- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Now it’s Open Document Format’s turn for the FUDmeisters.
|
|
|
Comments (24)
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:I'm not convinced that the ODFound lads aren't nincompeeps, but I am concerned that they have poked a stick at a real ODF problem.
There's one way to tell. Take a look at the other extensions that were rejected by the ODF committees. Was there anything good in it that would be truly useful but happend to just not fit into the OOo mantra?
>There's one way to tell.
That tells nothing. It just says that the ODF committee rejects extensions.
The question:
Can ODF, without unsupported and unofficial band-aids, support the most common office software on the planet?
Can it do so in a way that private and public organizations can justify spending millions, even billions of dollars without fearing for their data or their operations?
I noticed, buy the way, that Sun supported the acceptance of OOXML as an office standard.
That tells nothing. It just says that the ODF committee rejects extensions.
The question:
Can ODF, without unsupported and unofficial band-aids, support the most common office software on the planet?
Can it do so in a way that private and public organizations can justify spending millions, even billions of dollars without fearing for their data or their operations?
I noticed, buy the way, that Sun supported the acceptance of OOXML as an office standard.
Quoting:Can ODF, without unsupported and unofficial band-aids, support the most common office software on the planet?
Sure. If MS makes ODF a first-class citizen in Office, alongside the office binary formats and the OOXML formats. But we all know when that happens.
Cute little typo there Dino. So what's your point? That everyone has an agenda, bought or otherwise? PPFFFFTTTT!!! What , do you think that a standard isn't a standard unless everyones two bits are explicitly guaranteed acceptance no matter what? I still can't figure out why you seem to like being up on the fence with one foot on each side? The smell of a certain monopolists money tantalizing to you? I have no problem with that, everyone has to have dreams and aspirations. I just have issues with people being disingenuous and sly about it.
>If MS makes ODF a first-class citizen in Office
Still running away from the question, I see.
The question was whether ODF can support all of Office's features. If not, then MS can't make ODF a first-class citizen.
If they have to resort to unofficial hacks, they really can't call what they do standard. Might as well use OOXML.
Still running away from the question, I see.
The question was whether ODF can support all of Office's features. If not, then MS can't make ODF a first-class citizen.
If they have to resort to unofficial hacks, they really can't call what they do standard. Might as well use OOXML.
>I still can't figure out why you seem to like being up on the fence with one foot on each side?
I don't understand your problem.
>The smell of a certain monopolists money tantalizing to you?
Oh wait! Now I do. You're a moron.
I don't understand your problem.
>The smell of a certain monopolists money tantalizing to you?
Oh wait! Now I do. You're a moron.
Quoting:Can ODF, without unsupported and unofficial band-aids, support the most common office software on the planet?
Apart from it being the wrong question (the right question would be: Can the most common office software on the planet, without unsupported and unofficial band-aids, support the ISO-standardized file format? Normally software supports certain standards, a standard doesn't support certain software!), here's my viepoint:
OOXML can roughly be divided in two parts; the part that can be converted to ODF and the part that cannot, because it is part of Microsofts lock-in. As long as an OOXML doc doesn't contend lock-in parts (like BIFF parts), you can convert to ODF, and everybody is happy.
However, the OOXML documents that do contain lock-in parts, cannot be converted to ODF at the moment, mainly because Microsoft doesn't want us to convert those parts (it wouldn't be part of the lock-in otherwise) in first place. This is probably what the OpenDoc Foundation is talking about: They want to make a lock-in compatible extension of ODF, and the ODF people are refusing. Therefore, they now want to use CDF, since it is easier to support the MS lock-in technologies in (containers) in CDF.
That's fine. The ones who still accept to be locked-in can use CDF hopefully in a while, if the ODF Foundation is going to make a good converter, and the ones not wanting to be locked-in can choose an application that really supports ODF, like K- or OpenOffice, or maybe IBM's or Haancom's suite.
Abe you had the start of a fact based argument, for the first three points atleast. The last two points 5 then 4, are firmly opinion and unsupported speculation injected in an otherwise reasonable post. For what it's worth the first three were spot on.
Rascalson, do you honestly believe your comment is fitting in polite and adult discussion?
Rascalson, do you honestly believe your comment is fitting in polite and adult discussion?
Quoting:The question was whether ODF can support all of Office's features. If not, then MS can't make ODF a first-class citizen.
The answer is a plain 'NO' because it works the other way around (you are reasoning in the wrong direction): Microsoft doesn't _want_ ODF to be a first class citizin, therefore MS Office - by defenition - contains features that _can not_ be supported in ODF.
>Normally software supports certain standards, a standard doesn't support certain software!)
Normally a standard is either 1. Drawn up first and software is written to it, or 2. Codifies de-facto standards
That doesn't seem to apply here.
If -- if -- it is true that ODF in its current form cannot properly represent the data needed to support the feature set of Office, it is a problem.
Microsoft deserves a whole heap of blame, given their membership in the ODF committee and refusal to take an active part in developing the final standard, but, the blame doesn't change the reality.
So -- can it or can't it?
Normally a standard is either 1. Drawn up first and software is written to it, or 2. Codifies de-facto standards
That doesn't seem to apply here.
If -- if -- it is true that ODF in its current form cannot properly represent the data needed to support the feature set of Office, it is a problem.
Microsoft deserves a whole heap of blame, given their membership in the ODF committee and refusal to take an active part in developing the final standard, but, the blame doesn't change the reality.
So -- can it or can't it?
>Microsoft doesn't _want_ ODF to be a first class citizin, therefore MS Office - by defenition - contains features that _can not_ be supported in ODF.
That would actually be an interesting road to pursue:
Which Office features cannot be adequately represented in ODF? Are they features that reasonably belong in an, er, "office" suite, or something shoe-horned into Office because, well, they could do it?
That would actually be an interesting road to pursue:
Which Office features cannot be adequately represented in ODF? Are they features that reasonably belong in an, er, "office" suite, or something shoe-horned into Office because, well, they could do it?
Well Dino, I cannot help you on that because my knowledge of MS-Office coding and features is thesame as my knowledge of antitrust law (by now you should know that means my knowledge in those areas s*ck). However, there's a report of someone who knows what he's talking about concerning those 'lock-in' features (like Biff 11, 11+ and 12 I believe) in OOXML I mentioned somewhere on the web; I'll try to find it for you.
ED: Ah, there it is (Google linked me to my reactions on posts when searching for BIFF 11!): http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/ooxml_is_defective.asp?...
Especially be sure to read the part at number 12), about BIFF.
ED: Ah, there it is (Google linked me to my reactions on posts when searching for BIFF 11!): http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/ooxml_is_defective.asp?...
Especially be sure to read the part at number 12), about BIFF.
>concerning those 'lock-in' features (like Biff 11, 11+ and 12 I believe) in OOXML I mentioned somewhere on the web; I'll try to find it for you.
I think that's getting close, but OOXML, per se, isn't the issue.
The question is whether Office has legitimate features that can't properly be represented using the ODF standard.
As I think about it, any extensions wouldn't even have to be a direct part of the standard. Think about the way Firefox (I know -- apples and oranges) does it's extensions:
There is a standard way to do extensions, and a place where extensions are made public.
For something like ODF, I would think an extra step is called for - an actual registry of extensions. In other words, something akin to a county clerk's office with reference to property deeds. The ODF would not bless registered extensions, would not call them official, but would provide extension ids or some such thing. Mainly, they would provide an official place to look for them. That, I think, should be adequate to handle anything. In that case, the shoe really would be entirely on MS's foot because there would be an officially recognized, standard-harmonized even if not completely standard, way to do just about anything.
If something like that already exists, then I am happy to exit the discussion with a smile.
I think that's getting close, but OOXML, per se, isn't the issue.
The question is whether Office has legitimate features that can't properly be represented using the ODF standard.
As I think about it, any extensions wouldn't even have to be a direct part of the standard. Think about the way Firefox (I know -- apples and oranges) does it's extensions:
There is a standard way to do extensions, and a place where extensions are made public.
For something like ODF, I would think an extra step is called for - an actual registry of extensions. In other words, something akin to a county clerk's office with reference to property deeds. The ODF would not bless registered extensions, would not call them official, but would provide extension ids or some such thing. Mainly, they would provide an official place to look for them. That, I think, should be adequate to handle anything. In that case, the shoe really would be entirely on MS's foot because there would be an officially recognized, standard-harmonized even if not completely standard, way to do just about anything.
If something like that already exists, then I am happy to exit the discussion with a smile.
Quoting:If something like that already exists, then I am happy to exit the discussion with a smile.If this is all it needs to get a smile from Dino, I am all for it and should be done right away if isn't there already. :-)
Quoting:So -- can it or can't it?
As fas as I know, feature-wise it can. The only problem between MS-Office and ODF are:
* certain legacy tags (SpaceWordsLikeWord95 and that kind of crap) which can only be translated one-way (i.e. from the legacy tag to an proper ODF style. When going back to word it becomes a proper Word style instead of the old legacy stag again).
* OOXML bits that aren't XML, like BIFF blocks, bitfields and what not.
My understanding is that the problem is with converting .doc and .docx to ODF and back. The feature-set of MS-Office itself isn't a problem. So, ODF as a native format for MS-Office could work in theory.
And I think that's also the problem with the OpenDocument Foundation's extension. It was an extension purely to facilitate legacy .doc .docx tags, not an extension that would add missing features to ODF.
>My understanding is that the problem is with converting .doc and .docx to ODF and back.
>certain legacy tags (SpaceWordsLikeWord95
Hmmm. That's a weird one to begin with.
I know that a number of schemas that I've worked with (designed for a portal that sat between vendors and clients and any number of potential schemas and processing schemes) provided official "hack me" points -- name value pairs to hold information that needed preservation, but didn't quite fit anything. It would be passed along and used only by those steps and recipients that could understand it.
SpaceWordsLikeWord95 sure does sound like that kind of thing, doesn't it?
>certain legacy tags (SpaceWordsLikeWord95
Hmmm. That's a weird one to begin with.
I know that a number of schemas that I've worked with (designed for a portal that sat between vendors and clients and any number of potential schemas and processing schemes) provided official "hack me" points -- name value pairs to hold information that needed preservation, but didn't quite fit anything. It would be passed along and used only by those steps and recipients that could understand it.
SpaceWordsLikeWord95 sure does sound like that kind of thing, doesn't it?
Quoting:The last two points 5 then 4, are firmly opinion and unsupported speculation injected in an otherwise reasonable post.
@azerthoth
Yes they are opinions, but they are based on facts or solid logical deductions. Consider item .4 "MS will never use an open format; Because if they do, they couldn't compete and will definitely lose"
MS has been trying their best to avoid using ODF. They even excluded themselves from the start of building the original ODF standard, why?
They simply didn't see it going their way, which is keeping their monopoly on office apps. They also realized that, if they have to abide by it, they wouldn't be able to keep their lock-in and consequently no one would be willing to pay dearly for their products when they can get for free just a good or better free products some where else. So they knew what they were getting into and pulled out of it early on.
Is that solid logic or what?
Consider item .5 ".5 Adding the extensions just to suit MS Office binary format is waste of time and efforts since it wouldn't change anything from the current status quo. So why bother?"
This is also based on pure logic. Current Office binary format is the lock-in by which MS maintains its monopoly. MS is trying their best to keep the status quo even when with OOXML, which is supposed to be open, free, interchangeable and most importantly interpretable. The same with Open Document FOUNDATION, they are claiming that ODF lacks features because it can't handle binary format inclusions. Wouldn't that be the same as what we have currently from MS Office?
Yes, they are opinions, but opinions based on facts and logic, which makes just as good.
Quoting:SpaceWordsLikeWord95 sure does sound like that kind of thing, doesn't it?
Yes. And ODF does support the kind of system that you talk of. OOo uses it to store various per-document settings for example. I'm not sure it it supports attaching random name-value pairs to pieces of the document though, but it certainly support glbal per-document settings.
The problem with tags like SpaceLikeWord95 is that you want the visual style for it (in all applications), not just the preservation of the tag. So, what a native ODF implementation for MS-Office could do is read the SpaceLikeWord95 tag and convert it to an ODF style rule, dropping the tag in the process. Then, when the ODF gets converted back to OOXML the ODF style rule is converted to an OOXML style rule. Result: The visual layout stays the same on-screen but the tag gets dropped. Instead of some legacy document we now have a future-proof document. Yay us :-)
Thing is that you can only do this from within MS-Office. Nothing outside MS-Office knows what the SpaceLikeWord95 tag is supposed to do. Only MS-Office can convert it for us.
If you just preserve the tag through the "arbitrary name-value pair" system then the document, while valid ODF, would only display properly on MS-Office. Anything else would ignore the unknown attribute and space the text it like the standard specifies.
So the bottom line is still the same- Microsoft is still the biggest roadblock to real interoperability. So FOSS tactics are still the same- reverse-engineer and workaround, or pretend MS doesn't exist. I admit I have a lot of sympathy for the latter viewpoint, but it's the former that has been productive and helpful.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
.1 MS was part of OASIS originally then chose to exclude itself from OASIS for no good reason.
.2 When ODF was created, it wasn't for OpenOffice only. If it was, they could have kept using their original format instead and wouldn't have to bother re-writing the application just to adopt ODF?
.3 ODF was adopted by multiple office application vendors, both open and commercial, and also by many other organizations and governments, open for all to use for no charge or any hassles of patents.
.5 Adding the extensions just to suit MS Office binary format is waste of time and efforts since it wouldn't change anything from the current status quo. So why bother?
.4 MS will never use an open format; Because if they do, they couldn't compete and will definitely lose. They have to be forced to use open format. So, it is better to chuck along without them and until they realize they are losing anyway and come around or get isolated along with their die hard clients.