ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy? - Linux

This is a discussion on ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy? - Linux ; ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects in ODF drawings. An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed in section ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86

Thread: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

  1. ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?


    ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
    in ODF drawings.

    An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
    including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
    in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
    office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
    element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
    element.

    How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
    about OOXML binary data?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:52:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
    > in ODF drawings.
    >
    > An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
    > including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
    > in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
    > office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
    > element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
    > element.
    >
    > How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
    > about OOXML binary data?


    It's simple, Roy doesn't actually understand anything about what he writes.
    He's simply a robot that parrots other peoples words, and can't seem to
    come up with any of his own arguments. Therefore, when he reads someone
    else arguing against something that fits with his view of the world, he
    assumes it MUST be the gods honest truth, and never once considers that the
    same thing might be true of his side of the coin.

    The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
    has received, it would be a far better format.

  3. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:52:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
    > in ODF drawings.
    >
    > An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
    > including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
    > in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
    > office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
    > element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
    > element.
    >
    > How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
    > about OOXML binary data?


    Because it would upset his benefactors and they might cut off his
    compensation.

    A half truth or an omission of facts that might hurt the cause is just the
    same as a lie.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  4. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:58:50 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:52:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
    >> in ODF drawings.
    >>
    >> An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
    >> including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
    >> in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
    >> office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
    >> element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
    >> element.
    >>
    >> How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
    >> about OOXML binary data?

    >
    > It's simple, Roy doesn't actually understand anything about what he writes.
    > He's simply a robot that parrots other peoples words, and can't seem to
    > come up with any of his own arguments. Therefore, when he reads someone
    > else arguing against something that fits with his view of the world, he
    > assumes it MUST be the gods honest truth, and never once considers that the
    > same thing might be true of his side of the coin.


    That's obvious once you actually listen to Roy Schestowitz trying to
    present his points.

    Here he is discussing OOXML with some others who obviously know far more
    about the subject than he does....

    http://www.linux.com/feature/122470

    > The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
    > has received, it would be a far better format.


    Ironic isn't it?


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article ,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
    > has received, it would be a far better format.


    And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
    is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
    and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
    supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.

    We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    future.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. *Oh
    > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    > future.


    Actually I can deal with both formats in one application.

    And choice *is* good.

    --
    RonB
    "There's a story there...somewhere"

  7. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    "RonB" stated in post Itsuj.90$8Y2.20@newsfe06.lga
    on 2/18/08 8:56 PM:

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. *Oh
    >> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    >> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    >> future.

    >
    > Actually I can deal with both formats in one application.
    >
    > And choice *is* good.


    It can be... but it also can have down sides.


    --
    Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.


  8. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:20:52 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that
    >> OOXML has received, it would be a far better format.

    >
    > And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
    > is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
    > and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
    > supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
    >
    > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    > future.


    Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?

  9. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article ,
    alt wrote:
    > > And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
    > > is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
    > > and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
    > > supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
    > >
    > > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    > > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    > > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    > > future.

    >
    > Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    > legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?


    The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    format.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  10. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Feb 18, 10:52 pm, Tim Smith
    wrote:
    > ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
    > in ODF drawings.
    >
    > An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
    > including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
    > in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
    > office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
    > element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
    > element.
    >
    > How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
    > about OOXML binary data?
    >
    > --
    > --Tim Smith



    Hey Tim & Erik:

    I have an answer for you: zero.

    That's right: not a single one.

    The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
    ODF format was proposed at ISO?

    I believe they call that *unanimity*.

    -RFH


  11. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article ,
    > alt wrote:
    >>
    >> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    >> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?

    >
    > The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    > "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    > format.


    Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
    those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
    system and proprietary Word processor around.

    What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
    unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
    standard, and readable by open-source software.

    Other than MS Office automation, I see no need to stick with Microsoft
    document formats. And for MS Office automation, well, you should have
    thought of those lice before you got into bed with Microsoft.

    --
    Until we're educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city is
    cleaned up, there is no shortage of things to do.
    -- Bill Gates

  12. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    toolassembler@gmail.com skrev:

    > The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
    > ODF format was proposed at ISO?
    >
    > I believe they call that *unanimity*.


    True - it was because no-one really cared about ODF in the beginning.

    --
    Jesper Lund Stocholm

  13. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    * Jesper Lund Stocholm peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > toolassembler@gmail.com skrev:
    >
    >> The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
    >> ODF format was proposed at ISO?
    >>
    >> I believe they call that *unanimity*.

    >
    > True - it was because no-one really cared about ODF in the beginning.


    Why would people vote for something they don't care about?

    --
    People everywhere love Windows.
    -- Bill Gates

  14. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:06:54 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > alt wrote:
    >> > And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format
    >> > that is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support
    >> > Microsoft needs, and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft
    >> > likely would have supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
    >> >
    >> > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    >> > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    >> > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    >> > future.

    >>
    >> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's
    >> (undocumented) legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the
    >> application?

    >
    > The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    > "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    > format.


    I still don't understand. All conceivable objects in a document can be
    expressed in non-proprietary methods. The application should be the one
    doing the conversion from proprietary to non-proprietary methods.

  15. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> alt wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    >>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
    >>>>
    >>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    >>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    >>>> format.
    >>>
    >>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
    >>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
    >>> system and proprietary Word processor around.

    >>
    >> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
    >> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
    >> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
    >>

    >
    > makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
    > saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
    >


    They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
    things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  16. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:12:14 -0800 (PST), toolassembler@gmail.com wrote:

    > Hey Tim & Erik:
    >
    > I have an answer for you: zero.
    >
    > That's right: not a single one.
    >
    > The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
    > ODF format was proposed at ISO?
    >
    > I believe they call that *unanimity*.


    Yes. The reason was that there weren't people with financial interests
    opposed to ODF. If ODF had received even 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
    has received, people would have known there was no accessibility support,
    they would have known there was no standardized formula support, they would
    have known it had many of the same shortcomings that they accuse OOXML of.

    But it didn't, because Microsoft (probably naively) thought that OOXMl
    would sail through standardization just as easily as ODF did. They didn't
    count on Sun, IBM, and others mounting a massive disinformation campaign
    against them.

    And yes, they have mounted such a campaign. Virtually every major blog
    that focuses on crticizing OOXML is run by someone with a financial
    conflict of interest with Microsoft.

    Rob Weir - IBM Employee
    Bob Sutor - IBM Employee
    Open Malaysia Blog (Hassan)- IBM Employee
    Andy Updegrove - Lawyer for OASIS

  17. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article ,
    alt wrote:
    > >> > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    > >> > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    > >> > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    > >> > future.
    > >>
    > >> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's
    > >> (undocumented) legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the
    > >> application?

    > >
    > > The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    > > "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    > > format.

    >
    > I still don't understand. All conceivable objects in a document can be
    > expressed in non-proprietary methods. The application should be the one
    > doing the conversion from proprietary to non-proprietary methods.


    Let's try this from the other direction. Ask yourself why we need
    anything other than RTF for word processing and CSV for spreadsheets.

    A document format needs to represent all the per-document state that you
    need to preserve between uses of the document by the application. The
    capabilities of the applications dictate what the format needs to
    support. Office, StarOffice, WordPerfect, and others have different
    capabilities, and none of them are a subset of another one--they each
    have things that the others don't support. So, depending on which one's
    features you want the document format to support, you get different
    formats.

    The difference between a format that supports exactly what StarOffice
    needs, and nothing more, and a format that supports exactly what Office
    needs for current and legacy documents and nothing more, is (I'm told--I
    haven't personally checked this out) small. Hence, if Sun had went
    along with the desires of the majority of the OASIS group that defined
    ODF, and included support for those other applications, we'd have one
    standard now, that works well for them all, and would not really be much
    larger or difficult to deal with than the current ODF. But Sun
    considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF would not
    include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are doomed to at
    least two standards. :-(


    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:29:23 -0800, Tim Smith
    wrote:

    > But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
    > would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
    > doomed to at least two standards. :-(


    And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
    maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
    concerned about winning the chess match and they're all thinking that
    the users are just pawns in the game.

    At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
    they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
    Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.


    --
    -| Bob Hauck
    -| http://www.haucks.org/

  19. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:05:17 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > If ODF had received even 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML has received,
    > people would have known there was no accessibility support,


    You know, I keep hearing this argument, but I still have no idea how a
    document format is responsible for UI issues.

    Quite frankly, for visibility issues, the computer is absolutely a
    terrible device. In its current incarnation, it is designed by and for
    people with no vision problems. The GUI does not lend itself in any real
    capacity to the vision impared - specifically those with near or complete
    blindness. Anything us sighted people do to accomodate the vision-impared
    is just that, an accomodation.

  20. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article ,
    Bob Hauck wrote:

    > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:29:23 -0800, Tim Smith
    > wrote:
    >
    > > But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
    > > would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
    > > doomed to at least two standards. :-(

    >
    > And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
    > maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is


    So? Last I checked, Microsoft wasn't in charge of ODF standardization,
    so their view on standards doesn't excuse Sun's limiting ODF.

    ....
    > At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
    > they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
    > Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.


    Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
    QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.

    (Well, except on that chart on Roy's site--it shows Microsoft
    controlling Apple...)


    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast