Home
Gary Edwards's Library tagged → View Popular
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.
Google Chrome OS: Web Platform To Rule Them All -- InformationWeek
Some good commentary on chrome OS from InformationWeek's Thomas Claburn.
Excerpt: With Chrome OS, Google aims to make the Web the primary platform for software development.......
The fact that Chrome OS applications will be written using open Web standards like JavaScript, HTML, and CSS might seem like a liability because Web applications still aren't as capable as applications written for specific devices and operating systems.
But Google is betting that will change and is working to effect the change on which its bet depends. Within a year or two, Web browsers will gain access to peripherals, through an infrastructure layer above the level of device drivers. Google's work with standards bodies is making that happen.....
..... According to Matt Womer, the "ubiquitous Web activity lead" for W3C, the Web standards consortium, Web protocol groups are working to codify ways to access peripherals like digital cameras, the messaging stack, calendar data, and contact data.
There's now a JavaScript API that Web developers can use to get GPS information from mobile phones using the phone's browser, he points out. What that means is that device drivers for Chrome OS will emerge as HTML 5 and related standards mature. Without these, consumers would never use Chrome OS because devices like digital cameras wouldn't be able to transfer data.
Womer said the standardization work could move quite quickly, but won't be done until there's an actual implementation. That would be Chrome OS......
..... Chrome OS will sell itself to developers because, as Google puts it, writing applications for the Web gives "developers the largest user base of any platform."
Official Google Webmaster Central Blog: Introducing Rich Snippets
Google "Rich Snippets" is a new presentation of HTML snippets that applies Google's algorithms to highlight structured data embedded in web pages.
Rich Snippets give end-users convenient summary information about their search results at a glance. Google is currently supporting a very limited subset of data about <b>reviews and people</b>. When searching for a product or service, users can easily see reviews and ratings, and when searching for a person, they'll get help distinguishing between people with the same name. It's a simple change to the display of search results, yet our experiments have shown that users find the new data valuable.
For this to work though, both Web-masters and Web-workers have to annotate thier pages with structured data in a standard format. Google snippets supports microformats and RDFa. Existing Web data can be wrapped with some additional tags to accomplish this.
Notice that Google avoids mention of RDF and the W3C's vision of a "Semantic Web" where Web objects are fully described in machine readable semantics. Over at the WHATWG group, where work on HTML5 continues, Google's Ian Hickson has been fighting RDFa and the Semantic Web in what looks to be an effort to protect the infamous Google algorithms.
RDFa provides a means for Web-workers, knowledge-workers, line-of-business managers and document generating end-users to enrich their HTML+ with machine semantics. The idea being that the document experts creating Web content can best describe to search engine and content management machines the objects-of-information used. The google algorithms provide a proprietary semantics of this same content.
The best solution to the tsunami of conten the Web has wrought would be to combine end-user semantic expertise with Google algorithms. Let's hope Google stays the RDFa course and comes around to recognize the full potential of organizing the world's information with the input of content providers.
One thing the world desperately needs are powerful desktop editors capable of
Comment for Jesper on the Groklaw "Digging at those who tell the Truth" article
Lengthy response to Jesper's Groklaw comment. Groklaw rips apart Alex Brown, convenor of the ISO JS34 docuemnt standards group.
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
-
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
W3C Kills HTML-CSS 1998: Hixie's Natural Log
In 2004 Ian Hickson attended the W3C workgroup on XHTML and CDF. He notes the fact that, as Steven Pemberton pointed out, six year ago (1998), the W3C decided that HTML was dead, and the way forward was a host of new languages (what is now XHTML2, XForms, MathML, SVG) that would lead the world's population to a clean new world.
Then he has this to say: <i>".... The truth is that the real Web, the Web that authors write for, is the Windows IE6 Web. The only way to change that is to reduce the IE6 market share, and new technologies don't do this. Marketing does. Once users are primarily using a browser that is being regularly updated, then we can start introducing radically new technologies. Until then, such technologies simply aren't going to become popular.
There were a lot of rather confused statements during the meeting. For example, it is clear that a lot of people think that the browser is dead and that the way forward is transparent "runtimes" that execute remote applications securely. But then these same people demand to know why Mozilla, Opera and Safari don't support XForms and SVG, saying that their lack of support is crippling their standards' adoption.
Surely if the browser paradigm is dead, it doesn't matter what we implement?
What I think most of the people at the meeting actually want is a standard that combines XHTML, XForms, SVG, and SMIL (and CSS, DOM, and ECMAScript, although they rarely if ever actually mention those by name), and then adds enough APIs to make the host into a platform in its own right. ..."</i>
W3C : CSS Visual formatting model
A visual layout model for CSS 2.1 and CSS 3. W3C specification candidate
Coding In Paradise: Fixing the Web, Part I
Must read: "This blog post is part of a new, semi-regular series called Fixing the Web. The goal is to highlight these issues, identify potential solutions, and have a dialogue. I don't claim to have the answers for the situation we are in. However, I do know this -- if there is any community that potentially has what it takes to solve these issues I believe it's the Ajax and JavaScript communities, which is why this is a perfect place to have these discussions.
To start, I see four areas that are broken that must be fixed: ..... "
CSS Advanced Layout Module | W3C CSS3 Specification
CSS is a simple, declarative language for creating style sheets that specify the rendering of HTML and other structured documents. This specification is part of level 3 of CSS (“CSS3”) and contains features to describe layouts at a high level, meant for tasks such as the positioning and alignment of “widgets” in a graphical user interface or the layout grid for a page or a window, in particular when the desired visual order is different from the order of the elements in the source document. Other CSS3 modules contain properties to specify fonts, colors, text alignment, list numbering, tables, etc.
The features in this module are described together for easier reading, but are usually not implemented as a group. CSS3 modules often depend on other modules or contain features for several media types. Implementers should look at the various “profiles” of CSS, which list consistent sets of features for each type of media.
-
Add Sticky NoteThe properties in this specification work by associating a layout
policy with an element.- The CSS3 "Layout Policy" is one of the primary differentials between HTML5-CSS3-SVG and XML alternatives ODF and OOXML. Neither ODF or OOXML provide a complete description (semantic) of the underlying document layout model. - on 2008-10-27
-
these policies give an element an
invisible grid for aligning descendant elements
W3C - Emergency Information Interoperability Framework wiki
The mission of the Emergency Information Interoperability Framework (EIIF) Incubator Group, part of the Incubator Activity, is to review and analyse the current state-of-the-art in vocabularies used in emergency management functions and to investigate the path forward via an emergency management systems information interoperability framework. These activities will lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive approach to ontology management and semantic information interoperability leading to a proposal for future longer-term W3C Working Group activity.
Ajaxian » In Praise of Evolvable Systems
“Why something as poorly designed as the Web became The Next Big Thing, and what that means for the future.”
Well designed but "fixed" systems were over taken by the evolvable but poorly designed Web. I'm wonderig if these same "evolving" principles apply to standard organizations? Put WebKit up against the standard orgs in charge of key WebKit components, and you see clearly that WebKit would fail misably if they stuck to the hapless efforts of the W3C, Ecma and ISO.
Besides the fact that entrenched players such as Microsoft are sitting on those standards orgs in position to dumb down or put into terminal stall much needed innovations. For instance, WebKit deepneds on HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and JavaScript. All of which are stalled at various standards orgs.
As a reaction to this org stall, the WebKit group pushes forward anyway relying instead on OSS Community style innovation and consensus model sharing.
IE aims to embrace the web again | Technology | The Guardian
-
I asked Hachamovitch, who has led the Explorer team since 2003, why it has taken Microsoft so long to address these deficiencies. "It comes down to what we were doing with our time," he said. "Between 2001 and 2003 we were building what you experience now as Windows Presentation Foundation and Silverlight."
These technologies display not HTML, the language of web pages, but XAML, Microsoft's proprietary code for creating rich visual content.
-
It sounds good, but Hachamovitch's warmth begins to fade when I broach the vexed subject of browser scripting. The context is important. Hachamovitch had already stated that Microsoft spent three years neglecting IE for the sake of a more proprietary technology, which is now appearing on the web as a browser plug-in called Silverlight. This is similar in some ways to Adobe's Flash, and supports rich multimedia effects within web pages, as well as the ability to run applications written in Microsoft's .NET Framework.
- 1 more annotations...
Is the W3C to Blame for the Breaking of the Web? | Continuing Intermittent Incoherency » Power vs. Authority
Another article taking up the issue of "Blame the W3C" for what increasingly looks like a proprietary Web future. The author is an Ajax-DOJO supporter, and he tries to defend the W3C by saying it's not their job, they don't have the "power" or the "authority" to push the Web forward. About the best they can do is, at the end of the day, try to corral big vendors into agreement. Meanwhile, the Web has become the wild wild west with browser vendors innovating into their corporate web stacks where vast profits and future monopolies rest. For me, WebKit represents the best effort insisting that the Web remain Open. It's OSS with excellent big vendor support. And they are pushing the envelope. Finally!
-
Consider the recent CSS features added by WebKit: transformations, animations, gradients, masks, et cetera. They’ve very nearly _run out_ of standards to implement, so they’re starting to implement the wouldn’t-it-be-cool-if stuff. If I’m not mistaken, this is the exact sort of thing you’re wishing for.
-
Changing the renderer (which is what we’re taking about when we talk about upgrading “the web”) goes hand-in-hand today with upgrading the *rest* of the browser as well, which requires the user to care…and users (to a one) don’t give a flying leap about CSS 2.1 support.
WebKit and the Future of the Open Web
I reformatted my response to marbux concerning HTML5 and web application lack of interoperability. The original article these comments were posted to is titled, <a href="http://mondaybynoon.com/2008/06/30/siding-with-html-over-xhtml-my-decision-to-switch/#comment-2042">"Siding with HTML over XHTML, My Decision to Switch.... "</a>.
Independent study advises IT planners to go OOXML: The Bill Gates MSOffice "formats and Protocol" eMail
The IOWA Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust suit evidence is now publicly available. This ZDNet Talkback posts an extraordinary eMail from Bill Gates concerning the need to control MSOffice formats and protocols as Microsoft pushes onto the Web. I've also attached a rather comprehensive summary of events regarding ISO approval of MSOffice OOXML, tying it back into the meaning of the 1998 eMail directive from Chairman Bill.
The key point is that Chairman Bill understands that the real threat to Microsoft is that of Open Web formats and protocols outside of Microsoft's control.
-
The IOWA Comes vs. Microsoft antitrust suit evidence is now publicly available. This ZDNet Talkback posts an extraordinary eMail from Bill Gates concerning the need to control MSOffice formats and protocols as Microsoft pushes onto the Web.
The key point is that Chairman Bill understands that the real threat to Microsoft is that of Open Web formats and protocols outside of Microsoft's control. It's 1998, and the effort to "embrace and eXtend" W3C HTML, XHTML, SVG and CSS isn't working well. The good Chairman notifies the troops that MSOffice must come up with another plan.
Interestingly, it's not until 2001, when OpenOffice releases an XML encoding of the OpenOffice/StarOffice imbr that Microsoft finally sees a solution! (imbr = in-memory-binary-representation)
The MSOffice crew immediately sets to work creating a similar XML encoding of the MSOffice binary (imbr) dump. The first result is released in the MSOffice 2003 beta as "WordprocessingML and SpreadsheetML".
XML was designed as a structured language for creating specific structured languages. OpenOffice saw the potential of using XML to create an OpenOffice specific XML language. MSOffice seized the innovation and the rest is history. Problem solved!
So what was the "problem" the good Chairman identified in this secret eMail? It's that the Web is the future, and Microsoft needed to find a way of leveraging their existing desktop document "editor" monopoly share into owning and controlling the Web formats produced by Microsoft applications. MSOffice OOXML is the result.
ISO approval of MSOffice OOXML is beyond important to Microsoft. It establishes MSOffice "editors" as standards compliant. It also establishes the application, platform and vendor specific MSOffice OOXML as an international "open" standard.
Many will ask why this isn't a case of Microsoft actually opening up the MSOffice formats in compliance with government antitrust demands. It is "compliance", but not in the sense of what the world expects and needs. It's compliance with what the world demanded back in 1995: full documentation of the application specific MSOffice binary (and xml encoded) format representation.
The thing is, the web is the future. What matters is the conversion of MSOffice OOXML to a web ready format.
In December of 2007, when much of the world was focused on the 1995 battle between OpenOffice ODF and MSOffice OOXML at ISO, Microsoft released the MSOffice 2007 SDK beta. In this beta was a nifty two way conversion component for converting OOXML <> XAML "fixed/flow".
Uh Oh.
XAML is the "Web ready" format aspect of the entirely proprietary Windows Presentation Foundation layer (WPF). XAML joins Silverlight, XPS, Smart Tags and LINQ as core components of WPF.
These core components can be seen as proprietary alternatives to Open Web and Adobe standards such as the W3C's XHTML, CSS, SVG, XForms, CDF, RDF, RDFa, SPARQL, Mozilla's XUL, JavaScript, and Adobe's Flash, Flex, AIR, PDF and ePUB.
And there you go. The IE 8.0 beta limits support to HTML-5 bits and CSS 2.1. Forget about JavaScript, SVG, RDF, and XHTML.
What i see here is that Microsoft is preparing a complete Web-Stack of business oriented applications and services capable of speaking both "low level" Web and "high level" WPF (XAML-Silverlight).
Look at the connection between MSOffice and the Exchange/SharePoint/SQL Server Web-Stack. It's filled with proprietary protocols and format conversions. Microsoft owns the "client" in client/server. The OBA (Office Business Architecture) binds many a client/server business process and more than a few workgroup-workflow activities. It was the OBA phenomenon that stopped ODF in Massachusetts! Stopped it so cold that the phrase "ODF is impossible to implement" found it's way into the general lexicon.
So imagine that the world is really thirsting to migrate these client/server business processes to the newly emerging model known as client/Web-Stack/server. Microsoft has been busy putting in the pieces to facilitate this, but, as the 1998 eMail reads, seeks to control the transition. They needed their own "web ready" formats and protocols; including the collaboration protocols!
They also needed a Web-Stack capable of speaking both Open Web and MS Web.
My feeling is that ISO approval of MSOffice OOXML was the final piece to the MS puzzle. It solved the antitrust problem while protecting the proprietary WPF alternative to Open Web formats and protocols. In the aftermath of ISO approval, Live-Mesh and Silverlight development efforts were thrown into high gear. The Exchange/SharePoint/SQL-S3erver juggernaut looks unstoppable. And MSOffice is now an open standards compliant "editor" producing formats that have only one useful future direction; a XAML "fixed/flow" web ready direction.
In light of these developments, it makes sense that Microsoft would comply with as many antitrust related ISO NB concerns as possible. Supporting ODF in MSOffice and joining the OASIS ODF TC are a small price to pay for the opportunity ISO approval of MSOffice-OOXML creates. ODF is not an interoperable format anyway, so data loss on conversion happens to everyone. Who can blame Microsoft for lousy conversions when, after over five years as a member of the OASIS ODF TC, KOffice will have even worse conversion fidelity!
It's important to note that the greatest threat to Microsoft's Web push is that of antitrust. If they can corral antitrust concerns and focus them on 1995 issues, they can push MSOffice client/server to the MS Web without notice. Thus achieving exactly what antitrust was designed to prevent; the leveraging of an existing monopoly into control and dominance of emerging markets.
At the end of the day, Google may well own the "consumer" side of the Web. With Microsoft owning the "business" side of the Web. Such is the power of controlling that transition from client/server to client/Web-Stack/server and the Mesh of SOA, SaaS and Web RIA 3.0 that follows.
Hope this helps,
~ge~ - garyedwards on 2008-05-30 -
The Bill Gates 1998 eMail: Comes vs. Microsoft .... IOWA antitrust
From: Bill Gates Sent:
Saturday, December 5 1998
To: Bob Muglia, Jon DeVann, Steven Sinofsky
Subject : Office rendering
"One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. Anything else is suicide for our platform.
This is a case where Office has to avoid doing something to destroy Windows. I would be glad to explain at a greater length.
Likewise this love of DAV in Office/Exchange is a huge problem. I would also like to make sure people understand this as well." - garyedwards on 2008-05-30 -
Transcribed link to original Bill Gates: "Office Rendering" eMail (PDF):
http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/text/msg00005.html
This part of a really good transcribed IOWA-Comes-Microsoft resource at:
http://boycottnovell.com/comes-vs-microsoft/text/ - garyedwards on 2008-05-30
-
3.2.2.2. A pox on both your houses!
gary.edwards - 01/22/08Hi Robert,
What you've posted are examples of MSOffice ”compatibility settings” used to establish backwards compatibility with older documents, and, for the conversion of alien file formats (such as various versions of WordPerfect .wpd). These compatibility settings are unspecified in that we know the syntax but have no idea of the semantics. And without the semantic description there is no way other developers can understand implementation. This of course guarantees an unacceptable breakdown of interoperability.
But i would be hesitant to make my stand of rejecting OOXML based on this issue. It turns out that there are upwards of 150 unspecified compatibility settings used by OpenOffice/StarOffice. These settings are not specified in ODF, but will nevertheless show up in OpenOffice ODF documents – similarly defying interoperability efforts!
Since the compatibility settings are not specified or even mentioned in the ODF 1.0 – ISO 26300 specification, we have to go to the OOo source code to discover where this stuff comes from. Check out lines 169-211. Here you will find interesting settings such as, “UseFormerLineSpacing, UseFormerObjectPositioning, and UseFormerTextWrapping”.
So what's going on here?
GROKLAW - W3C's Chris Lilley: CDF Not Suitable for Use as an Office Format & Can't Replace ODF
I (IBM operative PJ)put the link to Andy Updegrove's article in News Picks earlier, but this is too important not to inform you about here as well. As you know the so-called OpenDocument Foundation has been telling the world that CDF is a better approach than ODF. Updegrove met with W3C's Chris Lilley, the "go-to guy guy at W3C to learn what W3C's CDF standard is all about." Lilley says CDF can't replace ODF. It's not suitable for use as an office format, and he's mystified by the pronouncements of the Foundation.
-
This is priceless! The ODF Community is now attacking the W3C and CDF. Watch what happens next inside IBM and Sun who are the primary supporters of CDF. You see, the thing about a mob is that there comes a point when you can no longer control them. We've reached 451 Fahrenheit. somebody is goign regret ever having lit that match.
- garyedwards on 2007-11-10
-
As you know the so-called OpenDocument Foundation has been telling the world that CDF is a better approach than ODF. Updegrove met with W3C's Chris Lilley, the "go-to guy guy at W3C to learn what W3C's CDF standard is all about." Lilley says CDF can't replace ODF. It's not suitable for use as an office format, and he's mystified by the pronouncements of the Foundation.
Here's what Updegrove reports:
To find out the facts, I interviewed Chris Lilley, the W3C lead for the CDF
project, and his answer couldn't have been more clear: "The one thing I'd
really want your readers to know is that CDF was not created to be, and
isn't suitable for use as, an office format." In fact, it isn't even an
format at all - although it has been matched for export purposes with
another W3C specification, called WICD - but WICD is a non-editable format
intended for viewing only. Moreover, no one from the Foundation has joined
W3C, nor explained to W3C what the Foundation's founders have in mind.
It is highly unfortunate that the founders of a tax exempt organization
that solicited donations, "To support the community of volunteers in
promoting, improving and providing user assistance for ODF and software
designed to operate on data in this format," should publicly announce that
it believes that ODF will fail. By endorsing a standard that has no
rational relationship to office formats at all, they can only serve to
confuse the marketplace and undermine the efforts of the global community
they claimed to serve.So, there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth. CDF can't replace ODF, according to Lilley. It wasn't designed to be used as an office format. It's good for other things.
So, was all this media push really about ODF? Or about damaging it with FUD and giving support to Microsoft's assertion that the world craves more than one office format standard so we can all struggle with interoperability complexity for the rest of our born days? And is it a coincidence it all happened on the eve of the next vote in February on Microsoft's competing MSOOXML? Was Microsoft behind this? Or did they just get lucky? Microsoft representatives, like Jason Matusow, certainly gave support to what the 3-man crew was saying, so much so that ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley wrote that, "the ODF camp might unravel before Microsoft’s rival Office Open XML (OOXML) comes up for final international standardization vote early next year." Dream on. ODF is doing fine. It's the OpenDocument Foundation that is shutting down.But here's my question: did the Microsoft reps not understand the tech, that CDF can't replace ODF? How trust-inspiring do you find that? Or did they think that *we'd* never figure it out? Whatever the story might be, unfortunately for Microsoft, people aren't as dumb as Microsoft needs them to be. FUD has a very limited shelf life in the Internet age. There is always somebody who knows better. And they'll tell the world.
ODF and differences of opinion | TalkBack on ZDNet about the OpenDocument Foundation
The Foundation principles set the record straight, explaining the Foundation's five year role at the core of OASIS ODF development, and our decision to consider the W3C CDF (XHTML+CDF) as a highly interoperable web ready format. This discussion answers the false allegations of artful fairy tale spinners Rob Weir and Andy Updegrove. Neither of which had anything to do with ISO 26300 (ODF 1.0).
-
Lengthy comment explaining once again why we moved from ODF to CDF.
- garyedwards on 2007-11-04
-
Just because we are garage challenged doesn't mean we can't find the back door to the big house :)
The larger issue at stake here is not whether or not we have a garage, or what our contribution to ODF has been over the course of five years as active members of OASIS ODF. What it really comes down to is the implementation of ODF in the real world.
Inventor of the Web: Sir Tim's biography
W3C inventor Sir Timothy Berners-Lee
-
In the complex history of innovation flowing to and from the Internet, one major achievement is uncontested: in 1989-91, Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.
The Stockholm Syndrom at ISO | ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does | Slashdot
Response to Yoon Kit's comments that Patrick Durusau is caught between a rock and hard place. His ISO JTC-1 group is now overwhelmed with MS OOXML supporters!
-
ISO is bound to the business of "interoperability", and has very strict guidelines for interoperability requirements, that are themselves tied to international trade agreements and legal conventions. In this context, it is beyond surprising that ISO allows the "OASIS PAS" and "Ecma Fast Track" channels to remain open, with specification work remaining under the controlling influence of the vendors.
IMHO, the change in Patrick's position is entirely due to the realization that it is impossible to map between OOXML and ODF. I don't know this for sure, but when i read the German Standards Group (DIN) report on harmonization, authorized by the EU-IDABC and provided to ISO, i couldn't help but wonder how Patrick would react. The report definitively ends his OOXML ODF mapping dream.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Sponsored Links
Top Contributors
Groups interested in w3c
-
Interoperability and The Quest For A Universal File Format
Bookmarked pages related to...
Items: 11 | Visits: 238
Created by: Gary Edwards
-
Herramientas de validación
Items: 65 | Visits: 24
Created by: fabiola_isabel
-
HTML5
Items: 6 | Visits: 3
Created by: Vincent Tsao
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo