interop iso marbux odf ooxml opendocument openxml zdnet-uk

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Feb 08 - Cached
  • Both ODF and OOXML flunk that test badly. Their interoperable implementation neither has nor can be demonstrated. Both are designed for the waging of feature wars, not for interoperability. Both attempt to legitimize market-leading companies embracing and extending their own formats. They are standards in name only. What we are watching is a contest to decide which big vendor formats will be allowed to undeservedly claim the title of "international standard."
Gary Edwards

ODF useless for Microsoft needs - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkba... - 0 views

www.zdnet.co.uk/...282-39001068c-20091780o,00.htm

embrace-extend google harmonization odf ooxml opendocument unification

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • ODF's limited spec can't support all MS Office features unless Microsoft goes on a major entending trip.
Gary Edwards

OpenDocument Foundation folds; will Microsoft benefit? - Mary Jo ZDNet - 0 views

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

cdf odf ooxml w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Nov 07 - Cached
  • +1 gary.edwards - 11/16/07 Thanks for the consideration Anton. You might want to follow an emerging discussion now taking place at the OpenDocument Fellowship: Interop between multiple standards and multiple applications Check on the follow up post and understand that this is the same problem the da Vinci group tried to overcome in Massachusetts, when ODF hung by a thread in the summer of 2006; with the sole hope being a plug-in conversion process capable of very high "round trip" fidelity. To assist Massachusetts and the da Vinci Group, the OpenDocument Foundation introduced to the OASIS ODF TC a series of discussions and proposals collectively known as the ODF iX interoperability enhancements. A total of six comprehensive iX enhancements were introduced between July of 2006 and March of 2007. The first three sets of iX enhancements were signed off on by CIO Louis Gutierrez, with the full knowledge and awareness of IBM (they participated directly in those discussions and i do have the emails and conference schedules to verify this . Also, if you're interested in other issues surrounding the da Vinci groups use of CDF WICD Full as an in-process conversion target for MSOffice documents, there is a series of recent responses posted in the comments section of this blog, "Going to Bed (without my supper). One last note; I do have a response to AlphaDog sitting in the blog que, where i try to put the MSOffice to CDF WICD Full conversion, and the OpenOffice ODF to CDF WICD Full conversion into the larger context of the web platform and universal interoperability. This post will also briefly explain the events immediately preceding the decision to shut the Foundation down. Hope this helps, ~ge~
Gary Edwards

ODF and differences of opinion | TalkBack on ZDNet - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11048-0.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :) The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world.
  • Gary Edwards on 04 Nov 07
     
    Lengthy comment explaining once again why we moved from ODF to CDF. 
Gary Edwards

ODF 1.2 Metadata? You're Dreaming! Microsoft starts rolling out more OOXML translators... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

cdf ge mary-jo metadata microsoft odf ooxml opendocument shish

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - No Cached
  • Sorry Shish, you're wrong about ODF 1.2 Try ODF 1.5 or ODF 2.0, maybe. The metadata requirements for ODF 1.2 actually did include two way lossless translation capability. Unfortunately these features did not survive the final cut, and were not included in the April 2007 submission. You might also want to check the February 23, 2007 metadata proposal from Florian Reuter. That also would have delivered the goods and perhaps put ODF that grand convergence category of usefulness across desktops, servers, devices and web systems currently the exclusive domains of MS-OOXML and CDF+. Florian had devised a means of using metadata to describe the presentation aspects of content and structural objects. Very revolutionary. And based on the simple notion that bold, font, margins etc. are simply metadata about content and style objects. Where the train came off the track had to do with the concept of an XML ID means of linking metadata to content. Not that there was anything wrong with this mechanism. It's actually quite clever. What went wrong was that Sun insisted that only those elements approved and supported by OpenOffice would be allowed to make use of XML ID metadata. For independent developers, this is a serious constraint. Because of this constraint, the metatdata sub committee started off with six elements supported by OOo that metadata could be appied to. IBM then came in and asked for eleven more elements having to do with charts and graphs. The OpenOffice crew decided they could support this, so in they went. Then an interesting question was posed, "How are independent developers supposed to submit elements for metadata consideration?"
Gary Edwards

Did the W3C acknowledge CDF's potential as an office format (vs ODF) in newly public e-... - 0 views

blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind

berlind cdf foundation heintzman odf ooxml opendocument schepers w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Along the way, both sides know that there is little margin for error. All it takes is for one slip-up in messaging, one missed appointment, one mistake or one technical snafu to create a hole that the other side will gladly drive a Mack truck through. The stakes are so high that both sides have done a remarkable if not awe-inspiring (though not always commendable) job in executing their global full court presses. For the ODF community, it’s relatively minor to have a few dissenters like Edwards and Hiser break ranks. But, should the W3C concur with Edwards and Hiser that CDF is the more sensible candidate (than ODF) to be the world’s international open standard for universal document interop and portability, solidarity around ODF could weaken. And any weakening of solidarity around ODF is exactly the sort of hole that Microsoft would look to drive a truck through. If an indicator from the W3C that CDF is better-suited for ODF’s job than ODF could lead to such a hole, a similar indicator from IBM would be disastrous for the ODF community. Although it’s nothing more than a wild guess on my behalf, I’m willing to bet that IBM is probably responsible for more than 40 percent of the global resources being brought to bear on ODF’s behalf, if not 50 or 60 (percent). Microsoft wouldn’t need a Mack truck to take advantage of an IBM insinuation that ODF is non-strategic (or, “transitional” as Edwards said to me in an e-mail). Global support for ODF would very likely unravel because of how many people from governments to businesses to the ISO would feel betrayed and Microsoft’s OOXML would be left as the only format standing. The ODF coalition might live to see another day and another battle with CDF as their savior, but the damage would very likely be irreversible given the long memories of most of those who were betrayed.
  • Whereas the W3C has very little riding on ODF (Format), IBM has everything riding on it. Alright, not everything. IBM is involved in plenty of other businesses. But, after investing so much in ODF and now being so close to its best shot at seeking the aforementioned revenge, the last thing Big Blue can afford is a material breakdown in the world’s interest in ODF.
  • The question now is whether that moment has arrived for Gary Edwards and Sam Hiser in whole or in part, or maybe not at all. In response to my post, Doug Schepers, the primary contact at the W3C for CDF commented that in his eyes, it was simply an “honest misunderstanding on their part, and perhaps overenthusiasm.” Edwards, who over the weekend, disclosed to me the exact content of his e-mails with Schepers clearly had enough and simply published those e-mails here on ZDNet under the heading An Honest Misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape!. You can read the e-mails yourself. But, if there’s any text in them that vindicates Edwards and Hiser, it’s the part where Schepers wrote the following to them (I’ve boldfaced the most salient point):
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • So, what do you think? Do Edwards and Hiser have more credibility now that this e-mail has come to light?
Gary Edwards

Play the tape!!! The W3C eMails to the Foundation tell a differenct story | OpenDocumen... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10741-0.html

cdf ms-ooxml odf schepers w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 07 - Cached
  • An honest misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape! Instead of arguing about who said what when, let's just go to the record and see exactly what the W3C's Doug Schepers said to us in an eMail introducing himself. Keep in mind that we did not contact the W3C or Mr. Schepers. The following eMail was most welcome, but entirely unsolicited.
  • Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 07
     
    The W3C's Doug Schepers joins the discussion claiming that the Foundation misunderstood his eMail messages.   We say otherwise!

    There is of course one way to settle this: PLAY THE TAPE!

    So here it is.

    ~ge~

Gary Edwards

OpenDocument Format community steadfast despite theatrics of now impotent 'Foundation' ... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5206-10741-0.html

cdf odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 07 - Cached
  • ODF was dead-on-arrival not because it's a better or worse choice than OOXML (I have no idea which is better, really) but because the nature of those with UNIX DNA never allows these kinds of "open" agreements to succeed. They all just splinter. Every time.
  • Gary Edwards on 03 Dec 07
     
    The sad thing is that in early January of 2003, it was proposed that we start with a clean slate effort based on structural document generics instead of accepting the OpenOffice XML spec, and trying to strip out the application specific settings.  History will record that we accepted the OpenOffice XML spec, and were unable, after five years of effort (2002-2007) to clean things up.

    Perhaps ODF was doomed almost from the start.  The UNiX suggestion is interesting if not an arrow through the core.

Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML - 0 views

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

anti-trust browser-wars gates msoffice netscape ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • From: Bill Gates Sent: Saturday, December 5 1998 To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky Subject : Office rendering "One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows. I would be glad to explain at a greater length. Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well." Tuesday, August 28, 2007
  • 3.2.2.2. A pox on both your houses! gary.edwards - 01/22/08 Hi Robert, What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability. But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts! Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”. So what's going on here?
Gary Edwards

Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML | A pos on both your houses! - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12558-0.html

application-specific cdf ge odf ooxml pox

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability. But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts! Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”.
1 - 20 of 24 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page