Skip to main content

Home/ OpenDocument/ Group items tagged universal-format

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Barr: What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation? - Linux.com - 0 views

www.linux.com/121034

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 08 Nov 07 - Cached
  • The OpenDocument Foundation, founded five years ago by Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser, and Paul "Buck" Martin (marbux) with the express purpose of representing the OpenDocument format in the "open standards process," has reversed course. It now supports the W3C's Compound Document Format instead of its namesake ODF. Yet why this change of course has occurred is something of a mystery.
  • Gary Edwards on 08 Nov 07
     
    More bad information, accusations and smearing innuendo.  Wrong on the facts,  Emotionally spent on the conclussions.  But wow it's fun to see them with their panties in such a twist.

    The truth is that ODF is a far more "OPEN" standard than MS-OOXML could ever hope to be.  Sam's Open Standards arguments for the past five years remain as relevant today as when he first started makign them so many years ago.

    The thing is, the Open Standards requirements are quite different than the real world Implementation Requirements we tried to meet with ODF.

    The implementation requirements must deal with the reality of a world dominated by MSOffice.  The Open Standards arguments relate to a world as we wish it to be, but is not.

    It's been said by analyst advising real world CIO's that, "ODF is a fine open standards format for an alternative universe where MSOffice doesn't exist".

    If you live in that alternative universe, then ODF is the way to go.  Just download OpenOffice 2.3, and away you go.  Implementation is that easy.

    If however you live in this universe, and must deal with the impossibly difficult problem of converting existing MSOffice documents, applications and processes to ODF, then you're screwed. 

    All the grand Open Standards arguments Sam has made over the years will not change the facts of real world implmentation difficulities.

    The truth is that ODF was not designed to meet the real world implmentation requirements of compatibility with existing Microsoft documents (formats) and, interoperability with existing Microsoft Office applications.

    And then there are the problmes of ODF Interoperability with ODF applications.  At the base of this problem is the fact that compliance in ODF is optional.  ODF applications are allowed to routinely destroy metadata information needed (and placed into the markup) by other applications.<b
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

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.
  • Being XML, it should be easy to convert between the two formats."
    • Gary Edwards
      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 :)
  • Gary Edwards on 16 Oct 07
     
    Now you're talking!
Gary Edwards

ODF Civil War: Bulll Run - Suggested Changes on the Metadata proposal - OASIS ODF - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00072.html

metadata odf odf-civil-war ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 07 - Cached
  • From our perspective it would be better to aim for doing the job in ODF 1.2, even if that requires delay. We will oppose ODF 1.2 at ISO unless the interoperability warts are cleaned up. What the market requires is no longer in doubt. See the slides linked above and further presentations linked from this page, &lt; http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6474/5935&gt;. Substantial progress toward those goals would seem to be mandatory to maintain Europe's preference for a harmonized set of file formats that uses ODF to provide the common functionality. Delaying commencement of such work enhances the likelihood that governments will tire of waiting for ODF to become interoperable with MS Office and simply go with MOOXML. We may not be able to force Microsoft to participate in the harmonization work, but we will be in a far better position if we have done everything we can in aid of that interoperability without Microsoft's assistance. As the situation stands, we have what is known in the U.S. as a "Mexican stand-off," where neither side has taken a solitary step toward what Europe has requested. We have decided to do that work via a fork of ODF; it is up to this TC whether it wishes to cooperate in that effort.
  • Gary Edwards on 11 Oct 07
     
    This is the famous marbux response to Sun regarding Sun's attempt to partially implement ODF 1.2 XML-RDF metadata.  It's a treasure.

    There is one problem with marbux's statement though.  We had decided long ago not to fork ODF even if the five iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals were refused by the OASIS ODF TC.   This assurance was provided to Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez witht he the first ODF iX proposal submitted on July 12th, 2006.  Louis ended up signing off on three iX proposals before his resignation October 4th, 2006.

    The ODF iX enhancements were essential to saving ODF in Massachusetts.  Without them, there was no way our da Vinci plug-in could convert existing MSOffice documents and processes to ODF with the needed round trip fidelity.

    For nearly a year we tried to push through some semblance of the needed iX enhancements.  We also tried to push through a much needed Interoperability Framework, which will be critical to any ISO approval of ODF 1.2.

    Our critics are correct in that every iX effort was defeated, with Sun providing the primary opposition. 

    Still rather than fork ODF, we are simply going to move on. 

    On October 4th, 2006, all work on ODF da Vinci ended - not to be resumed unless and until we had the ODF iX enhancements we needed to crack the MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business process barrier.

    In April of 2007, with our OASIS membership officially shredded by OASIS management, bleeding from the List Enhancement Proposal doonybrook, and totally defeated with our hope - the metadata XML-RDF work, we threw in the towel.

    Since then we've moved on to CDF, the W3C Compound Document format.  Incredibly, CDF is able to do what ODF can not.  With CDF we can solve the three primary problems confronting governments and MSOffice bound workgroups everywhere. 

    The challenge for these g
Gary Edwards

Choice - 0 views

www.microsoft.com/...userchoice.mspx

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jun 07 - Cached
  • With ISO/IEC having standardized Open Document Format (ODF) 1.0 and considering standardizing Ecma Office Open XML (Open XML), there is a lot of public discussion about document formats and whether the world should begin to focus on only one format or continue to see multiple formats developed and used over time. Microsoft believes that users should be able to choose among formats and pick the one that best meets their needs. We also believe in encouraging the continued evolution of computing and data formats. And we support the ratification of Open XML in ISO/IEC. There are several reasons for these views:
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Jun 07
     
    This the infamous Microsoft letter that many have misconstrued as an announcement of support for OpenDocument.  Only in a Microsoft universe can the statement, "We're not going to attack ODF" be taken as Micrsoft support for ODF.
Gary Edwards

OpenDocument Foundation Slams Namesake Format And Calls For True Interoperability | Wir... - 0 views

blog.wired.com/...opendocument-fo.html

cdf odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Nov 07 - Cached
  • There’s some weight to that accusation when you consider how the applications behind each format operate. For instance, Microsoft Office more or less sucks at handling ODF documents and OpenOffice sucks at opening OOXML files — but why? OpenOffice has largely refused to implement any of the proprietary elements of Microsoft’s Office and Microsoft has made only a passing effort at supporting ODF. The two sides may argue about which is the better file format, but in reality what they’re saying is “our software works better than yours.” From an end user point of view software remains the critical issue — far moreso than the document format itself. But the OpenDocument Foundation would like that to change, they believe that interoperability is the whole point of having a universal format.
  • But it is nice to see that at least some part of office document debate is actually on the real-world user’s side. After all, most of us really don’t care what format our documents are in as long as all our applications can open them. And right now that sort of cross-application compatibility is little more than a pipe dream.
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Nov 07
     
    Wow.  Add another name to the ODF Jihadist list of fatwah targets, "Scott Gilbertson".
Gary Edwards

V1 committee gives thumbs down to Open XML doc spec - 0 views

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

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jul 07 - No Cached
  • Sun Microsystems Inc., largely considered an avowed opponent of Open XML because of its own development and support for the competing, ODF-based StarOffice suite, found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying Open XML -- albeit after some changes in the proposal are made.
  • Gary Edwards on 20 Jul 07
     
    Quote: Sun Microsystems Inc., largely considered an avowed opponent of Open XML because of its own development and support for the competing, ODF-based StarOffice suite, found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying Open XML -- albeit after some changes in the proposal are made. "We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents," Jon Bosak, a Sun representative to V1, wrote in an e-mail to other committee members over the weekend. "Sun voted No on Approval because it is our expert finding, based on the analysis so far accomplished in V1, that DIS 29500 as presently written is technically incapable of achieving those goals, not because we disagree with the goals or are opposed to an ISO Standard that would enable them." Sun "found itself in the unexpected position of stating its support for ratifying OOXML"?  What???? This is the official position of Sun?

    For the near five years that i have been a member of the OASIS ODF TC, Sun has opposed
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
Gary Edwards

Three Stages of XML Migration: The OpenDocument Challenge - 0 views

docs.google.com/View

iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07 - Cached
  • "Open document formats: I get it! But how do I get there? Discuss."
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Mar 07
     
    Eventually i suspect the truth will come out concerning ODF and the events in Massachusetts.  Migration is difficult and our friends in Redmond are not about to lend a hand.  The problem is the starting point, the MSOffice desktop productivity environment.  A starting point owned and controlled entirely by Microsoft.  The challenge is to get from the overwhelming dominance of proprietary Microsoft binary documents and into an open XML universal file format that any application, running on any platform can interactively read, render and write to.

    Microsoft has decided to keep secret the blueprint to these billions of binary documents, reserving exclusively for themselves the right to convert then to XML.  Of course, the only version of XML Microsoft will convert them to is the wholly owned and controlled OOXML file format. 

    Microsoft refuses to cooperate in any way with the conversion of these legacy binary documents to the only truly open XML universal file format, OASIS OpenDocument.  Which leaves the world with a near insolvable problem; how to get from where we are today, with the boot of a ruthless monopolist on the neck of our information and information processes, to where we really desire to be -  with our digital civilization in the hands of open standards, and out of the control of proprietary applications and platform vendors.

    This document describes what the OpenDocument Foundation learned in Massachusetts about the challenge of migrating to ODF. 

Paul Merrell

Sun Microsystems Snookers UNESCO - 0 views

www.businesswire.com/...google

shared by Paul Merrell on 22 May 09 - Cached
  • The agreement is part of UNESCO’s ongoing effort to improve digital inclusion globally by partnering with the private sector. Under its terms, Sun Microsystems and UNESCO will promote the use of open source technologies, including OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard, as a low-cost way to improve education with universal access to information and knowledge. They will also support the development of open and inclusive knowledge societies in developing and emerging economies.
  • Paul Merrell on 22 May 09
     
    Now it's "universal access to information and knowledge" via the OpenDocument Format? Is there no one at UNESCO who has the brains to check out vendor claims before buying into them? ODF is a standard in name only, without any specification of the conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability. How a specification may be described as "open" when the information needed to implement it is missing has to rank up there in the top 10 of appeals to ignorance.
Gary Edwards

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

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

cdf iso microsoft ms-ooxml odf opendocuemnt

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

South Africa, Netherlands and Korea striding toward ODF - 0 views

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

mandates odf ooxml plug-ins

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • In Belgium, for instance, the government is using plug-ins to enable Microsoft Office to read and save files in ODF, Marcich said. The same plug-ins are being used in Massachusetts, which was the first governmental body to move to ODF. One prominent ODF backer, the unrelated Open Document Foundation, said in late October that it would stop backing ODF in favor of a more viable universal format called the Compound Document Format (CDF). Marcich said that "won't have any effect on the alliance or on ODF" adoption. Moreover, CDF, which is a World Wide Web Consortium format, differs greatly in features and goals than ODF. "We're talking about apples and oranges here," he said.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      This ComputerWorld article is referenced by the State of New York in their request for information
Gary Edwards

Computerworld - South Africa, Netherlands and Korea striding toward ODF - Eric Lai - 0 views

www.computerworld.com.au/...id;1351236114;fp;;fpid;;pf;1

cdf odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 28 Nov 07 - Cached
  • One prominent ODF backer, the unrelated Open Document Foundation, said in late October that it would stop backing ODF in favor of a more viable universal format called the Compound Document Format (CDF). Marcich said that "won't have any effect on the alliance or on ODF" adoption. Moreover, CDF, which is a World Wide Web Consortium format, differs greatly in features and goals than ODF. "We're talking about apples and oranges here," he said.
Gary Edwards

Blake Matheny : OpenDocument Foundation to Drop ODF for W3C CDF WICD | Blogging success - 0 views

blogging.compendiumblog.com/...ocument-foundation-to-drop-odf

cdf foundation odf ooxml w3c wicd

shared by Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 07 - Cached
  • Now, Sam Hiser, VP of the ODF, has said that he sees the W3C standard CDF (Compound Document Format) as a more viable universal format than ODF. He stated simply that, "ODF is not the open format with the open process we thought it was". Why is this significant? First, I think it speaks to how important the W3C is and has become over the past several years. The number of web standards in particular that have been formalized by the W3C is remarkable, whether they have been successful or not. Second, it (CDF) addresses an issue that I see on a daily basis in my role here at Compendium Blogware.
  • Gary Edwards on 19 Nov 07
     
    Wow!  Does Blake Matheny ever get it!  Maybe it's time for the W3C CDF Community to speak up?  
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

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

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~
  • 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~
Gary Edwards

Government Open Source Conference to Feature Open Document Debate - Government Technolo... - 0 views

www.govtech.com/...150738

cdf goscon interoperability odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 10 Oct 07 - Cached
  • The Executive Panel on Open Document Formats, moderated by Andy Stein, director of information technology at the city of Newport News, Va., will focus on how the user community can get involved in this issue, have influence over its outcome and knowledge for implementations. Panelists are expected to address the practical differences between competing standards OOXML, ODF and CDF to determine which one(s) truly provide a single file format that is open, universally interoperable and application- and platform-independent. About half of the session will be set aside for audience questions, providing an opportunity for GOSCON attendees to gain direct access to the debate.
  • Gary Edwards on 10 Oct 07
     
    The press coverage on GOSCON is outstanding.  Kudos to Debra Bryant and Andy Stein for stoking the fire here. 
Gary Edwards

A Closer Look At Those "Single Standard" Policy Mandates : Oliver Bell's weblog - 0 views

osrin.net/...ingle-standard-policy-mandates

shared by Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08 - Cached
  • 2. Achieving interoperability is rarely as straight forward as selecting a single technical standard, and many of the policy positions around the world recognize this. Applications need to be designed to work together, groups need a solid framework for collaboration and the standards need to be ready to support these two objectives.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 25 Jan 08
       
      Hold on there Oliver. You've got the cart before the horse here. You say that, "standards need to be ready to support these two objectives". The objectives you sight are that of applications being desinged for interop (exchange) and collaboration. This observation is consistent with the vendor mantra coming out of Microsoft, Sun, and IBM: that interoperability is an application problem - not a standards issue. My view is that the only way we will have interoperability is if we design standards as totally application, platform and vendor independent. This demands a clean room approach, even to the extent of not allowing application vendors participation. At least not direct particpation where vendor business objectives might influence the standard. The first law of the Internet is that Interoperability rules. Interop must trump innovation. And innovation must be within the boundaries of the interoperability framework. Meaning, innovate on top of interop, but don't break that interop. Ever! This is exactly the opposite of how applications want to operate. They want innovation first, with interop as secondary feature based entirely on dooperative deals between vendors. That's not good enough for me or anyone else who believes that a universal fiel format is possible. The W3C approach is to focus entirely on the standards use requirements, completely shutting out application demands. With formats, this comes down to focusing on the basic document structures carried over from a few hundred years of document publication experience. The only proven formula for interop is to first write and establish the base standard. Then, let the applications adapt. Let the applications compete on how well they implement interoeprability standards, and build innovative features without disrupting or compromising that interop.
Gary Edwards

Compound Document Formats (CDF) - 0 views

www.w3.org/CDF

odef odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument xhtml

shared by Gary Edwards on 06 Aug 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 06 Aug 07
     
    heh heh heh. You where asking about that universal file format? drool away amigo! drool away
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 44 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page