Slashdot Mirror
ODF Editor Says ODF Loses If OOXML Does
An anonymous reader writes "The editor of the Open Document Format standard has written a letter (PDF) that strongly supports recognizing Microsoft's OOXML file format as a standard, arguing that if it fails, ODF will suffer. 'As the editor of OpenDocument, I want to promote OpenDocument, extol its features, urge the widest use of it as possible, none of which is accomplished by the anti-OpenXML position in ISO,' Patrick Durusau wrote. 'The bottom line is that OpenDocument, among others, will lose if OpenXML loses... Passage of OpenXML in ISO is going to benefit OpenDocument as much as anyone else.'"
Okay, I Am Not An Iso-standard Expert (IANAIE ?), but that must be the most counter-intuitive argumentation I've heard this month.
He invoques the need to have a formal definition of some features (formula definitions and legacy stuff) as benifiting ODF if OOXML pass, so this raises the questions:
1) Aren't these already included to some extend in what was submitted for iso acceptation?
2) Wasn't this specification part of what EU's justice were asking Microsoft anyways?
3) Is it that hard to reverse-ingeneer that kind of spec?
Asking in good faith, as I really hav no clue.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
He seems to hinge everything on the assumption that Microsoft is going to follow whatever version on OOXML is adopted, allowing ODF to be able to port those features. I think that's a huge assumption on his part.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
... at least so I can find out what he's smokin' and get me some of that. I mean, whah??? If OOOXML is garbage, and not an open standard given the really big implementation holes, and not apparently implemented *anywhere* (nor, some might argue, implement*able*), why is it in anyone's interest to have it passed? Aside from Microsoft's, of course.
Confused,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
when the letter has to be distributed in PDF.
Me thinks the bottom line he mentioned was under his own bank balance. Ive heard Microsoft has soft pillows in its bed.
"Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
The majority of publications are in defense on OOXML. As the editor, I would expect the majority of his publications to be about weakness in OpenDocument and how it can be improved. I am curious as to his opinion on how to competing document standards can coexist -- what's the point of OpenDocument if only 5% of people user it. And the other 95% use OOXML, in that case, OpenDocument is a total waste of time.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.html
on his blog for more details.
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/contra-durusau-part-1.html
This guy Durusau seems to have changed his mind to a pro-MS shill in recent times.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I do not support any "standard" that is bad enough that its own promoters have to buy votes to get it in.
This is conjecture, obviously, but I find it plausible, FWIW, especially since there is now a follow-up.
But if OOXML passes, customers, small to medium businesses and even world's governments are going to suffer. It's impossible for a team of 10 developers to implement a 1000+ page specification in their product. And because of ambiguities in the same, citizens will not be able to understand laws or government budgets of their own land.
The only thing is, 500 pages of ODF spec may not be much better for small businesses. What we need is a specification with multiple levels of fallback for simplier generators and consumers. For example, one part of a document zip file can be plain text contained in the document, with reasonable efforts to convert document structure to a human and machine readable plain text representation. For producers, it will be valid to generate a document bundle with only the text file and nothing else.
Using PDF when he could have forced the entire world to install OOo to read it in ODF format.
Deleted
That post by Rob is particularly good, I recommend it.
In addition,
Patrick Durusau is one of several editors on ODF (in ODF 1.0 he was one of six editors) and in ODF 1.1 and the 1.2 drafts he's one of three and one of two respectively. So he's not the editor, he's an editor.
Patrick doesn't present technical arguments, he only presents political ones, and generally he seems to be of the opinion that it's better that Microsoft be involved in ISO than not (and this opinion overrides any issues of quality, or whether anyone else can implement OOXML). This is the idea that this way we get to have more of an impact on Microsoft.
In my opinion OOXML is an insincere involvement in the ISO process (as shown by minimum change during the fast-track, and poor documentation of OOXML) and I think it's naive to expect more in the future. So to me the political angle on this fails.
The technical angle on it fails completely.
Technical issues aside. We all lose if we bow to corruption too.
I despair at the behaviour and apparent quality of technical expertise of some of my peers.
Yeah, that's what we call "not documenting the format."
Oh, and yeah, great, they documented the format. But it is NOT something that should be accepted as a standard. BF is a documented programming language, but if you had to pick a standard language, would you pick BF, if there was, oh, any other alternative?
What is so difficult about the two words "open" and "standard"? A proprietary trade secret is antithetical to that. Relying on proprietary trade secrets in a proposed "open standard" makes it neither.
Which in no way mandates that these legacy attributes also be completely opaque to every implementation except one.
Oh, by the way, we have a way to store odd formatting, and maintain backwards translateability -- styles. Extend the style system to where it can support weird shit like adjusting the "justify" algorithm, and store a SpacingLikeWordPerfectForDos (or whatever) style, in the document, with some special flag to indicate how it translates back into legacy formats (like Word 95 binary .doc).
Except that, as you say, the cryptic legacy stuff is a trade secret. Which is why we really don't want it ratified as any kind of open standard, as it is, quite simply, not open.
I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either you've got trade secrets based on your file format, or you have an open standard. Not both.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm gonna repost this comment from another ooxml "sudden flipflop" story - I posted it too late to get any attention then but I still wanted it visible. AC for obvious reasons! Also please bear in mind that all numbers are just for example's sake, but the general point is all too accurate. Also bear in mind I have no "inside" information on Durusau at all, I am just trying to tell you some backstory on how these deals can go down, including one I have specific knowledge of.
-------
I want to tell you Slashdot people something about how this kind of thing works. I don't really know the name for it, but I call it "soft bribery". You might also call it "economic alignment" or whatever. Here's what happens.
A large, rich stakeholder wants a particular outcome - in this case, MS wants OOXML to be ratified. They have some adversaries - respected leaders of the OSS movement or ODF foundation, in this case. Note that there are always certain people with disproportionate voices - these people are really hurting them. How can they turn them around?
They can't outright bribe them. That's illegal and probably wouldn't work anyway - people would feel insulted. So what they need to do is ensure that the "thought leader"'s economic interest is aligned with their own.
We see this happen all the time - a previous strong advocate against something, in this case pro ODF and against OOXML, will suddenly get more concilatory. See Durusau's change of tone for an example. Now I don't know him, but I'm pretty sure here's what happened.
He would be in constant contact with the OOXML team in MS just as a matter of course. One day, though, they'll tell him to expect a call from a VP or higher - big guns. He's excited to be able to reach higher up in the company. Finally, they're taking him seriously. He might be talking to a billionaire!
He'll get the call. "Wow, we're really impressed with your work on this. My team is always telling me what a smart, together guy you are", says the VP or Partner or whatever. "I just wanted to tell you that we really appreciate the work you're doing and we can learn a lot from you. Say, when this is all over, if OOXML finally gets accepted - we'd love to get you in for some interoperability training and consulting, our staff could really use your insight. We pay pretty well, $500 an hour, and we estimate the contract would last for a year fulltime, but we're flexible with your current work - we just need you on call. What do you think?"
There you go. That's it. A year's worth at $500/hr is close enough to a million bucks, the guy's got a mortgage, game over. Of course MS wants it kept quiet or the deal's off - that's their "standard business practise", and the contract has an NDA clause.
Game over. I'm sure this is what happened to Durusau. I'm pretty sure it's what happened to Miguel. Unless you're independently wealthy, not many people can say no to a few hundred thousand in "consulting". Needless to say, he'll never step foot in any Microsoft building. Hell, maybe it's a lot less than a million - it was for someone I know.
I am going to be very vague here - sorry if you think I lose credibility, but I don't want to burn my friend. He was the CEO/CTO (same guy) at a small systems integrator in the educational sector "somewhere in Asia". A largish school deal was in the works, his company advised decision makers in favour of linux. A respected company, had a lot of sway with the local suits, it was looking like going their way. One day he gets a call to the cell phone - wow, one of the big guns!
"We really like the work you're doing. Say, it looks like this deal isn't going to go our way - but if it does, we'll need a partner to help us interoperate with the existing infrastructure - you installed a lot of it, so you're first in line and we'd like to book you in advance just to make sure we can get you. What are your rates? Well, we'd like to make sure we have you for at least six months and we actually pay a set rate in this area of $$$
His argument is too tenacious, I can't remember any historical situation which would bear out this line of thinking. Come to think of it, weren't there some MS guys calling themselves "The Open Document Foundation"? This is too strange to be legitimate.
.doc history and allegations from Windows file Sharing programmers)
.doc to .odf already and while "better" handling of excel files is good and all, it doesn't mention why this isn't a problem with OpenOffice. I'd bet it's the same as one of the reasons people hate the old format, because Excel does something strange.
It's important to keep in mind the reasons we oppose the OpenXML format..
* It'll let Microsoft extend the blight of their ".doc" format for years to come.
* As with doc, hard to reverse engineer, if it becomes a standard and gets widely used, especially in government, we'll be stuck implementing it in OSS apps while they change it to be different (Bourne out with
* Binary blobs that could be anything, stuck into the code at Microsoft's request, obtainable only from Microsoft.
Lately there have been even better reasons.
* Allegations of corruption and mishandled votes.
In order to ensure the public good, we have to stand against that sort of thing. Being stuck reverse engineering a broken format is LESS of a problem than being in a situation where your votes get messed with. It wasn't a public vote I'll grant but it still matters. After the mess with the standard voting, they have to become an example to others.
While in the pro-camp, we have what?
* Better spreadsheet handling with Excel
* Legacy features of Microsoft formats
Handy sure, but it's not as if we can't transfer from
Basically, the benefits aren't as important as stopping vote rigging or the problems of being blighted with Microsoft lock-in and binary blobs.
How do you kill that which has no life?
Oh Miguel, you are such a kidder
Assuming this standard gets passed (God forbid!); and 6 months later we find it's business as usual with Microsoft hindering access to so-called standards, and not implementing the standards in their own products.... preventing interoperability etc. etc.
Can the ISO then meet again and de-recognise the DIS29500 standard?
If yes, what is the procedure for this process?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
"Superman, a prominent member of the Super Friends group has written a letter that strongly supports The Legion of Doom, arguing that if it fails, the forces of good will suffer. 'As head of the Super Friends, I want to promote truth, justice and the American way, none of which is accomplished by the anti-evil position' Superman wrote. 'The bottom line is that the Super Friends, among others, will lose if The Legion of Doom loses... Evil prevailing is going to benefit the Super Friends as much as anyone else.'"
First, literally, I don't see TFA. I see TFBE -- The Fine Blog Entry -- which quotes the letter, but doesn't link to it.
But I'll work with what I have:
Then OpenDocument is the correct, standard definition, and OpenXML will be even further from standardization.
The fact that Excel output varies by version and service pack, and is sometimes downright wrong, is all the more reason to ignore it. Approximate it, maybe, to make porting easier. Write a compatibility layer, even. But don't push through an entire second document spec, which is so deeply flawed in so many ways, just to make us match one particular iteration of Excel output.
Oh, and Excel output varies by version and service pack. WTF makes this tool think Microsoft will even try to adhere to a standard, even if it's their own?
It certainly would, wouldn't it?
Except for the fact that the OOXML spec doesn't include them. In all its six thousand fucking pages, not one mention of how, exactly, to implement LineSpacingLikeWord95. And what's he proposing -- delay OOXML until this can be included in the spec, and thus make it, what, twelve thousand pages? Or push it through in the faith (hah!) that Microsoft will add it to the next version of OOXML?
Consider, also, that there is a right way to do this: Styles. Extend the style system to support this quirky behavior. Support quirky behavior in an abstract way. Then, put the actual definition of LineSpacingLikeWord95 in the document itself, as a style. Translating back is easy, too -- just look for styles flagged that way, or just styles that happen to match the original format's quirk.
It would take some work, sure. But it would be pushing the work back to Microsoft and Office, not to ISO and any potential other implementations. And it would mean we don't have to carry this legacy crap with the format forever -- eventually, there will be no more Word95 documents, and no implementation will have to care that LineSpacingLikeWord95 corresponds to an actual way of saving a Word95 .doc -- just that it should look a particular way.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
It's an office format, not nuclear fusion reactor design. ODF is already the better format, and there's nothing that ODF can learn from OOXML. Whatever expertise might flow from other standards into ODF already does because ODF (unlike OOXML) builds on existing standards.
But there's another reason why ODF won't benefit: OOXML "standardization" is just a trophy to Microsoft, a check-list item for buyers who want a standardized, open document format. Microsoft is going to keep adding proprietary extensions as they see fit, without bothering going through standardization or documenting them.
(The guy also grossly misuses the term "co-evolution", but let's not dwell on that.)
It might even be true that OOXML as an ISO standard would be beneficial to ODF. However, there are the following problems:
* There are some serious technical issues with the current proposal that have to be resolved
* There are some very serious problems with the way the process has evolved
* There is no guarantee that Microsoft will follow their own standards -- since, if there are big changes to the standard, it would require them to change their current file format.
The first two problems indicate that, perhaps, the fast-track-to-ISO was not a good idea for this standard, and that some more time and work is required before the standard is approved, no matter how beneficial an eventual approval would be for anyone.
Wanna know how much Microsoft has reformed this sort of thing?
You can get it all here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958"Where have all the good people gone?" - Jack Johnson
see comment 3.
So this argument is rubbish. I suspect they will not ever supply a proper mapping, otherwise it would just be used by ODF, and make OOXML even more redundant than it already is.
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
I don't know this fellow, but I do note one thing from Rob Weir's blog referenced upthread - that the sudden change of heart came about after a Mr. Durusau attended a conference in Seattle.
Now, Seattle and Redmond are fairly close, geographically speaking. I wonder if Mr. Durusau received some sort of persuasion from a company based in Redmond. I think we should be told.
If OOXML became an ISO standard the chances of ODF support in MS Office is zero. I'm sure Microsoft will act all conciliatory once they get their standard but they will never offer more than token support for ODF. If they produce anything at all I expect it will be some broken tools that conveniently convert ODF to OOXML but botch OOXML to ODF conversion.
How anyone can think that OOXML standardization is a good thing just boggles the mind. It will either kill ODF or marginalize it so much that it doesn't matter any more.
It's mystery men all over!
What's the point of a superhero if there is no evil overlord?
One should point out that a significant majority of documentation out there is already final and should be non-editable.
PDF is already the defacto standard for this. So presently, OO can easily produce a PDF of a document which can be read by almost anyone. Any MS doc could be converted to PDF by proprietary software. So PDF is the common document format.
It's only when a document has to be edited by a number of collaborators, using different WP and OS that some kind of standard is required. Again, for the most part, the edited document is finalised and can be made into a PDF.
Now practically, typesetting machines can read a text document that is pre-tagged, so it understands font face, size, chapter number, paragraphs, quotes etc etc - and this is all done in plain text. No mystery here at all.
The battle between ODF and docx is the battle between MS and the rest of the world.
ODF should win, simply because it is monopolistic to force anyone to purchase software to view and edit what amounts to be public domain texts.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
When I lived in Malaysia last year (very nice, warm people with a really dodgy government), whenever a major project is stalled or changes direction, or when a prominant politican flips on a seemingly heartfelt poisition overnight (happens more regularly that you think) we all nod our heads and know that he probably got a new Porsche.
Why can't I shake the feeling that this guy has been bought off? Heck, Microsoft has shown it's willing to pay off Swedish votors for OOXML and a slew of other shady dealings.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
Either you've got trade secrets based on your file format, or you have an open standard. Not both.
Sure you can. It just costs extra to get it approved.
OOXML, the standard the best money can buy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
One thing about MS. They have an absolutely crappy product, and some of the worst tech support going (the fact that they have to pull this crap attest to their products strength; none), BUT, their legal is awesome, as is their marketing. If you look at the above, they are thinking in terms of not only controlling, but also marketing it. Notice the last line of "get the press". Awesome. I hate to say it, but I view this as one of OSS's weakness. We need to do a better job of advertising OSS. I thought that IBM was doing some nice ads around 2000, but they seem to have stopped them. Perhaps, it is time for OSS companies to think of setting up a joint marketing campaign that benefits all of them. Afterall, that would be no different than the code. It is joint development, with differential marketing. But a joint marketing campaign designed to push OSS, and then mentions the items could make a dent. Perhaps a set of ads designed to push OSS app server or just OSS OS' (show off Linux, BSD, and even darwin).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
From the thread on Groklaw
I reproduce here the response from grokker59 and below Ron Weir's response.
Authored by: grokker59 on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 08:27 AM EDT
Item 1: If DIS29500 is not approved, *national bodies* will loose a forum to work on DIS29500 - circular reasoning. If DIS29500 is not approved, NBs won't *NEED* a forum to work on DIS29500 !
Item 2: Microsoft-only vendors may lose contracts because Microsoft failed to get "their" format approved. Circular reasoning. By not standardizing on a proprietary, lock-in document format, those companies that only sell proprietary lock-in document software no longer have a guarantee of continuing sales to locked-in customers. They might need to support an additional product or two to continue getting contract awards.
Item 3: If OOXML is disapproved, then ODF loses because it has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between ODF and the complete lack of formula documentation in OOXML ? How is this a comparison and why do I care whether ODF shares formulas with OpenXML ? Microsoft's Office 2007 does not use OpenXML. Neither are Excel formulas documented in OOXML to the extent that translation can take place. What's important is that ODF interoperate to the greatest extent possible with Office 2007 and future versions - not that it interoperate with a format that Microsoft has already abandoned and/or never implemented.
Item 4: OOXML/OpenXML does not define legacy features, nor does OOXML/OpenXML provide a mapping for legacy features. Furthermore, all legacy features were moved to 'deprecated' status in the BRM, so there is no requirement to support them in either OOXML or ODF. OpenOffice already supports MS legacy features better than MS products, so I fail to see the gain of supporting DIS29500 to provide something that ODF products (OpenOffice.org) already does better than MS products.
Item 5: "ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes." Since MS products do not implement DIS29500, this is is a non-issue. MS has already stated they do not feel bound to support future DIS29500 versions in future products, so ODF MSOffice mappings are never going to be ISO-based. Nor should we expect MS to open their file format protocols in future versions.
There is *certainly* no reason to expect that MS will "offer a seat at the table" to any public organization during the planning/implementation of their next version of MSOffice since they've already stated that they do not feel bound by DIS29500 or its successors in ISO.
Another view from the ODF TC
Authored by: rcweir on Tuesday, March 25 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to his personal views, and so am I.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his latest letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be "Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done
I'm sure I've posted about this previously, but I think it's important, so I'll post again.
Even though I didn't RTFA (and it seems to be disappointing from the comments I've seen), I'm going to agree in one respect. A documented version of an MS word processor file format is a good thing. There are lots of reasons for this and I'm not going to belabour the point by listing them all. But it would be good for everyone if such a thing could be documented and standardized.
But there's a problem and it's called the MS Word formatter. Doc files in and of themselves are not particularly difficult to understand (well, there are some strange bits, but nothing you can't wrap your head around eventually). However, how the Word formatter interprets these files on a case by case basis is extremely complicated and strange. This has nothing to do with "the evil empire" trying to screw people over. It has to do with a complicated, poorly written legacy application having survived 2 decades of rewrites.
You could easily write a specification to explain the file structure of word documents, but such a thing is useless without explaining exactly how everything is formatted in every situation. And that's a dog's breakfast. So MS is between a rock and a hard place if they want to do the right thing.
Either they abandon backwards compatibility with their formatter (i.e., old files will *not* be rendered exactly as they were previously) and write a good specification, or they keep their bizarre formatter and write a horrendously crappy spec. They obviously chose the latter, and I have a hard time criticizing them for that decision.
Does that mean it should be an ISO standard? No. Ideally they should deprecate their old formatter and rewrite it to do something sane (arguably the same could be said for virtually every word processor on the planet). But they are going to have to keep the old formatter to support old documents. And we are stuck without the ability to format those documents exactly, mainly because you just can't describe in any meaningful way how to do it.
Strangely, this would be good for their business because right now they have very limited penetration in the US legal community because their formatter can not format footnotes properly. Scrapping their old formatter in conjunction with a new file format would allow them to get this market. I have to admit that I don't quite understand their reluctance to do so.
As an aside, I don't particularly believe ODF is "the answer" to a file format since it also lacks some crucial information about how the formatter should operate in certain situations. However, it has the advantage of being a *lot* smaller and relatively easy to understand, even if it isn't totally complete from my perspective.
As Co-Chair of the ODF TC, let me say that Mr. Durusau's views in no way represent the position of OASIS or the ODF TC.
Of course, he is entitled to express his personal views. And so am I.
Let us begin.
Patrick makes 5 assertions in his letter, and these are easily rebutted:
1) National bodies lose an open and international forum for further work on DIS 29500.
*Is Patrick implying that Ecma is not open and international? That would be a good thing to to know in those places where Microsoft is currently pushing for adoption of OOXML, arguing that it is an open standard.
One does not approve a standard in ISO in order to be more open. Openness should be there from the beginning. Patrick's argument appears to be
"Let's give OOXML the highest level of approval and then it will be a better standard". But ISO standardization is not done with sacramental
oils. There is not transmutation. OOXML does not become a good standard because it is approved. A standard is approved because it is good.
2) Microsoft based third-party vendors may be excluded from contracts because Microsoft has no ISO approved format.
*Microsoft could always add support for ODF to their product. Then they would be supporting an ISO standard. Similarly, I assume they are now seriously thinking of adding Blu-ray support to the XBox now that HD DVD failed. We should not be propping up Microsoft and giving them a free ticket to ISO because of their bad business decision in ignoring ODF and delaying their own standardization activities. The market rewards those who guess right, and punishes those that guess wrong. Microsoft was on the wrong side of open standards. We should not be looking to avoid the natural outcome of that.
3) ODF has no ISO-based formula definitions to insure compatibility between OpenDocument and OpenXML.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based formula definitions either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
4) ODF has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features for an ODF extension.
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of MS legacy features either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
5) ODF has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format for mapping purposes
*And OOXML has no ISO-based definition of the current MS format either, because OOXML has not been approved by ISO!
These last three points by Patrick are rather poor. The fact that portions of the Ecma-376 specification are interesting as technical disclosures of proprietary Microsoft Office interfaces does not automatically recommend the entire 6,045 page specification for approval as an ISO standard. If the ODF TC desires any information on these three topics, we already have access to all of this material via the Ecma-376 text and the Ecma's Disposition of Comments report, both of which will exist regardless of whether DIS 29500 is approved. There is absolutely nothing we cannot do now, given the materials we have now.
Whether things like the spreadsheet definitions in OOXML are "ISO-approved" or not is immaterial. We know the ISO review was shallow. We cannot assume that Excel compatibility information in OOXML is correct. We need to test and verify everything. Slapping an "ISO" label on OOXML doesn't make it more useful or more accurate for ODF.
In no way whatsoever is ODF hurt, harmed or even annoyed by the imminent demise of Microsoft's ill-conceived and reckless experiment in ISO.
Acrobat reader 5 was somewhere around a 5.5 meg download. Acrobat reader 8 is 21 megs. It does the exact same things but is almost 4 times the size, how is that not bloated? I think the "super fast" load times you're seeing is from that new PC you bought, and not reader 8 being any faster or less bloated than reader 5, 6, or 7.
God is real unless declared integer.
"OpenDocument currently lacks formula definitions for spreadsheets,"
OpenFormula exists for years.
Ok... i tried to find out who this guy is. Open Document Format editor? I see no reference to him anywhere on the ODf pages. http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php. I see nothing on his website that has anything to do with ODF. All I see is MS fanboyism. This sounds a lot like that other "news" story that was going around where a "open Document format" closes up shop and says the ODF format is no good... and it had nothing to do with ODF just more FUD. Can anyone see how/why he is the Open Document Format editor?
The OOXML "war" in ISO is really a lot more important than OOXML itself (except for Microsoft, of course) and ODF.
It is about protecting a major standards body processes (bad as they are) and showing one of the major bad-behaviour corporation that they just can't buy their way everywhere.
If ODF goes to the trashbin in the process, it will be an acceptable loss. It is not like ODF is a good standard either, it is vastly superior to OOXML, but that's the same as saying a thief is vastly better for society than a serial rapist and killer.
Ask around. The Brazil delegation had written proof that ECMA screwed up royally when they accepted OOXML (even by ECMA's pathetic standards, which are *almost* down to "pay us enough"), but they were "worked around" and could not present it properly to everyone, and India refused to participate of the second half of the last meeting due to slights made against their delegation as well. You will find both teams had good reason to be extremely pissed.
OOXML can't be allowed to win, not after the stunts Microsoft and the corrupt people they bought have been doing. No matter the fallout. It is that simple.
OK, got it now. But why is the guy in charge of the Doesn't-Suck format talking up the Sucks format? Is someone paying him or is he on crack or what?
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
George W Bush, the leader of the White House has written a letter that strongly supports terrorism, arguing that if it fails, the coalition of the willing will fall apart. "As the leader of the free world I wish to promote peace, safety and freedom, none of which is accomplished by fighting terrorism", he wrote. "The bottom line is that if we capture Osama Bin-Laden national security loses... The constant threat of terror benefits our goals as much as anyone else."
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
GAH! I can't take it any more! You don't make a word plural by adding an apostrophe "s"! Unleash the dogs of war. Every man's destiny. CPAs make up their formulas! Is that so bloody hard?! I see otherwise intelligent, educated people making this mistake more and more often, and I'm terrified that it will become accepted. The other day, I caught myself doing it -- now I lie awake at night, afraid to sleep for I know that the "'s"es will return in my dreams.
So, uh, right. Sorry about that, had to get it off my chest. Carry on.
Because a format designed to be blitted in the days of Windows 3.1 is a great candidate for interoperability and durability! Can I have some of what you're smoking?
How well does that hold up, legally? Especially the part about "Microsoft Necessary Claims".
Funny you should mention it -- see, open standards are about forcing people to be able to use whatever OS or editor they want.
And if you can export to it using a converter, then why not write an OOXML->ODF converter and be done with it? You don't exactly need a rubber-stamped OOXML for that to work. Hell, if Microsoft had done this right, there would be a "save as ODT" option in Word! Think of that!
Make what?
Free Software Foundation. USB is not software.
Oh, and there is a competing standard -- FireWire -- and there's the ad-hominim -- whether I use something is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it should be considered a standard. Once again -- If USB mass storage devices are truly a de-facto standard, and not a certified standard, then they are no better off than OOXML is, right now. Why do you feel the need to get it certified?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!