There must be something in the air. The end user inspired idea that applications should be able to exchange documents perfectly preserving the presentation (man percieved appearance as opposed to machine interpreted layout-rendering) is gaining a rabid momentum.
Yesterday it was the Intel ODF Test Suite results falling into the hands of Microsoft, who is now using the results to argue that OpenOffice doesn't fully support - implement ODF. The Intel ODF Test Suite is notable in that the test is near 100% about comparative "presentation" :: an object to object ocmparison of a KOffice document to an OpenOffice rendering of that document and vice versa.
Today we have the EU IDABC hosting a continent wide conference discussing the same issue :: the "exchange" of ODF documents. They've even gone so far as to coin a new term; ODEF - OpenDocument Exchange Format!
This morning i also recieved an invite to join a new OASIS discussion list, "The DocStandards Interoperability List". The issue? The converision and exchange of documents between different standards.
And then there is the cry for help from Sophie Gautier. This is an eMail that has worked it's way up to both the OASIS ODF Adoption TC and OASIS ODF Mainline TC discussion lists. The problem is that Microsoft is presenting the Intel ODF Test Results to EU govenrments. Sophie needs a response, and finds the truth hard to fathom.
Last week the legendary document processing expert Patrick Durusau jumped into the ODF "Lists" embroglio with his concern that the public has a different idea about document exchange - interoperability than the ODF TC. A very different idea. The public expects a visual preservation of the documents presentation qualities to be maintained througout the docuemnt exchange process - no matter which ODF application renders and works the document!
So this issue is quickly reaching the most infectiously persuasive level of meme status.
What to do? Well, as the world's foremost document conversiona dn exchange expert, Dr. Florian Reuter, has long insisted, the problem is that there is no layout engine - global rendering guidlines for ODF. Every ODF ready applicaitons has it's own way of laying out an ODF document. And each legacy layout engine is bound by internal in-memory-binary-representation models invented and implemented long before there was an ODF.
And these "imbr" models are themselves tuned to application specific feature sets.
There is a way out of this mess, but it involves legacy ODF vendors bitting the bullet and upgrading their layout engines to comply with two ODF specification guidlines; metadata RDF/XML, and, an XSL-FO style layout guidlines that doesn't yet exist..
The Metadata RDF/XML work should be complete for ODF 1.2, but it will be a bear for ODF applications to implement. The key concept with metadata is Florian's prescient insight that, "all presentation (styles) is metadata, and should be treated as such". The incredibly flexible RDF/XML descriptive - relational oriented model provides us with an effective means for passing presentation information from one application to another. The flexibility allows for descritpive information about the information that would otherwise be excluded from the current hardcoded strict heirachy apporach of ODF XML.
We will still need however an effective layout guidline for ODF. XSL-FO is in my opinion a good place to start, but it would have to be adapted to fully reflect the desktop productivity environment feature set, and do so in a way compliant with the emerging metadata RDF/XML model that will be in ODF 1.2.
Let the meme ring, ~ge~
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.
Page Comments
Yesterday it was the Intel ODF Test Suite results falling into the hands of Microsoft, who is now using the results to argue that OpenOffice doesn't fully support - implement ODF. The Intel ODF Test Suite is notable in that the test is near 100% about comparative "presentation" :: an object to object ocmparison of a KOffice document to an OpenOffice rendering of that document and vice versa.
Today we have the EU IDABC hosting a continent wide conference discussing the same issue :: the "exchange" of ODF documents. They've even gone so far as to coin a new term; ODEF - OpenDocument Exchange Format!
This morning i also recieved an invite to join a new OASIS discussion list, "The DocStandards Interoperability List". The issue? The converision and exchange of documents between different standards.
And then there is the cry for help from Sophie Gautier. This is an eMail that has worked it's way up to both the OASIS ODF Adoption TC and OASIS ODF Mainline TC discussion lists. The problem is that Microsoft is presenting the Intel ODF Test Results to EU govenrments. Sophie needs a response, and finds the truth hard to fathom.
Last week the legendary document processing expert Patrick Durusau jumped into the ODF "Lists" embroglio with his concern that the public has a different idea about document exchange - interoperability than the ODF TC. A very different idea. The public expects a visual preservation of the documents presentation qualities to be maintained througout the docuemnt exchange process - no matter which ODF application renders and works the document!
So this issue is quickly reaching the most infectiously persuasive level of meme status.
What to do? Well, as the world's foremost document conversiona dn exchange expert, Dr. Florian Reuter, has long insisted, the problem is that there is no layout engine - global rendering guidlines for ODF. Every ODF ready applicaitons has it's own way of laying out an ODF document. And each legacy layout engine is bound by internal in-memory-binary-representation models invented and implemented long before there was an ODF.
And these "imbr" models are themselves tuned to application specific feature sets.
There is a way out of this mess, but it involves legacy ODF vendors bitting the bullet and upgrading their layout engines to comply with two ODF specification guidlines; metadata RDF/XML, and, an XSL-FO style layout guidlines that doesn't yet exist..
The Metadata RDF/XML work should be complete for ODF 1.2, but it will be a bear for ODF applications to implement. The key concept with metadata is Florian's prescient insight that, "all presentation (styles) is metadata, and should be treated as such". The incredibly flexible RDF/XML descriptive - relational oriented model provides us with an effective means for passing presentation information from one application to another. The flexibility allows for descritpive information about the information that would otherwise be excluded from the current hardcoded strict heirachy apporach of ODF XML.
We will still need however an effective layout guidline for ODF. XSL-FO is in my opinion a good place to start, but it would have to be adapted to fully reflect the desktop productivity environment feature set, and do so in a way compliant with the emerging metadata RDF/XML model that will be in ODF 1.2.
Let the meme ring,
~ge~
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.