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.
1Expand
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 ..
more fromwww.oasis-open.org
3Expand
Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - marbux - ge comments | ZDNet UK
more fromnews.zdnet.co.uk
1Expand
ODF and OOXML are standards in name only - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK
more fromwww.zdnet.co.uk
1Expand
ODF useless for Microsoft needs - Google: OOXML 'insufficient and unnecessary' - Talkback at ZDNet UK
more fromwww.zdnet.co.uk
1Expand
A Savage Journey … ODF at the OOXML BRM « A Frantic Opposition
more fromrobweird.wordpress.com
1Expand
Compound Document Formats Group Charter
The W3C CDF Charter written in 2004
more fromwww.w3.org
7Expand
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.
more fromwww.tbray.org
1Expand
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
more fromwww.oasis-open.org
1Expand
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>
more fromrobweird.wordpress.com
1Expand
Calling all black helicopters! This is a red alert. The OpenDocument Foundation suspected of interfering with Roy's tin foil hat reception!
<p>Yo Marbux! Fire up the Black Hawk! They want us. They need us. Without the big bad bogey man, lurkign in the shadows, secretly conspiring against them, who will they blame their failures on?</p>
more fromboycottnovell.com
1Expand
Word of recognition from an unexpected side: ODF editor Patrick Durusau supports OOXML - ISO effort
<p>Patrick Durusau, the OASIS ODF editor has written an open letter praising the OOXML standardization effort at Ecma and ISO. Patrick is a long time member of ISO JTCS1, currently serving as the ODF editor for both ISO and OASIS ODF efforts. That his endorsement of OOXML comes on the eve of the critically important February BRM is beyond incredible. </p>
<p>Jesper offers this quote which i think adequately summarizes Patrick's endorsement:</p>
<p>The OpenXML project has made a large amount of progress in terms of the openness of its evelopment. Objections that do not recognize that are focusing on what they want to see and not what is actually happening with OpenXML"</p>
more fromidippedut.dk
1Expand
The ODF Alliance puckers up and gets smacked with the CSS question - Where is it? | O'Reilly XML Blog
<p>MS-OOXML supporter Rick Jellife discusses the ODF Alliance response to Ecma's proposed disposition of ISO NB comments on OOXML. The Allaince response has recieved quite a bit of ink, wtih waves of ODF jihadists pointing to it as incontroverible evidence that they are right. Rick provides a lengthy response, most of which presents the ODF jihadis with some difficult issues they must now explain.</p>
<p>More importantly though, RJ uncovers one of the more glaring examples proving that ODF is application specific to the core, and bound to OpenOffice. He points out that OpenOffice ODF could have chosen the W3C's highly portable and infinitely interoeprable CSS as the ODF presentation layer. This would have been a great reuse of existing standards. But that's not what happened!</p>
<p>Instead of the widely used CSS, OpenOffice chose an incredibly application specific presentation model with the unique innovation of <i>"automatic-styles"</i>. And with this choice came years of problematic zero interop as application after application try to exchange ODF documents with little success.</p>
<p>Take for example KDE-KOffice. They've been a member of the OASIS ODF TC for near five years now, almost since the beginning. Yet it's impossible to exchange all but the most basic of documents with any of the OpenOffice derivaties (OpenOffice, StarOffice, Novell Office, and Lotus Symphony - OOo 1.1.4).</p>
<p>If after five years of active particpation and cooperative efforts, KOffice is unable to exchange ODF docuemnts with OpenOffice, how is it that somehow Microsoft Office would be able to implement ODF without similar zero interop results? Isn't the purpose of standardized formats that end users of different applications could effectively exchange documents?</p>
<p>The truth is that both ODF and OOXML are application specific formats. And you can't harmonize, merge, map, or translate between two application specific formats without also having harmonized the applications.</p>
<p>Fear not though. It is possibl
more fromwww.oreillynet.com
1Expand
Putting Andy Updegrove to Bed (without his supper) | Universal Interoperability Council
Great article from the Universal Interoperability Council arguing the case for CDF as a universally interoperable format capable of fully representing desktop productivity environment documents. The UIC arguments are of course opposed by IBM and the lawyer for OASIS, Andy Updegrove.
more fromwww.universal-interop-council.org
1Expand
Harmonization and Interop: The dizzying dance of ODF, OOXML, and CDF
<p>Will the real universal document format please stand up! Comments on the recent article posted by the Universal Interoperability Council: <i>"Putting Andy Updegrove to bed without his supper".</i></p>
<p>The UIC article is well worth your time. It is extremely well referenced and researched. The arguments put forth counter claims by IBM and OASIS that the W3C's CDF format can not be used to represent desktop productivity environment documents. Not surprisingly, IBM and OASIS argue that the OpenOffice specific ODF is the only alternative to Microsoft Office specific OOXML.</p>
<p>The UIC argues that the full range of MSOffice legacy binary documents and emerging XML documents can fully be represented in CDF - something that not even the most ardent of ODF jihadists would claim as an ODF capabilitiy. The truth is that ODF was not designed for the conversion of MSOffice binary and xml documents.</p>
more fromdigg.com
1Expand
Harmonization Wars : Is it jetlag? | Brian Jones: Open XML- Open Document Formats
<p>Brian Jones responds to Rob Weir's very strange demand that he be put in charge of any harmonization effort involving ODF and OOXML.</p><br />
<p>In his response, Brian points to the Ecma official statement in support of harmonization provided in February of 2007. The harmonization response was directed at ISO National Body members objecting to the proposed fast tracking of OOXML.</p><br />
<p>In late February -early March of 2007, the EU held an "interoeprability Workshop" in Berlin, Germany.The session was attended by IBM, Sun and Microsoft, as well as Ecma and OASIS. </p><br />
<p>The EU took a very hard line position on "harmonization", embracing a position put forward by the French ISO NB group known as AFNOR. The WorkShop was followed by the EU establishment of DIN Workgroup NIA-01-34, headed by the Fraunhoffer Fokus Institute.</p><br />
<p>The DIN WG sent out invites to all the major players, with Microsoft and Novell accepting the invitation to particpate in the harmonizatioon effort. IBM and Sun refused the invitation.</p><br />
<p>Recently DIN invited the OASIS ODF Technical Committee to join the harmonization effort. The OASIS TC responded by asking Novell developer (and DIN participant) Florian Reuter to act as liaison to DIN. ODF grand puba Rob Weir himself put forward this request.</p><br />
<p>Here's the thread:</p>
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200801/msg00040.html
<br />
<p>Now it looks like the grand puba is backtracking! Rob Weir wants to put himself in charge of harmonization. And we all know where that would lead.</p><br />
<p>Harmonization will be difficult. It might even be impossible. As indicated by the Ecma statement Brian copiies in his post.</p><br />
<p>The dynamics of harmonization are fairly simple to understand; you can't harmonize two application specific formats without also harmonizing the applications. This problem is further complicated by the fact that the presentation layers (styles) of both ODF and OOXML are woefully underspecified. While ea
more fromblogs.msdn.com
1Expand
What IBM VP Bob Sutor does not want you to read | Universal Interoperability Council
more fromwww.universal-interop-council.org
2Expand
The Harmonization Myth: ISO Approval of Open XML Will Hurt Interoperability
more fromblog.hvorom.dk
ODF Alliance on the Microsoft Disposition of ISO Comments on OOXML
<p>The ever audacious and prevaricating lobbyist group known as the ODF Alliance has posted their critique of Ecma's (Microsoft's) proposed disposition of ISO comments rejecting OOXML. The critique's appeal to ignorance is breath-taking in scope. E.g., whilst slamming DIS-29500 on the subject of interoperability, the same document pushes for harmonization using the following argument:</p>
<p><i>"Harmonization starts from looking at where the two formats overlap – and there is a significant, perhaps 90 percent or more, area where OOXML and ODF do overlap – and expressing this functional overlap identically. This common functionality between ODF and OOXML would also include a common extensibility mechanism. The remaining 10 percent of the functionality, where these standards do not overlap, would represent the focus of the harmonization effort. That portion of it which represents a widespread need could be brought into the core of ODF. That remaining portion which only serves one vendor's needs, such as flags for deprecated legacy formatting options, could be represented using the common extensibility mechanism."</i></p>
<p>And precisely how do vendor-specific extensions aid interoperability, particularly when the proposed "harmonization" does not require profiles and an interoperability framework?</p>
more fromwww.odfalliance.org
Notation: * = Private bookmark and comment|… = Clipping [?] | … = Public highlight [?]
