Slashdot Mirror
ODF 1.2 Is Approved
An anonymous reader writes with news that the Open Document Format 1.2 specification has finally been approved.
"The most important improvement to ODF 1.2 is the newly built spreadsheet support. The old format was buggy and had a lot of legacy problems. Therefore the new spreadsheet module was written from scratch. 'A complete clean room implementation of the spreadsheet formula was built,' said [Michiel Leenaars, director of the Internet Society Netherlands]. ... Another important improvement in ODF 1.2 is the support for Resource Description Framework (RDF) metadata, a W3C standard model for data interchange on the Web. ... Instead of only being able to link to a URL, RDF allows users to link text in documents to other things like a V-Card or a calendar item. Companies can use this technology to structure their workflow."
Text files use .odt, spreadsheet files use .ods, presentations use .odp.
(Or am I feeding a troll?)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You replied to a FP AC. Do you need a diagram? The only thing missing was a goatse tinyurl.
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
(Or am I feeding a troll?)
In many cases, yes. However this time the AC led off with a first post that could well have come from general ignorance. Many people still fear openoffice, and show that level of complete lack of understanding. There are many people around here who still think that openoffice is a java-dependent product of Sun Microsystems that is determined to takeover your entire desktop and consume absurd amounts of resources in order to do the simplest of imaginable tasks.
So this time, the jury is out. The AC may well have been trolling, though in this case it is equally probable they just simply were ignorant.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Several things happened in 2002. Can you be more precise?
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
There are many people around here who still think that openoffice is a java-dependent product of Sun Microsystems that is determined to takeover your entire desktop and consume absurd amounts of resources in order to do the simplest of imaginable tasks.
That's because they are right. Well, it's Oracle now, but still:
# yum install openoffice.org-calc
[...]
Resolving Dependencies
[...]
Installing:
[...]
java-1.6.0-openjdk x86_64 1:1.6.0.0-54.1.9.9.fc14 updates 26 M
[...]
Installed size: 418 M
Is this ok [y/N]: N
418 MB just for the calc? Seems bloated to me. And seems like it requires java too.
The question is the wrong way around. Will Excell run it is the proper question.
The answer is of course: not properly.
not really, the common denominator here is excel, I seriously cant expect to send a odf file and have some random person open it in excel (or word for documents etc) I use open office, I spread it around my workplace like candy, but at end end of it all the files get defaulted to save in MS format cause that is what everyone else uses, and I cant really soapbox to a customer who is using something that works fine in their minds
The size depends on what you (and/or) your package manager choose to install. To quote the FAQ "For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required. Java is notably required for Base." http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
My main question here would be why the hell are you still using OpenOffice.org anyway? I've been on LibreOffice for ages now, and (in Debian at least, as far as I can tell) LibreOffice Calc does not require any sort of Java runtime.
This would make sense given that one of the aims of LibreOffice is to "reduce Java dependency".
Anybody that cares about the documents functioning properly in the future or when exchanged with random other people doesn't use the MS Office formats. MS does go to lengths to maintain backwards compatibility, but ultimately it's still risky to use different versions to work on a file.
If you send it as an RTF they shouldn't have any trouble opening it. Chances are that they won't even notice that it isn't a DOC.
Ultimately, anybody that demands that they be sent a DOC deserves to receive a word macro virus infected document.
the common denominator here is excel
Is it really? Excel's problem with their existing ODF support was that it strictly adhered to the specification, rather than supporting the extensions that were used by OpenOffice. The common denominator is actually the useless specs of the previous standard that did not completely include everything that was required (mainly the fomulas).
It is similar to the useless standard of OOXML which is not representative of what MS-Office actually uses. If OpenOffice provided a complete implementation of the strict version of OOXML, they would not be compatible with Microsoft's product. Would you consider the common denominator to be Office or OpenOffice there?
You really should move over to Libreoffice, despite the stupid name that's where all the developers are, and it works a lot better than OpenOffice does in my experience. But then again, based upon your post, I have a feeling that it might be up to IT to switch over.
They were semi right. They could have in the same way that everybody else doesn't seem to be having that trouble, they just chose not to to use a compatible namespace. The folks over at MS could easily have picked up the phone or sent an email to the other projects and informally agree upon some sort of namespace that would be compatible. Or, they could always just issue an RFC and do something about it ad hoc until the next revision came out.
What I've read about the issue sounds more like attorneys justifying something in a post hoc fashion than a legitimate problem with the spec. They could have done something about it, but ultimately opted not to. The lack of a specific standard namespace should have been a huge neon sign saying that they were about to implement something that wouldn't interoperate.
its simple, what does most of the people use, excel, normals have never heard of any of this, they just want excel files, what happens when you send a open blah blah file to them?
you could build the best office file format ever, it does not help if no one uses it
Because there was no alternative. Its really that simple,
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Send them a download link to a free ODF 1.2 compliant office application?
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
So both formats have flaws, but there are some key differences...
The guys behind ODF are actively trying to fix their flaws (hence this story)
The guys behind OpenOffice aim for compatibility instead of blindly implementing a spec that is flawed and noone else follows
MS could easily have implemented the same extensions to ODF, and they had already done so in the earlier ODF plugin they sponsored, which was BSD licensed so they could have simply reused the code. Instead, they chose to go out of their way to write a new implementation which they knew would be incompatible with everyone else.
They only implemented ODF at all to try and pull the wool over people's eyes, it was the bare minimum to try and fool those who were demanding open standards, while still trying to maintain their lock-in.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Actually both implemented the standard...
The standard did not define how to store spreadsheet formulae, so OpenOffice being the first implementation was forced to create their own extension to store this data. Most other implementations of ODF, including the microsoft-sponsored ODF plugin copied the OpenOffice extension in order to maintain interoperability...
MS however ignored this, and now created their own incompatible extension... Technically in compliance with the standard, but in practice they went out of their way to exploit flaws in the standard to break interoperability.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Nice try. You clearly didn't serve on any of the standards committees. ODF1 wasn't a complete mess, perhaps you could enlighten us to where it was a mess? Unlike the OOXML I read, and I did read a lot of it, ODF was not broken.
The "If it's not done the "True Microsoft way", I'm going to infect your computer with malware" attitude that keeps Microsoft office software in its own little ghetto.
Resorting to vandalism doesn't get anyone to adopt the software. Writing excellent software gets people using software.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
This is a good solution but until there are significant inroads made into getting corporate IT specifiers to adopt ODF compliant software, users won't be able to use it on most corporate machines. The solution must be to actively market the standard to the corporates who currently can't see past proprietary formats and counter MS's dominance. This is easier said than done as MS aggressively pushes their product and spreads disinformation. Corporate buyers also tend to distrust anything which is free to install as they can't imagine it will be any good. I know this from experience of a trial in my workplace where I and a colleague have for the past 4 years, used only Openoffice for all our word processor and spreadsheet work while all our other colleagues have used MS Office. Despite only having problems opening two .doc formatted spreadsheets in that time, most of our colleagues including the MD have decided to stick with MS office - the main objection being that MS Office must be better because it is expensive! Another argument I have heard is that there is a high cost to retrain staff due to minor differences in the interface even though MS Office now sports the "ribbon" interface which to be frank couldn't look more different to the previous menu based interface. The real problem is that there a lot of people with a vested monetary interest in keeping MS Office dominant and support staff don't want to learn to support something different.
"You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
It would have been great to see them do some work towards importing excel macros into openoffice. Obviously there are ample good reasons not to do it; but plenty of reasons in favor of it as well. And really, anything that encourages MSOffice -> openoffice migration should get some attention, IMHO.
This is about ODF, not about OpenOffice. Aside from that, I think it would be wasted time. Importing macros means that you need to translate VBscript into something else. If you translate macros, there is always something that's not going to work. Those excel-scripts that some companies use can be very complex. You can never trust it completely without testing it extensively, and probably having to change a few things. Just that is enough for most IT-managers to decide not to use it. If OO would completely support vbscript, that would be another situation. Still - is there a change that a script won't work? People can be paranoid about this.
Now that I write this down, considering what people do with javascript nowadays, using javascript to emulate vbscript could be an option. That could be a nice project, for another organisation.
That is correct, the standard was incomplete and not fully functional in the 1.0 revision, and the 1.2 revision is aiming to address those problems.
That said, many standards are like this and have areas within them which are open to interpretation, generally those implementing the standards care about interoperability and will work together to work around the flaws in the short term, and fix them in the long term. Unfortunately this requires good will and doesn't work when you have parties such as MS who are intentionally seeking to subvert the standard.
As it stands, MS intentionally chose to implement their own extensions for spreadsheet formulae rather than following the general consensus everyone else had - namely to implement the same as openoffice (which itself is based on excel), and also chose not to participate in the development process for the ODF standard itself. MS actually went out of their way to implement their own nonstandard extensions, MS themselves sponsored the ODF converted plugin (http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/), and the source for it is available under the BSD license. It would have saved them a lot of time and effort to reuse this existing code which can already interoperate with other implementers, and yet they were willing to spend time and money to implement an intentionally incompatible version. A most despicable act if you ask me.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
My main question here would be why the hell are you still using OpenOffice.org anyway?
Um, because this thread talks about Openoffice, so I went to a box that actually provided OO.o instead of LO in order to avoid confusion?
Clever trolling, but no.
How is this trolling, exactly? Is it the old "disagree with fanbois, must be troll"? It's my honest opinion, based on evidence of what an end-user actually sees.
To quote the FAQ "For certain features of the software - but not most - Java is required. Java is notably required for Base." http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/system-requirements/
Does it really matter just what pulls it in, as long as the end user tries to install Calc and java gets pulled in? That is, from the end user's perspective, a dependency on java. No ifs and buts about it.
Playing the "blame the distro" game isn't helpful either. If the app devs make it too difficult for the world's biggest OSS contributor to provide OO.o without java, the blame should not be placed with the distro. Nor the end user.
I have two wishes.
Polynomial regression on ods
Write code to convert mathematical formulas from word to odt and back again.
When these two wishes have been fulfilled. Libreoffice will be ready for use in high schools.
How much space does an install of excel take?
Good question!
Disabling everything but Excel x86_64 from a Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2010 DVD states 1.39 GB. I suspect that some of that is because of non-selectables always installed with the Professional Plus version, but that it's still horribly bloated.
OO may be bloated in its own right, but not when you compare it to the competition..
But what is the competition for OO.o calc? The several-hundred-dollar and closed Excel?
Or free and open spreadsheets like gnumeric, which weighs in at around 14 MB, and IME[*] has better compatibility with Excel than OO.o has?
[*] At least up to but not including the changes mentioned in the submission. I have both installed, and frequently have to open Excel-created sheets that my boss or other colleagues send me, and sometimes make corrections and send them back. gnumeric is less problematic, especially when people have been "fancy" and used smaller fonts or different colors. YMMV, but for me and the work I do every day, gnumeric is the competition, and has so far won.
Bloat is bloat, whether it comes from Microsoft or Sun/Oracle/OSS-coders. Whether it has less bloat than the competition doesn't reduce the bloat.
"Our soup only has half as much urine in it as the competition" is not a winning argument.
I can't answer for him, but I can for me:
1) Because the name "LibreOffice" sucks. It really, really, really sucks.
2) I have a vested interest in keeping my users happy, and right now, that doesn't mean throwing away 10+ years worth of the name "OpenOffice".
3) Because on my systems, OpenOffice loads much faster (for equivalent version)
4) A greater rather than lesser Java dependency doesn't bother me all that much.
5) It is what I am used to setting up and customizing (at the system level).
I am likely to switch, eventually and reluctantly. Would be a LOT easier if they had a rebranding option.
"The old format was buggy and had a lot of legacy problems. Therefore the new spreadsheet module was written from scratch."
O rly? And whose fault was it that the old format was buggy? Was it perchance the the same organisation which is releasing the new format? So why exactly should we believe that the new one is "better"?
I'm tired of format churn. 90% of it doesn't need to happen. Just get it right and stick with it, and if you try to tell me that you can't tell whether or not you've ever "got it right" because there's, like, no right or wrong, dude, and I should just lighten up and sorta go with the flow of the vibe of the zeitgeist of the moment and buy this month's iPad -- well, then you've just invalidated your claim to have got it right this time.
Surely data formats aren't rocket surgery. Just build it so it's a bit extensible, doesn't hardcode any silly assumptions, doesn't embed a Turing-complete binary format which can root your OS, and you'll be pretty much there.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Open Office is coded in c++. Java isn't required. I don't use java with it.
Does it really matter just what pulls it in, as long as the end user tries to install Calc and java gets pulled in?
Yes, it matters. You aren't installing vanilla OpenOffice; you are installing a custom version crafted by Fedora Core. Windows users don't need Java. Debian users don't need Java. Users of Oracle's generic Linux build don't need Java.
Playing the "blame the distro" game isn't helpful either. If the app devs make it too difficult for the world's biggest OSS contributor to provide OO.o without java, the blame should not be placed with the distro. Nor the end user.
It's a tradeoff between installing Java or crippling OOo's more enterprise-friendly features until the end-administrator installs it manually. As an enterprise-oriented distro, it makes sense for Red Hat to include Java as a dependency.
Excel is the primary competitor yes, Gnumeric is great and is designed for accuracy while openoffice is designed for excel compatibility, the trouble with that is people will assume excel is correct and gnumeric is wrong because its lesser known.
OO is certainly bloated, but its not looking to win converts from gnumeric, its looking to win converts from excel which is even more bloated... Baby steps... If enough people migrate to OO, then it will become necessary to use open file formats, at which point it will be much easier to use gnumeric or any other spreadsheet too. The most important thing is to open up the market, then real competition can occur and bring improvements for everyone.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!