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."
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
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.
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?
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
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.