Skip to main content

Gary Edwards's Library tagged ecma →  View Popular

05 Mar 08

Microsoft's OOXML limps through ISO meeting - ZDNet UK

  • Gary Edwards, former president of the Open Document Foundation, an industry group that promoted ODF but then rejected both approaches and closed itself down in November 2007, said: "Ecma and Oasis are vendor consortia where the rules governing standards specification work favour vendor innovation over the open and transparent interoperability consumers, governments and FLOSS efforts demand... Shutting that door on Ecma OOXML is proving very difficult exactly because the primary and fundamental rule of ISO interoperability requirements has been breached."
26 Feb 08

A Savage Journey … ODF at the OOXML BRM « A Frantic Opposition

  • A Savage Journey …



    <!-- IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE GOOGLE ADS, THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO PUT THEM -->


    ‘Erupting from my vivid nightmares into the retro 80s faded luxury of a five-star hotel in Geneva, the pictures of the first victim reappeared on the wall.  The head of the Brazilian delegation-it’s only a matter of time now.


    My mind thrashes to disentangle the thrown spaghetti threads of blurred reasoning; who’s next, is it just the heads of delegation they are after, any NB member, P-members only?


    The fog lifts and it’s worse.  Who is behind this, them or us?  We outnumber them, but maybe their plan is more devious.  Must find Bonky Bob, he’ll know what to do.’


    Enough levity for now.  The BRM has held few surprises, other than the rather galling situation where I was forced to publicly toe the INCITS line by the temporary head of delegation, a Microsoft employee, against my better judgement.

01 Feb 08

What IBM VP Bob Sutor does not want you to read | Universal Interoperability Council

  • What IBM VP Bob Sutor does not want you to read







    <!-- start main content -->

    Submitted by marbux on Thu, 01/31/2008 - 23:36.

    This site is now live, although there's a ton of customization and configuration work to be done. But we might as well kick off by reprinting a comment I unsuccessfully attempted to post on IBM vice president Bob Sutor's blog today.


    I'm flattered that my post was the apparent triggering event for Sutor's announcement later in the day that he will now only allow comments from people who use their "real names."

20 Jan 08

Microsoft's OOXML: The No vote | Computerworld

  • The Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre at the University of New South Wales recently hosted a symposium to discuss issues surrounding the proposed Microsoft OOXML document format standard.

    In attendance at a technical session were representatives from Microsoft, IBM, Google, the Open Source Industry Australia, Standards Australia, the National Archives of Australia, and the International Organisation for Standardisation.

06 Dec 07

Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting open standards and open source?

  • Will ISO follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML? I think so. If they continue on their current path of big vendor sponsored document wars, ISO will beocme irrelevant. Sooner or later the ISO National Bodies must take back the standards process from corporate corruption and influence.



    One thing is clear. Neither Microsoft or IBM is about to compromise. IBM has had many chances to improve ODF's interoperability with Microsoft Office and the Office documents, but has been steadfast in their stubborn refusal to concede an inch.



    Microsoft hides behind their legacy installed base of over 550 million MSOffice desktops. There simply isn't a pragmatic or cost effective way of transitioning the installed base to ODF without either seriously re writing and replacing those applications, or, changing ODF to be compatible.



    The marketplace is clear on what they intend on doing. Pragmatism will rule. Productivity trumps standards initiatives whenever they are out of sink.



    In the face of this clear marketplace intent, one would think IBM might compromise on ODF. No way! They are intent on using ODF to force a market wide rip out and replace of MSOffice.



    Most people assume that there are two opposing groups at war here; the Microsoft OOXML group vs. the IBM ODF group. This isn't an accurate view at all. There is a third, middle group of developers working the treacherous space of conversion - the no man'sland between OOXML MSOffice and ODF OpenOffice.



    The conversion group know the problems involved, and are actually trying to dliver marketplace facing solutions. The vendors of course are in this war to the bitter end, and could care less about the damage they cause to end users.



    It's also true that the conversion group seeks to bridge desktop productivity into the larger, highly interoeprable web platform.



    It's also possible that ISO will chose to merge ODF and OOXML, as proposed by the French AFNOR plan as well as by the British. To do this they must first remove entirely the coproarate vendor influence of Ecma and OASIS, and perfect the merger entirely at ISO. The big vendors will of course fully oppose this approach.



    My post just happened to coincide with ISO Governor Mark Bryan's "Standardization by Corporations" letter where he expresses 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~

     - garyedwards on 2007-12-06
  • Standardization by Corporation





    Maybe i spoke to soon. This just came in from ISO, the resignation letter of the SC34WG1 Chairman who has completed his three year term.



    There is a fascinating statement at the end of the Martin Bryan letter. "The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible..."



    When corporations join open standards or open source efforts, they arrive with substantial but most welcome financial and expert resources. They also bring marketshare and presence. And, they bring business objectives. They have a plan.



    As long as the corporate plan is aligned with the open standards - open source community work, all is fine. In fact it's great. For sure though there will come a time when the corporate plan asserts it's direction, and there is possible conflict. At this point, the very same wealth of resources that were cause for celebration can become cause for disappointment and disaster.



    One of the more troubling things i've noticed is that corporations treat everything as a corporate asset to be traded, bartered and dealt for shareholder advantage and value. This includes patents and interoperability issues which not surprisingly are wrapped into open standards and open source efforts. Rather than embrace the humanitarian – community of shared interest drivers of open standards and open source, corporations naturally plot to get maximum value out of the resources they commit.



    A primary example of this is Sun's use of OpenOffice, ODF, and an anti trust settlement disaster that left them at the mercy of Microsoft.

03 Nov 07

Sun-Bosak "Yes" Vote on ISO approval of MS OOXML

  • Sun announces support for ISO approval of MS OOXML as an international standard:



    "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."



    Bosak tries to obscure this "YES" vote by pointing to their comments that Microsoft should finally reveal the MS binary secret blueprints with a mapping of the binary blueprints to OOXML. Ha Ha Ha! Now we know what Microsoft paid Sun $2 Billion for in 2004.

    - garyedwards on 2007-08-28
  • Yagotta B. Kidding:
    The vote was "yes, with comments." That is not, per ISO rules, a "conditional" yes, it's a just-plain-yes. The comments are advisory and regardless of whether they're resolved there's no way to change the "yes" to a "no."

    Specifically, ISO voting procedure [1] states, "Conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote."

    Yes, it's confusing. The way these things work, there's no way to vote "unconditional no." The options are "yes, as it currently stands" and "yes, if the following problems are addressed."

    That makes the enormous effort to get unconditional approval quite curious.

    [1] JTC1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0, Section 9.8     - garyedwards on 2007-08-28
  • 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.
27 Sep 07

The French AFNOR Proposal to Merge ODF and MS-OOXML

  • Summary Statement:  Hey, this is an excellent plan!  We can fully support this effort, even though the ISO National Bodies still have to work their way through the treacherous big vendor consortia controlled channels of OASIS ODF and Ecma 376.  Bringing the big vendor applications to heel is not going to be easy.  Merging ODF and MS-OOXML however is a worthwhile effort - one that the conversion and translator plug-in communities have been working on for the past three years!  It can be done!  And all it takes is five generic elements added to the existing ODF 1.2 specification ........
11 Sep 07

The Meaning of Open Standards

  • The marbux comment:



    See particularly section 6.8 and its discussion of "etiquettes," which sounds like CDF profiles to me.



    This 1998 academic paper on open standards could give us a solid foundation to build our arguments for Universal Interop from. I may have forwarded this link before, roughly a year ago. Here is the abstract of the paper:



    This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all.




    It builds upon a previous work by Bruce Perens. Well worth the read.

     - garyedwards on 2007-09-11

Can't We All Just Get Along?

  • Another call for the "convergence" of ODF and MS-OOXML, this time from the government technology magazine, GCN.com.



    IMHO, there is a very steep technical barrier to both the harmonization and/or convergence of ODF and OOXML. The problem is that these file formats are application specific and bound respectively to OpenOffice and MSOffice feature sets and implementation models. The only way to perfect a harmonization or convergence file format effort is to dramatically change the reference applications.



    With over 500 million MSOffice workgroup bound desktops in the world, changing that suite of applications is likely to break business processes with a global disruption factor that is simply unacceptable. OpenOffice on the other hand could better sustain such the needed layout engine changes, but estimates it will take 3-5 years to accomplish this.



    Sun has often stated at the OASIS ODF TC (technical committee) that OpenOffice will not be bound and limited by having to mirror MSOffice features and implementation models. These arguments are often called application innovation rights.



    In the past year alone, there have been no less than five ODF iX "interoperability enhancement" proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF TC members for discussion. The iX proposals are designed to solve the problem of high fidelity "round trip" conversion of MSOffice binary and xml documents with OpenOffice ODF documents.



    Sadly, Sun and the other ODF application vendors fought and thoroughly defeated every aspect of these proposals even though the first three iX proposals were signed off on by Massachusetts ITD, and considered vital to the successful implementation of ODF there. ODF of course proved impossible to implement in Massachusetts. And without the iX interoperability enhancements, it is impossible for ODF plug-ins for MSOffice to perfect the high fidelity "round trip" conversion of existing documents, applications and processes to ODF.



    The iX interoperability enhancement proposals are simplicity itself. There are only five generic elements that need to be added to the ODF spec to solve two of three real world problems holding ODF back. The five generics deal with the basic document structures of lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics (page breaks). These five structural elements account for almost all fidelity conversion problems between MS binaries, MS XML, and ODF.



    So why would anyone oppose the inclusion of these proposals in ODF? Especially with Massachusetts, California, Denmark, Belgium and the EU-IDABC successful implementation of ODF hanging in the balance?



    The answer is that neither Microsoft or Sun is willing to give up application control of their respective file formats. We all know that MS-OOXML is bound and strapped to the emerging Microsoft Stack of desktop, server, device and web applications. The surprise for many is that ODF is similarly bound and strapped to the OpenOffice/StarOffice desktop, with an added proviso that defies all pubic expectations; Sun insists that nothing goes into the ODf specification that isn't fully implemented and supported by OpenOffice.



    Here's the kicker; it will take a major overhaul of the OpenOffice layout engine to implement the five generic iX elements. The iX interoperability enhancements are needed to solve real world problems now blocking the implementation of Odf.



    What “real world” problems you might ask? Well, the world is not a clean slate. Most of the world's existing binary documents are bound to the MSOffice application platform. They are application specific/platform specific, and defy high fidelity conversion to any other application specific implementation model. Like that of OpenOffice.

    Five years ago when the OASIS ODF effort began, we believed it was entirely possible to create a universal file format based on a highly portable XML document model. The needs of this universal file format were simple enough to enumerate. It had to be open, unencumbered, universally interoperable (reuse of open standards, open interfaces and open methods), and application-platform-vendor independent with an acceptable governance model.



    We thought ODF could be that universal file format.



    Five years later and we are nowhere near our goal of a universal file format capable of universal interoperability. The thing is, when a specification hits the real world, as ODF did in Massachusetts, the proof of it's universality, application independence and governance model is sorely tested. And ODF failed that test miserably.



    Massachusetts had conducted a year long Pilot Study to determine how they could implement ODF. The final report led to the now infamous RFi - Request for Information about the feasibility of a ODF plug-in for MSOffice. Meaning, Massachusetts realized they could not implement ODF without having a ODF plug-in clone of the MS-OOXML plug-in for MSOffice. The disruption cost of rip out and replace alternatives to MSOffice was impossibly high. The problem being the incredible volumes of MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business processes, line of business integrated applications, and assistive technology add-ons.



    An XML plug-in for MSOffice enables a non disruptive and cost free transition of documents, applications and processes. Microsoft provides a plug-in for OOXML. So Massachusetts thought, why not one for ODf?



    The problem with that question is this; ODf is bound to the OpenOffice specific layout and conversion engines. To implement ODf in MSOffice, some changes must be made to accommodate the MSOffice specific layout and feature set model. These changes were codified in the various ODf iX “interoperability enhancement” proposals submitted to the OASIS ODf membership for discussion. OpenOffice cannot implement or support the iX enhancements without significant changes to their layout engine and implementation model. End of story.



    The Universal Document Challenge:

    The iX “interoperability enhancement” issues are only one part of the impossible to implement ODf story. The other part is basic to any universal file format contender – the ability to solve three "real world" problems. Problems a universal file format must address because the world is not a clean slate:



    .......Compatibility with existing documents - file formats :: including the volumes of MS binary documents.



    ...... Interoperability with existing applications :: including the over 500 million MSOffice bound workgroups.



    .......Convergence of desktop, server, device, and web systems as fluid and highly interoperable routers of documents, data, and media.



    First off, let's be clear that ODf is unable to solve any of the these problems. It was clearly not designed to address these issues. Not that they don't come up at the OASIS ODf TC. This is evidenced over the years by efforts to amend the ODf Charter to include compatibility with existing documents and interoperability with existing applications. Also there have been efforts to amend the infamous Section 1.5 “Compatibility – Conformance Clause” so that interoperability isn't an “optional” afterthought. And of course, there the iX proposals mentioned above.

    Here's something to think about. Using the Microsoft OOXML plug-in for MSOffice, MS can solve all three problems. But that solution also locks business processes into the proprietary MS Stack of desktop, server, device and web applications and services. Locks them in for who knows how many years to come. So much so that, imho, this represents the most dramatic expansion of a convicted monopolist's power in history. Microsoft is making it's move from the desktop to the Internet, and taking everything in between.



    ODf is not the target of Microsoft's OOXML-Smart Documents efforts!



    Au contraire! Do not kid yourselves ..... HTML is the target! And the Internet the prize.



    As for ODf? If ODf can't solve the three universal document challenges, it's not a threat to Microsoft.



    Here's how it works. The core of the MS Stack is an alignment of MSOffice, IE, and the Exchange/SharePoint Developers Hub. From there, the MS Stack connects to a sprawl of applications including Active Directory, MS SQL Server, MS Dynamics, and MS Live. Everything in the MS Stack speaks fluent MS-OOXML-Smart Documents, and is able to access all proprietary dependencies found within the portable document. (Psst! MOOS docs are different than Ecma 376 docs in that MOOS docs are specific to MSOffice and bound through platform specific dependencies to the MS Stack)



    Now pay close attention. MS-OOXML-Smart doc containers are designed for two things. First, to port document/data/media packages across the entire stack. There is no HTML or HTML+ here! Second, MOOS docs are a bridge to existing documents, applications and bound business processes that drive workgroups. Microsoft's emerging systems can of course integrate with existing workgroup-workflow processes, facilitating a massive migration of these processes from the current desktop interface to that of the Exchange/SharePoint Developer Hub.



    So where are we at here? OpenDocument was designed for the “rip out and replace” of MSOffice, can't meet the universal file format challenge – was never designed for that, and there little interest amongst the OASIS masters for harmonization, convergence, or any kind of compatibility-interoperability with Microsoft products. MOOS docs were designed for the transition of existing workgroup-workflow business processes to the Exchange/SharePoint Hub, and the replacement of HTML as the primary language of the Internet. Ecma 376 does not have a non binding implementation worth spit. So what is the world left with?



    The answer is HTML+. The surprise being that HTML+ can meet all three of our universal document challenges. Governance through the W3C and universal interoperability are of course, built into the DNA. Stay tuned. This battle is just beginning.



    ~ge~     - garyedwards on 2007-09-11
22 Jun 07

Microsoft Support for ODF - the Q&A

  • This is the full response to Swapnil's seven questions.  It's long.  But we hold back nothing!  Thanks again to Marbux.  He is a peach!
     - garyedwards on 2007-06-21

  • Hi
    Gary,

    I am a technology journalist with Asia's ONLY
    Linux-focused magazine, LINUX For You. I am working on a story
    revolving the recent development of Microsoft supporting ODF Format.
    I want to understand the equation of the whole development, would you
    please help me understand:


    Q1. What do
    you think drove Microsoft to support the ODF format?

21 Jun 07

The Interoperability Wars :: ODF vs. OOXML

  • This discussion is part of a much larger response to a series of questions from a LiNUX magazine in India.  The mighty Marbux helped answer the questions, so please don't mistake his eloquence for my customary thundering.
     - garyedwards on 2007-06-21
07 Jun 07

The End of ODF & OpenXML - Hello ODEF!

  • Short slide deck of Barbara Held's February 28th, 2007 EU IDABC presentation. She introduces ODEF, the "Open Document Exchange Format" which is designed to replace
    both ODF and OpenOfficeXML.

    ComputerWorld recently ran a story about the end of ODF, as they covered the failure of six "legislative" initiatives designed to mandate ODF as the official file format. While the political treachery surrounding these initiatives is a story in and of itself, the larger story, the one that has world wide reverberations, wasn't mentioned.

    The larger ODF story is that ODF vendors are losing the political battles because they are unable to provide government CIO's with real world solutions. Here are three quotes from the California discussion that really say it all:

    “Interoperability isn't just a feature. It's the basic requirement for getting your XML file format and applications considered”.....

    “The challenge is that of migrating our existing documents and business processes to XML. The question is which XML? OpenDocument or OpenXML?” .......

    “Under those conditions, is it even possible to implement OpenDocument?” ....... Bill Welty, CIO California Air Resource Board wondering if there was a way to support California legislative proposal AB-1668.

    This is hardly the first time the compatibility-interoperability issue has challenged ODf. Massachusetts spent a full year on a pilot study testing the top tier of ODF solutions: OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office and IBM's WorkPlace (prototype). The results were a disaster for ODF. So much so that the 300 page pilot study report and accompanying comments wiki have never seen the light of day.

    In response to the disastrous pilot study, Massachusetts issued their now infamous RFi; a "request for information" about whether it's possible or not to write an ODF plugin for MSOffice applications.

    The OpenDocument Foundation responded to the RFi with our da Vinci plugin. The quick description of da Vinci is that it's a clone of Microsoft's own OfficeOpenXML plugin for MSOffice - also know as the Microsoft XML Compatibility Kit.

    When we got into the Massachusetts trials, and had a chance to see the problem up close and personal, we changed completely our viewpoint on compatibility, interoperability, and convergence. The pilot study was right. There is no way to implement ODF into any situation where MSOffice wokgroup - workflow bound business processes are prominent.

    What we learned in Massachusetts is that there are two barriers to entry for ODF. The first is the file format barrier - the ability to convert existing binary documents to ODF. The second is the MSOffice workgroups where bound business processes, integrated line of business apps, and comprehensive add-ons like those involving assitive technologies form an impossible barrier. Impossible except for an "internal" XML file format plugin; an ODF plugin like da Vinci or the MS XML Compatibility plugin.

    The MSOffice "workgroup - workflow" business process barrier is the ODF show stopper. It's why ODF alternatives like OpenOffice, StarOffice, WorkPlace and Novell Office can't be used. It's also why the LiNUX Desktop has zero traction in the business world!

    And it's also why every effort "had" to be made to accommodate the "compatibility-interoperability-convergence" needs of internal ODF plugin converters and translators. As represented by the Foundation's da Vinci and Novell's OfficeOpenXML Translator plugin for OpenOffice. If ODF can't crack the workgroup-workflow barrier, it's over.

    So what's the problem? Why is it that ODF has failed at the CIO - "how the hell do we implement ODF" level? Why is it that governments the world over are turning to this new file format, ODEF? A file format that not only lacks application support, but also lacks a written specification and governance body?

    Read through the IDABC ODEF web site, and you'll find some truly interesting observations; IDABC ODEF Workshop 2007 in Berlin

    They reject both ODF and OfficeOpenXML. They even reject ISO! Which is to say they don't trust the big vendor standards consortia either (OASIS and ECMA) - with good reason i might add. They also hit hard the big vendor "interop break points" that are set by "optional" implementation requiements, supersets, and sub sets.

    While i have no idea about the politics behind ODEF, i agree 100% with what they are trying to do. Compatibiltiy, interoperability and convergence are extremely important file format concerns. Concerns that should not be traded off as deal making inducements by big vendors. In fact, "interoperability" has long been a central component of Microsoft deal making. Going back to Netscape, Java, the MS-Sun 2004 deal, and now the MS-Novell-IBM deals.

    So it's not surprising that the EU IDABC is taking such a strong anti big vendor position. The problem they have to overcome is that the big vendors control both the applications and the standards processes!

    It's easy for the EU to write ODEF. We of course would like to contribute our 2 cents concerning compatibiltiy, interoperability and convergence. Our changes to the ODF specification can be summarized in less than one page. We would still need to clean out all the OpenOffice specific aspects of ODF, but we know exactly where those interop bombs are.

    Most importantly though, if we get a workable ODEF specification from the EU, we will write an ODEF da Vinci plugin for both MSOffice and OpenOffice.

    Just when we thought it was over for ODF, the EU rides to the rescue. Again.

    ~ge~     - garyedwards on 2007-06-07
06 Mar 07

Any objections? For Open XML standard, yes (still)

  • This brief summary of the ODF <>OOXML controversy covers the recent response by Ecma to the ISO/IEC JTC 1 National Body members who filed objections to placing Ecma 376 on an ISO fast track approval process.    This article has the actual ECMA Response PDF!  A document that is well worth reading and studying.

    Essentially Ecma has told ISO to take a hike! 

    In responding to the different objections, Ecma chose to explain their position without once offering to fix or remedy he many problems and issues that so concern the 20 different NB's filing objections.  Not once!  No compromise whatsoever, only the preachy attitude that the objecting NB's simply don't understand the wonders of Ecma 376 or what a ISO "contraditction" means.

    Take a Hike!  Up Yours!  Screw you and the horse you rode in on too! 

    Pick your metaphor, it's all the same. 

    - garyedwards on 2007-03-05
02 Mar 07

Microsoft Closer on &#0092;'Office Open&#0092;' Blessing

  • Internet News is reporting that Ecma has submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 their repsonsess to the 20 "fast track" for Ecma 376 (OOXML) objections.  Nothing but blue skies and steady breeze at their back for our friends at Redmond, according to Ecma's rubber stamper in chief, Jan van den Beld.

    Once again there is that ever present drum beat from Microsoft that ODF can't handle MSOffice and legacy MSOffice features - including but not mentioned the conversion to XML of those infamous billions of binary documents:


    "Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is
    closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of
    Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are
    designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote
    in an open letter published earlier this month."

    Of course this "incompatibility"outcome was planned years ago.  What else could we expect since Microsoft has steadfastedly refused to participate in the OASIS Open Office XML (ODF) effort, which began in 2002 with Microsoft joining the group, but noticeably choosing to observe without contribution or participation.

    So it is Microsoft who is a fault for any finding of ODF - MSOffice incompatibility, not the OASIS ODF Technical Committee or ODF community of vendors, developers and users.

    Our friends in Redmond planned and plotted for this dilemma.  Their intentions are to control completely the migration of information and information processes from legacy binary file formats to their own version of XML.

    One thing many people miss about this is that Microsoft mus tmove to XML fiel formats no matter what.  The Internet has usshered in a new age of collaborative computing based on universal access, connectivity and exchange.  It's a world driven by HTML, XML and RDF/XML.  Microsoft either embraces this juggernaut, or gets left in the dust.

    Interestingly, i for one believe that Microsoft has the best next generation Internet - XML stategey out there.  There's a lot of low level wiki - writely collaobration out there.  And of course Lotus Notes has reigned for years, alone and unchallenged in the client/server area of intelligent documents, forms, managed workflows, scripted routing, and collaborative computing.  Microsoft's extraordinary opportunity is to leverage their desktop MSOffic emonopoly of over 500 million users into the emerging arena of highly interoperable "Information Processing Chains".

    Because of Redmond's iron fisted monopolist control over MSOffice desktop productivity environment's, they own entirely the Information Processing Chain opportunity.  And the Vista Chain (Stack) is a wonder to behold.

    The core of the Vista Chain is the OOXML document/data transport connection between MSOffice and the Exchange/SharePoint/Groove Hub.  IE and Vista augment this chain in that they are OOXML fluent and OOXML enabling. 

    The idea here is for Microsoft to migrate to the E/S XML HUB both the MSOffice bound binary documents and the volumes of critical day to day  MSOffice bound business processes, line of business integrated apps, and scores of assistive technology type add-ons.  Microsoft has to ge this job done before others swoop in and do it for them.  Others would be SaaS, SOA, and a host of Enterprise 2.0 collaborative computing initiatives.

    The Vista Chain is based on the portable XML document/data transport, OOXML; and,the Vista .NET 3.0 framework.  Legacy Win 32 APi application and platform dependencies that bind those billions of binary documents to MSOffice, are replaced in OOXML by bindings to the Vista .NET 3.0 dependencies.  From the E/S Hub, it's easy for end users to create data and workflow bindings involving MS SQL Server transaction and data processing backends.  Same with MS Live, Office Communicator, Active Directory, MS ERP, MS CRM, and MS Money.

    The Vista Chain is good stuff.  Moving those MSOffic ebound business processes to the E/S XML Hub is not all that difficult, and the reward is a guaranteed leap in porductivity.  A giant leap.

    Which brings us back to the challenge ODF faces.  Will there be an ODF Chain?  Not if users and providers are unable to perfectly convert those MSOffice bound billions of billions fo binary documents and MSOffice bound business processes to ODF.

    The challenge for ODF is in doing exactly what OOXML does.  The end users migration to XML and the XML Hubs is entirely dependent on three successive stages.  All of which OOXML can currently master:

    1. Perfect Conversion Fidelity :: of billions of binary documents to XML (ODF - OOXXML)
    2. Perfect Round Trip Fidelity :: MSOffic ebound business processes Workgroup - WorkFlow
    3. Application Interoperability :: between all processing chain application participants, even as they
      span desktop, server, device and Enterprise 2.0 serivces and systems.
    The OpenDocument Foundation believes that our ODF 1.2 daVinci plugin for MSOffice will prove conclussively that ODF can handle stages 1 and 2 every bit as well as OOXML.  In fact, daVinci can do much better than OOXML in that other ODF 1.2 ready applications will be able to directly participate for the first time ever.  The Foundation also has two other products in the works to augment the daVinci miracle; the portable InfoSet Engine and APi,  and the Interop Wizard for OpenOffice.

    When the OASIS ODF Metadata RDF/XML Sub Committee sends the ODF 1.2 proposal to the mainline TC for consideration, we will release the daVinci prototype to Stephen O'Grady of Redmonk for comparative testing against the other available plugins.  At the end of the day though, the cahllenge for daVinci will be in proving conclussively that ODF is able, sufficient and ready to master the three stages of migration, and do so every bit as well as OOXML.

     - garyedwards on 2007-03-02

  • Opponents to OOXML, which include IBM (Quote<!--, <A HREF="http://www.internetnews.com/stocks/quotes/chart.php/IBM/chart">Chart</A>-->) and the Open
    Document Foundation, have argued that Microsoft's specifications are
    unwieldy and that the standard application is redundant with the Open Document Format (ODF), which already exists.


    Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is
    closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of
    Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are
    designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote
    in an open letter published earlier this month.

God Save the Queen!

  • Looks like the road to open standards now detours through Redmond, Washington.  Can we still call the destiny "open standards" if proposals have to be filtered through the Microsoft business plan for world domination?  This is not a good day for America.
     - garyedwards on 2007-01-30

  • Redmond Yankees in the World Court of King Arthur








    ANSI/INCiTS has completed their review of Ecma 376, and is ready to cast their ISO/IEC Contradiction Review Phase Fast Track Ballot in favor of Ecma 376 being rammed through ISO. As Sam Hiser points out in his PlexNex blog, not only are the findings of contradictions, inconsistencies, and proprietary dependencies pouring into the public view, there's not much an American can do about it. ANSI/INCiTS has determined that no contradictions exist."

1 - 20 of 26 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Ads by Google

Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

Join Diigo