How standards work in the real world - Linux

This is a discussion on How standards work in the real world - Linux ; Here's what ODF says about password hashing: In section 4.1.1: > To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash > value of the password is stored. In section 8.1.1: > To avoid saving the password ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

Thread: How standards work in the real world

  1. How standards work in the real world


    Here's what ODF says about password hashing:

    In section 4.1.1:

    > To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    > value of the password is stored.


    In section 8.1.1:

    > To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    > value of the password is stored within the tablerotection-key attribute.


    In section 8.5.1:

    > To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    > value of the password is stored.


    How do I indicate what hash algorithm is used? Do I have to use a
    specific one, or can I pick?

    Compare to OOXML, which answers all those questions. Two people can sit
    down and actually figured out how to deal with password storage, based
    on the spec.

    Or how about calendars? One of the complaints about OOXML before the
    BRM was that it only fully specified some of the supported calendars,
    not all of them. So now it specifies them all. For example, if the
    calendar is set to "hebrew" in the document, that means, in OOXML:

    > Specifies that the Hebrew lunar calendar, as described by the Gauss formula
    > for Passover (Har'El 2005) and The Complete Restatement of Oral Law (Mishneh
    > Torah) (Maimon n.d.), shall be used.


    Even before the BRM, OOXML was *way* ahead of ODF in this regard.
    Here's how ODF handles this:

    > The attribute may have the values gregorian, gengou, ROC, hanja_yoil, hanja,
    > hijri, jewish, buddhist or an arbitrary string value. If this attribute is
    > not specified, the default calendar system is used.


    And while on the subject of calendars, some have made a big deal of the
    fact that OOXML specifies three possible date bases you can use when
    using serial dates.

    How many does ODF have? The answer is in section 8.5.2. It has
    thousands of possible date bases. You can set the base date to ANY date.

    Apparently, having to handle 3 possible bases makes OOXML impossibly
    confusing, but having to handle an arbitrary base is just fine for ODF?

    Many more examples here:

    > http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/ar...so-in-odf.aspx


    <http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/ar...-mention-that-
    it-s-also-in-odf.aspx>

    along with an important observation:

    > I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    > anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    > disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for it
    > all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    > else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    > building on. We can then see how it's used, and make improvements/corrections
    > from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    > Open XML.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  2. Re: How standards work in the real world

    On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    >> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    >> disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for it
    >> all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    >> else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    >> building on. We can then see how it's used, and make improvements/corrections
    >> from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    >> Open XML.


    Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want others
    to know that.

    The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The task
    of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    right either.

  3. Re: How standards work in the real world

    Tim Smith wrote:
    ....
    > Even before the BRM, OOXML was *way* ahead of ODF in this regard.
    > Here's how ODF handles this:

    ....
    > along with an important observation:
    >
    >> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    >> disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard.


    So you quote and call important the statement that the material you are
    using is not anti-ODF but just illustrating a point about standards, and
    you use it as anti-ODF arguments. Stupid twerp.

    --
    Ron House house@usq.edu.au
    http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

  4. Re: How standards work in the real world

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >>> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    >>> disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for it
    >>> all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    >>> else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    >>> building on. We can then see how it's used, and make improvements/corrections
    >>> from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    >>> Open XML.

    >
    > Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want others
    > to know that.
    >
    > The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The task
    > of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    > non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    > right either.


    The fact of the matter is, American democracy is imperfect. Nazi Germany
    was imperfect. The task of defining a "good government" standard that is
    universal is a non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why
    American democracy didn't get it right either.

    'Nuff said on why your post is a load of moronic blather?

    --
    Ron House house@usq.edu.au
    http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house

  5. Re: How standards work in the real world

    In article <47E9EFDB.8050706@usq.edu.au>, Ron House
    wrote:
    > So you quote and call important the statement that the material you are
    > using is not anti-ODF but just illustrating a point about standards, and
    > you use it as anti-ODF arguments. Stupid twerp.


    You don't read very well, do you?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: How standards work in the real world

    Ron House :
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >>>> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    >>>> disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for it
    >>>> all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    >>>> else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    >>>> building on. We can then see how it's used, and make improvements/corrections
    >>>> from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    >>>> Open XML.

    >>
    >> Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want others
    >> to know that.
    >>
    >> The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The task
    >> of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    >> non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    >> right either.

    >
    > The fact of the matter is, American democracy is imperfect. Nazi Germany
    > was imperfect. The task of defining a "good government" standard that is
    > universal is a non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why
    > American democracy didn't get it right either.
    >
    > 'Nuff said on why your post is a load of moronic blather?


    Zero to Godwin in a matter of mere minutes. Dude, Eric is right. No need
    to go all 'THIS IS SPARTA' on him.

    --
    Floppy now, hard later.

    www.websterscafe.com

  7. Re: How standards work in the real world

    ____/ Ron House on Wednesday 26 March 2008 06:40 : \____

    > Tim Smith wrote:
    > ...
    >> Even before the BRM, OOXML was *way* ahead of ODF in this regard.
    >> Here's how ODF handles this:

    > ...
    >> along with an important observation:
    >>
    >>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >>> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that
    >>> folks disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard.

    >
    > So you quote and call important the statement that the material you are
    > using is not anti-ODF but just illustrating a point about standards, and
    > you use it as anti-ODF arguments. Stupid twerp.


    Ron,

    I was sent some E-mails earlier today to show that Microsoft had just started
    attacking ODF because it cannot defend OOXML. It's a diversion tactic and the
    Microsoft Munchkins play along.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam")
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2008-03-19 11:51 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  8. Re: How standards work in the real world

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:35:14 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF
    >>> in anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs
    >>> that folks disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If
    >>> we waited for it all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had
    >>> moved on to something else. It's important to get a stable spec out
    >>> there for folks to start building on. We can then see how it's used,
    >>> and make improvements/corrections from there. This is what you see in
    >>> ODF, and we'll see the same thing with Open XML.

    >
    > Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want
    > others to know that.
    >
    > The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The
    > task of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    > non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    > right either.


    If OOXML doesn't get it right, and ODF doesn't get it right, I'd rather
    go with ODF.


    --
    Rick

  9. Re: How standards work in the real world


    "Tim Smith" wrote in message
    news:reply_in_group-2F660D.20381125032008@news.supernews.com...
    >
    > I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    > anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that
    > folks
    > disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for
    > it
    > all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    > else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    > building on. We can then see how it's used, and make
    > improvements/corrections
    > from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    > Open XML.
    >

    Accuracy of the standards is not really an issue, it is just a smokescreen
    that anti-MS groups use to dignify their anti-MS bias in regard to the
    notion of an "open" MS-Office format standard. An open standard gains them
    nothing. Everyone in the business has had access to MS Office standards
    since Word and Excel were originally published and every competing office
    suite has been able to import and export MS Office documents for 20 years.

    Opposition to the MS standard is a defense of the claim by the anti-MS bunch
    that somehow using MS Office exposes the user to the chance that Microsoft
    might someday arbitrarily choose to discontinue support of its formats and
    so orphanize the data and records of the user. The counter to that sorry
    state is the use of "open" standards that legions of unpaid experts,
    satisfying their fanatical urge to be of service to mankind, will always be
    hard at work providing free software to the masses that uses these universal
    standards. If Microsoft manages to standardize their formats, then the
    world is faced with an instant implementation of all of these benefits
    without having to wait for the legions of experts to act initially. That is
    too horrible to contemplate, so there is so much opposition from the anti-MS
    bunch.




  10. Re: How standards work in the real world

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith

    wrote
    on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700
    :
    >
    > Here's what ODF says about password hashing:
    >
    > In section 4.1.1:
    >
    >> To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    >> value of the password is stored.

    >
    > In section 8.1.1:
    >
    >> To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    >> value of the password is stored within the tablerotection-key attribute.

    >
    > In section 8.5.1:
    >
    >> To avoid saving the password directly into the XML file, only a hash
    >> value of the password is stored.

    >
    > How do I indicate what hash algorithm is used? Do I have to use a
    > specific one, or can I pick?


    Just use the one Word uses; that's obviously what they meant.

    :-)

    [rest snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
    important, it's the ability to DO something
    with it.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  11. Re: How standards work in the real world

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:50:53 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Ron House on Wednesday 26 March 2008 06:40 : \____
    >


    > Ron,
    >
    > I was sent some E-mails earlier today to show that Microsoft had just started
    > attacking ODF because it cannot defend OOXML. It's a diversion tactic and the
    > Microsoft Munchkins play along.


    That tactic sounds more like a Linux advocate game play.

    More of your "reliable sources" Roy Schestowitz?

    So now the voices in your head are sending you emails.....
    Nice!


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

  12. Re: How standards work in the real world


  13. Re: How standards work in the real world


    "BingoBongo" wrote in message
    news:47ea790e$0$583$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org...
    > Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (aka: Gary Stewart)
    >
    > http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    > http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html


    Nice job trashing this NG and making it useless for anyone looking to get
    info on linux. You're doing your job well to discourage people from reading
    the posts here.




  14. Re: How standards work in the real world

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:45:00 +1000, Ron House wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF in
    >>>> anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs that folks
    >>>> disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If we waited for it
    >>>> all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had moved on to something
    >>>> else. It's important to get a stable spec out there for folks to start
    >>>> building on. We can then see how it's used, and make improvements/corrections
    >>>> from there. This is what you see in ODF, and we'll see the same thing with
    >>>> Open XML.

    >>
    >> Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want others
    >> to know that.
    >>
    >> The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The task
    >> of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    >> non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    >> right either.

    >
    > The fact of the matter is, American democracy is imperfect. Nazi Germany
    > was imperfect. The task of defining a "good government" standard that is
    > universal is a non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why
    > American democracy didn't get it right either.
    >
    > 'Nuff said on why your post is a load of moronic blather?


    Actually, you just made my point.

    Why do you think there are so many different governments?

  15. Re: How standards work in the real world

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:35:14 -0400, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:38:12 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >>> I'll close by repeating that I don't intend this post to be anti-ODF
    >>> in anyway. Instead I'm pointing out that there will always be designs
    >>> that folks disagree with, and areas for improvement in a standard. If
    >>> we waited for it all to be perfect, then we'd find the industry had
    >>> moved on to something else. It's important to get a stable spec out
    >>> there for folks to start building on. We can then see how it's used,
    >>> and make improvements/corrections from there. This is what you see in
    >>> ODF, and we'll see the same thing with Open XML.

    >
    > Indeed, but you see the financial interests against OOXML don't want
    > others to know that.
    >
    > The fact of the matter is, ODF is imperfect. OOXML is imperfect. The
    > task of defining an "office documents" standard that is universal is a
    > non-trivial, difficult task to get right. That's why ODF didn't get it
    > right either.


    The fact is, we already have an (imperfect) standard in ODF. ODF is a
    completely open standard that Microsoft is completely welcome to submit
    solutions to problems. It's also a much simpler implementation than OOXML
    and a much shorter specification (600pgs vs. 6000+pgs.)

    As for financial interests, it's disingenuous to talk about the financial
    interests against OOXML when Microsoft has the most to lose and the most
    to gain from OOXML. If OOXML doesn't pass the ISO, they stand to lose
    government and large corporation contracts because their software is
    currently not capable of writing an ISO 26300 document natively. They
    also stand to lose their monopoly in office suites as well as operating
    system and would be forced to compete (*gasp*) in an open market.

    Do I believe that DIS 29500 will be rejected? I don't have the faith.
    Microsoft is a caged animal with innumerable resources. They have
    sucessfully stacked the JTC1 committee and OOXML stands a good chance of
    passing. If it passes, the credibility of the ISO will be severely called
    into question and render ISO certification meaningless.

    My conclusion: If OOXML passes, Microsoft wins everyone else loses. OOXML
    is NOT in the best interests of anyone _except_ Microsoft.

  16. Re: How standards work in the real world

    alt wrote:

    > Do I believe that DIS 29500 will be rejected? I don't have the
    > faith. Microsoft is a caged animal with innumerable resources.
    > They have sucessfully stacked the JTC1 committee and OOXML
    > stands a good chance of passing. If it passes, the credibility
    > of the ISO will be severely called into question and render
    > ISO certification meaningless.
    >
    > My conclusion: If OOXML passes, Microsoft wins everyone else
    > loses. OOXML is NOT in the best interests of anyone _except_
    > Microsoft.


    I don't quite agree with you regarding the OOXML standard
    passing; for example, here is the Spanish comment:

    http://www.inen.gov.ec/Web_sp/Comite...Respuestas.pdf

    The coup de grace:

    > Part 1, Introduction (page xii) and entire document, , te
    >
    > It is not acceptable for an international standard to be
    > designed primarily around the goal of compatibility with a
    > particular company's products. This is particularly
    > inappropriate where, as in the present case, compatibility
    > with an existing international standard is neglected in favor
    > of the one-sided goal of maximal compatibility with document
    > file formats introduced by one company, and where the proposed
    > standard does not provide equal opportunities for
    > compatibility to that company's present and future
    > competitors. Unless this shortcoming of OOXML/DIS 29500 is
    > fixed, accepting this specification as a national or
    > international standard would be a violation of Spanish and
    > international law.


    --
    HPT

  17. Re: How standards work in the real world

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    >On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:57:05 GMT, alt wrote:
    >>
    >> As for financial interests, it's disingenuous to talk about the financial
    >> interests against OOXML when Microsoft has the most to lose and the most
    >> to gain from OOXML.

    >
    >Of course Microsoft has a financial interest in the success of OOXML. Duh.
    >Their motivations are not unclear. It's IBM and Sun who are the ones
    >paying people to blog against OOXML, and largely trying to disguise their
    >financial interests in doing so. The openmalaysia blog *STILL* makes no
    >mention of it being run by IBM employees, for instance.


    Poor, pious Micro$oft. Again the victim of those big badies at Sun
    and IBM, eh?

    >> My conclusion: If OOXML passes, Microsoft wins everyone else loses. OOXML
    >> is NOT in the best interests of anyone _except_ Microsoft.

    >
    >That's bull. It's in the best interest of anyone that wants to
    >interoperate with Microsoft office documents.


    Short term, maybe. Long term, probably not. Just like using
    Microshaft software in general.

    >It's disingenuous to say otherwise.


    No, it's not.


  18. Re: How standards work in the real world

    In article <1s8o7q5iz4zm2.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > >> Most of the issues raised against OOXML apply equally to ODF, ... but
    > >> the ODF proponents didn't think they were important enough to delay
    > >> ODF's standardization.

    > >
    > > Bull****.

    >
    > No, not bull****. It's the truth.
    >
    > For example, the "binary blob" argument applies just as well to ODF, which
    > allows things like OLE objects. Another example are the patent issues, as
    > Sun's patent covenant is actually worse than Microsoft's. Yet another


    More examples:

    OOXML was slammed for not specifying enough details to implement
    password hashing. ODF, on the other hand, covers password hashing by
    simply saying you should do it. There is no detail *at* *all*.

    OOXML was slammed for having three possible epoch dates for serial
    dates. ODF has tens of thousands of possible epoch dates--you can set
    the epoch date in a document to any date you want.

    OOXML was slammed for not giving details about allowed calendars. It
    just has an enumeration. Here's a typical entry:

    >hijri (Hijri) Specifies that the Hijri lunar calendar shall be used.


    That definitely is not very detailed--But is more detailed than ODF.
    Here's how ODF handles it:

    > The attribute may have the values gregorian, gengou, ROC, hanja_yoil,
    > hanja, hijri, jewish, buddhist or an arbitrary string value. If this
    > attribute is not specified, the default calendar system is used.


    And here's how OOXML handle it now. I'll just give what it says about
    Hijri calendars, but all of the allowed calendars are described in this
    level of detail:

    > Specifies that the Hijri lunar calendar, as described by the Kingdom of Saudi
    > Arabia, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance (Kingdom
    > of Saudi Arabia, Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da'wah and Guidance
    > n.d.), shall be used


    But Linonut would not know any of this, as that would require looking at
    something that WASN'T linked to by Roy.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  19. Re: How standards work in the real world

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <1s8o7q5iz4zm2.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    > But Linonut would not know any of this, as that would require looking at
    > something that WASN'T linked to by Roy.


    Tim, to me, the issue of the formats themselves, while important, is not
    the main issue:

    Microsoft is using an inappropriate, fast-track process to shove an
    overly-burdensome specificiation through an international standards
    body by packing the gallery in a cynical attempt to create a standard
    to which they can point while they go ahead and continue doing
    whatever they hell they want to with the format.

    Microsoft's track record is clear.

    --
    Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't
    lose.
    -- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)

  20. Re: How standards work in the real world


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:CZ4Hj.9856$Q52.335@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
    >* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article <1s8o7q5iz4zm2.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    >> But Linonut would not know any of this, as that would require looking at
    >> something that WASN'T linked to by Roy.

    >
    > Tim, to me, the issue of the formats themselves, while important, is not
    > the main issue:
    >



    > Microsoft is using an inappropriate, fast-track process to shove an
    > overly-burdensome specificiation through an international standards
    > body by packing the gallery in a cynical attempt to create a standard
    > to which they can point while they go ahead and continue doing
    > whatever they hell they want to with the format.


    Do you have an opinion of your own on this or do you just repost the
    Roy-Kent soundbites?

    "Inappropriate" "shove" "overyly-burdensome" "packing the gallery" "cynical
    attempt" blah-blah-blah is nothing but the constant whining and complaining
    that Roy Kent do. Notice the complete lack of "FACTS" in your little
    diatribe. I'm not saying that it low on facts... your "main issue" does not
    contain a single fact.





    > Microsoft's track record is clear.


    Not nearly as clear as the baseless lies and complaints from the
    "advocates" in COLA.




    > --
    > Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they
    > can't
    > lose.
    > -- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (1995)




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


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