Slashdot Mirror
OpenDocument Now Published ISO Standard
bobibobi writes "After months of revisions, OpenDocument receives status of a full published standard. The various stages of a standard's "stage code are also online." The OpenDocument standard has been developed by a variety of organizations and is publicly accessible. This means it can be implemented into any system, be it free software/open source or a closed proprietary product, without royalties.
I'm just a little curious about what this means - is it just a red stamp? Surely it has no impact on how and where the OD format can be used. Confused of Holmfirth
We'll soon see the flurry of fud from them - ISO standards mean nothing much, we're all about lowering tco etc ...
But seriously, what difference does it make to anyone? I've been using odt long before and that's not going to change. Those big corporations with a billion dollar budget were using Word since decades. I don't see how that's going to change either.
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
Salmon spend their whole life swimming in the ocean eating so that they grow strong and healthy so that when they return to their spawning pools they have enough energy to spread their milt before sinking to the creekbed, exhausted and dead. They get so beaten up by the force of the water which flows backwards towards the ocean that it seems almost pointless for them to make the trek all the way back to the waters of their birth. But they do this, despite having 90% of the OS market running Microsoft applications and with most application users using Microsoft Word to draft their documents. The battle to swim upstream to mate and die is one that must be fought. The survival of the wild salmon stock depends on these brave fish to face the torrents and rapids and emerge beaten and worn in the quiet streams of the Pacific Northwest.
I've worked with some OASIS spec'd XML before, and while it's not usually the most elegant solution, having *any* XML-based document markup become standard is good news. I would love to start doing text-extraction directly from Excel, Word and so forth without having to cut out text, drop it into another MS product, flatten it by hand, etc.
Quick example:
We do user requirements using Word. I wanted to extract them into a database so I can relate them
to functional specs, use cases, code, etc (yes, we're just figuring this out now).
To extract the requirements, I had to cut out each section of tables (Lord help you if they're nested,
or misaligned, or misnumbered) and plop it into Excel, scrub it repeatedly (scrub those nubs!), and
only then insert it into a database.
With XML-based documents, I just pull out all of the matching tags, form an INSERT around it, and off it goes into the db.
-BA
What can be more free than this and stay so: "open source or a closed proprietary"!
O. Wyss
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
By supporting public standards, Microsoft can create an application which reads any document and can produce Microsoft Word documents.
The simple answer is that OpenDocument is not a Microsoft core asset. It's not even from Microsoft. It was originally created by OpenOffice, a competitor to MS Office.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
OpenDocument is the format that OpenOffice.org and StarOffice use for their documents, the one that's completely open, the one that Massachusetts wanted to standardize their document processes on but got shut down once Microsoft tossed their gubernatorial candidate/winner into the mix and scapped that show.
OpenXML, on the other hand, is Microsoft's proprietary format that it wants to be registered as an open standard, however it won't be truly as it has patent encumbrances. Besides, Microsoft likely sees OpenXML as another way to extort the computer industry for more licensing fees.
Finally, the online community has convinced the gods of the space age to let go of their greed and lust for cash - i guess we owe it all to the Linux guys, but even more to Google - they were the first to understand how to profit in a friendly way.
Locksmith
Real layout/presentation junkies use TeX. The original "Open Document Format."
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
While google translator may not be the best, I at least tried to point out the internationality of this. The OpenDocument format ISO standard is INTERNATIONAL, not just English. Gringos.
With MS Office representing about a third of Microsoft's income, you can bet they aren't happy about this.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
What part of "Open Document" don't you understand? ;-)
Open Document comes from Open Office, not Microfost Office. RTFA and read this page as well.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Except in this case Microsoft have a vested interest in making it as difficult as possible for other people to implement support for their format.
Yes like TCP/IP, ANSI/Unicode, HTML, CSS. You know those obsolete standards that nobody uses anymore. :P
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Hmm, WiFi is simply a logo that says that the devices implements the Wlan-standard corectly. The standard itself was written in committees. Wrong example. HTML OpenGL X window system POSIX Bluetooth ZigBee USB etc...
Now we need for national standards authorities (such as BSI, VDE &c.) to ratify this standard. Then, software which conforms correctly to the OpenDocument standard will be permitted to display the relevant national authority's mark (e.g. Kitemark). This alone will be a tremendous boost for the OpenDocument standard.
:)
What's bad IMHO is that ISO are charging money just for access to the standard -- it's not available online for you to print on your own equipment at your own expense. But, of course, you can always implement the standard by reading the OpenOffice source code
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
They want to make a show of being just as open as OpenDocument, but not give up complete control over implementation rights (read: patents) for their new MS Office XML formats. In other words, itsatrap. If the world moved to OpenDocument, no one could limit the commercial and noncommercial implementations of the format. Not so with Microsoft's standards, into which their claws are still at least loosely sunk.
Now that it's an ISO standard, perhaps the ISO would be so kind as to make its use part of one of those big compliance standards. This way, companies that want to be ISO 31337 (or whatever number they're up to now) compliant will have to use ODF as their primary means of storing and transmitting documents. After all, what's the use of a new standard if nobody feels compelled to use it? In addition to encouraging the use of open formats, it will give companies a reason to explore their options as far as office automation software.
Let's see some mass migrations from MS Office to OpenOffice.org and other such Open Source office suites. A few large corporations making the switch will produce case studies and some of those nifty ROI projections the suits always drool over. A snowball effect would be nice. One company makes the move and triggers a chain reaction in all of their vendors, suppliers, distributors, subsidiaries, etc. etc.
-- Stu
/. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
Even if you are correct about standards, which I do not believe, you forget one thing: ODF wasn't designed by a committee. It was based on the formats used by OpenOffice.
- Cough
XML DOMNow we know that the draft is obsolete and we have to page a huge bundle to d/l the PDF. What do we gain from that? Is this really operational costs? Why can IETF and W3C publish electronic versions free of charges and ISO can't? I'd rather have an OASIS semi-standard than an ISO standard that most can't afford to see.
Don't forget KOffice, Abiword, Google Docs, and about a dozen others that are in various stages of implementing OpenDocument support. Corel says they're adding OpenDocument support to Corel Office (WordPerfect), though AFAIK they haven't said when it will be available. I don't think IBM/Lotus is adding OpenDocument support to SmartSuite (Ami Pro, Lotus 123, etc.), but IBM is moving to the IBM Workplace suite, which is built on OpenOffice.org and, obviously, uses OpenDocument natively.
I predict that by the end of 2007 all widely-used and still-developed word processor and spreadsheet tools except Microsoft's will support OpenDocument, and that many will use it as their native format. This news of official ISO standardization can only help.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
On the other hand I still have nightmares of the incredible amount of hacks I've seen trying to fit absolutely anything, from CD ripping to project management in Excel. Odd that...
(my eyes ! The goggles...)
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I'd argue that there's an organization that has demonstrated how to do 'standards by committee' correctly for decades. You know, the one that defined how computers are supposed to communicate with each other so well that all other competing options (many of them from profit driven companies) have all pretty much dried up and blown away? The organization whose predecessors had as the original design goal of developing a communications network so robust it could survive a nuclear war?
:)
For the young and/or clueless who don't get the reference, I'm talking about the IETF. The IETF isn't even the top level in a chain of committees that have governed how the Internet is designed, just the engineers.
The big problem with standards design by single companies is that almost inevitably they succumb to the desire to create environments where their customers suffer from vendor lock-in. That's why I always treat any standard pushed by a single company with a great deal of suspicion initially. I always wait to see if what might be the hidden agenda.
Cynical? Me? Nahh. I've just worked too long in IT.
Two points:
First, office document technology isn't likely to change all that much. Word processors and spreadsheets do pretty much everything they need to, and it's quite likely that improvements will be small incremental changes in the way users work with the tools (i.e. UI changes) rather than the sort of significant changes that require new data formats. Look, for example, at the fact that the Microsoft Office formats from Office 95 -- an 11 year-old suite -- remain unchanged. Microsoft is pushing OpenXML, not because the Office 95 formats are inadequate for storing all of the data required but because they think business want to be able to more easily generate documents by automatically transforming data. OpenDocument formats also easily accommodate automatic generation from other data sources, being both XML-based and fully documented.
Second, OpenDocument is designed to be extensible. If your application needs additional markup that OpenDocument doesn't provide, you can simply add it. Of course, other applications won't be able to make use of it, but the standard requires them to gracefully ignore and preserve it. Further, OASIS has defined a process for the review and publication of extensions. That process does not necessarily require ISO standardization for all extensions, so in most cases the extension would be widely implemented as an OASIS standard well before it completed the ISO standardization process.
Bottom line: The needs of office document formats haven't changed in over a decade and aren't likely to change much or quickly, but if you really need to extend OpenDocument formats, you can easily do so. If your extension is one that make sense more broadly there is a way to get everyone else to implement it fairly quickly.
Obviously, format extensions/changes can occur even more quickly and easily if a single company controls the formats and the software that uses them. That is an advantage of a monopoly situation. I, for one, think the disadvantages far outweigh the few advantages.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Don't you mean Kapl'a??
No, they haven't! Most businesses have been using MS Word for one decade -- before that, they used WordPerfect. They actually switched due to a large effort on Microsoft's part to make Word read WordPerfect's format really well, while also being better software than WordPerfect. Software using OpenDocument could do the same thing, especially since it's actually a standard.
Companies have switched office software before; they can do so again.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Proprietary solutions that are dynamic worry the hell out of me. And I just administer my own home computer and a couple for my family.
Imagine a document that someone writes that cannot be imported because the new word processor has a new improved document standard. I've been bit by some heavily formated text documents on Word 95 that Word 2000 doesn't get right.
OpenDoc may not be the answer (or maybe it is), but at least it's a well documented start.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
I certainly hope iWork supports it, that's the only thing stopping me using it.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Why do all of you seem to have a distinct ISO hatred?
/. that the internet has been a powerful force in business) .
/. are CIO's or CTO's (information and technical officers) or people who have the ability to advocate ISO standardization for file types, do it. It can only benefit the mobility of your company. One can choose to make switches in direction rather quickly when all the data you store is in a known format. You could hire some coders to do internal tasks for you. There are NO disadvantages to ISO standardization for the customer. One can choose to purchase drop-in-solutions.
From engineering I have learned that ISO standards are completely voluntary. They provide a means for Company A to say, "I need 1,000,000 bolts adhering to ISO XXXXXX". They can then find companies which adhere to these standards and purchase based on best price. If a company wants to be ISO certified for a process they must pay for an inspector to come and check out the process (quality, ensuring, stuff is done properly, etc). I have heard other people bitch about how much it costs to do this, however, it is not your company being forced into the standardization, rather YOUR CUSTOMER is demanding a specified level of quality. These people who are complaining are really voicing a view that they would prefer to deliver a LOWER QUALITY good to a customer for the price of the higher quality good and leave the customer none the wiser. This is a bad business decision.
The example I give above is for screw production, however treat software as a commodity. Then software which read and write files which adhere to the standard are best. Software packages can be built to support these standards and greater emergent networks can be formed (I give the internet and it's effect on business. I hope we can all agree on
To further my example, look into the history of screws or fasteners, there were many competing designs, and the 2-3 best remain today enshrined in some ISO standard along with all their derivative designs.
With the introduction of this ISO standard, business can more easily data mine, update, import/export, modify, and track changes. If any of you who read
Simple questions like "We have ODT files and require support according to ISO XXXXX, can you provide this with your product." replace long drawn out negotiations about who owns what file format or whatever.
In conclusion ISO is important for customers.
If I am misinformed on any of these topics, please respond.
There are so many to choose from: If ISO has been taken, then you can always go to ecma, IEEE or whichever org is willing to take your money to make it a 'standard'. Other people suggest that if one monopolist is the only one to implement it, it is not a real standard (me for instance) .
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Did you really just use the PC BIOS as an example of a well designed standard? Compare it to OpenFirmware, and then tell me one thing it does correctly.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The problem with any standard is when people fail to implement it, or its implemented slightly different. I've spent the last couple of months working part-time on a OpenDocument exporter. The two main OpenDocument applications on Linux, OpenOffice and KOffice both supposedly open OpenDocument spreadsheets. However, neither's file's meet the specified standard. Also, I've used files from OpenOffice to try and open them in KOffice, and KOffice crashes on startup. Using files from KOffice to OpenOffice, they open, but are incorrectly formatted. So, for a developer like myself, the question is, do I write to the standard, or to the biggest software packager using that standard (Firefox). It's much like writing websites, and then having to hack them for IE, but sadly, this is occurring in OSS software. Essentially, until we see complete, working implementations, it's good that OpenDocument is an open and now ISO standard, but essentially, it doesn't really help free information interchange when Openoffice and KOffice are more compatible on reverse-engineered Microsoft file formats than open ones.
Next up to support ODF is..... Lotus Notes! http://tomshardware.co.uk/2006/05/15/ibm_demonstra tes_odf_in_lotus_notes_hannover/
I know everyone hates Notes but still pretty cool.
Yeah right, Like Im gonna write a sig.
The Dancing Paperclip Union is not liking this news. Expect delays.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
Isn't that spelled with a Q?
Hey, can I bum a sig?
Add to shopping basket Size Price
ISO/IEC 26300:2006 PDF version (en) 13368 KB CHF 340,00
ISO/IEC 26300:2006 CD-ROM version (en) CHF 340,00
Interestingly, I can download the USB standard for free but I need to pay big bucks just to view a copy of the OPEN Document standard online? How OPEN is it when I can't even afford to see it?
I can download linux from Redhat at no charge, and Redhat is a For-Profit company, yet ISO is a non-profit organization. I can understand charging for the CD, but why such an outrageous price to download?
I just don't get it.
Most of the Notices for Proposed Rulemaking and various license submission forms and other public documents at the FCC's website are in WordPerfect format, though they're changing to PDF. Goes to show that even back in the day, people released finished publications in editing formats rather than final display formats.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
OK, enough FUD, time for some cold hard facts:
h tm
h p8 -4E0D-B290-C836D5F70867/0/OpenXML.pdf
:)
Open XML is *NOT* proprietary See for yourself: http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC45-M.
ODF is *JUST* as patent encumbered as Open XML is.
The owners of both ODF and Open XML do not and will not collect royalties (both have published a covenant not to sue)
Sun: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.p
MS: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Non-Legalese Explanation: http://www.bakernet.com/NR/rdonlyres/CC54A6B6-79E
To implement either standard, a developer need not accept any kind of licensing agreement whatsoever.
A user, using software that implements either standard, does not have to accept any licensing agreement that covers the either respective format's standard.
Thanks for playing
--
IIRC TextEdit in Leopard will have ODF support, so the chanse is pretty great that iWork will support it (at least for loading and exporting), maybe not as a native format.
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
Let's look at how they dealt with Sendo, a company that partnered with them to help them get into the clubby smartphone biz, ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/06/microsofts _masterplan_to_screw_phone/ ):
Now doesn't all the paranoia start to make sense? This is how they are reported to treat their friends. Now after you can't get their web page at http://www.sendo.com/ to load, check out their article on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sendo .
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Yes like TCP/IP, ANSI/Unicode, HTML, CSS. You know those obsolete standards that nobody uses anymore. :P
Funny, MS does have difficulty with those standards and still implements them in varying degrees of brokeness. Look also at Kerberos and LDAP. Even HTTP is not quite right with MS. Not surprisingly the errors have been pointed out for years, but remain unfixed, and perhaps not so coincidentally hinder interoperability with competing products.
MS may well be funding a small PR campaign by throwing a few dollars towards an external project to create a plug-in to compete with the OpenDocument Foundation's plug-in which is being tested by governments right now. However, even just looking at the implementations of earlier standards not related to MS cash cow, MS Office, casts doubts about how well MS will let OpenDocument get implemented in MS Office.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.