Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Document Format 1.2 Published As ISO/IEC Standard

Posted by Soulskill on from the welcome-to-the-majors dept.

jrepin writes: The Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF) Version 1.2, the native file format of LibreOffice and many other office applications, has been published as International Standard 26300:2015 by ISO/IEC. ODF defines a technical schema for office documents including text documents, spreadsheets, charts and graphical documents like drawings or presentations. The current version of the standard was published in 2011, and then was submitted to ISO/IEC in 2014.

42 comments

  1. Is ISO even relevant? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who really cares about this? After the last document format ISO approved does anybody actually care even in the slightest if a document is part of an ISO standard or not?

    ODF was a published format, what benefit does it bring to have an ISO number next to it?

    1. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Informative

      For one, a lot of corporations and governments won't use formats that aren't approved by a standards body.

    2. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. And I agree with what you said.

      ISO should be more discriminating about what standards are instead of awarding numbers to paying customers.

      Several years ago, my company got sold a broken LCD monitor. It was important to us because it went to our graphics department. When we complained, their reply was because only couple leds malfunctioned and according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective". Never looked at the real "standard".

      Well.. we accept that this monitor is in perfect working condition. Therefor we are returning this perfect working monitor and want our money back like your guarantee promises.

      They had the choice either take back a "perfect working" monitor and give our money back. Or take back a broken monitor and give back our money.

      It's fun when you're evil :)

    3. Re: Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For technical people nothing. For people in charge it makes a huge difference since they may actually listen in that case.

    4. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "For one, a lot of corporations and governments won't use formats that aren't approved by a standards body."

      Which is the precise reason why a lot of shady shit went on that got that Other Document approved despite the fact that even Microsoft wasn't able to implement their "open standard". Have they EVER managed to implement it?

    5. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      That is a load of crap. The most popular and widely used formats don't have approval from standards bodies. Heck the most popular and widely used formats aren't even open.

    6. Re: Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, there are idiots like you about.

    7. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      +1 to parent.

      I hate to be seen as invoking the name "Microsoft" even though it is not in the article, but illustrates the point made by the parent: MS fully understands the attention an ISO number brings. POSIX compatibility in WinNT was merely lip-service to US government procurement rules, at least to me. Same with MSOOXML. "Standards compliance" in these two examples are very clearly considered a reluctant burden rather than a sincere effort to being interoperativity.

    8. Re: Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only really broken thing in ODF was the lack of standard formula syntax. This has now been fixed in version 1.2.

    9. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And now that's its official, we can ask Microsoft to follow official standards ;)

    10. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by wertigon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but in most of those cases it's because:

      a) There are NO standard format in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM).
      b) Such a standard exists, but didn't for a very long time which created a non-standard legacy mess that needs to be cleaned up by someone.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    11. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you have multiple standards anyway? They're not standards then they're published implementations.

    12. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      When we complained, their reply was because only couple leds malfunctioned and according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective". Never looked at the real "standard". Well.. we accept that this monitor is in perfect working condition. Therefor we are returning this perfect working monitor and want our money back like your guarantee promises.

      A bit of the same thing actually, being able to return defective products is the law (the standard). Being able to return a non-defective product is a service (usually, we have a consumer only remote sale exception around here). It matters to the company because they can try to pass it off to a less discerning customer, who might not care the way you do. I did have an LCD with a stuck green pixel once, never felt it was that big a deal but then again I don't do graphics all day.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by fnj · · Score: 1

      according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective".

      A pixel on an LCD monitor is not an "LED". If it has LEDs at all, they are just backlights.

    14. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That is a load of crap.

      Cue the insightful comment...

      > The most popular and widely used formats don't have approval from standards bodies. Heck the most popular and widely used formats aren't even open.

      Maybe in your little garden of dreams.

      Even the governments have to use mandated standard formats (like pdf/A) for several activities. Of course, some get away with using those formats from a widely known monopoly, but even these are resorting to standard ones (like OOXML) right now.

      There are instances when some closed formats are used to avoid tampering, for security reasons. For all other interaction with clients, government and enterprises are bound to accept the most open formats available -- including text and even printed paper. Data formats must be clearly documented to allow competing agents to create them, or a free tool must be provided. Transparency nowadays is a serious requirement. Doing otherwise would increase the chance of being sued. In the government's case, legal institutions would additionally investigate illegal favors to certain monopolies.

      Of course, democracy might falter in some remote country, but totalitarianism is on decline everywhere.

      Even if you're right -- supposed than you're not labeling OOXML closed, in which case the Redmond folks might have a legal conversation with you -- people who use closed formats won't be able to do so for long. Have you noticed how closed apps really hate to use old formats? That's because they want you to buy the new version, so backwards compatibility is not as good "as advertised".

      Actually, regarding compatibility with old documents, I have had more positive experiences with Libreoffice than with closed office suites.

    15. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      according to ISO blabla#000134 it needs 7 leds (or something like that) to malfunction to define a monitor as "defective".

      A pixel on an LCD monitor is not an "LED". If it has LEDs at all, they are just backlights.

      Yes, that was what my argument was about: explaining the hardware makeup of a monitor.

    16. Re: Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant, made my morning. Thank you.

    17. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      a) There are NO standard format in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM).

      I'm not sure that is the best example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    18. Re: Is ISO even relevant? by ctid · · Score: 1

      Can you explain how it is broken?

      --
      Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
    19. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most popular format didn't come to existence because it was good.

    20. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now that's its official, we can ask Microsoft to follow official standards ;)

      More to the point,
      I can now have some fun by pointing out to the PHB that our secretaries aren't using an ISO certified document format (we're chasing some sort of ISO certification wankery at present...a costly game) and that we could achieve the blessed state of ISO compliance in this area by spending absolutely no money on software to accomplish this...

      Next, how about ISO certification for the xcf image format?
      (thinks about it.......well, maybe not, other than for the sheer amusement factor the apoplectic reactions to such an announcement from the Photoshop brigade would provide..)

    21. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do have that fun by pointing out to the PHB you could be using ODFv1.2 at zero software cost!

    22. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      People care if an Opendocument Foundation document is part of an ISO standard, not so much about ISO itself, subsequent to well documented acts of prostitution.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    23. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by wertigon · · Score: 1

      Actually it *is* a great example, because you still have four isolated islands (+ a bunch of smaller ones) of Facebook, Skype, Google, rest of XMPP network not talking to each other (Google refuse to implement S2S encryption on their servers, making it incompatible with rest of XMPP network). So yes it is indeed a non-standard mess, even though open standards exist.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    24. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Which is not what GP said.

      His argument was explicitly that no open standard existed within the field. Given that there is a perfectly good open standard in the field he explicitly mentioned, it is a terrible example.

    25. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by wertigon · · Score: 1

      That depends on what you call a standard then.

      Would you say Skype is an industry standard when it comes to IM?

      No? Why not?

      And then the second question; if Skype with its millions of users is not a standard, then why is XMPP with one quarter of Skypes userbase considered a standard? An open protocol, sure, but an actual standard?

      It only becomes a standard if most people are already using it (de-facto) or if a body with big enough authority blesses it and push for it's implementation (de-jure). XMPP is not de-facto, neither de-jure. Sorry.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    26. Re:Is ISO even relevant? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Firstly, you yourself said:
      "So yes it is indeed a non-standard mess, even though open standards exist [in the field of IM]."

      Secondly, in your pursuit of not wanting to admit to having provided a meager example, you are bending your logic to this (reread the posts and you'll see):
      "The most popular and widely used formats don't have approval from standards bodies and the most popular and widely used formats aren't even open

      Because

      There is NO format approved by a standards body (de-jure) or a widely used format (de-facto) in that particular field, only a bunch of competing (open/closed) formats (see for example the current mess of IM)"
      which amounts to a tautology, saying absolutely nothing.

      That is fucking retarded. Just admit that your example was shit and that your logic was the thing where the value of your post was (because believe it or not, to a large extent, I agree with your original logic -- the required addition is "c) because closed standards make companies more money in a lot of cases, it's called vendor lock-in").

  2. Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a mainstream app that uses this ISO/IEC format, reliably, and that won't crash with a long litany of arcane errors because some unknown dependency is lacking on whatever flavor system is being run.

    1. Re: Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Microsoft wanted to, they could easily support ODF, and let the standards, formats and tools fight it out in the marketplace. If they don't properly support ODF it could be inferred that they are more concerned to maintain lock-in.

    2. Re:Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, never seen libre office do that, and i make all documents and spreadsheet, which i start, with libre office.

    3. Re: Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS already supports ODF. They even have a commitment to the EU to support new ODF versions within something like nine months.

    4. Re: Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they support a version that can only be opened with microsoft office

    5. Re: Now all we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Odt files are quite ok. Ods had a problem in that the formula language was not defined and MS simply picked the excel syntax.

      In ODF 1.2 the formula language is defined, including mathematical definitions. MS is comitted to supporting ODF, so expect an office service pack with 1.2 support very soon.

  3. Visual Studio 2015 RTM downloading NOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know how the Office files are formatted. They are like little disk systems. God-awful but rest assured Ms is itself locked in.

    Downloading as I type.

  4. does this clarify ODF rendering? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    i recall that Microsoft elected to use their own interpretation of how the ODF should be rendering because the standard was unclear about how some things should be rendered. does this clarify those issues so it will render properly on MS software?

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:does this clarify ODF rendering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know but they did add a formula language.

    2. Re:does this clarify ODF rendering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming MS gives a crap about standards. Considering their track record for 20 something years in C/C++... I'd say not very likely.

  5. What does"welcome-to-the-majors dept." mean? by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

    What does"welcome-to-the-majors dept." mean? ODF was an ISO/IEC standard since 2006. The ODF 1.1 update was published by ISO/IEC in 2012. But now that the second update has been published they're considered "in the majors" for some reason?

    It's certainly worthwhile to know that 1.2 is out and accepted as the new version of the standard, so I'm not complaining in a "why is this news" sense, but the " from the welcome-to-the-majors dept." byline that was added makes no sense - it's as though Soulskill was under the impression that ODF wasn't already an ISO standard the whole time.

  6. how long does slashdot hold this stuff for? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    ODF 1.2 was published TWO MONTHS AGO.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  7. What about OOXML? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    Has the latest version of OOXML been submitted to a standards agency?

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!