Skip to main content

Gary Edwards's Library tagged opendocument →  View Popular

07 Jun 09

ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for revisable office document formats

  • French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?



    The plan has four parts:



    "Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."



    "Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."



    "Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."



    Fourth, "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."









    So there you go.  A solution that removes ODF and OOXML from the clamy big vendor hands of both OASIS and Ecma, and puts the future of a "single revisable document" in the hands of ISO national bodies.

    IMHO, this is a winner.  If they (the ISO national bodies) can control the big application vendors, this will work.  And it's actually quite reasonable.

    They can't even begin to solve the technical challenge of convergence until they separate ODF from OpenOffice and OOXML from MSOffice.  The French have proposed their plan for separating OOXML from MSOffice, by creating a basic OOXMl-Core, and legacy compatible OOXML-Extensions.  Okay, but what about separating ODF from OpenOffice?

    ODF failed in Massachusetts for the love of five lousy generic elements we called the iX "interoeprability enhancements".  That's all it takes to convert existing MSOffice documents, applications and processes to ODF. 

    The five generics dealt with document structure fundamentals that were implemented differently in MSOffice and OpenOffice.  The generics are for lists, fields, tables, sections and page dynamics (breaks).

    There is also the problem with both ODF and OOXML that "compatibility-conformance" is optional.  Meaning, there is no requirement that compliant applications preserve the document markup of other applications.  Bye bye "round trip" fidelity!

    These implementation differentials break the high fidelity "round trip" conversion required by MSOffice bound workgroup-workflow business processes.  And with near 500 million MSOffice workgroups out there, this is hardly a trivial problem.  For Massachusetts, California, Denmark and Belgium this is an ODF show stopper.

    So what's the problem with adding five lousy generics to the ODF specification? 

    It's simple.  Nothing goes into ODF unless OpenOffice supports and implements that feature.  And OpenOffice is unable to support and implement these five generics unless there are significant changes made to the internal layout engine - implementation model. 

    The iX "interoperability enhancements" wouldn't degrade in any way the current OpenOffice conversion fidelity between MS binaries and xml docs, and ODF.  But they wouldn't improve that fidelity either.  The impact on OpenOffice conversion fidelity would be neutral. 

    Where the iX proposals would have an impact is on emerging ODF applications that would design their layout engines to perfectly implement ODF within the new iX interoperability framework.

    In the past year Florian Reuter submitted for discussion no less than five iX based proposals to the OASIS ODF TC members.  The first three iX proposals were submitted on behalf of the OpenDocument Foundation, and were signed off on by Massachusetts CIO Louis Gutierrez.  A fourth iX proposal was presented in November of 2006 on behalf of Florian's new employer, Novell.  And in February of 2007, the fifth iX proposal, also known as the RDF interoperability framework, was submitted to the OASIS ODF Metadata SC.

    A sixth "iX interoeprability framework" is in the works.  It's designed to bring ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2 into conformance with



    ISO/IEC
    JTC 1 Directives     5th ed., v. 3.0, pp. 11, 145 (PDF), that mandate interoperability. 

    The ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives for interop conformance requirements are uncompromising.  ODF 1.0 somehow slid through ISO without being held to account.  Interestingly, in May of 2006, ISO specifically refused to grant ODF an exception to interop conformance requirements.

    Here's a brief taste of what ODF 1.1, 1.2 and MS-OOXML face:

    ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives unequivocally require that standards "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." Since ODF v. 1.2 is intended to become an ISO draft standard, this TC must shoulder the task the Directives place upon it. The Directives provide in relevant part:

    These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.
    ............

    A purpose of IT standardization is to ensure that products available in the marketplace have characteristics of interoperability, portability and cultural and linguistic adaptability. Therefore, standards which are developed shall reflect the requirements of the following Common Strategic Characteristics:

        * Interoperability;
        * Portability;
        * Cultural and linguistic adaptability.

    Interesting huh?  There is the possiblity that come February, MS-OOXML will be put on the three year AFNOR plan.   Next up for ISO/IEC consideration will be ODF 1.1 and/or ODF 1.2.  Maybe by May of 2008? 

    Given the interoperability challenges facing both ODF and MS-OOXML, the world could easily find itself without an ISO approved desktop document standard.

    Although ODF 1.1 was OASIS approved in January of 2007, it has yet to be presented to ISO for consideration.  Meanwhile, ODF 1.2 is in it's final stages before it too goes before OASIS.  Shipping versions of OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and Novell Office implement ODF 1.2 aspects.  We're way beyond ISO approved ODF 1.0 here!

    I like the French plan.  It's doable.  But speaking as someone who has been there, the ISO national bodies are going to have to wrestle the big vendors to get both an interoperable document standard, and, conforming applications.

    The expected February fireworks are just the start.  For sure there will be no lack of entertainment in 2008.

    ~ge~
     - garyedwards on 2007-09-25
  • AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
  • Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years. 
     
    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.

Linux News: Software: OpenDocument Foundation Abandons Namesake Format - Katherine Noyes


  • Soured Relationships



    "What's happened is that there's just not a lot of interest in their approach, and that has resulted in a lot of souring of relationships on the part of the OpenDocument Foundation folks," Douglas Johnson, standards manager at Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: JAVA) Latest News about Sun Microsystems, told LinuxInsider.


    The about-face in support should not have a significant effect on the move toward open standards, Johnson added.


    The OpenDocument Foundation's decision to support CDF, however, is puzzling, Johnson said.



    'I'm Perplexed'



    "It doesn't seem like a good fit," he explained. "It's not designed for this, so I'm perplexed at their desire to go in that direction."

Wizard of ODF: Interoperability barriers and the List Proposal Vote Deadline on Wednesday

  • this TC does not have the final word
    on what goes into the ODF 1.2 spec. There is still the OASIS vote, the
    JTC-1 vote, and the ISO final ballot, with a few other stops along the
    way. There is also the market's response to what this TC does. Given
    that no one on this TC has objected to my considerable efforts to
    raise public concerns with Microsoft's ISO submission and some on this
    TC have lambasted Microsoft for creating interoperability barriers,
    why should this TC's members consider themselves exempt from warnings
    that they have just fallen into precisely the kind of behavior we
    routinely criticize when it's Microsoft that creates the
    interoperability barriers. Especially when it's the end users who will
    pay the price of the non-interoperability?

Denmark: OOXML vote won't affect public sector. ODF is too costly! | InfoWorld

  • Lebech said Denmark considers OOXML an open standard, regardless whether it is approved by the ISO. "It would be impossible
    for us to use only ISO standards if we want to fulfill the goal of creating interoperability in the government sector," he
    said.


    The Danish Parliament also mandated that public agencies consider the cost of using open formats. One of the main reasons
    OOXML was included is because Denmark is heavily dependent on document management systems that are integrated with Microsoft's
    Office products, Lebech said.


    Denmark also found that requiring agencies to only use ODF would have been too expensive, mostly because of the cost of converting
    documents into ODF, Lebech said.


    "We wouldn't have been able to only support ODF," Lebech said. "It wouldn't have been cost neutral."

Document Interoperability Initiative: Appendix H

Microsoft recently released their blueprint for implementing ISO 26300 (ODF 1.0 - dated May 1, 2005), and referenced this Web site. Appendix H is interesting in that it lists 13 of the 28 contributors sponsored by The OpenDocument Foundation. This contributor list contradicts the determined liars (er, editors) at Wikipedia who insist that The OpenDocument Foundation was two guys without a garage. The OpenDocument Foundation was founded in 2005 (shortly after OASIS approval of ODF 1.0) for the express purpose of balancing out the rapidly growing participation in the ODF technical committee of corporate contributors. IBM, Oracle, Novel, Intel and Adobe led a corporate wave joining the ODF TC following the May 2005 OASIS approval of ODF 1.0 and subsequent submission to ISO. The Foundation was set up to fund the participation of expert individuals representing both open source communities and groups interested in an Open Web future.

www.documentinteropinitiative.org/...P1-9999.AppendixH.aspx - Preview

odf ooxml interoperability opendocument Open-Standards

ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML - zdnet Mary Jo

  • As a result of the latest infighting, is Microsoft now all-but-guaranteed that OOXML will sail through the ISO standardization vote in Feburary 2008 because ODF — and its backers — will be in disarray? This has nothing to do with the outcome of the Ballot Resolution Meeting.
  • But we also oppose adoption of ODF 1.2 as an ISO standard in the form we expect it to emerge from OASIS.
  • 1 more annotations...
04 Jun 09

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!

lwn.net/258232 - Preview

cdf foundation glyn moody odf ooxml opendocument sharepoint html+ html5 css3 interoperability

  • 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:
17 May 09

Hyprocrisy 101 | Jesper Lundstocholm "A Mooh Point"

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

idippedut.dk/...e-politics-Hyprocrisy-101.aspx - Preview

w3c odf ooxml cdf ibm opendocument weir rob-weir mooh-point jesper hyposcrisy

  • I posted a lengthy comment here summarizing a few of the more glaring aspects of my relationship with Rob Weir and IBM. It's very much a response to the devastating Rob Weir post, "Cracks in the Foundation".



     - garyedwards on 2007-12-18
05 Mar 09

Europe: Microsoft's behavior has changed, interop docs already complete | Tech Policy & Law News - Betanews

"In light of changes in Microsoft's behaviour, the increased opportunity for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision," this morning's statement reads, "the Commission no longer requires a full time monitoring trustee to assess Microsoft's compliance. In future, the Commission intends to rely on the ad hoc assistance of technical consultants.


"Microsoft has an ongoing obligation to supply complete and accurate interoperability information as specified in the Commission's 2004 Microsoft Decision," the EC goes on. "However, given that the original set of interoperability information has already been documented by Microsoft, increased opportunities through private enforcement provisions in Microsoft's license agreements for third parties to exercise their rights directly before national courts, and experience gained since the adoption of the 2004 Decision, the nature of the technical assistance that the Commission requires is now of a more ad hoc character."

www.betanews.com/...1236178252 - Preview

odf opendocument office-formats microsoft eu interoperability

30 May 08

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 ..

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00040.html - Preview

ECIS anti-trust foundation odf ooxml opendocument openxml

  • 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.
03 Mar 08

Open Malaysia: Geneva, Day Five

  • We eventually found out that if any changes affected current implementations it would certainly be rejected. This seriously compromised any elegant solutions, and it forced us to be mindful of the "existing corpus of documents" in the wild. I personally don't believe that that should be our problem, but there was a large and vocal voting bloc which would oppose any changes to the spec which would 'break' Ecma 376.



    This was why appeasing Ecma had to happen. Even though they rushed their Ecma International Standard, and Microsoft took the risk in shipping Microsoft Office 2007 last year, we now have to bear the burden of having to support its limitations. This also means that future maintenance changes would get harder and harder.

29 Feb 08

Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - marbux - ge comments | ZDNet UK

ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK

  • Both ODF and OOXML flunk that test badly. Their interoperable implementation neither has nor can be demonstrated. Both are designed for the waging of feature wars, not for interoperability. Both attempt to legitimize market-leading companies embracing and extending their own formats. They are standards in name only. What we are watching is a contest to decide which big vendor formats will be allowed to undeservedly claim the title of "international standard."
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.

10 Feb 08

Compound Document Formats Group Charter

The W3C CDF Charter written in 2004

www.w3.org/...charter.html - Preview

cdf da-vinci foundation opendocument w3c

  • be widely implementable in browsers and authoring tools
09 Feb 08

Harmonizing ODF and OOXML using NameSpaces | Tim Bray's Thought Experiment

Tim Bray suggests using namespaces to brdige the comatibility gap between ODF and OOXML.

www.tbray.org/...Office-XML - Preview

bray florian-reuter namespaces odf ooxml opendocument openxml

  • First, what if Microsoft really is
    doing the right thing? Second, how can we avoid having two incompatible
    file formats?
    [Update: There’s been a lot of reaction to this piece, and I addressed some
    of those points
    here.]
  • On the technology side, the two formats are really more alike than they are
    different.
    But, there are differences:
    O12X’s design center, Microsoft has said repeatedly,
    is capturing the exact semantics of the billions of existing Microsoft Office
    documents.
    ODF’s design center is general-purpose reusability, and leveraging existing
    standards like SVG and MathML and so on.

    • OOXML, or to put it more accurately "O12X" as Tim suggests, is designed to capture the exact semantics of MSOffice 12. In fact, OOXML is an XML encoding of the MSOffice 12 in-memory-binary-representation dump. When it comes to representing older versions of MSOffice documents, OOXML must use legacy compatibility settings" to capture the semantics. And it's not an exacting science to say the least.



      The thing is, OpenOffice ODF uses the same technique resulting in application specific ODF documents with over 150 un docuemnted, unspecified "compatibility settings". After years of requests from the OASIS ODF Technical Committee to document these application specific settings, Sun has yet to provide any kind of response. And this kills ODF interoperability. Especially concerning KOffice.



      There is also the issue of OASIS ODF high-jacked namespaces. When ODF applications reference a namespace, the actual URL is high-jacked with http://oasis-open.org/???? replacing the proper namespace of http://W3C.org/????



      This high-jacking impacts the oDF reuse of important W3C technologies such as XForms, SVG, MathML, and SMiL.



      So where's the problem you ask? Well, when a developer imports or tries to process an OpenOffice ODF document, they rely on say the W3C XForms specification for their understanding. OpenOffice however seriously constrains the implementation of XForms, SVG, MathML, RDFa and RDF/XML. This should be reflected in the new namespace. However, if you follow the high-jacked URL, you'll find that there is nothing there. There is no specification describing how OpenOffice implements XForms in ODF! This breaks developer libraries, breaks ODF interoperability between ODF applications, and, offends the W3C to no end.



      So i think it might be fair to say that at this point, neither ODF or OOXML have come close to fulfilling their design objectives.

       - on 2008-02-09
    Add Sticky Note
  • 2 more annotations...

Wizard of ODF: Proposal to amend TC charter, re interoperability with non-conformant ap

The marbux proposal to ammend the ODF charter to include interoperability with MSOffice

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00022.html - Preview

OASIS harmonization interop interoperability odf ooxml opendocument

  • 7. it must provide all feasible functionality required to suppport
    full fidelity conversions from and to existing office document binary
    file formats.
1 - 20 of 176 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Ads by Google

Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »

Join Diigo