Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.

Yes!  It's Da Vinci time.  I wonder if W^ has downloaded ACME 376 and taken the Da Vinci conversion engine out for a test run?  Belgium and Adobe took a look, and have expressed an interest in getting their hands on the ODF 1.2 version of Da Vinci.  California and Massachusetts have yet to comment about ACME 376, but of course they are also waiting for Da Vinci.

I'll thank W^ for his kind comments, and make sure he knows about the ACME 376 proof of concept.  If DaVinci can hit perfect conversion fidelity with those billions of binary documents using XML encoded RTF, there is no reason why Da Vinci can't do the same with ODF.  We do however need ODF 1.2 to insure that perfect interoperability with other ODF ready applications.

Hi guys,

There is an interesting discussion triggered by Tim Bray's "ongoing · Life Is Complicated" blog piece.  Our good friend Mike Champion has some interesting comments defending ISO/IEC approval of MS Ecma 376 based on many arguments.  But this one seems to be the bottom line;

<mike> "there is not an official standard for one that (in the opinion of the people who actually dug deeply into the question, and I have not) represents all the features supported in the MS Office binary formats and can be efficiently loaded and processed without major redesign of MS Office.

..... So, if you want a clean XML format that represents mainstream office document use cases, use ODF. If you want a usable XML foormat that handles existing Word documents with full fidelity and optimal performance in MS Office, use OOXML. If you think this fidelity/performance argument is all FUD, try it with your documents in Open Office / ODF and MS Office 2007 / OOXML and tell the world what you learn." </mike>

Mike's not alone in this.  This seems to be the company line for Microsoft's justification that ISO/IEC should have two conflicting file formats each pomising to do the same thing, becaus eonly one of those formats can handle the bilions of binary documents conversion to XML with an acceptable fidelity. 

This is not true, and we can prove it.  And if we're right  that you can convert the billions of binaries to ODF without loss of fidelity, then there was no "technology" argument for Microsoft not implementing ODF natively and becoming active in the OASIS ODF TC process to improve application interoperability.

<diigo_

Interesting observation about South Africa and their "free as in beer" software requirements.  This governement attitude towards open source is far more wide spread than commonly thought.  One would have hoped that interoperability and open standards were also part of the FOSS equation, but it looks like zero cost is the primary driver.

I've got to give this one extra points for creativity!  All anyone has to do is visit the W3C web sites for CDF WICD Full 1.0 to realize that there is in fact a CDf profile for desktops.  CDF WICD Mobile is the profile for devices.

My guess is that Chris Lilley is threading the needle here.  IBM, Groklaw, and the lawyer for OASIS have portrayed the Foundation's support for CDF WICD Full as a replacement for ODF - as in native file format for OpenOffice kind of replacement.  Mr. Lilley insists that CDF WiCD Full was not designed for that purpose.  It's for export only!  As in a conversion of native desktop file formats.

Which is exactly what the da Vinci group was doing with MSOffice.  The Foundation's immediate interest in CDF WICD was based on the assumption that a similar conversion would be possible between OpenOffice ODF and CDF WICD.

The Foundation's thinking was that if the da Vinci group could convert MSOffice documents and processes to CDF WICD Full, and, a similar conversion of OpenOffice ODF documents and processes to CDF WICD could be done, then near ALL desktop documents could be converted into a highly interoperable web platform ready format.

Web platform ready documents from OpenOffice?  What's not to like?  And because the conversion between ODF and CDF WICD Full is so comparatively clean, OpenOffice would in effect, (don't go native file format now) become ahighly integrated rich client end user interface to advancing web platforms.

The Foundation further reasoned that this conversion of OpenOffice ODF to CDF WICD Full would solve many of the extremely problematic interoperability problems that plague ODF.  Once the documents are in CDF WICD Full, they are cloud ready and portable at a level certain to diminish the effects of desktop applications specific feature sets and implementation models.

In Massachusetts, the Foundation took

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

Wow.  Add another name to the ODF Jihadist list of fatwah targets, "Scott Gilbertson".

"aimed at achieving an optimum degree of order .... and .... aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits:. Uh, excuse me Mr. Robinson, tha tsecond part of your statement, the one concerning optimum community benefits - that would also disqualify ODF!! ODF was not designed to be compatible with the 550 million MSOffice desktops and their billions of binary docuemnts. Menaing, these 550 million users will suffer considerable loss of information if they try to convert their existing documents to ODF. It is also next to impossible for MSOffice applications to implement ODF as a fiel format due to this incompatbility. ODF was designed for OpenOffice, and directly reflects the way OpenOffice implements specific document structures. The problem areas involve large differences between how OpenOffice implments these structures and how MSOffice implements these same structures. The structures in question are lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics. It seems to me that "optimum community benefits" would include the conversion and exchange of docuemnts with some 550 million users!!!! And ODF was clearly not designed for that purpose!

I don't agree with this statement from Microsoft's Oliver Bell. As someone who served on the OASIS ODF Technical Committee from it's inception in November of 2002 through the next five years, i have to disagree. It's not that Microsoft wasn't welcome. They were. It's that the "welcome" came with some serious strings. Fo rMicrosoft to join OASIS would have meant strolling into the camp of their most erstwhile and determined competitors, and having to ammend an existing standard to accomodate the implementation needs of MSOffice. There is simply no way for the layout differences between OpenOffice and MSOffice to be negotiated short of putting both methodologies into the spec. Meaning, the spec would provide two ways of implementing lists, tables, fields, sections and page dynamics. A true welcome would have been for ODF to have been written to accomodate these diferences. Rather than writing ODF to meet the implementation model used by OepnOffice, it would have been infinitely better to wrtite ODF as a totally application independent file format using generic docuemnt structures tha tcould be adapted by any application. It turns out that this is exactly the way the W3C goes about the business of writing their fiel format specifications (HTML, XHTML, CSS, XFORMS, and CDF). The results are highly interoperable formats that any applciation can implement.

You can harmonize an application specific format with a generic, applicaiton independent format. But you can't harmonize two application specific formats!!!!
The easy way to solve the document exchange problem is to leave the legacy applications alone, and work on the conversion of OOXML and ODF docuemnts to a single, application independent generic format. The best candidate for this role is that of the W3C's CDF.
CDF is a desription of how to combine existing W3C format standards into a single container. It is meant to succeed HTML on the Web, but has been designed as a universal file format.
The most exciting combination is that of XHTML 2.0 and CSS in that it is capable of handling the complete range of desktop productivity office suite documents. Even though it's slightly outside the W3C reach, the most popular CDF compound is that of XHTML, CSS and JavaScript. A combination otherwise known as "AJAX".

Reading this I suddenly thought of the phrase "Internet tidal wave" from Bill Gates in the late 90's . I know the rest of the world don't give a damn about the document format war (as much as we do), but the move from Microsoft here is actually quite substantial.

There was a certain inevitability that Microsoft would be forced to bow to market pressures and announce its acceptance of ODF. However, Microsoft's traditional approach to standards has been characterised as Embrace, Extend, Extinguish - i.e. attempt to claim ownership and take control of a standard through abuse of its near monopoly position. Proponents of ODF need to defend against this by setting up independent testing for software conformance with the standard. The testing needs to be accessible not just to the Suns and IBMs of this world - but also the KOffices. While proponents of ODF are celebrating that a victory has been won, it is more likely that the real battle is only just beginning.

Jon Bosak, who founded the XML and ODF efforts among many other achievements, recently wrote an article concerning the position of ODF, Open XML and PDF Jon's public writings are rare, well-considered and always of interest. As with other Sun-affiliated people in recent times, Jon has been exemplary in that even though he has a side, he does not take sides. I think I can agree with much of what he says, though I would note Don't forget about HTML.

Another relatively old (May 2008) article for me to read…

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

Jon Bosak on the recent New York State decision to support both ODF and OOXML. Jon makes an important distinction between application editable formats such as ODF and OOXML, and, publishing formats like PDF. He does not cover HTML-CSS as either an editing or publishing format even though it is clearly used as both to the tune of over 4 billion documents. Goog arguments from a world reknown expert.