Home
Gary Edwards's Library tagged → View Popular
Good-bye and Good Luck II | Part II
Official Statement from the OpenDocument Foundation to OASIS
Good-bye and Good Luck I Part I
Official statement from the OpenDocument Foundation on leaving OASIS
Play the Tape!!!! OpenDocument Format community steadfast despite theatrics of now impotent 'Foundation' | TalkBack on ZDNet
An honest misunderstanding? Hardly! Play the tape! ... A response to David Berlind relating to false claims made by IBM and the W3C regarding direct correspondence concerning CDF being used as an interchange format.
Instead of arguing about who said what when, let's just go to the record and see exactly what the W3C's Doug Schepers said to us in an eMail introducing himself. Keep in mind that we did not contact the W3C or Mr. Schepers. The following eMail was most welcome, but entirely unsolicited.
The OpenDocument Foundation breaks with OpenOffice ODF: Getting the (Share)Point About Document Formats [LWN.net] - Gly Moody
Good article from Glynn Moody explaining the OpenDocument Foundation's decision to drop OpenOffice ODF for HTML+. That date of this article is November 13th, 2007. The Foundations announcement comes after ISO members vote down OpenXML as an ISO standard. Microsoft however does not give up. They come back to ISO by responding in detail to every objection, pushing for a February 2008 BRM. Following the BRM, and contingent on Microsoft's promise to fix OpenXML, join the OASIS OpenOffice ODF work, and, support ODF 1.1 in MSOffice using a plug-in, ISO votes again. In March of 2008, ISO approves OpenXML.
In May of 2009, Microsoft releases an MSOffice plug-in fully compliant with ODF 1.1 (ISO 26300). Although conforming to and in full compliance with ODF 1.1, the world is shocked to learn that the interop between MSOffice ODF and OpenOffice ODF is worthless. Which is exactly what the Foundation had been arguing for years. ODF "compatibility, interop and compliance" had to be fixed prior to Microsoft's expected implementation!!!!! Otherwise, ODF would be shredded.
Told you so!
-
The OpenDocument Foundation was formed in 2005, with the mission "to
provide a conduit for funding and support for individual contributors to
participate in ODF development" at the standards body OASIS.
So, at a time when backing for the ODF format seems to be gaining in
strength around the world, eyebrows were naturally raised when Sam Hiser, the
Foundation's Vice President and Director of Business Affairs,
wrote on October 16 that it was no longer supporting ODF:
ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML | ge TalkBack on ZDNet
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?
ODF, OOXML and the OpenDocument Foundation: Something New to Ponder by Brian Proffitt
In a couple of weeks is the Government Open Source Conference (GOSCON), to be held in Portland, Oregon on October 15-16. I spoke with Deb Bryant, the conference chair, yesterday to get the low-down on the conference, and ended up getting a (polite) earful from some of the conference speakers.
I want to give GOSCON my full attention, because I think the Oregon State University/Open Source Lab-sponsored conference deserves a full mention all to its own, so I will defer describing this event (which I am pleased to be attending) until my next entry.
Until then, let me tell you about the discussion that ensued from some of the speakers about how the OpenDocument Format may not be the great unifier of documents after all.
What happened was this: during the call, Deb mentioned Gary Edwards, the co-founder and president of the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc., and asked had I heard of him? Sure, they were the ones that came up with the ODF for MS Office plug-in for Massachusetts last year (among other things). Buck "Marbux" Martin, Director of Legal Affairs for the Foundation, is also going to GOSCON, joining a panel discussion on Oct. 16 on Open Document Formats, along with Sun's Douglas W. Johnson, Ph.D., IBM's Arnaud Le Hors, and Microsoft's Jason Matusow.
More on Microsoft Word and non-interoperable standards compliance « ptsefton
Peter Sefton is at it again. There is a marbux response here, followed by a Bruce Darcus attack. I need to respond to Bruce, and state the truth about the infamous XML ID episode at OASIS ODF Metadata
The Education of Gary Edwards - Rick Jelliffe on O'Reilly Broadcast
I wonder how i missed this? Incredibly, i have my own biographer and i didn't know it! The date line is September, 2008, I had turned off all my ODF-OOXML-OASIS searches and blog feeds back in October of 2007 when we moved the da Vinci plug-in to HTML+ using the W3C CDF model. Is it appropriate to send flowers to your secret biographer? Maybe i'll find some time and update his work. The gap between October 2007 and April of 2009 is filled with adventure and wonder. And WebKit!<br><br>
<i>"....One of the more interesting characters in the recent standards battles has been Gary Edwards: he was a member of the original ODF TC in 2002 which oversaw the creation of ODF 1.0 in 2005, but gradually became more concerned about large vendor dominance of the ODF TC frustrating what he saw as critical improvements in the area of interoperability. This compromised the ability of ODF to act as a universal format."</i><br><br>
<i>"....Edwards increasingly came to believe that the battleground had shifted, with the SharePoint threat increasingly needing to be the focus of open standards and FOSS attention, not just the standalone desktop applications: I think Edwards tends to see Office Open XML as a stalking horse for Microsoft to get its foot back in the door for back-end systems....."</i><br><br>
<i>"....Edwards and some colleagues split with some acrimony from the ODF effort in 2007, and subsequently see W3C's Compound Document Formats (CDF) as holding the best promise for interoperability. Edwards' public comments are an interesting reflection of an person evolving their opinion in the light of experience, events and changing opportunities...."</i><br><br>
<i>".... I have put together some interesting quotes from him which, I hope, fairly bring out some of the themes I see. As always, read the source to get more info: ..... "</i><br><br>
OpenDocument Foundation’s ‘woes’ have little to do with OpenDoc Format’s future | Berlind’s Testbed | ZDNet.com
Need to respond to this. Weir is using this link as part of his official smear campaign!
Behind Putting the OpenDocument Foundation to Bed (without its supper) : Updegroove | Linux Foundation Legal
Response from the OpenDocument Foundation setting the record straight. See "copmments" with this bookmark
-
Uh? The ODF failure in Massachusetts doesn't count as evidence that ODF was not designed to be compatible with existing MS documents or interoperable with existing MSOffice applications?
And it's not just the da Vinci plug-in that failed to implement ODF in Massachusetts! Nine months later Sun delivered their ODF plug-in for MSOffice to Massachusetts. The next day, Massachusetts threw in the towel, officially recognizing MS-OOXML (and the MS-OOXML Compatibility Pack plug-in) as a standard format for the future.
Worse, the Massachusetts recognition of MS-OOXML came just weeks before the September 2nd ISO vote on MS-OOXML. Why not wait a few more weeks? After all, Massachusetts had conducted a year long pilot study to implement ODF using ODF desktop office sutie alternatives to MSOffice. Not only did the rip out and replace approach fail, but they were also unable to integrate OpenOffice ODF desktops into existing MSOffice bound workgroups.
The year long pilot study was followed by another year long effort trying to implement ODF using the plug-in approach. That too failed with Sun's ODF plug-in the final candidate to prove the difficulty of implementing ODF in situations where MSOffice workgroups dominate.
California and the EU-IDABC were closely watching the events in Massachusetts, as was most every CIO in government and private enterprise. Reasoning that if Massachusetts was unable to implement ODF, California CIO's totally refused IBM and Sun's effort to get a pilot study underway.
Across the pond, in the aftermath of Massachusetts CIO Louis Guiterrez resignation on October 4th, 2006, the EU-IDABC set about developing their own file format, ODEF. The Open Document Exchange Format splashed into the public discussion on February 28th, 2007 at the "Open Document Exchange Workshop" held in Berlin, Germany.
Meanwhile, the Sun ODF plug-in is floundering in Belgium and Denmark pilot trials now under way.
What Andy Updegrove needs to do is provide some evidence that it is possible to implement ODF where MSOffice workgroups rule. Announcements of good intentions are starting to ring a bit hallow. We need to see some successes.
There is another side to this problem. For the past five years, the OASIS ODF Technical Commitee has brushed aside all efforts to improve ODF interoperability with Microsoft Office documents, applications and processes. If ODF is the "single file format" solution IBM claims it to be, then someone is going to have to do something about the 550 million MSOffice desktop that cannot convert their documents, applications and processes to ODF without suffering intolerable fidelity loss and costly disruption to business processes.
Five years without interop progress between ODF and MSOffice is a bit much. But now we have Sun's Simon Phipps suggesting that maybe this will challenge will be considered in ODF 1.3 or 1.5 (or why not ODF 12.3?)
Meanwhile, Sun continues to insist that ODF was not designed for interoperability with Microsoft documents and applications. Therefore Sun argues, the world needs mulitple file formats, including ISO approval of MS-OOXML.
Don't believe me? Check out the Sun ANSI - ISO vote in favor of MS-OOXML. A vote they submitted with this comment from Sun's Jon Bosak:
“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.”
The one thing we know for certain is that ODF cannot be implemented in workgroup environments driven by MSOffice. So why not try converting existing MSOffice documents to CDF WICD Full?
And who's the looney toon suggesting that someone is trying to use CDF WICD Full as a native file format for MSOffice? The da Vinci Group believed it was possible to convert MSOffice documents to CDF WICD Full. How is this different from an export from MSOffice to CDF WICD Full?
The Foundation steps into the fray claiming that hey, if the da Vinci Group can convert MSOffice docuemnts to CDF WICD Full, then why not convert ODF documents to the same CDF profile? At least at the web platform level much if not most of the current ODF interoperability problems will be lessened. It's not a desktop application to desktop application play, but what's wrong with a web platform solution? End users are going to end up there anyway.
As with any tempest in a teapot, it's the threat to big ego's with identities and purpose of being bound to ODF success as a universal file format that roils the waters. Somebody somewhere has to put down the keyboard, step out of the blogoshpere, and start providing real world pragmatice solutions. Otherewise, those 550 million desktops will have no other choice but MS-OOXML going forward.
This isn't rocket science. It's pragmatism in the face of mounting evidence that ODF was not designed to meet the needs of MSOffice workgroups needing to convert to XML.
~ge~
- garyedwards on 2007-11-19 -
Marbux sets the record straight. These are the facts: Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) .....
http://www.universal-interop-council.org/node/4 - garyedwards on 2008-05-30
-
CDF is one of the very many useful projects that W3C has been laboring on, but not one that you would have been likely to have heard much about. Until recently, that is, when Gary Edwards, Sam Hiser and Marbux, the management (and perhaps sole remaining members) of the OpenDocument Foundation decided that CDF was the answer to all of the problems that ODF was designed to address. This announcement gave rise to a flurry of press attention that Sam Hiser has collected here. As others (such as Rob Weir) have already documented, these articles gave the OpenDocument Foundation’s position far more attention than it deserved.
The most astonishing piece was written by ZDNet’s Mary Jo Foley. Early on in her article she stated that, “the ODF camp might unravel before Microsoft’s rival Office Open XML (OOXML) comes up for final international standardization vote early next year.” All because Gary, Sam and Marbux have decided that ODF does not meet their needs. Astonishing indeed, given that there is no available evidence to support such a prediction.
Wizard of ODF: The Foundation on Interop and the List Proposal Vote Deadline
If ever there was a discussion thread of consequence at the OASIS ODF TC, the "Enhanced List Proposal" donnybrook is it. This is where the ODF interoperability nightmare burst into the daylight of a showdown vote. The interop issues were clear. OpenDocument TC members voted between interoperability and/or application specific innovation. Application specific innovation trumped interoperability. Again.
And what a sad day it was. The thing is, the recent ECIS antit trust action against Microsoft comes at the request of IBM and Sun. They allege that Microsoft is violating standards requirements for interoperability, and has launched a series of corrupt activities to push through a non interoperable standard. They are right. Microsoft is guilty. The problem is that Microsoft can easily point to Sun and IBM activities at OASIS ODF, and make the same allegation! Using this thread as evidence!</p>\n\n<p>Furthermore, this thread is evidence that if Microsoft had tried to implement ODF, their efforts to establish interop would have been met with the same response from IBM and Sun that the OpenDocument Foundation received. Or so they could argue.
Houston, we have a problem.
IBM and Sun could have fixed the ODF interop problems at any time during the past five years. Yet, the world is waiting. Meanwhile, this will full negligence and lack of desire to address pressing market needs for full interop has served to hold the door open for OOXML. And now these negligent acts look to be the basis of a Microsoft counter claim.
Oh well ..
-
Oh, my. Both IBM and
Sun voted for the proposal that broke the Foundation's plugin that was
going to add full-fidelity native ODF file support to Microsoft
Office. So it's sounding to me like at least two of the TC members who
voted for the Sun/KOffice proposal didn't check in with the ECIS
lawyer before they broke interoperability with Microsoft Office.
Do you think Microsoft won't use this evidence in the DG Competition
antitrust proceeding, Michael? Let's see, you guys are prosecuting
Microsoft for not supporting ODF in Microsoft Office while you block
Microsoft Office from supporting ODF. Yeah, I think DG Competition is
going to hear about this one from Microsoft. They'll probably hear
about what you said about compatibility being a trade off too. Oh,
yeah. Microsoft's lawyers are going to love this. Look at the ECIS
public statement about interoperability's importance.
What's up at the OpenDocument Foundation? Linux.com - Wikipedia Link
<p>The Wikipedia "OpenDocument Foundation" page is continually re edited, changing the factual truth to portray the Foundation in the worst light possible. Every time we try to repair the page to reflect the truth, the liars jump right back in. Is there a Wikipedia resolution for liies? Our facts can be verified by the five year history of the OASIS membership and ODF TC records that are public information.</p><p> This anonymous post to Joe Barr's Linux.com article is perhaps the best explanation on the Web of why the Foundation choose CDF, and could not use ODF.</p><p>Good explanation of MSOffice-OOXML and the MS Web-Stack :: MS Cloud.</p><p>No mention of the December 2007 MSOffice SDK beta that provided us with that first all important glimpse of the MSOffice-OOXML <> XAML converter component. I take it the article comment was written before that most important discovery. XAML "fixed/flow" is an alternative to W3C/ISO XHTML-CSS and ISO PDF.</p>
-
Re: Finally, the beef...<!-- #$loop:item['xar_title']# -->
<!-- show changelog -->
<!-- end changelog -->
Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 76.14.48.79]
on November 12, 2007 11:32 PM
OOXML vs ODF: where next for interoperability? | Reg Developer
-
'A diversion from the real end game – the taking of the internet'
Gary Edwards of the Open Document Foundation has a fascinating post on the important of Microsoft Office compatibility to the success of the ISO-approved Open Document formats.
It is in places a rare voice of sanity:
People continue to insist that if only Microsoft would implement ODF natively in MSOffice, we could all hop on down the yellow brick road, hand in hand, singing kumbaya to beat the band. Sadly, life doesn’t work that way. Wish it did.
Sure, Microsoft could implement ODF - but only with the addition of application specific extensions to the current ODF specification … Sun has already made it clear at the OASIS ODF TC that they are not going to compromise (or degrade) the new and innovative features and implementation model of OpenOffice just to be compatible with the existing 550 million MSOffice desktops.
Compound Document Formats Group Charter
The W3C CDF Charter written in 2004
-
be widely implementable in browsers and authoring tools
The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against anyway) « A Frantic Opposition
<p>This very funny satire builds on some harsh realities. The ODF chickens have come home to roost, and it isn't pretty. Very funny, yes. But not pretty for those who continue to believe that somehow ODF is a standard worthy of their support.</p>
<p>The flip side of the coin is that using the same critieria of interoperability, OOXML is worthless. The sad truth is that both ODF and OOXML are applicaiton specific formats that will continue to defy and defeat all efforts at interoperability. Inparticular, it's the presentation layers of ODF and OOXML that remain bound to the layout engines and feature sets of their originating applications.</p>
<p>Just as the presentation layers defy interoperability, they will also defeat harmonization. The only way to harmonize two application specific formats is to harmonize the originating applications. And Microsoft, Sun and IBM are not about to do that.</p>
<p>The links in this satire are stunning!!! They shout loudly as to how Microsoft is going to respond to the ECIS anti trust allegations. So when you stop laughing, make certain you track down the links and read through the various OASIS ODF archive threads. IBM and Sun had their chance to fix ODF interoperability. Now it may be too late.</p>
-
The Case for Harmonization (that IBM will vote against anyway)
<!-- IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE GOOGLE ADS, THIS IS A GOOD PLACE TO PUT THEM -->
In my recent post, I discussed the case for harmonization, mainly due to trying to portray a more kindly, conciliatory face in the “standards krieg” that I was enjoying so much. I have been forced to take a different tack, in light of being hung out to dry by my more business-focused IBM comrades and the work that the enemy has done in sprucing up the spec. However, as my closest friends know, for me, there are no half-victories, so you can rest assured that I will not settle for this weak “harmonization” compromise. I set out my (and IBM’s) stall some time ago on this, and as those on the Open Document Foundation know, any attempt at harmonization shall be met with swift and final retribution. They were ejected from the odf-coven just days after their impudence. I have baited my trap, inviting this “harmonization” in my lair (the OASIS ODF TC) where I can bog them down in a morass of incompetence, bickering and politicking, so no new standard is ever ratified. I have already been practicing for this, as you can see, by the ODF 1.1 and 1.2 specs.
[office] The infamous list-override list enhancement proposal
-
Well, I think the problem we face is that there are different
interpretations of the 1.1 specification regarding the numbering of
numbered paragraphs that have different list styles assigned. We
therefore cannot say that the one or the other proposal is
backward-compatible to the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the number or
the style. We can only say whether it is backward-compatible to a
certain _interpretation_ of the ODF 1.1 specification regarding the
number or the style.
Podcast: ODF, OOXML and CDF .... The OpenDocument Foundation Responds | Between the Lines | ZDNet.com
- Dragged through the mud - garyedwards on 2008-01-02
-
David continues his deep dive into the curious case of the OpenDocument Format and the OpenDocument Foundation.
Interoperability Enhancement Proposal: Suggested ODF1.2 items
-
This is the fifth of the six major iX - interoperability enhancement proposals submitted to the OASIS ODF TC - SC between July 2006 and February of 2007.
This particular iX proposal lead to the "List Enhancement Proposal" donnybrook that consumed the OASIS ODF TC for the next six months, ending with the OpenDocument Foundation being booted out of OASIS in May of 2007.
The six iX proposals were all different approaches to the same basic problem: ODF was not desinged to be interoperable with MSOffice documents, applications or bound processes. The proposals come out of the OpenDocument' Foundation's efforts to save ODF in Massachusetts.
ODF iX repressents a subset of ODF designed to grealty improve compatibility with MS binary and XML formats. With the ODF iX subset, the da Vinci plug-in would be able to convert the billions of MSOffice binary and xml documents with a very high level of fidelity, and do so within the bounds of "round trip" business processes.
The most basic iX approach was to add five generic elements to the existing ODF specification. The five generic elements would cover lists, tables, fields, sections, and page dynamics (breaks).
It is a well known fact that these five areas of incompatibility between OpenOffice ODF and MSOffice binaries represent 95% of all conversion fidelity problems. MSOffice has one way of implementing lists, and, OpenOffice has another. These application specific implementation models are irreconcilably different.
It's also true that the applicaiton specific implementation models are directly reflected in each file format. So applications implementing ODF must also implement the OpenOffice model for lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics-page positioning if they are to have any meaningful measure of exchange fidelity.
Perhaps the best of the iX approaches was that based on the innovative use of metadata to describe presentation-layout attributes. There were two submissions by OpenDocument Foundation members relating to this method. The first came in August of 2006 and was accepted as part of the OASIS ODF Metadata SC "Requirements" document. The second was submitted in February of 2007, also a s part of the Metadata CS work.
By April of 2007, when votes on both the "List Enahncement Proposal" vote and the "Metadata 1.2" were taken, the Foundation's proposals were eitther dropped or defeated.
In May of 2007, OASiS moved to enforce a rule change eliminating the ability of 501(c)3 non profit corporations to sponsor OASIS participants. This evisceration of our membership effectively ended the Foundation's role with OASIS ODF.
It also ended any hope of an ODF subset geared towrds interoperability with MSOffice and high fidelity conversion of billions of MS binary and xml documents.
- garyedwards on 2008-01-15
-
- From: "Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>
- To: <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:03:24 +0100
Subject: Suggested ODF1.2 items
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
ODF Split: Good Riddance, Good Grief, or Game Over? Michael Desmond Redmond Developer News
-
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~
- garyedwards on 2007-12-13
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in foundation
-
groups
Items: 2 | Visits: 52
Created by: leo bnu
-
Golden Apple
Things that concern Golden ...
Items: 4 | Visits: 22
Created by: Carol Broos
-
Fundamentals
List where I put all things...
Items: 4 | Visits: 30
Created by: Call Me What You Want
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo
XHTML + CSS is the base. Add XForms, SVG and SMiL where needed. Study the work being done on microformats. Like most modern portable XML file formats, the basic packages are those of content and presentation. In CDF speak, this is XHTML content and CSS as the portable presentation package. ODF and MS-OOXML both struggle with the legacy tradition of the presentation package being application specific. Meaning, the portability is limited to other applications that are either of the same version, or, share the same layout and rendering model so that the exchange of the presentation package is lossless.