Slashdot Mirror

Simply download LibreOffice, see: https://www.libreoffice.org/
or any other software that supports the OpenDocument format ISO26300, see: https://www.iso.org/standard/4...

The British Govenment saw the light, see: https://gdstechnology.blog.gov...

LibreOffice is free, but you can have paid support contracts from multiple sources if you need such, and you can freely distribute copies. LibreOffice is available on all major O/S's, which include Linux, Microsoft's & Apple's.

But Yes, I often send people PDF files. Note that LibreOffice allows you to edit PDF files!

What my rules,"ISO is an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 161 national standards bodies. Through its members, it brings together experts to share knowledge and develop voluntary, consensus-based, market relevant International Standards that support innovation and provide solutions to global challenges. You'll find our Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. Learn more about our structure and how we are governed." https://www.iso.org/home.html. Read my lips S T A N D A R D S as internationally written and agreed to and represented nationally but national standard bodies. Government and industry get together to discuss and agree design rules that should be adhered to as a minimum.

Though XMP was developed by Adobe it is now an ISO standard. Also almost every editor or camera will include XMP data, not just photoshop

I'm afraid that I've encountered a few engineers who refuse to acknowledge the distinction between UNIX operating systems, which follow certain detailed standards documented in the "Single UNIX Standard" at https://www2.opengroup.org/ogs... and other operating systems whose kernels, and whose core libraries, have critical distinctions. MacOS, for example, is. Linux is not, as documented at https://www.iso.org/standard/3... . Solaris was, and SCO OpenServer was, as was AT&T SysV.

Following a standard in every detail can be difficult, confusing, and expensive to verify. This is partly why genuine UNIX operating systems have fallen out of favor in many environments.

Watermarking doesn't need to be done in the decoder. It's completely possible to apply it on the server. There are massive issues with client-applied watermark because clients are various, are insecure, and leaking the watermarking algorithm will make the watermarking scheme useless.

You can include multiple watermarks in the single video stream. It makes the stream bigger, but it's still cacheable. Each client is given a different set of decryption keys which uniquely identifies it. When the client decrypts the common stream it will still have a unique rendition that can be used to identify it.

It's done in MPEG-DASH and the packaging mechanism is published: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#is...

Each variant can only provide 1 bit of the client's identity, so it usually takes a while to uniquely identify a client.

The system really can work to identify content "leaks", but combining the streams of multiple pirates can still obscure the identifier and even create false positives.

The German companies do it a bit different than American companies, they pool resources for the common R&D good. It's why they had stuff like CAN bus while Ford and GM were all developing their own unique busses.

BMW, VW and Benz all have a lot of research into this. I sat in on a grad seminar given by VW engineers back in 2010 on lane change obstacle avoidance. They certainly have the IP already, even if they aren't announcing it state side. They even have ISO standards for how to test obstacle avoidance: ISO 3888-2:2011 defines the dimensions of the test track for a closed-loop, severe lane-change manoeuvre test for subjectively determining the obstacle avoidance performance of a vehicle, one specific part of vehicle dynamics and road-holding ability. It is applicable to passenger cars as defined in ISO 3833 and light commercial vehicles up to a gross vehicle mass of 3,5 t.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I had a BMW and Benz rental in 2012 that had the auto stop feature that is just now starting to show up in American cars. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v...

If there is any group of car companies that is going to give you autonomous driving with manual over ride it's going to be the German ones. German drivers also have a different mentality towards driving. Driving falls into two categories, either you have to do it and you can automate it or you want to do it and you don't want to automate it. I would say of my driving there's a good 80/20 split. 80% of the time I'd like the car to just get me somewhere but 20% of the time I do want an autobahn experience.

Just because you don't think BMW hasn't done any research into self driving cars doesn't mean they haven't. It is an incredibly long process and Germans have had an ISO standard for testing it since 2011 as well. The TÜV doesn't mess around when it comes to safety or testing and I trust anything they verify much more than the DOT.

They should have put it on the calendar then.

It's not without precedence, software in safety critical machinery deals with the responsibility issue when someone gets hurt.

If libraries are used then it is up to the person that uses them to ensure that the library is safe to use.
The responsibility can be shifted to the library developer by them providing a document claiming that it is safe to use, otherwise it is up to the developer of the safe machinery to ensure that the functions used are safe.
Typically you don't just use a library, you use a library of a specific version with a compiler of a specific version. You also set up a test procedure for each critical software module as well as the complete software.
If you really are interested you can read ISO 13849.

When you need to make sure that software works and you can get sued into oblivion when it doesn't you don't pull in random libraries that aren't well tested. NiH means that you either have to spend more time learning how the code works than it would take writing it yourself or that you have the big black box that can come and bite you in the ass.

Plenty. All of your criteria have little to do with the language and much more to do with the developer. Any properly defined/debugged program is "safe". Any properly optimized program is "performant". "Clear" is just about source code, which means that it's entirely up to the developer.

ISO 9899:2011.
ISO 14882:2014E.
ECMA 334.

Swift is a "lookalike" to all of these in several ways, especially as that list goes on. The list of languages that aren't ancestral to Swift but that have standards could go on for quite a while longer.

The VISA Pay Wave doesn't have user challenge/response, it's simply a wireless magstripe.

Do you have a citation for that? It seems odd to me that they would use such a weak mechanism, when the existing chip already uses challenge/response.
The standard used is ISO/IEC 14443, which enables half-duplex communications, suggesting that challenge/response is at least plausible.

Additionally, in my country (Australia), I found that when they introduced PIN-less transactions for contact less cards below a certain threshold ($100), PINs were no longer required when the chip was inserted, which is consistent with my belief that the RFID mechanism is just another means of connecting to the chip.

That's just an RFC. You need a real international standard.. http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_cat...

You're clearly misinformed. ODF was the first document format ever to become an industry standard (ISO/IEC 26300).

Microsoft then suddenly decided it also wanted to be kind of open and standardized and drafted ISO/IEC 29500

There have been lots of discussions about ISO/IEC 29500 also on slashdot, because of the lack of necessity of another ISO document standard and how MS got it approved, the lack of a reference implementation (Office 2007 wasn't OOXML compliant), the reference to software patents within the standard and the way ISO 29500 got approved.

The way MS acted when getting OOXML ISO approved is just one of the reasons why I always have "Fat Tony's" voice in my head when reading their public statements.

So in a nutshell, OOXML was MS way to be a little like FOSS.

You're clearly misinformed. ODF was the first document format ever to become an industry standard (ISO/IEC 26300).

Microsoft then suddenly decided it also wanted to be kind of open and standardized and drafted ISO/IEC 29500

There have been lots of discussions about ISO/IEC 29500 also on slashdot, because of the lack of necessity of another ISO document standard and how MS got it approved, the lack of a reference implementation (Office 2007 wasn't OOXML compliant), the reference to software patents within the standard and the way ISO 29500 got approved.

The way MS acted when getting OOXML ISO approved is just one of the reasons why I always have "Fat Tony's" voice in my head when reading their public statements.

So in a nutshell, OOXML was MS way to be a little like FOSS.

ISO 90? Light-gauge metal containers!?

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=23336

C# isn't standardized? Someone should call ECMA and ISO then and tell them they've been had.

You don't have to with C# either...

Then again, I'm becoming a bit of a NodeJS fan for server-side dev.

There already is an ISO standard for such things, for example. For 99% of the stuff, there are standard symbols and usage is pretty consistent, at worse differing across between two large, historically separate fields, but otherwise consistent as two dialects.Much of it you would have trouble changing or causing to "die" because of how long and consistent the use has been.

Actually, all of this (KB vs. KiB) has been standardised by ISO: "Quantities and units - part 13: Information science and technology," ISO/TC12 WG12, IEC/TC25, Geneva, Switzerland, ISO/IEC 80000-13:2008, Apr. 2008. Available: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31898 (it always baffles be that standards are not free te access...).

In short, 1K = 1000; 1Ki = 1024.

They were actually tacitly supporting the Mono project at one point I believe, because - I think - they saw it was their way of getting Silverlight support on as many non-Windows platforms as possible. Only Silverlight seems to have fallen flat on its face ("and nothing of value was lost") and thus I suspect MS are no longer that interested in Mono.

The .NET framework actually has built-in support for running on non-Windows and non-x86/x64 systems: there are various internal enumerations which indicate running on Windows, Mac, or Linux systems and there are also flags for indicating Big and Little Endian CPUs. It was *designed* to be cross platform; it's just MIcrosoft themselves have never bothered to take advantage of this.

The Common Language Infrastructure that underpins the .NET Framework is a published ISO/ECMA standard (current version is ISO/IEC 23271:2012) - one you can actually download for free. C# is also published as an ISO/ECMA standard (ISO/IEC 23270:2006), but hasn't been updated since 2006, so doesn't include the newer extensions Microsoft have added; it's also freely downloadable from ITTF Freely Available Standards Both the CLI and C# are part of Microsoft's "Community Promise", for whatever people consider that worth.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/country_names_and_code_elements_txt.htm

According to ISO there are 249 of them

He probably meant impossble for anyone not being Microsoft. There is, for example a tag called autoSpaceLikeWord95 standing for Emulate Word 95 Full-Width Character Spacing; and there is more.

That's a pretty old blog post... it's from 2007, but ISO 29500-1 wasn't officially standardized until 2008. IIRC, the issues he's talking about were problems with the draft standard that MS submitted. They were cleaned up for the final spec. The real ISO standards cost $$$ to get, but a quick Google search shows that MS has documented autoSpaceLikeWord95 as:

9.7.3.4 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Incorrectly Adjust Text Spacing for Specific Unicode Ranges)

This element specifies adjustments (detailed below) which should be applied to the spacing between adjoining regions of non-ideographic and ideographic text when the autoSpaceDE (Part 1, 17.3.1.2) and autoSpaceDN (Part 1, 17.3.1.3) elements have a value of true (or equivalent). This algorithm typically results in the following:

• An increase in the inter-character spacing added between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain full-width characters
• No inter-character spacing between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain half-width characters

Typically, applications apply additional spacing between ideographic and non-ideographic characters/numeric characters when the autoSpaceDE / autoSpaceDN properties are applied. This element, when present with a val attribute value of true (or equivalent), specifies that applications shall apply the following adjustments to this logic:

• Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as ideographic, even though those characters are full-width forms of non-ideographic text: U+FF10–U+FF19, U+FF21–U+FF3A, and U+FF41–U+FF5A. [Note: This results in the unnecessary addition of space. end note]

• Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as non-ideographic, even though those characters are ideographic: U+FF66–U+FF9F. [Note: This results in the omission of the intended additional space. end note]

Arbitrary standard? HTML 4 is an ISO/IEC standard: http://www.cs.tcd.ie/misc/15445/15445.html (or: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=27688 )

FWIW, at least in the C programming case, the ISO/IEC claims copyright of the specifcation itself. ISO/IEC sells the specification (called 14882:2011) and says you can't copy the specification without a license from them.

Of course, the question is not if someone copies the java (or c) language spec word-for-word (e.g, photo or electronic copy), but if someone made a derivative of this work (say an implementation with its own reference or subset specification) if it subject to being considered having a derivative work liability of the underlying original work. Ironically, if google did not make a derivative java, it might actually be in a better position as most of java itself likely considered to be derivative and the non-derivative parts (say the stuff java borrowed from c) are not subject to copyright protection and if they did not copy the specification itself.

IANAL, maybe yes, maybe no, but my original point was to be careful what you wish for as the same thing could be done on to you...

Well, C++11 is irrelevant to what I was saying, but after double-checking about C11, you're right. The ISO WG14 home page confused me. It says, "The current C programming language standard ISO/IEC 9899 was adopted by ISO and IEC in 1999. Technical corrigenda TC1, TC2, and TC3 were approved followingly, TC2 in 2004, TC3 in 2007." (Emphasis mine.) Apparently, they need to update that page. 9899:2011 is available from ISO here.

So much for the claim that C is in any way more "last century" than C++. Thanks for the tip.

(Curiously, GCC includes experimental support for C++11, but has almost no mention of C11 anywhere.)

A good place to start would be with ISO. Few know that most ISO standards are licensed products: http://www.iso.org/iso/licence_agreement Yes, you technically need to pay if you want to use standard country codes.... *K

That mere fact that I am reading this article indicates that WebP has enough momentum to potentially be useful.

Google is the one that is pushing Webp. They acquired the video compression codecs through their takeover of on2 technologies for $106 million. Duh that they are going to add it in their cloud services.

You are reading that the largest open source web browser says no, which would be a lower hurdle than than trying to get it supported in Internet Explorer (which it won't anytime soon, because WebP in HTML5 is not only a Adobe Flash video replacement, but also a Microsoft Silverlight video replacement). Those two browsers alone mean that over 70% of the web cannot see WebP files in their web browser. That is not momentum.

See: browser support for Motion JPEG 2000, which is an ISO Standard

Some active RFID tags operate at 433 MHz.

And everyone does these version numbers differently.

Do they? "Everyone?" Really? I have thousands of packages available for my distro that all use more-or-less the same schema: major.minor.patch. I have to hunt long and hard to find exceptions. The fact that it's nearly mandatory for libraries to use this schema in order for so-versioning to work no doubt helps.

We should all find a standard we can agree on mostly

We've got that. Yes, "mostly" is an important word there, but it's enough that I think it can meaningfully be described as a de-facto standard. The GNU version of ls(1) even has a "-v" flag to sort files based on the standard versioning schema, i.e. foo1.3.2 sorts before foo1.12.1. (I just wish Apache would add that option.)

Anyone who goes for dates, though, should certainly use ISO 8601, which is a formally accepted international standard.

So if I make a proprietary door with no documentation, it won't function because I've made a door that can't be open...

Instructions on how to open the door wouldn't be "fully documented."

Fully documented would be if I gave you all the instructions on how to build said proprietary door.

PDF is documented by ISO http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51502

I'm not particularly happy about standards where you have to pay for the spec, but it's better than having a completely secret standard.

ePub is open: http://www.daisy.org/epub/

Mobi, I'll take your word for. It's proprietary but (unfortunately) a defacto standard of sorts.

Yes there is is!

http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format

See you were right.

Yes, they can

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft,-Adobe-squabble-over-PDF/2100-1012_3-6079320.html

Here's a link to PDF becoming an open standard:

http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1141

That's a rather long-winded way of spelling ISO8601 http://www.iso.org/iso/date_and_time_format.

You can download the official spec from ISO, or from you national standards body.

Why is everyone so eager to suddenly replace one proprietary format for another?

H264 is not even close to proprietary. It is an open specification (actually an ISO standard[1]) that is entirely complete. You can even download an entirely open source implementation of the decoder[2] or the encoder[3], both of with are fully standards compliant and L/GPL licensed.

Now, the patent-license situation is not ideal, but it's worlds better than the situation with Flash, which is not an ISO standard (actually, actionscript is a bastardized javascript), of which there are no fully compliant open source implementations (sorry, Gnash really sucks, I wish it were good) and which is entirely under the control of Adobe, not the ISO.

IMO, we should be very eager to replace one proprietary system with a patent-encumbered open standard with opensource encoders/decoders. The best is not the enemy of the good -- and this is a hell of a good step in the right direction, even if it's a step from worse to merely bad.

[1] http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50726 -- The full ISO144926-10 specification.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libavcodec, part of the FFMPEG project -- licensed under the LPGL.

[3] http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html, licensed under the GPL.

The sanest way to do it would be year-month-day, because then you could increase the precision of the time string to whatever you needed just by adding units to the right

ISO standard date format is YYYY-MM-DD. Everything else is non-standard's compliant gibberish of the kind that under most circumstances /.'ers would be violently opposed to (especially if Microsoft did it.)

ISO 8601 is the full standard, which includes times in the form:

YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss (the letter "T" is often replaced with a space for human-readable but non-standard date/time presentation).

I have no idea if the standard has accommodation for the archaic AM/PM system of representation.

There is really no excuse for not using ISO 8601 standard date/times, other than cultural prejudice, insularity and parochialism. And no one will ever again have to ask, "What does 10/11/12 mean?"

If you disagree with me, please tell me what I mean by 10/11/12. Since this date format is so much superior to all others in the eyes of some they should have no trouble at all telling me exactly what that date means, as opposed to:

2010-11-12
2010-12-11
2011-10-12
2011-12-10
2012-10-11
2012-11-10

none of which can be easily confused with the others.

Anyone in favour of standardized anything ought to be in favour of standardized date/time formats.

No, but EO (earth orbit) and LO (low orbit) are both available.

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table

First - I know i4i states OO does not infringe on the patent. If you would have been paying attention you would have seen the second word in my post. Second - The DOCX format is a standard.

What does an evil AI have to do with machine tool standards?

XML Provides Standardization for International Functionality between individuals and (within) businesses, governments.... XML Customization by Businesses, Governments, Individuals... altering recognized and accepted international XML Standards seek to hawk proprietary products and hook data/content novices into a blind and costly ally.

W3C XML http://www.w3.org/XML/
ODF XML ISO/IEC 26300:2006 http://www.iso.org/
ODF XML OASIS http://www.oasis-open.org/
OpenOffice XML http://www.openoffice.org/

The XML OpenDocument Format (ODF) standard, used by OpenOffice and others, is an open XML-based document file format for office applications to be used for documents containing text, spreadsheets, charts, and graphical elements. The file format makes transformations to other formats simple by leveraging and reusing existing standards wherever possible. As an open standard under the stewardship of OASIS, OpenDocument also creates the possibility for new types of applications and solutions to be developed other than traditional office productivity applications.

IMO Summary: If you fear long-term data/content cost/legal..., then... from Microsoft Office... RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY FAST!

So, wait, you're saying that ISO 32000-1:2008 isn't the complete spec?

Let me go see where that is defined in the C standard.

ISO/IEC TR 24731-1:2007 - http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=38841

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to tax everybody and pass on the money to the artists

You sound as if you think that's a bad idea. And, that's only one way to compensate artists. Nor does it have to be the government. There are many non-government organizations in control of many aspects of our lives. For instance, standards bodies such as ISO, groups that test products for safety such as the UL. There are hundreds of charities, religious organizations, and other NGOs.

i.e. creating a complete state control over culture.

Complete? Stop being dramatic. No way will any organization, however powerful, be able to ram bad entertainment down unwilling throats. No one can stop you from singing anything you want in the shower. And there's no reason for it. In contrast, as we have seen, private entities have powerful motivation to manipulate us. It is private enterprise that brought us the horrors of Payola and Clear Channel. An example of another system in which governments are intimately involved is highway systems. Yet the government does not dictate what sort of cars people drive, so that people who feel their needs are best served by a large pickup or wagon can have them, and without having to justify it to anyone.

And, need I remind you, you and I and everyone else are the state? You do get to vote on things. You can write letters to your representatives, and, amazingly, they will sometimes be read and even acted on! Stop talking as if the the government and you are "ships in the night".

Why should people who passionately dislike certain artists be forced to finance them?

This tired argument again. As if that doesn't happen under the current system. Or wouldn't happen under any other system you can think of. A rising tide lifts all boats. Patronizing any musician helps all musicians.

If there were no legal and technical hurdles to file sharing

There aren't. The legal hurdles are almost totally ineffective. Nor is there any way for a legal approach to be effective. Yes, they killed Napster. But they couldn't kill file sharing. As to technical hurdles, it's hard to say what the ultimate limits of networking, digital storage and such might be. Artificial limitations are bypassed and ignored at will. DRM is a sad joke.

there would be some sort of "freeamazon.com" where all current music, books and software in the world can be downloaded for free, right?

There are many such. Usenet. Lots of encrypted anonymizing ones such as Tor. The ones we've all heard of such as BitTorrent, Napster, Kazaa, etc. They don't have quite everything in the world of course, but they have lots more than the lame local bricks and mortar places, and more than Amazon, since Amazon actually has far less on hand than they list. Really weak when you want something obscure and Amazon needs weeks for physical media to wend its way through a backordering process, if they can get it at all, compared to just being able to get it right now through P2P.

Wouldn't that mean that the people who write those books, companies that create all those applications, games etc and artists and recording companies who write and produce all that music, and studios who make all those movies would be out of business instantly?

No. Since when is copyright some kind of holy, blessed thing that is the only righteous and known way to earn a living from art? There are many other ways. Better ways. I don't know what it will take to persuade people like you to stop clinging to what you think is customary, traditional, and effective, when it has been so warped and beaten as to be none of those. Maybe if you read enough Slashdot, you'll eventually have a change of heart? It is hearing of the extreme and unfair measures of the enter

Here's another one: Silverlight supports the h.264 standard for video.

Heck there's an OSS version of silverlight

Face it, something Microsoft has created is more "open" then its competition.

maybe ISO 2007?

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=45386

well, in my opinion a pledge is not enough to make it a standard (see all the brouhaha about the approval of OOXML and specifically this ISO policy regarding software patents)

I'd also like to have from you specific documentation to support that the Samba team was the beneficiary of anything in that court decision, since an antitrust court would not really make specific arrangements like those but instead one thay would benefit the whole community (which I believe they did by ordering Microsoft to licence the protocols to anyone for a reasonable fee)

ISO has only country members (see http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_members) and to my knowledge there is no country called IBM. If you are referring to the company IBM they can participate only through national bodies such as ANSI, BSI, SFS, etc.

It's unrealistic to think that countries and their national standard bodies would leave ISO. OOXML is just one IT standard and ISO covers a huge array of different standards for different sectors of society.

Have a clue: ISO has standards for a lot more than just computer stuff.

Next thing, someone will be pushing a new version of COBOL!

FYI, the "voting/comment period" for the next COBOL standard closed just over two months ago. I don't follow (or use) COBOL, so I have no idea when the new standard is scheduled to supplant the prior 2002 standard. And there's always COBOL.Net.

- T

On the whole I think yours is a good scheme, albeit with some tweaking.

- ISO standard Country codes (3 characters)

What's wrong with 2 Character ISO standard Country codes? I live in the UK, and no one over here associates themselves with GBR. You might on the very odd occasion see that on a car sticker, no where else.

- Site number within country (1 digit, we only need one)

Good idea, but you should use 2 in case your company ever grows. 10 offices nationally isn't very much.

- O/S NT based, LX based, MC based, A4 for AS/400

Not necessary. I've dealt with hundreds of corporate customers over the past couple of decades and have never seen one where the OS type is reflected in the hostname.

Having said that, I've just scanned back over most of the customer hostnames I've had to connect to over the past decade or so (I have a list) and most of them seem to start with either a contraction of the company name, site name, or function name.