Re: [News] ODF adoption booming - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: [News] ODF adoption booming - Linux ; ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____ > ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF > > .---- > | In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text, > | spreadsheet, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

  1. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____

    > ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >
    > .----
    > | In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    > | spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    > | three months
    > `----
    >
    >

    http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >
    > How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?


    None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    proprietary). XML != Open.

    A lot more could be said...

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    For governments that eavesdrop, here is a quick list of tags: Communism,
    Hawaiian shirts, China, Suitcase, Martha Stewart, Encryption, Prison, Stalin.
    Thanks for tuning in.
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-10-16 15:14 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  2. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____
    >
    >> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >>
    >> .----
    >> | In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    >> | spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    >> | three months
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    > http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>
    >> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?

    >
    > None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    > OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    > OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    > to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    > called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    > proprietary). XML != Open.
    >
    > A lot more could be said...
    >


    Only the bought or the terminally naive could ever have considered that
    the OOXML push would be anything other than a con.

    Still, more than 24 applications supporting ODF would suggest that it's
    going to be a winner in all respects.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  3. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 29 October 2007 10:05 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >> ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____
    >>
    >>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >>>
    >>> .----
    >>> | In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    >>> | spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    >>> | three months
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>>
    >>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?

    >>
    >> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative
    >> of OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to
    >> support OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can
    >> continue to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this
    >> cloak called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    >> proprietary). XML != Open.
    >>
    >> A lot more could be said...
    >>

    >
    > Only the bought or the terminally naive could ever have considered that
    > the OOXML push would be anything other than a con.
    >
    > Still, more than 24 applications supporting ODF would suggest that it's
    > going to be a winner in all respects.


    Why else would the monopolies pay one of its favourite sockpuppets to conduct a
    study against ODF?

    IDC report on Open Document Standards

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | This study is a fact-based analysis of the emerging open document
    | standards, Open XML and ODF.
    `----

    http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/...Standards.aspx

    Yes, it's paid for by Microsoft, but they don't want you to know this. It's
    supposed to look subjective. I wrote about IDC earlier today <
    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/28/idc-linux-fud/ > because IDC is now
    attacking Linux. Again.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Have you compiled your kernel today?"
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Cpu(s): 25.6%us, 4.4%sy, 1.0%ni, 64.8%id, 3.7%wa, 0.2%hi, 0.1%si, 0.0%st
    http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information

  4. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 29 October 2007 10:05 : \____
    >
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>> ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____
    >>>
    >>>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >>>>
    >>>> .----
    >>>> | In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    >>>> | spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    >>>> | three months
    >>>> `----
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>

    > http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>>>
    >>>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?
    >>>
    >>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative
    >>> of OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to
    >>> support OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can
    >>> continue to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this
    >>> cloak called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    >>> proprietary). XML != Open.
    >>>
    >>> A lot more could be said...
    >>>

    >>
    >> Only the bought or the terminally naive could ever have considered that
    >> the OOXML push would be anything other than a con.
    >>
    >> Still, more than 24 applications supporting ODF would suggest that it's
    >> going to be a winner in all respects.

    >
    > Why else would the monopolies pay one of its favourite sockpuppets to conduct a
    > study against ODF?
    >
    > IDC report on Open Document Standards
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| This study is a fact-based analysis of the emerging open document
    >| standards, Open XML and ODF.
    > `----
    >
    > http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/...Standards.aspx
    >
    > Yes, it's paid for by Microsoft, but they don't want you to know this. It's
    > supposed to look subjective. I wrote about IDC earlier today <
    > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/10/28/idc-linux-fud/ > because IDC is now
    > attacking Linux. Again.
    >


    A bit of Microsoft cash goes a long way at IDC, doesn't it?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  5. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:50:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____
    >
    >> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >>
    >> .----
    >>| In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    >>| spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    >>| three months
    >> `----
    >>
    >>

    > http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>
    >> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?

    >
    > None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    > OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    > OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    > to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    > called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    > proprietary). XML != Open.
    >
    > A lot more could be said...


    What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,
    in fact their patent pledge gives them an out if they decide not to.

    In your flippant "none" comment, you ignore the fact that StarOffice didn't
    support ISO ODF at first either, they had to release an update to things
    that changed in the standards process. That's precisely the state that
    Office is in, the only deviations are things that changed during the
    standards process.

    What's more, besides Star/Open office and it's forks, there are 0 complete
    implementations of ODF either. And that's to be expected, because
    otherwise they'd just be copies of OpenOffice. An app cannot implement
    100% of either standard unless they support 100% of the features of that
    standard.

  6. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:53:31 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:50:37 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >> ____/ [H]omer on Sunday 28 October 2007 18:50 : \____
    >>
    >>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support for ODF
    >>>
    >>> .----
    >>>| In total, there are now more than two dozen ODF-supporting text,
    >>>| spreadsheet, and presentation applications announced in the past
    >>>| three months
    >>> `----
    >>>
    >>>

    >> http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>>
    >>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?

    >>
    >> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    >> OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    >> OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    >> to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    >> called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    >> proprietary). XML != Open.
    >>
    >> A lot more could be said...

    >
    > What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,


    How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to supporting ooXml...

    > in fact their patent pledge gives them an out if they decide not to.
    >
    > In your flippant "none" comment, you ignore the fact that StarOffice didn't
    > support ISO ODF at first either, they had to release an update to things
    > that changed in the standards process. That's precisely the state that
    > Office is in, the only deviations are things that changed during the
    > standards process.
    >
    > What's more, besides Star/Open office and it's forks, there are 0 complete
    > implementations of ODF either. And that's to be expected, because
    > otherwise they'd just be copies of OpenOffice. An app cannot implement
    > 100% of either standard unless they support 100% of the features of that
    > standard.


    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.


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

    iD8DBQFHJjeUd90bcYOAWPYRAu1gAKDbaPV29bo/21nH8oozPoaE8acowQCgv3Sm
    IZv9nhk2QefdYCEZLgBwvUQ=
    =NzeW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "The only cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity."
    -Dorothy Parker

  7. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:42:12 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    >>> OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    >>> OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    >>> to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    >>> called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    >>> proprietary). XML != Open.
    >>>
    >>> A lot more could be said...

    >>
    >> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,

    >
    > How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to supporting ooXml...


    It's BS because it's not a valid argument. No company is going to commit
    to something like that, especially when it's in the hands of a third party
    like any standard is (even when the deck is stacked, like Sun has done with
    the Oasis TC).

    >> What's more, besides Star/Open office and it's forks, there are 0 complete
    >> implementations of ODF either. And that's to be expected, because
    >> otherwise they'd just be copies of OpenOffice. An app cannot implement
    >> 100% of either standard unless they support 100% of the features of that
    >> standard.

    >
    > 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.


    Umm.. Copyright? What bits are you referring to?

    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.

  8. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:16:18 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:42:12 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that supports a derivative of
    >>>> OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has admitted that it has no commitment to support
    >>>> OOXML, even if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can continue
    >>>> to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route, even without this cloak
    >>>> called OOXML (which fool some people that may no longer consider it
    >>>> proprietary). XML != Open.
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot more could be said...
    >>>
    >>> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,

    >>
    >> How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to supporting ooXml...

    >
    > It's BS because it's not a valid argument. No company is going to commit
    > to something like that, especially when it's in the hands of a third party
    > like any standard is (even when the deck is stacked, like Sun has done with
    > the Oasis TC).
    >


    Then it's not BS.


    >>> What's more, besides Star/Open office and it's forks, there are 0 complete
    >>> implementations of ODF either. And that's to be expected, because
    >>> otherwise they'd just be copies of OpenOffice. An app cannot implement
    >>> 100% of either standard unless they support 100% of the features of that
    >>> standard.

    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > Umm.. Copyright? What bits are you referring to?
    >


    Borderstyles elements for one. OOXML specifies exact images, (rather
    than having a way to embed them, a la fonts, if the images you want to
    use are not available or you'd prefer something else. )
    In order to be 100% compatible with the standard, the implementation
    must be able to save from and too, formats that include elements that MS
    owns the copyright on.

    Of course, there's also the bits that say "Do it like Word97" and the
    like. Who knows what's embedded there?


    > 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.


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

    iD8DBQFHJlSnd90bcYOAWPYRAhHGAJ9YLPgGea0hIwIqw9W7SM ZgwC2vVwCgpfYb
    62aqwAzStND4r0WpxLCQwy4=
    =ON8+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    To believe in gun control, one has to believe that guns are not an
    effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.

  9. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> [H]omer on Sunday:
    >>>
    >>>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support
    >>>> for ODF
    >>>>
    >>>> .----
    >>>> In total, there are now more than two dozen
    >>>> ODF-supporting text, spreadsheet, and presentation
    >>>> applications announced in the past three months
    >>>> `----
    >>>> http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>>>
    >>>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?
    >>>
    >>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that
    >>> supports a derivative of OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has
    >>> admitted that it has no commitment to support OOXML, even
    >>> if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can
    >>> continue to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route,
    >>> even without this cloak called OOXML (which fool some
    >>> people that may no longer consider it proprietary). XML !=
    >>> Open.
    >>>
    >>> A lot more could be said...

    >>
    >> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to
    >> supporting ODF either,

    >
    > How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to
    > supporting ooXml...


    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

    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.

    >> in fact their patent pledge gives them an out if they decide
    >> not to.
    >>
    >> In your flippant "none" comment, you ignore the fact that
    >> StarOffice didn't support ISO ODF at first either, they had
    >> to release an update to things that changed in the standards
    >> process. That's precisely the state that Office is in, the
    >> only deviations are things that changed during the standards
    >> process.
    >>
    >> What's more, besides Star/Open office and it's forks, there
    >> are 0 complete implementations of ODF either. And that's to
    >> be expected, because otherwise they'd just be copies of
    >> OpenOffice. An app cannot implement 100% of either standard
    >> unless they support 100% of the features of that standard.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    HPT

  10. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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).

  11. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:46:16 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >>>> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,
    >>>
    >>> How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to supporting ooXml...

    >>
    >> It's BS because it's not a valid argument. No company is going to commit
    >> to something like that, especially when it's in the hands of a third party
    >> like any standard is (even when the deck is stacked, like Sun has done with
    >> the Oasis TC).

    >
    > Then it's not BS.


    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.

    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Umm.. Copyright? What bits are you referring to?

    >
    > Borderstyles elements for one. OOXML specifies exact images, (rather
    > than having a way to embed them, a la fonts, if the images you want to
    > use are not available or you'd prefer something else. )
    > In order to be 100% compatible with the standard, the implementation
    > must be able to save from and too, formats that include elements that MS
    > owns the copyright on.


    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.

    > 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.

    >> 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.

  12. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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?
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    It could be worse, but it'll take time.


  13. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:56:56 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:

    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>> [H]omer on Sunday:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ODF Alliance hails record growth in application support
    >>>>> for ODF
    >>>>>
    >>>>> .----
    >>>>> In total, there are now more than two dozen
    >>>>> ODF-supporting text, spreadsheet, and presentation
    >>>>> applications announced in the past three months
    >>>>> `----
    >>>>> http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.tech...pport-for-odf/
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How many support Oh-Oh-XML, I wonder?
    >>>>
    >>>> None. Microsoft Office 2007 implements something that
    >>>> supports a derivative of OOXML. Remember: Microsoft has
    >>>> admitted that it has no commitment to support OOXML, even
    >>>> if it passes the ISO acid test. IOW, Microsoft can
    >>>> continue to 'extend' and take its fully proprietary route,
    >>>> even without this cloak called OOXML (which fool some
    >>>> people that may no longer consider it proprietary). XML !=
    >>>> Open.
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot more could be said...
    >>>
    >>> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to
    >>> supporting ODF either,

    >>
    >> How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to
    >> supporting ooXml...

    >
    > 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]

    >> 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)

  14. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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.

  15. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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.

    There are things in old document formats that neither ODF nor OOXML can
    represent, so something converting old documents that use such things
    will either have to drop those non-representable things, or somehow mark
    them if they want to at least preserve the information. I believe both
    OOXML and OPF do allow for vendor-specific extensions, so this could be
    handled by having someone define extensions for these non-representable
    things.

    Since the old Word and old WordPerfect formats were de facto standards,
    it makes some sense to define how to mark some of their specific things,
    so that different implementations that try to convert, say, old
    WordPerfect documents, will do so in a way compatible with each other.
    This is probably why they chose to put these tags in the spec, but make
    them deprecated.

  16. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:23:04 -0500,
    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).



    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%"

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

    iD8DBQFHJq+Ed90bcYOAWPYRAoltAJ4rWv3vUGPGpTvKsATIGR 5zpUfY1wCdEInn
    J+2jXz1TwAoHuAOJu/eWTWg=
    =bOZj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
    -- Calvin

  17. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

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

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:27:12 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:46:16 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>>>> What complete and utter BS. Sun hasn't committed to supporting ODF either,
    >>>>
    >>>> How is it BS? Since you agree MS hasn't committed to supporting ooXml...
    >>>
    >>> It's BS because it's not a valid argument. No company is going to commit
    >>> to something like that, especially when it's in the hands of a third party
    >>> like any standard is (even when the deck is stacked, like Sun has done with
    >>> the Oasis TC).

    >>
    >> Then it's not BS.

    >
    > 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.

    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> Umm.. Copyright? What bits are you referring to?

    >>
    >> Borderstyles elements for one. OOXML specifies exact images, (rather
    >> than having a way to embed them, a la fonts, if the images you want to
    >> use are not available or you'd prefer something else. )
    >> In order to be 100% compatible with the standard, the implementation
    >> must be able to save from and too, formats that include elements that MS
    >> owns the copyright on.

    >
    > 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?

    >> 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.

    >>> 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?


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

    iD8DBQFHJrBOd90bcYOAWPYRAhk/AJ9cpkM7bAqYPVo2HXbJdqsuH3m6dACdGtwN
    cnjUCK/LZoNUgQj2sdavy6Q=
    =VhCJ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer.
    -- Henry Lawson

  18. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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.

  19. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    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.

    >> 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.

    >>> 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?

    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."

    >>>> 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*.

  20. Re: [News] ODF adoption booming

    In article ,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > >>> 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?
    >
    > 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."


    Also, consider that several different groups reverse engineered large
    parts of the older Office formats, and can read/write them. Many of
    these groups might be interested in producing converters that convert to
    *and* *from* OOXML.

    If I start with a Word97 document, and convert to OOXML using program A,
    from non-MS vendor Va, and then you use program B, from non-Microsoft
    vendor Vb, to convert that OOXML document to Word97, it would be nice if
    those Word97-specific things that aren't covered by OOXML are not lost
    in this double conversion.

    By providing a way in the OOXML spec for Va and Vb to handle this, there
    is a decent chance this will work. If MS had taken the ODF approach,
    which would be to leave this entirely up to the vendors, it would only
    work if Va and Vb got together and agreed on some way to represent this
    Word97 information. In the ODF world, what has generally happened is
    that StarOffice/OpenOffice come up with their own way of doing things,
    when the ODF spec is silent, and then KOffice and AbiWord and the others
    look at OpenOffice code to see what they did and copy it. In effect,
    large parts of ODF are an implicit "do what StarOffice does".

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast