Why not? The ISO mandate is to have one standard per task and ensure that any new standard should reuse other ISO standards and not try to reinvent the wheel. I believe the grandparent was referring to to standards *in general*. That is, if they don't:
1) duplicate large parts of an existing standard
2) have an extremely large standard go through the fast track process instead of a more thorough review.
Grandparent does make one mistake, though: the "works like XX application" have been deprecated, and *supposedly* they have been defined in that deprecated section -- IE, use only for interpreting older documents, not new ones, as I understand MS's definition.
Still, this is about the third time I've asked: could someone PLEASE post a link to where those are fully fleshed out in documentation. I've had people tell me time and again that they are fully defined, but I would appreciate being able to see it and read it. Thank you in advance to anyone who does.
This post represents my own thoughts, and not those of my employer.
When it produces a piece or multiple pieces of paper that can all be audited and all match the electronically reported results. In which case you might as well stick with the pen & paper method anyway.
People tend not to trust anything that they can't actually hold (religious deities aside).
So you're saying it's OK that if I take my laptop with me and a legal copy of the game to an area where I don't have internet access (say, my cottage), and because the check can't happen I won't be allowed to play?
I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
I'd agree it's not the end of the world not being able to play a video game, but let's stretch it to apply the same technology to image processing software. If I go on a month long vacation to Africa with my digital camera, I'd most likely want to occasionally store and manipulate the pictures I take with the camera on my laptop. But if that software had the same restriction, suddenly my perfectly legitimate and reasonable plans go out the window for lack of an internet connection for something completely superfluous to my needs.
So, if this lawsuit actually succeeds, then as I read this, any time a computer program crashes because someone used it in a way that wasn't intended (ie, anticipated) by the developer, you can sue for copyright infringement.
Some big software companies are going to get even richer.
I just wanted to point out this question doesn't make sense as asked. Maybe I'm picking nits, but I still want to address it.
Neither open NOR closed source software innovates. These are merely different method of presenting innovations to the world at large, either with the details are visible for all to see and modify (OSS), or if the innovation is for use only, with the details hidden (closed source).
A person or people innovate, and they can then choose to present their innovation in either an open-source or closed-source manner.
Similarly, innovations themselves can be developed in an open or closed forum. For instance although somewhat off topic, I'd argue that the majority of the scientific community operates on an open forum. A scientist makes a discovery, publishes the results for others to see, who then use that discovery to further their own research leading to new discoveries.
Neither closed nor open source software methods prevent people from profiting from their innovation. Sometimes "profiting" is merely being recognized as the innovator.
Therefore, I believe what were actually asking is, "What software innovations have been developed using an OSS forum?" There's also, however, the related question of, "What software innovations have been released using OSS implementation first as opposed to a closed-source implemention?"
I will let others answer. I've spent too much time fiddling with the preview of this and I'm still not quite happy with it as it is.:)
I think you misread my comment. I specifically said I cringe when I notice a spelling or grammar error in MY comments.
Spelling and grammar errors I'm fine with as I'm guilty of them too -- typos happen and are typically accidents. Only my own bug me.
Profanity simply rubs me the wrong way and requires a conscious choice to include it and adds nothing to the point being made. It may not be fair, but it was how I was raised: profanity is a sign of disrespect when you're trying to make a point.
I'm not quite sure how a document format supports proper grammar, as you seem to suggest. Seems to me that's a function of the application and can be implemented quite separately from the document format the application uses.
*smile*
My web browser includes a decent enough spell checker, and I could extend it with a grammar checker if I wanted to.
I actually have a few officer friends, BTW -- from speaking with them, they do prefer people to at least be polite to them. It makes their job easier. Of course, the tone of the profanity is more easily interpreted in speech, of course, as opposed to text:).
Exactly, and there ARE reasons for this. We already have 15 years of documents in Word format, that will NOT be converted because they are ALREADY archived for many reasons. This is also why there is deprecated functionality to 'interpret' WordPerfect file format contexts as well in OOXML that Word originally supported years and years ago, when WP was the standard being rchived.
So are you saying that an OOXML compliant application is supposed to be able to interpret the legacy formats?
To me, it sounds like your saying OOXML is necessary because it can interpret those formats. Then, you turn around and say it's not necessary to implement the very features that would interpret that legacy format. Which is it? You haven't really provided an answer.
In either case, can you please answer the question of what exactly autoFormatLikeWord95 means -- without referring to word95 in the answer.
Actually, I find it easier to take someone seriously when their argument doesn't have to resort to colourful metaphors simply to get their point across.
I'm sure using those particular "letters/words or sounds" while talking to a police officer, for example, would affect that persons opinion of you.
Not that I'm putting myself on that level, but if you're trying to say that it doesn't matter I believe it can be shown it does matter.
Similarly, I cringe whenever I notice a grammatical mistake in any of my posts.
Last I check, there were no calls to convert EXISTING, legacy documents to any new, open standard.
However, if your saying that the OOXML standard automatically includes these legacy documents -- ie, those documents are part of the standard -- then you still need to explain how those tags map, rather than just move them to the legacy section and leave them unexplained.
If they are left unexplained, then it still falls that Microsoft is the only company that can fully implement the standard in order to read the legacy documents, and ergo it is not an open standard.
Even if it's legacy behaviour, it still needs to be described. My understanding is that it was moved to the "deprecated" section, meaning older documents conforming to an earlier version of the specification -- but still the standard -- may have this behaviour (although new ones will not). Thus, anyone wanted to process those will need to implement it needs to know how to do it... and it's still not described in terms that don't reference a Microsoft product?
In addition, how can a standard that hasn't been implemented have a section on legacy behaviour?
Re:What the hell were they thinking?
on
ISO Releases OOXML FAQ
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's evidence -- circumstantial though it may be -- that entire COUNTRIES signed up their standards committees as P members to vote for the proposed OOXML standard. There's a difference between that and individual companies joining a national committee to vote one way or the other.
Now, with respect to those individual companies, I would never dream of saying that Google is not 100% capable of reviewing the proposed standard independently and deciding it's of poor enough quality that they must to join the committee in order to vote against it.
I similarly cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not the other companies who joined those same committees and happened to have contracts with Microsoft and who voted for the proposed standard were capable of and did independently review the proposed standard before voting.
FYI: In the interest of fairness, I will state that I do work for IBM, but these are my own opinions.
If you want to debate, please try minding your language. It takes away from your argument when you feel you have to swear to emphasize your point.
It sounds like your argument is, "MS is the dominant suite, so it will set the standards." You realize that industry standards -- as opposed to defacto standards -- exists in order to prevent that very scenario from happening?
If by features you mean stuff like INK, which as already mentioned is included as a description inside OOXML, or things like autoSpaceLikeWord95, then I consider that a good thing.
BTW, autoSpaceLikeWord95 being deprecated isn't sufficient. Deprecated means it's been superseded by other functionality and shouldn't appear in new documents. However, as part of the standard an application still needs to be able to properly interpret it, and thus at the very minimum it should be stated what tags and settings apply the same functionality.
I'd love to hear what you mean by, "accessibility for the disabled." The only thing I can think of here that isn't simply an application feature is perhaps including an embedded audio of the entire document; but that's overkill. There are plenty of text-to-speech converters that operate on plain text, and hence those can be built into the application itself and simply interpret the text of the document. Switching to a larger text size -- a zoom feature or similar -- also has nothing to do with the document. In short, as my understanding goes, accessibility is a function of the application. However, if you care to give examples, I'd consider their merit.
ODF 1.2 has spreadsheet formulas and is being submitted to ISO. See here. Not ISO right now, perhaps, but still an open standard.
Consider HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. They're different formats. Proprietary formats at that, in that you have to register with the support organization to even use them.
Now, a format can become a standard, either through simple market competition as in the above case, or through a standards body. In this case, both the OOXML and ODF formats have been approved as standards, which makes no sense as they're both XML formats for office documents. It would be like saying that both HD-DVD and Blu-ray are THE standard for high-definition video disks -- it doesn't make much sense.
Note: I work for IBM, this post and it's contents represent my own thoughts.
Similarly, if you work for a particular company in the tech industry that is relevant to a particular topic, it's common practice to state so in your post.
It's quite obvious from the content of your post -- and, FYI, no government agency I've ever heard of has asked ANYONE to change EXISTING documentation, so your argument about "going back and fixing" things doesn't work; it's always been about going forward -- that you work for such a company.
If that's actually a concern, why not just work to add that support to ODF instead of ramming through yet another format?
Any argument in support of "OOXML has this feature, ODF doesn't" has to start with why not just work to improve the current format first.
XML is eXtensible by name and by function, and therefore any standard based on XML is also extensible. You do not need two overlapping standards here -- you simply work to add what's missing to the existing one, just as OASIS is adding spreadsheet formulas to ODF (1.2 is due for ISO submission later this year, I believe).
Disclaimer: I work for IBM. This post and it's contents are my own thoughts.
The protesters were calling for OOXML to be withdrawn from ISO standardization -- something that could theoretically happen if a national standards body were to protest against its own vote within the next month or two.
Does this mean that Norway and Great Britain haven't submitted their appeals yet? I believe both technical committees stated they would appeal. Does anyone know the status of them?
Meanwhile some on-looking SC 34 people felt insulted. One neutral XML expert, who I know for a fact took a very close technical look at DIS 29500 asked "what are they saying? that we are incompetent? that we do not have the right to decide for ourselves?".
No, the general public is not calling them incompetent. Other technicalcommittees are calling them incompetent.
who doesn't mind waiting 3 days to count paper votes by hand ? what difference does it make to your lives that it cant wait less than a week ? Funny, I live in Canada and this is how we do it, and we get the results the same day.
Everyone is assigned a poll station, which is then divided up into polling boxes (which is also assigned). As I understand it, each box is then assigned two people to manage it, and count the results when the polls close. I also think there's something where each official party also sends one representative to oversee the entire polling station to ensure there's no bias in the count.
The larger the population in an area, the more polling stations.
As much as technology has made our lives easier in some ways, and as much as I am pro-technology for most things, for some things using a high-tech method just doesn't make sense. Voting is one of those things.
No need to worry about educating people on how to use the machine (either for voting or setup), and the paper trail is built in.
Of course, you can still mess with things if the layout of the ballot is inherently flawed (butterfly ballots in 2000, anyone, although with a pen chads aren't a problem), but at least the mechanism itself shouldn't be in question.
Slashdot Mirror
1) duplicate large parts of an existing standard
2) have an extremely large standard go through the fast track process instead of a more thorough review.
Grandparent does make one mistake, though: the "works like XX application" have been deprecated, and *supposedly* they have been defined in that deprecated section -- IE, use only for interpreting older documents, not new ones, as I understand MS's definition.
Still, this is about the third time I've asked: could someone PLEASE post a link to where those are fully fleshed out in documentation. I've had people tell me time and again that they are fully defined, but I would appreciate being able to see it and read it. Thank you in advance to anyone who does.
This post represents my own thoughts, and not those of my employer.
I believe -- but am not certain -- that the ODF spec specifies that the extension should not be "dropped", rather just ignored.
In saving the document, though, a compliant application should preserve the ignored extensions though.
Two Words:
Hanging Chads
When it produces a piece or multiple pieces of paper that can all be audited and all match the electronically reported results. In which case you might as well stick with the pen & paper method anyway.
People tend not to trust anything that they can't actually hold (religious deities aside).
Can you please provide a link to that appendix. Thanks!
He didn't mail it, so why is it his responsibility to pay for it?
Can someone explain how the UK postal service works? I think here the letter would just have been returned.
So you're saying it's OK that if I take my laptop with me and a legal copy of the game to an area where I don't have internet access (say, my cottage), and because the check can't happen I won't be allowed to play?
I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else.
I'd agree it's not the end of the world not being able to play a video game, but let's stretch it to apply the same technology to image processing software. If I go on a month long vacation to Africa with my digital camera, I'd most likely want to occasionally store and manipulate the pictures I take with the camera on my laptop. But if that software had the same restriction, suddenly my perfectly legitimate and reasonable plans go out the window for lack of an internet connection for something completely superfluous to my needs.
So, if this lawsuit actually succeeds, then as I read this, any time a computer program crashes because someone used it in a way that wasn't intended (ie, anticipated) by the developer, you can sue for copyright infringement.
Some big software companies are going to get even richer.
I *like* where this is going! </sarcasm>
Web pages have ads? That's news to me.
I just wanted to point out this question doesn't make sense as asked. Maybe I'm picking nits, but I still want to address it.
Neither open NOR closed source software innovates. These are merely different method of presenting innovations to the world at large, either with the details are visible for all to see and modify (OSS), or if the innovation is for use only, with the details hidden (closed source).
A person or people innovate, and they can then choose to present their innovation in either an open-source or closed-source manner.
Similarly, innovations themselves can be developed in an open or closed forum. For instance although somewhat off topic, I'd argue that the majority of the scientific community operates on an open forum. A scientist makes a discovery, publishes the results for others to see, who then use that discovery to further their own research leading to new discoveries.
Neither closed nor open source software methods prevent people from profiting from their innovation. Sometimes "profiting" is merely being recognized as the innovator.
Therefore, I believe what were actually asking is, "What software innovations have been developed using an OSS forum?" There's also, however, the related question of, "What software innovations have been released using OSS implementation first as opposed to a closed-source implemention?"
I will let others answer. I've spent too much time fiddling with the preview of this and I'm still not quite happy with it as it is. :)
www.homestarrunner.com. That can stay.
Flash has it's uses, but it is strictly a visual format.
I will agree that when it's used as the primary display method for a business website it annoys me to no end.
I think you misread my comment. I specifically said I cringe when I notice a spelling or grammar error in MY comments.
:).
Spelling and grammar errors I'm fine with as I'm guilty of them too -- typos happen and are typically accidents. Only my own bug me.
Profanity simply rubs me the wrong way and requires a conscious choice to include it and adds nothing to the point being made. It may not be fair, but it was how I was raised: profanity is a sign of disrespect when you're trying to make a point.
I'm not quite sure how a document format supports proper grammar, as you seem to suggest. Seems to me that's a function of the application and can be implemented quite separately from the document format the application uses.
*smile*
My web browser includes a decent enough spell checker, and I could extend it with a grammar checker if I wanted to.
I actually have a few officer friends, BTW -- from speaking with them, they do prefer people to at least be polite to them. It makes their job easier. Of course, the tone of the profanity is more easily interpreted in speech, of course, as opposed to text
So are you saying that an OOXML compliant application is supposed to be able to interpret the legacy formats?
To me, it sounds like your saying OOXML is necessary because it can interpret those formats. Then, you turn around and say it's not necessary to implement the very features that would interpret that legacy format. Which is it? You haven't really provided an answer.
In either case, can you please answer the question of what exactly autoFormatLikeWord95 means -- without referring to word95 in the answer.
Actually, I find it easier to take someone seriously when their argument doesn't have to resort to colourful metaphors simply to get their point across.
I'm sure using those particular "letters/words or sounds" while talking to a police officer, for example, would affect that persons opinion of you.
Not that I'm putting myself on that level, but if you're trying to say that it doesn't matter I believe it can be shown it does matter.
Similarly, I cringe whenever I notice a grammatical mistake in any of my posts.
"Last I check == Last time I checked"
Last I check, there were no calls to convert EXISTING, legacy documents to any new, open standard.
However, if your saying that the OOXML standard automatically includes these legacy documents -- ie, those documents are part of the standard -- then you still need to explain how those tags map, rather than just move them to the legacy section and leave them unexplained.
If they are left unexplained, then it still falls that Microsoft is the only company that can fully implement the standard in order to read the legacy documents, and ergo it is not an open standard.
Even if it's legacy behaviour, it still needs to be described. My understanding is that it was moved to the "deprecated" section, meaning older documents conforming to an earlier version of the specification -- but still the standard -- may have this behaviour (although new ones will not). Thus, anyone wanted to process those will need to implement it needs to know how to do it... and it's still not described in terms that don't reference a Microsoft product?
In addition, how can a standard that hasn't been implemented have a section on legacy behaviour?
There's evidence -- circumstantial though it may be -- that entire COUNTRIES signed up their standards committees as P members to vote for the proposed OOXML standard. There's a difference between that and individual companies joining a national committee to vote one way or the other.
Now, with respect to those individual companies, I would never dream of saying that Google is not 100% capable of reviewing the proposed standard independently and deciding it's of poor enough quality that they must to join the committee in order to vote against it.
I similarly cannot say with 100% certainty whether or not the other companies who joined those same committees and happened to have contracts with Microsoft and who voted for the proposed standard were capable of and did independently review the proposed standard before voting.
FYI: In the interest of fairness, I will state that I do work for IBM, but these are my own opinions.
If you want to debate, please try minding your language. It takes away from your argument when you feel you have to swear to emphasize your point.
It sounds like your argument is, "MS is the dominant suite, so it will set the standards." You realize that industry standards -- as opposed to defacto standards -- exists in order to prevent that very scenario from happening?
If by features you mean stuff like INK, which as already mentioned is included as a description inside OOXML, or things like autoSpaceLikeWord95, then I consider that a good thing.
BTW, autoSpaceLikeWord95 being deprecated isn't sufficient. Deprecated means it's been superseded by other functionality and shouldn't appear in new documents. However, as part of the standard an application still needs to be able to properly interpret it, and thus at the very minimum it should be stated what tags and settings apply the same functionality.
I'd love to hear what you mean by, "accessibility for the disabled." The only thing I can think of here that isn't simply an application feature is perhaps including an embedded audio of the entire document; but that's overkill. There are plenty of text-to-speech converters that operate on plain text, and hence those can be built into the application itself and simply interpret the text of the document. Switching to a larger text size -- a zoom feature or similar -- also has nothing to do with the document. In short, as my understanding goes, accessibility is a function of the application. However, if you care to give examples, I'd consider their merit.
ODF 1.2 has spreadsheet formulas and is being submitted to ISO. See here. Not ISO right now, perhaps, but still an open standard.
Actually, you're confusing standards and format.
Consider HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. They're different formats. Proprietary formats at that, in that you have to register with the support organization to even use them.
Now, a format can become a standard, either through simple market competition as in the above case, or through a standards body. In this case, both the OOXML and ODF formats have been approved as standards, which makes no sense as they're both XML formats for office documents. It would be like saying that both HD-DVD and Blu-ray are THE standard for high-definition video disks -- it doesn't make much sense.
Note: I work for IBM, this post and it's contents represent my own thoughts.
Similarly, if you work for a particular company in the tech industry that is relevant to a particular topic, it's common practice to state so in your post.
It's quite obvious from the content of your post -- and, FYI, no government agency I've ever heard of has asked ANYONE to change EXISTING documentation, so your argument about "going back and fixing" things doesn't work; it's always been about going forward -- that you work for such a company.
Please state so and who, as I have done.
If that's actually a concern, why not just work to add that support to ODF instead of ramming through yet another format?
Any argument in support of "OOXML has this feature, ODF doesn't" has to start with why not just work to improve the current format first.
XML is eXtensible by name and by function, and therefore any standard based on XML is also extensible. You do not need two overlapping standards here -- you simply work to add what's missing to the existing one, just as OASIS is adding spreadsheet formulas to ODF (1.2 is due for ISO submission later this year, I believe).
Disclaimer: I work for IBM. This post and it's contents are my own thoughts.
Does this mean that Norway and Great Britain haven't submitted their appeals yet? I believe both technical committees stated they would appeal. Does anyone know the status of them?
No, the general public is not calling them incompetent. Other technical committees are calling them incompetent.
They're just being polite about it.
Everyone is assigned a poll station, which is then divided up into polling boxes (which is also assigned). As I understand it, each box is then assigned two people to manage it, and count the results when the polls close. I also think there's something where each official party also sends one representative to oversee the entire polling station to ensure there's no bias in the count.
The larger the population in an area, the more polling stations.
No need to worry about educating people on how to use the machine (either for voting or setup), and the paper trail is built in.
Of course, you can still mess with things if the layout of the ballot is inherently flawed (butterfly ballots in 2000, anyone, although with a pen chads aren't a problem), but at least the mechanism itself shouldn't be in question.