Re: [News] ODF adoption booming - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] ODF adoption booming - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:58:42 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:13:56 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote: > >>> Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they aren't relevant. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

  1. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:58:42 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:13:56 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they aren't relevant.
    >>> (Same for the bits that say "do this like WordPerfect", which are also
    >>> in there, but everyone seems to ignore those).

    >>
    >> If it's "not supposed to be in the standard" then it shouldn't be in the
    >> standard. If it's in the standard, then according to Erik, you have to
    >> implement it to get "100%"

    >
    > Hey, i'm not the one making foolish claims about "complete
    > implementations". Many people are arguing against OOXML because "Office is
    > the only complete implementation". Well, the same is true of ODF. Only
    > those products derived from OpenOffice are complete implementations of ODF.



    I am pointing out that your claim of "Bull****" is false. Nothing more,
    nothing less.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHJttSd90bcYOAWPYRAhOOAJ9Zq7fDwHDwKqYqHp7Fk6 s4m+G9ZQCdFB03
    8zBA3CHnfBI8meCyr/O/SCY=
    =8kfZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Gun control: the theory that a woman found raped and strangled in an
    alley is morally superior to a woman explaining why her attacker got a
    fatal bullet wound.

  2. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:07:00 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:17:18 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>> It's BS because you, and Schestowitz appear to hold Microsoft to a higher
    >>> standard than Sun. You expect MS to make committments that you don't
    >>> expect Sun to make.

    >>
    >> No, it might be a fallacious argument, but it's not BS.

    >
    > A fallacious argument *IS* BS. You know, something that doesn't stand up
    > to reason.
    >


    No, BS is something that's made up, not something that (may ) be in
    error.

    >>> That's ridiculous. If that were true, then anyone that printed a word
    >>> document with those borders would be violating Microsoft's copyright. The
    >>> fact is, those images are public domain.

    >>
    >> No, they aren't. Unless you have some info from MS that they are in
    >> fact, in the public domain? No?

    >
    > Microsoft is not claiming any copyright on them.
    >


    Doesn't matter, the copyright is there.

    >>>> Of course, there's also the bits that say "Do it like Word97" and the
    >>>> like. Who knows what's embedded there?
    >>>
    >>> Nothing is embedded there. They just specify the way line spacing and the
    >>> like works, and they're deprecated, not supposed to be used.

    >>
    >> then they shouldn't be there, but they are "part of the standard" and if
    >> 100% means 100%, then it includes them as well.

    >
    > They're there because implementation may encounter them in Office
    > documents. So MS should just not document this stuff at all and let apps
    > encounter them without warning?


    Why not? OOXML is supposed to be a format, not a conversion program.

    >
    > By marking them as deprecated, it says "You might encounter this tag. We
    > no longer support this, but it could show up in legacy documents that have
    > been converted. Do what you like with it, but it's a possibility, so be
    > warned."
    >



    makes about as much sense as including TeX as part of ODF, since some
    document somewhere might be converted from TeX to ODF.

    >>>>> Yes, that's kinds of the point. All this argument about "full
    >>>>> implementations" is just more BS, because it's just not possible unless
    >>>>> your feature set maps 100% to the standard.
    >>>>
    >>>> which not even MS-office does for OOXML.
    >>>
    >>> And neither did OpenOffice after the Oasis spec was finalized.

    >>
    >> Which is not relevent to your "BS" claim.
    >>
    >> Unless you're using a different definition of BS than the rest of us?

    >
    > I'm not sure what your definition is then. When I say it's BS, I mean
    > "you're full of crap when you argue that".
    >
    > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bull****
    >
    > "A blatant lie, a fragrant untruth, *AN OBVIOUS FALLACY*.


    It's none of those. i.e. Not BS.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHJtvpd90bcYOAWPYRAky6AJsG0gBeR0d97PfGfp1H2s 7xlVkCkQCgytdi
    2JBsJGq38svOVmt1HZ5uwUo=
    =imD6
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Honesty may be the best policy, but insanity is a better defense.

  3. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Peter Kohlmann wrote:
    >> > Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they aren't
    >> > relevant. (Same for the bits that say "do this like WordPerfect", which
    >> > are also in there, but everyone seems to ignore those).

    >>
    >> Fine.
    >> If you are not supposed to implement those bits, why are they in there?

    >
    > They are for people who are converting old documents, to allow them to
    > mark some things that aren't covered in OOXML. This would allow them
    > to, say, take a program that understands one of these old formats, and
    > change it to read and write OOXML, without losing any formatting
    > information.


    In short: Without them OOXML is incomplete
    Because otherwise the spec would not include it

    < snip weasel wording >
    --
    Microsoft: which revised Eula do you want to accept today?


  4. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:30:14 +0100, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <8u0iv4-h8c.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    >>> Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>> Of course, there's also the bits that say "Do it like Word97" and the
    >>>> like. Who knows what's embedded there?
    >>>
    >>> Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they aren't relevant.
    >>> (Same for the bits that say "do this like WordPerfect", which are also
    >>> in there, but everyone seems to ignore those).

    >>
    >> Fine.
    >> If you are not supposed to implement those bits, why are they in there?

    >
    > For completeness, because an implementation might encounter them in a
    > document that was originally converted from those old formats.


    So, yes, you agree that without those "bits" OOXML is incomplete

    In short, nobody except MS will ever be able to provide full OOXML support

    A fine "open" spec you've got there
    --
    It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
    'Where am I allowed to go today?'


  5. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:23:21 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >>> No, it might be a fallacious argument, but it's not BS.

    ^^^^^^^^^^

    >> A fallacious argument *IS* BS. You know, something that doesn't stand up
    >> to reason.

    >
    > No, BS is something that's made up, not something that (may ) be in
    > error.


    See below.

    >> Microsoft is not claiming any copyright on them.

    >
    > Doesn't matter, the copyright is there.


    Why are you the only one making this argument?

    >> They're there because implementation may encounter them in Office
    >> documents. So MS should just not document this stuff at all and let apps
    >> encounter them without warning?

    >
    > Why not? OOXML is supposed to be a format, not a conversion program.


    That makes no sense.

    >> By marking them as deprecated, it says "You might encounter this tag. We
    >> no longer support this, but it could show up in legacy documents that have
    >> been converted. Do what you like with it, but it's a possibility, so be
    >> warned."

    >
    > makes about as much sense as including TeX as part of ODF, since some
    > document somewhere might be converted from TeX to ODF.


    Look, I don't like them either, but they're there for regulatory purposes,
    because documents have to be preserved exactly as they were created, the
    information needs to be retained.

    >>> Which is not relevent to your "BS" claim.
    >>>
    >>> Unless you're using a different definition of BS than the rest of us?

    >>
    >> I'm not sure what your definition is then. When I say it's BS, I mean
    >> "you're full of crap when you argue that".
    >>
    >> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bull****
    >>
    >> "A blatant lie, a fragrant untruth, *AN OBVIOUS FALLACY*.

    >
    > It's none of those. i.e. Not BS.


    You're the one that called it a "fallacial" argument.

    Since when isn't a fallacy not a fallacy?

  6. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >>> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Of course, there's also the bits that say "Do it like
    >>>>> Word97" and the like. Who knows what's embedded there?
    >>>>
    >>>> Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they
    >>>> aren't relevant. (Same for the bits that say "do this
    >>>> like WordPerfect", which are also in there, but everyone
    >>>> seems to ignore those).
    >>>
    >>> Fine. If you are not supposed to implement those bits, why
    >>> are they in there?

    >>
    >> For completeness, because an implementation might encounter
    >> them in a document that was originally converted from those
    >> old formats.

    >
    > So, yes, you agree that without those "bits" OOXML is
    > incomplete
    >
    > In short, nobody except MS will ever be able to provide full
    > OOXML support
    >
    > A fine "open" spec you've got there


    ODF is a superior document format:

    http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/10/...oxml-slow.html

    When comparing formats, it is important to isolate the effects of
    the format versus the application. This is important from the
    analysis standpoint, but also for legal reasons. Remember that
    the only implementation of (draft) OOXML is (beta) Office 2007,
    and the End User Licence Agreement (EULA) has this language:

    7. SCOPE OF LICENSE. ...You may not disclose the results of
    any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without
    Microsoft’s prior written approval

    So let's see what I can do while playing within those bounds. I
    started with a sample of 176 documents, randomly selected from
    the Ecma TC45's document library. I'm hoping therefore that
    Microsoft will be less likely to argue that these are not
    typical. These documents are all in the legacy binary DOC format
    and include agendas, meeting minutes, drafts of various portions
    of the specification, etc.
    So one theory is that OOXML is slower because of the cost of
    initializing more XML parses. But it could also be because the
    aggregate size of the XML files are larger. More testing would be
    required to gauge the relative contribution of these two factors.
    However one thing is clear. Although this test was done with
    minidom on Python, the results are of wide applicability. I can
    think of no platform and no XML parser for which a larger
    document comprised of more XML files would be faster than a
    smaller document made up of fewer XML files. Parsing ODF word
    processing documents should be faster than OOXML versions everywhere.

    I'm not the first one to notice some of these difference. Rick
    Jelliffe did some analysis of the differences between OOXML and
    ODF back in August. He approached it from a code complexity view,
    but in passing noted that the same word processor document loaded
    faster in ODF format in OpenOffice compared to the same document
    in OOXML format in Office 2007 beta. On the complexity side he
    noted that the ODF markup was more complex than the parallel
    OOXML document. So if ODF is more complex but also smaller, this
    may amount to higher information density, compactness of
    expression, etc., and that could certainly be a factor in
    performance.

    So what's your theory? Why do you think ODF word processing
    documents are faster than OOXML's?
    --
    HPT

  7. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:26:35 +0100, Peter Khlmann wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:30:14 +0100, Peter Khlmann wrote:
    >>
    >>> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <8u0iv4-h8c.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    >>>> Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>>> Of course, there's also the bits that say "Do it like Word97" and the
    >>>>> like. Who knows what's embedded there?
    >>>>
    >>>> Since you aren't supposed to implement those bits, they aren't relevant.
    >>>> (Same for the bits that say "do this like WordPerfect", which are also
    >>>> in there, but everyone seems to ignore those).
    >>>
    >>> Fine.
    >>> If you are not supposed to implement those bits, why are they in there?

    >>
    >> For completeness, because an implementation might encounter them in a
    >> document that was originally converted from those old formats.

    >
    > So, yes, you agree that without those "bits" OOXML is incomplete
    >
    > In short, nobody except MS will ever be able to provide full OOXML support
    >
    > A fine "open" spec you've got there


    Yes, without those bits OOXML would be incomplete.

    Yes, those bits are documented in OOXML.

    No, it's not necessary to further define them, because such definition is
    meaningless and useless. The tags may be there, but they have no meaning
    in any modern applications.

    They're vestigular, just like an appendix on humans. Is there no value in
    medical textboox (effectively) saying "Yeah, you might run across this
    thing called an appendix. It doesn't do anything as far as we can tell,
    but we're telling you about it so you don't freak out when you encounter
    one"?

    Are medical texbooks "incomplete" because they can't tell you what an
    appendix was used for a million years ago?

    It's only purpose in documenting it is simply to allow you to conveniently
    ignore it.

  8. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:34:52 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:23:21 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>>> No, it might be a fallacious argument, but it's not BS.

    > ^^^^^^^^^^
    >
    >>> A fallacious argument *IS* BS. You know, something that doesn't stand up
    >>> to reason.

    >>
    >> No, BS is something that's made up, not something that (may ) be in
    >> error.

    >
    > See below.
    >


    as above, below.

    >>> Microsoft is not claiming any copyright on them.

    >>
    >> Doesn't matter, the copyright is there.

    >
    > Why are you the only one making this argument?
    >


    I am not.

    >>> They're there because implementation may encounter them in Office
    >>> documents. So MS should just not document this stuff at all and let apps
    >>> encounter them without warning?

    >>
    >> Why not? OOXML is supposed to be a format, not a conversion program.

    >
    > That makes no sense.
    >


    Agreed, why did they do that?

    >>> By marking them as deprecated, it says "You might encounter this tag. We
    >>> no longer support this, but it could show up in legacy documents that have
    >>> been converted. Do what you like with it, but it's a possibility, so be
    >>> warned."

    >>
    >> makes about as much sense as including TeX as part of ODF, since some
    >> document somewhere might be converted from TeX to ODF.

    >
    > Look, I don't like them either, but they're there for regulatory purposes,
    > because documents have to be preserved exactly as they were created, the
    > information needs to be retained.


    Then leave them in office97 format or whatever.

    >
    >>>> Which is not relevent to your "BS" claim.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless you're using a different definition of BS than the rest of us?
    >>>
    >>> I'm not sure what your definition is then. When I say it's BS, I mean
    >>> "you're full of crap when you argue that".
    >>>
    >>> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bull****
    >>>
    >>> "A blatant lie, a fragrant untruth, *AN OBVIOUS FALLACY*.

    >>
    >> It's none of those. i.e. Not BS.

    >
    > You're the one that called it a "fallacial" argument.
    >
    > Since when isn't a fallacy not a fallacy?


    Np, I said it *may* be, but on reflection, it isn't.

    It *may* be a hypocritical argument, but the argument is obviously not
    fallacious, as you admitted the facts were correct.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHJ414d90bcYOAWPYRAviWAJwL9H27NQnnLb75YOQAL2 4LPCH8nACfdzo/
    TcJAlBtIWUZMKAUk+YNs0qA=
    =xDOp
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles
    as if she laid an asteroid.
    -- Mark Twain

  9. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper wrote:
    >
    >> Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either? Erik is
    >> spouting his gob****e as usual:
    >>
    >> http://www.sun.com/software/star/openoffice/index.xml

    >
    > I don't see anywhere in that link where Sun guarantees they
    > will completely conform to ODF, and continue to do so in
    > perpetuity.
    >
    > That's what ODF proponents are expecting from Microsoft. Why
    > don't they hold Sun to the same standard for ODF?
    >
    > [irrelevant quote tha has nothing to do with a formal
    > statement of committment snipped]


    Relevant redacted quote that has a lot to do with commitment
    reinstated:

    >>
    Sun ODF Plugin 1.1 for Microsoft Office Available
    >> Now as a Free Download
    >>
    >> Microsoft Office users can now import and export to Open
    >> Document Format (ODF).
    >>
    >> The Sun ODF Plugin for Microsoft Office gives users of
    >> Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint the ability to read,
    >> edit and save to the ISO-standard Open Document Format. The
    >> ODF Plugin is available as a free download from the Sun
    >> Download Center (SDLC).
    >>
    >> The Plugin is easy to setup and use, the conversion happens
    >> transparently and the additional memory footprint is
    >> minimal. Microsoft Office users now can have seamless
    >> two-way conversion of Microsoft Office documents to and from
    >> Open Document. The ODF Plugin runs on Microsoft Windows and
    >> is available in 17 different languages.


    The fact that Sun created an ODF plugin for Microsoft is an
    indication of its commitment. OTOH, Microsoft has shown its
    usual anticompetitive behaviour:

    http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex...oft-break.html

    Sun is having trouble because Microsoft is breaking
    interoperability deliberately through hi-jinks with the
    Dynamic-Link Libraries ("dll") in Windows.

    From Sun's Malte Timmermann's blog...

    Q: Why doesn't it support Office 2007?

    A: Well, basically, it does, but there is an issue in Word's
    2007 Filter API handling. You can save to ODF, but when you try
    to open ODF, Word ignores the installed filters and tries to open
    with it's own filters. Of course Word can't, so you get an error
    message "The Office Open XML file cannot be opened because
    there are problems with the content". This even happens if you
    explicitly select the ODF filter! I hope Microsoft will fix this
    issue with the next service pack. If not, we will work around
    this bug by doing the same kind of integration like in PowerPoint
    and Excel.

    As marbux says, "Welcome to dll Hell!"

    Microsoft's Brian Jones innocently says 'Gee I can't imagine how
    that's happening?'

    You're making me laugh, Microsoft.

    You went to the DoJ for this behavior in Netscape. This is going
    to add to your fines in Europe. We know how you're doing it;
    we're going to tell on you.
    Obviously, Microsoft is consistent with its predatory,
    anti-competitive character.

    >>> Then there will never be a non-MS 100% implementation of
    >>> OOXML since MS maintains copyright on bits required by
    >>> parts of it. Hell, with that definition of yours, there
    >>> will probably never be a 100% implemention of OOXML even
    >>> from MS.

    >>
    >> Again, Erik is spouting more gob****e. His argument is like
    >> .rtf files created by Microsoft Write (Wordpad) are not a
    >> 100% Word implementation, because it does not support 100%
    >> of Word's features. Issue is compatibility. One does not
    >> have to implement 100% of the standard to be compliant with
    >> the standard.

    >
    > Bull****. Roy is claiming that because an app doesn't support
    > 100% of OOXML then it doesn't count as an implementation,
    > therefore, he claims, there are 0 implementations (because
    > office hasn't yet been patched to match the changes that have
    > occured during ECMA and ISO standardization)


    Hung up on Roy, eh? You slinked away from my point. That is a
    binary condition, is it not?

    --
    HPT

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2