Home
ODF Interoperability Problems
The current ISO standard 26300 (ODF 1.1 ... 2005) was not written for the purposes of interoperability. Many believe ODF 1.2 will address these problems. But it's been four years since ISO approval of ODF 1.1, with no end in sight. These bookmarks reference the problems with ODF interoperability.
Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.Great post exposing the sanctimonious bag of blather Rob Weir. Jesper calls out Rob Weir, exposing the deceitful tactics Wier uses to destroy individuals and corporate competitors, all the while posing as an arrogant and self righteous arbiter of interop and document expertise. This is very funny stuff. Especially where Rob joins in, defending his arrogant bloviating through personal attacks on anyone who might disagree with him. I called him a liar, and i've got mountains of eMails, non-disclosure agreements and meeting notes/schedules to prove it. Facing an avalanche of evidence proving his lack of candor, and inspite of ethics challenge that has become synonymous with his name, Rob soldiers on with even more slander, lies and inuendo. Very funny
Marbux nails it again in the comments section of this obscure review. In particular, he sites <i>Shah, Rajiv C. and Kesan, Jay P.,</i><b> Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards - ODF and OOXML as Examples</b>
(September 2008),
Link to paper on SSRN (compatibility fidelity comparisons of ODF implementations testing only a very small set of word processing features).
<i>"...Switching documents, I go through similar travails
with the published ODF 1.1 specification, using both the PDF and ODT versions.
Bottom line: I can't get either document into WordPerfect X3 or X4 using any rich text format. So I convert the document to plain text using Symphony and get my work done.
That is the real state of ODF interoperability. There is no such thing. But that does not stop the vested interests from claiming that there is. E.g.:"</i>
From Notes2Self 2006 post we discover once again that ODF Interop problems are not new. Back in early February 2005, top ranking OASIS Executive James Clark made <a href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200502/msg00000.html">a comment</a> to the OASIS OpenDocument technical Committee about the lack of interoperability for spreadsheet documents:
<br><br>
<i>".... I really hope I'm missing something, because, frankly, I'm speechless. You cannot be serious. <b>You have virtually zero interoperability for spreadsheet documents.</b> OpenDocument has the potential to be extraodinarily valuable and important standard. I urge you not to throw away a huge part of that potential by leaving such <b>a gaping hole in your specification</b>...".</i>
Claus Agerskov further commented that this provided a means of creating lock-in (my emphasis)
<br><br>
<i>"OpenDocument doesn't specify the formulars used in spreadsheets so every spreadsheet vendor can implement formulars in their own way without being an open standard. This way a vendor can create lock-in to their spreadsheets"</i>
We Tried. Did you?
I've got five years into ODF, one of only three original members to last that long. In the past year, we've been involved in five major proposal submissions to improve ODF compatibility with existing file formats and interoperability with existing applications. What else would you have us do?
Interoperability through antitrust - is there a legal foundation in place capable of pulling this off? This article is a lengthy study and comparative analysis of the legal foundation in the USA and Europe. Microsoft is of course the target.
Excerpt: Microsoft has incorporated products, such as browsers and media players, into its operating system, behavior that again amounts to technological tying. It has also improved its server software by heightening the degree to which servers employing that software can interact. By raising the level of interaction among servers equipped with its software, Microsoft has so integrated work group servers as to enable groups of small servers to approach the capacities of mainframe computers. The European competition-law authorities see both matters as problematic. The integration of the media player has been condemned as tying; and the heightened server interaction has been faulted for failing to provide the interoperability that rival server software requires in order to participate on an equal footing with Microsoft server software in Windows work groups. Microsoft’s integration (at least in the view of the European antitrust authorities) also raises issues of essential facilities, and of the role of antitrust in achieving interoperability.
. We have now reached a moment in time in which both the American and European laws are sufficiently developed to warrant reflection and comparison. That is the task approached in this article.
Three part study: Part I -The European approach. Part II-USA decisions regarding Microsoft tying. Part III-comparison of USA and European approaches to product integration (tying).
11 items | 238 visits
Bookmarked pages related to ISO Interoperability Requirements and the raging battle between Universal File Format candidates: ODF, OOXML and HTML+. (ODF-OpenDocument .... OOXML - Microsoft OfficeOpenXML ..... HTML+ the next generation of HTML, : HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JavaScript, jQuery)
Updated on 2009-09-01
Created on 2007-09-27
Category: Computers & Internet
URL:
