Slashdot Mirror
WebODF: JavaScript Open Document Format Editor Deemed Stable
oever (233119) writes with news that WebODF (an Open Document Format editor written entirely using Javascript and natively rendering the XML document using CSS) 0.5.0 has been released, and the developers are declaring this release stable enough for every day use. TheMukt chides Google for not supporting the OpenDocument Format well and claims that the newly released WebODF 0.5.0 in combination with ownCloud is the answer to this deficiency.
A WebODF developer blog highlights all the goodies in the first WebODF release where the text editor is considered stable and made available as an easy to use component. These include extensive benchmarking, unit testing, and advanced HTML5 techniques to give the editor a native feel.
There's also touch screen support, and better support for real-time collaborative editing. A demo shows off a few of the features.
This is fast and responsive. Does it avoid long-standing Word problems, such as figures that jump away from captions, paragraphs that adopt the adjacent style just because you're moving them around, and the like? For professional writing, I'll stick to LaTeX for now. For collaborative writing, something like this could be nice (and improve on half-baked solutions like the editor in OneDrive (very slow) or Google Doc (not word-compatible). So, I think this would have to be able to export / import Word docs seamlessly, due to business pressure everywhere...
My guess is that while you can use it and get work done it isn't quite up to the feature set they had in mind for a version 1
It's stable and ready for every day use, as long as you don't need page breaks. I have a 3 page odt containing page breaks and WebODF just throws all of the text and images at the bottom of the first page.
How is this ready for every day use without supporting something as basic as page breaks? Page breaks go back to Word 1.beforeiwasborn
It can use fonts embedded in the file and fonts provided via css. Fonts provided via css can be stored on the server or, when WebODF is used in a desktop or mobile application, on the local machine. There is not really anything for font license issuers to freak out about. PDF can embed fonts too as can OOXML. Providing fonts via css is common on the web these days and of course one should check the license when doing so.
Because modern browsers are the closest thing we've ever gotten to an actual cross-platform ecosystem with an efficient distribution system baked in. While not 100% by any mean, we're pretty close to a point where you write an app for Chrome, and it will just work in other browsers, including IE back a few versions. You have to make sure not to use certain features, but you don't need annoying abstraction libraries like you would in native code to support *nix vs Windows, nevermind mobile operating systems.
And because of that, the ecosystem around the language is blooming, and the code written can then be used in other environments, like server/client (node.js) and data (mongo). The language sucks, but what was made around it is blissful.
Are you serious? The applications exist for when you have access only to a computer and a browser. it doesn't matter what operating system it runs, it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter what browser it running. It doesn't matter that you have no admin rights. If you need to edit a document, it should just work.
Maybe. Which version of python does your program run under? They have a lot of trouble maintaining compatibility between minor version numbers.
Further, everyone has a browser. Not everyone has python. Fewer still have the random version of python you need to run your program.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Because the general complaint about OpenOffice/LibreOffice was that Java made it too fast. /s
Next up! A web browser written in Javascript.
You're drowning. Sorry, but reality doesn't agree with your uninformed opinions. JS has been impressively stable, and cross-browser issues have been negligible for a long time now -- none of which, I'll remind you, have been language implementation compatibility issues.
Listening to you, one would think that the web barely functioned, with users needing multiple browsers, and various versions of each, to use a handful of sites. That's clearly not the case.
Here in reality, the web is developing nicely in to a convenient application platform. JS is an impressive language, far more sophisticated and capable than the alternatives you've suggested. (New and constructor functions were the big mistakes, leading to all sorts of confusion, and later hate, for those who didn't take the time to learn the language before using it. Luckily, they're unnecessary. Try actually learning the language. I'll bet your opinion will quickly change.)
also, bet your shit doesn't run on the browser on my son's non-smart net10 phone
I'll bet your python program doesn't run either. What was your point again? That you don't like JS or that the web is incapable of being used exactly how it's being used?
Required reading for internet skeptics
I would say your original question was answered, and relatively civilly. Saying that the respondent has no point seems a bit petty. The point was made, and quite ably. Your counterpoint is also clear enough, and readers can decide how much merit and validity it has.
I am not convinced, either, that JavaScript is an elegant language, but I am less convinced that it is crap than I was was back when it referred to nothing more than an array of incompatible pidgn dialects. The fact remains that its greatest strength is its ubiquity as a lingua franca.
It is difficult not to be favorably impressed that a resource has been written in JavaScript which shows so much promise.
Link zotero to this and you'll have a solution academic collaborators have been looking for since the beginning of word processing.. Seriously, we need a collaborative writing platform which allows multiple authors to add citations.