ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?
Tim Smith
ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
in ODF drawings.
An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
<office:meta> element.
How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
about OOXML binary data?
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
It's simple, Roy doesn't actually understand anything about what he writes.
He's simply a robot that parrots other peoples words, and can't seem to
come up with any of his own arguments. Therefore, when he reads someone
else arguing against something that fits with his view of the world, he
assumes it MUST be the gods honest truth, and never once considers that the
same thing might be true of his side of the coin.
The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
has received, it would be a far better format.
Moshe Goldfarb
Because it would upset his benefactors and they might cut off his
compensation.
A half truth or an omission of facts that might hurt the cause is just the
same as a lie.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Moshe Goldfarb
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:52:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> ODF 1.0 spec, section 9.3.3, specifies how to embed binary OLE objects
>> in ODF drawings.
>>
>> An application can include arbitrary binary data in an ODF document by
>> including an element in a namespace other than those namespaces listed
>> in section 1.3 of the ODF 1.0 spec, and putting an
>> office_process-element attribute with a value of "false" on that
>> element. See section 1.5. Note also you can put binary data inside an
>> <office:meta> element.
>>
>> How come you never mention any of this when you are writing your FUD
>> about OOXML binary data?
>
> It's simple, Roy doesn't actually understand anything about what he writes.
> He's simply a robot that parrots other peoples words, and can't seem to
> come up with any of his own arguments. Therefore, when he reads someone
> else arguing against something that fits with his view of the world, he
> assumes it MUST be the gods honest truth, and never once considers that the
> same thing might be true of his side of the coin.
That's obvious once you actually listen to Roy Schestowitz trying to
present his points.
Here he is discussing OOXML with some others who obviously know far more
about the subject than he does....
http://www.linux.com/feature/122470
> The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
> has received, it would be a far better format.
Ironic isn't it?
Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> The funny thing is, if ODF had received 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
> has received, it would be a far better format.
And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
future.
--
--Tim Smith
RonB
> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
> future.
Actually I can deal with both formats in one application.
And choice *is* good.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Snit
on 2/18/08 8:56 PM:
> Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
>> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
>> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
>> future.
>
> Actually I can deal with both formats in one application.
>
> And choice *is* good.
It can be... but it also can have down sides.
--
Teachers open the door but you must walk through it yourself.
alt
Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
Tim Smith
alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
> > And the sad thing is, it would be possible to come up with a format that
> > is pretty close to ODF, but that has the legacy support Microsoft needs,
> > and many in OASIS wanted to do that, and Microsoft likely would have
> > supported it, but Sun wouldn't allow it.
> >
> > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
> > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
> > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
> > future.
>
> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
"crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
format.
--
--Tim Smith
Linonut
Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
system and proprietary Word processor around.
What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
standard, and readable by open-source software.
Other than MS Office automation, I see no need to stick with Microsoft
document formats. And for MS Office automation, well, you should have
thought of those lice before you got into bed with Microsoft.
--
Until we're educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city is
cleaned up, there is no shortage of things to do.
-- Bill Gates
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <UYidnUFlnevJhCPa...@giganews.com>,
>> alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>
>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>> format.
>
> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
> system and proprietary Word processor around.
LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>
> What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
> unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
> standard, and readable by open-source software.
Snigger. Clueless. Why would they want to do anything of the sort?
Jesper Lund Stocholm
> The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
> ODF format was proposed at ISO?
>
> I believe they call that *unanimity*.
True - it was because no-one really cared about ODF in the beginning.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
Linonut
Why would people vote for something they don't care about?
--
People everywhere love Windows.
-- Bill Gates
alt
I still don't understand. All conceivable objects in a document can be
expressed in non-proprietary methods. The application should be the one
doing the conversion from proprietary to non-proprietary methods.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In article <UYidnUFlnevJhCPa...@giganews.com>,
>>> alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>
>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>> format.
>>
>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>
> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>
makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
>>
>> What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
>> unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
>> standard, and readable by open-source software.
>
> Snigger. Clueless. Why would they want to do anything of the sort?
So they can avoid lock in. Which is pretty much the whole frigging point
to a multiple vendor format.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHvyYEd90bcYOAWPYRAktvAKDVjmkwrggz9UBfXib4ftmhs7BN7ACeLJcf
rUshbkBwLPPR4pg9qZy0IsU=
=G2mw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The United States of America: Screwing with the
English Language for over 200 years.
--Mike Sphar
Tom Shelton
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>
>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> In article <UYidnUFlnevJhCPa...@giganews.com>,
>>>> alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>>
>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>>
>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>>
>
> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
>
They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.
--
Tom Shelton
Erik Funkenbusch
> Hey Tim & Erik:
>
> I have an answer for you: zero.
>
> That's right: not a single one.
>
> The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when the
> ODF format was proposed at ISO?
>
> I believe they call that *unanimity*.
Yes. The reason was that there weren't people with financial interests
opposed to ODF. If ODF had received even 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML
has received, people would have known there was no accessibility support,
they would have known there was no standardized formula support, they would
have known it had many of the same shortcomings that they accuse OOXML of.
But it didn't, because Microsoft (probably naively) thought that OOXMl
would sail through standardization just as easily as ODF did. They didn't
count on Sun, IBM, and others mounting a massive disinformation campaign
against them.
And yes, they have mounted such a campaign. Virtually every major blog
that focuses on crticizing OOXML is run by someone with a financial
conflict of interest with Microsoft.
Rob Weir - IBM Employee
Bob Sutor - IBM Employee
Open Malaysia Blog (Hassan)- IBM Employee
Andy Updegrove - Lawyer for OASIS
Linonut
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>>
>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>
> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
Not to mention that he completely ignored the assumption in my statement,
which was that the contents are old, and access might require a legacy
application on a legacy version of the OS.
And I even hint at the possibility that an up-to-date OS may not allow
the legacy application to run.
>>> What's that you say? You're worried about those items eventually being
>>> unusable? Scan or convert the legacy document to PDF, already an ISO
>>> standard, and readable by open-source software.
>>
>> Snigger. Clueless. Why would they want to do anything of the sort?
>
> So they can avoid lock in. Which is pretty much the whole frigging point
> to a multiple vendor format.
Jim, you are arguing with a clown.
Try arguing with me for a change <grin>.
--
One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Tim Smith
alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
> >> > We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
> >> > well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
> >> > that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
> >> > future.
> >>
> >> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's
> >> (undocumented) legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the
> >> application?
> >
> > The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
> > "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
> > format.
>
> I still don't understand. All conceivable objects in a document can be
> expressed in non-proprietary methods. The application should be the one
> doing the conversion from proprietary to non-proprietary methods.
Let's try this from the other direction. Ask yourself why we need
anything other than RTF for word processing and CSV for spreadsheets.
A document format needs to represent all the per-document state that you
need to preserve between uses of the document by the application. The
capabilities of the applications dictate what the format needs to
support. Office, StarOffice, WordPerfect, and others have different
capabilities, and none of them are a subset of another one--they each
have things that the others don't support. So, depending on which one's
features you want the document format to support, you get different
formats.
The difference between a format that supports exactly what StarOffice
needs, and nothing more, and a format that supports exactly what Office
needs for current and legacy documents and nothing more, is (I'm told--I
haven't personally checked this out) small. Hence, if Sun had went
along with the desires of the majority of the OASIS group that defined
ODF, and included support for those other applications, we'd have one
standard now, that works well for them all, and would not really be much
larger or difficult to deal with than the current ODF. But Sun
considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF would not
include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are doomed to at
least two standards. :-(
--
--Tim Smith
Bob Hauck
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
> would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
> doomed to at least two standards. :-(
And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
concerned about winning the chess match and they're all thinking that
the users are just pawns in the game.
At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/
alt
> If ODF had received even 1/10th of the scrutiny that OOXML has received,
> people would have known there was no accessibility support,
You know, I keep hearing this argument, but I still have no idea how a
document format is responsible for UI issues.
Quite frankly, for visibility issues, the computer is absolutely a
terrible device. In its current incarnation, it is designed by and for
people with no vision problems. The GUI does not lend itself in any real
capacity to the vision impared - specifically those with near or complete
blindness. Anything us sighted people do to accomodate the vision-impared
is just that, an accomodation.
Tim Smith
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:29:23 -0800, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
> > would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
> > doomed to at least two standards. :-(
>
> And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
> maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
So? Last I checked, Microsoft wasn't in charge of ODF standardization,
so their view on standards doesn't excuse Sun's limiting ODF.
...
> At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
> they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
> Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.
Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.
(Well, except on that chart on Roy's site--it shows Microsoft
controlling Apple...)
--
--Tim Smith
Linonut
> In article <slrnfruumu.8...@robin.haucks.org>,
> Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
>> maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
>
> So? Last I checked, Microsoft wasn't in charge of ODF standardization,
> so their view on standards doesn't excuse Sun's limiting ODF.
>
>> At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
>> they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
>> Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.
>
> Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
> QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.
OOXML the ECMA draft standard?
Or Office 2007's implementation of it?
--
To understand the nature of the people one must be a prince, and to understand
the nature of the prince, one must be of the people.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Linonut
> Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
> QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.
I'm confused. (Don't laff!)
Here:
http://www.openxmlcommunity.org/about.aspx
Ecma Office Open XML ("Open XML") is an international, open standard
for word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that
can be freely implemented by multiple applications on multiple
platforms. Open XML is currently in the process of obtaining
ratification as a global standard with the ISO (International
Standards Organization).
Microsoft Office (2007, 2003, XP, 2000), OpenOffice Novell Edition,
open-source project Gnumeric, Neo-Office 2.1, and PalmOS (Dataviz)
already support Open XML. Corel has announced Open XML support for
WordPerfect 2007 and developers worldwide are building solutions
using Open XML.
It says Gnumeric supports it. So I install Gnumeric (1.6.3) from Debian
unstable, and run it. I try to save as, and I don't find any "Open XML"
format. I see CSV, DIF, Gnumeric XML, three HTML formats, LaTeX,
Microsoft 95/97/2000/XP, OpenOffice OASIS_UNFINISHED, Troff, text, and
XHTML.
Am I missing something? Jody says:
http://www.linux.com/feature/121930
...Goldberg blogged that implementing ODF support in Gnumeric was
"significantly more difficult" than adding OOXML support.
He even said so here in COLA. So why no OOXML (as far as I can see) in
Gnumeric, even though the Open XML Community says it is implemented?
Just curious, really.
Ah, I go to my 32-bit laptop and install Gnumeric there, and it is a
later version: 1.8.1.
Multiplan and PDF output are added, but still no OOXML.
Odd. Also odd that the 64-bit version is 1.6, not 1.8. Both systems
are lenny here.
--
Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves
against attack, and then they attack others.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Erik Funkenbusch
> Ah, I go to my 32-bit laptop and install Gnumeric there, and it is a
> later version: 1.8.1.
>
> Multiplan and PDF output are added, but still no OOXML.
>
> Odd. Also odd that the 64-bit version is 1.6, not 1.8. Both systems
> are lenny here.
According to this page, it should be there:
http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/announcements/1.8/gnumeric-1.8.shtml
Note: it calls it 'export', which may be a different function.
Also note: "The Gnumeric team does not envision using the OpenDocument
Format as it's native format".
"The spreadsheet part of ODF, in its current form, is ill defined and has
many, many problems. For example: (1) there is no meaningful discussion of
what functions a spreadsheet should support and what they should do.
Without that, there is little point in trying to move a spreadsheet from
one program to another; (2) there is no provision for sharing formulas
between cells; (3) there is no implementation -- writing an ODF exporter
consists of reverse-engineering OpenOffice to see what parts of the
standard it can handle. (Note: the preceding comments relate to the
spreadsheet part of ODF only; we do not have an informed opinion on ODF for
word processing documents, for example.)"
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> Ah, I go to my 32-bit laptop and install Gnumeric there, and it is a
> later version: 1.8.1.
>
> Multiplan and PDF output are added, but still no OOXML.
It's in the source code for 1.8.1, in the plugins/excel directory.
Plugins sound optional, so maybe your distribution doesn't build that
one?
I was going to build gnumeric from source and check, but it has a
dependency on a version of some library (libglade, I think it was) that
is later than the latest that is in the repositories for the version of
Ubuntu I use. My curiosity over what's going on here is not enough to
overcome my desire to keep the system matching the official repositories.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
>
> http://www.linux.com/feature/121930
>
> ...Goldberg blogged that implementing ODF support in Gnumeric was
> "significantly more difficult" than adding OOXML support.
What he said was this:
it was significantly more difficult. To be clear, ODF support was
nowhere near as much work as the old binary filters, we are talking
about XML here. However, while Import filters start with parsing the
structure, in the end, extracting the basic state is no more than
the ante for the real work. You need to handle the impedance
mismatches between the concepts in the file format, and your
implementation. ODFąs model of Śchartnessą didnąt fit well with
Gnumeric. In contrast XLSX may be ugly, but itąąs concepts were very
familiar from XLS. We already had much of the code required to
handle it.
I suspect most spreadsheet implementers are in the same position.
<http://blogs.gnome.org/jody/2007/09/10/odf-vs-oox-asking-the-wrong-quest
ions/>
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
> In article <f%Mvj.80732$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> Ah, I go to my 32-bit laptop and install Gnumeric there, and it is a
>> later version: 1.8.1.
>>
>> Multiplan and PDF output are added, but still no OOXML.
>
> It's in the source code for 1.8.1, in the plugins/excel directory.
> Plugins sound optional, so maybe your distribution doesn't build that
> one?
Would that show up as "OpenDocument"?
That's in the version that is in the Ubuntu 7.10 repositories.
>
> I was going to build gnumeric from source and check, but it has a
> dependency on a version of some library (libglade, I think it was) that
> is later than the latest that is in the repositories for the version of
> Ubuntu I use. My curiosity over what's going on here is not enough to
> overcome my desire to keep the system matching the official repositories.
>
--
How did irc manage to get so pretentious about civility |||
of discourse when it doesn't even allow for the free and / | \
open exchange of ideas?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Mark Kent
This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of
natural monopolies, it's likely that a single system would emerge, in
the end, combining the best properties of both, if it be that a single
system could serve all needs.
The spin of the shills is amazing.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Hadron
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:29:23 -0800, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
>> would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
>> doomed to at least two standards. :-(
>
> And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
> maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
> concerned about winning the chess match and they're all thinking that
> the users are just pawns in the game.
>
> At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
> they may be.
Well Bob, there we go. Thanks for that.
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
>> QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.
>
> I'm confused. (Don't laff!)
It's "laugh" Liarnut.
And we know you are.
Hadron
Hmmm.
I would like to see HPT and WronG argue here. A little sprinkling of
Liarnut arguing against the people who have to implement this stuff
would be perfect.
Hadron
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <slrnfruumu.8...@robin.haucks.org>,
>> Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>>
>>> And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
>>> maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
>>
>> So? Last I checked, Microsoft wasn't in charge of ODF standardization,
>> so their view on standards doesn't excuse Sun's limiting ODF.
>>
>>> At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
>>> they may be. Sun doesn't control KOffice or Abiword. So however bad
>>> Sun is, they seem to be better for users than Microsoft.
>>
>> Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
>> QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement OOXML.
>
> OOXML the ECMA draft standard?
>
> Or Office 2007's implementation of it?
Err? Your point being?
Hadron
For *goodness* sake. It must even be something as simple as only
licensing ONE version of windows and wanting to cut and paste for friks
sake.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
> >> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
> >> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
> >> future.
> >
> > Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
> > legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>
> This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
> between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
> which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of
Well, then, maybe people could start lobbying to make ODF open, so we'll
have two open file formats?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> > It's in the source code for 1.8.1, in the plugins/excel directory.
> > Plugins sound optional, so maybe your distribution doesn't build that
> > one?
>
> Would that show up as "OpenDocument"?
>
> That's in the version that is in the Ubuntu 7.10 repositories.
That's ODF, I think.
--
--Tim Smith
Bob Hauck
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnfruumu.8...@robin.haucks.org>,
> Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:29:23 -0800, Tim Smith
>> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>> > But Sun considers standards a strategic weapon, and made sure that ODF
>> > would not include anything that StarOffice didn't need, and so we are
>> > doomed to at least two standards. :-(
>>
>> And Microsoft doesn't? Consider standards to be strategic weapons I
>> maen. Sure they do. And that's part of the problem. Everybody is
>
> So? Last I checked, Microsoft wasn't in charge of ODF standardization,
> so their view on standards doesn't excuse Sun's limiting ODF.
If Sun believes their competitor's view of standards is bad for Sun,
then they will react to that. Likewise for Microsoft. Nobody is
operating in a vacuum here.
>> At least ODF has multiple existing implementations, imperfect though
>> they may be.
> Last I checked, Microsoft doesn't control Apple, Corel, Thinkfree,
> QuickOffice, Dataviz, and the various others that have implement
> OOXML.
Ok, point taken.
Linonut
>> Odd. Also odd that the 64-bit version is 1.6, not 1.8. Both systems
>> are lenny here.
>
> According to this page, it should be there:
>
> http://www.gnome.org/projects/gnumeric/announcements/1.8/gnumeric-1.8.shtml
>
> Note: it calls it 'export', which may be a different function.
Can't find it.
> Also note: "The Gnumeric team does not envision using the OpenDocument
> Format as it's native format".
>
> "The spreadsheet part of ODF, in its current form, is ill defined and has
> many, many problems. For example: (1) there is no meaningful discussion of
> what functions a spreadsheet should support and what they should do.
> Without that, there is little point in trying to move a spreadsheet from
> one program to another; (2) there is no provision for sharing formulas
> between cells; (3) there is no implementation -- writing an ODF exporter
> consists of reverse-engineering OpenOffice to see what parts of the
> standard it can handle. (Note: the preceding comments relate to the
> spreadsheet part of ODF only; we do not have an informed opinion on ODF for
> word processing documents, for example.)"
It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.
The only support for a function in the format that would be needed would
be a code for the function.
Point (2) I don't understand. I thought a cell-reference is a
cell-reference is a cell-reference.
Point (3) is absolutely bizarre.
--
If I'd had some set idea of a finish line, don't you think I would have crossed
it years ago?
-- Bill Gates
Linonut
> In article <f%Mvj.80732$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Yeah, I'd feel the same way. I guess Debian feels that OOXML isn't even
free enough to go into the non-free repository.
--
I believe that if you show people the problems and you show them the solutions
they will be moved to act.
-- Bill Gates
Linonut
> In article <k04595-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
ODF already made it through ISO.
--
The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should
see through it.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Jesper Lund Stocholm
news:M_Dvj.107046$L%6.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
> * Jesper Lund Stocholm peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> toolas...@gmail.com skrev:
>>
>>> The question was: How many countries did not raise their hand when
>>> the ODF format was proposed at ISO?
>>>
>>> I believe they call that *unanimity*.
>>
>> True - it was because no-one really cared about ODF in the beginning.
>
> Why would people vote for something they don't care about?
You tell me. A bit less than 30 countries bothered to show interest in
ODF when it was but through ISO and a bit more than 80 did the same for
OOXML. Please also check the comments from the ODF-vote and compare also
the proposed ODF-spec with the final text - they are almost identical
and none of the comments from the vote was incorporated in the text.
Before you conclude that this was because ODF was perfect - please check
the list of more than 100 corrections by the Japaneese NSB or posts on
my blog for the same. ODF is not a perfect standard. It is a good
standard but reading the spec to find answers to concrete questions when
implementing it quickly reveals quite a few holes and ambiguities.
My conclusion is that NSBs voted for ODF - not because they had given it
proper review - but because they didn't want to stand in the way of
others wanting ODF to be ISO-approved.
Denmark voted "Abstain" because there was simply no interest in Denmark
for standardization of the format so work on ODF was done.
:o)
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> > Also note: "The Gnumeric team does not envision using the OpenDocument
> > Format as it's native format".
> >
> > "The spreadsheet part of ODF, in its current form, is ill defined and has
> > many, many problems. For example: (1) there is no meaningful discussion of
> > what functions a spreadsheet should support and what they should do.
> > Without that, there is little point in trying to move a spreadsheet from
> > one program to another; (2) there is no provision for sharing formulas
> > between cells; (3) there is no implementation -- writing an ODF exporter
> > consists of reverse-engineering OpenOffice to see what parts of the
> > standard it can handle. (Note: the preceding comments relate to the
> > spreadsheet part of ODF only; we do not have an informed opinion on ODF for
> > word processing documents, for example.)"
>
> It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
> supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
> calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
> implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.
>
> The only support for a function in the format that would be needed would
> be a code for the function.
That's what they are talking about, I believe. OOXML, and ODF 1.2,
specify the names of a large number of functions, and tells what they
should do. Neither tell how the application must implement them. You
can implement cos() or IPMT() anyway you want that calculates the result
according the spec.
ODF 1.0 just leaves this out. So, if you are implementing an ODF 1.0
spreadsheet application, and want to provide a formula to calculate the
present value of a series of future payments, the spec doesn't tell you
what to name this function, or what arguments it has, or whether
payments are the beginning or end of periods (or can be specified by an
argument). So what you end up doing is either just coming up with
something of your own (and then your spreadsheets won't work in other
ODF programs), or you copy Excel (either directly, by looking in the
Excel manual, or indirectly, by looking at OpenOffice documentation and
code to see what they did when they copied Excel).
--
--Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch
> It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
> supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
> calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
> implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.
Think of it like storing dates. If you don't know the that a date value
uses 1900 as an epoch and refers to milliseconds since that, you are
screwed. You could read in data produced by arbitrary applications that
use different epochs and different precision and all your dates are off.
The format has to define the expectations of the application, or else data
saved cannot be interoperable. ODF 1.0 just stores functions as text,
which means each application is left to create it's own functions, and if
two applications store the function name differently, then neither
understands what the other is trying to do.
Remember, that in spreadsheets, the function is part of the data as well.
> The only support for a function in the format that would be needed would
> be a code for the function.
But in ODF, they didn't use codes. The used Text representations of the
function. SIN(), COS(), etc.. which is fine for common functions, but what
about less common ones?
The format has to specify this or there is no interoperability.
> Point (2) I don't understand. I thought a cell-reference is a
> cell-reference is a cell-reference.
Yeah, i'm not sure what he means by that either.
> Point (3) is absolutely bizarre.
He's saying that OOo doesn't fully implement ODF I think.
JEDIDIAH
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:23:48 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>
>> It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
>> supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
>> calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
>> implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.
It's like SQL standards.
You have data structure.
Concepts of references between data.
And standard operators.
An ANSI spreadsheet format should be like ANSI SQL.
>
> Think of it like storing dates. If you don't know the that a date value
> uses 1900 as an epoch and refers to milliseconds since that, you are
> screwed. You could read in data produced by arbitrary applications that
> use different epochs and different precision and all your dates are off.
[deletia]
mwel...@gmail.com
> Point (2) I don't understand. I thought a cell-reference is a
> cell-reference is a cell-reference.
It is common in spreadsheets to have the "same" formula repeating
hundreds, if not thousands of
times. The meaning of "same" is a bit special, though. For example,
column A might contain
some numbers, B1 could be =(A1+1)^$E$1-1; B2 could be =(B1+1)^$E$1-1.
The latter two would
be considered the same formula because the A-cell that they refer to
in both cases is the one to
the left.
The internal representation of the formulas should be shared. That
saves *massive* amounts of
memory in real-life spreadsheets. ODF does not support this. In
other words, you have to parse
the same expression thousands of times and then check to see if you
have seen the resulting
tree before. Not good.
> Point (3) is absolutely bizarre.
No spreadsheet that I know of implements anywhere near the full
standard, so in practice one
has to reverse engineer OO.o to figure out what parts can be used.
Morten Welinder
te...@gnome.org
Mark Kent
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <k04595-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
>>> >> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
>>> >> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
>>> >> future.
>>> >
>>> > Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>> > legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>
>>> This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
>>> between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
>>> which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of
>>
>> Well, then, maybe people could start lobbying to make ODF open, so we'll
>> have two open file formats?
>
> ODF already made it through ISO.
>
OOXML is *not* an open file format, ODF is. This is yet more
shillcosystem spin.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
what are you babbling about now?
Are you saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for
something? the *format* not MS-Office itself.
Ora re you posting while stoned or something? 'cause your reply to Tom
made zero sense.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHwUEmd90bcYOAWPYRAkk/AKCvWDozE2S266UocYUsieCHEO+JogCfQM/3
oTy09qOoU87Xb/gt0BLX4/k=
=UJO+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
When you pay $900 for a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:14:06 -0600,
Tom Shelton <tom_s...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLcomcast.net> wrote:
> On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
>> Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>>
>>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <UYidnUFlnevJhCPa...@giganews.com>,
>>>>> alt <spam...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>>>
>>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>>>> format.
>>>>
>>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>>>
>>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
>>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
>>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>>>
>>
>> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
>> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
>>
>
> They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
> things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.
>
So not only do you have to have the right version of MS-Office, but the
right version of MS-Windows too? "Sorry, you can't read that document,
please buy a new computer first"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHwUCrd90bcYOAWPYRAvVYAJ4sjAt7Lzp65AtXuyhufIBuXoJSGwCgpK8E
QeQZauOCDdbjTkmgF+j87z8=
=uYjv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an
incompetent slacker.
Moshe Goldfarb
> Linonut <lin...@bollsouth.nut> espoused:
>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> In article <k04595-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
>>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> >> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
>>>> >> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
>>>> >> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
>>>> >> future.
>>>> >
>>>> > Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>>> > legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>>
>>>> This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
>>>> between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
>>>> which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of
>>>
>>> Well, then, maybe people could start lobbying to make ODF open, so we'll
>>> have two open file formats?
>>
>> ODF already made it through ISO.
>>
>
> OOXML is *not* an open file format, ODF is. This is yet more
> shillcosystem spin.
You still haven't answered the question.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Tom Shelton
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:14:06 -0600,
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson <warl...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
> >>> Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
> >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> >>>>> alt <spamt...@lazyeyez.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
> >>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>
> >>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
> >>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
> >>>>> format.
>
> >>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
> >>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
> >>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>
> >>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
> >>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
> >>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>
> >> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
> >> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
>
> > They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
> > things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.
>
> So not only do you have to have the right version of MS-Office, but the
> right version of MS-Windows too? "Sorry, you can't read that document,
> please buy a new computer first"
That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
embed say another application in the document, then that application
may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
very likely scenario....
--
Tom Shelton
--
Tom Shelton
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> OOXML is *not* an open file format, ODF is. This is yet more
> shillcosystem spin.
Who to believe...Mark Kent, or the editor of the ODF TC at OASIS?
<http://www.durusau.net/publications/OpenXMLPosterChild.pdf>
I'd go with the latter. Or did Microsoft get to OASIS now, Mark, and so
they are shilling for MS?
--
--Tim Smith
Jesper Lund Stocholm
news:7519ea72-a579-46ee...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
> embed say another application in the document, then that application
> may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
> very likely scenario....
How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
format - not an application or platform.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
Roy Schestowitz
The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.15 0.96 1.45 3/153 6782
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
Moshe Goldfarb
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____
>
>> Tom Shelton <tom_s...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:7519ea72-a579-46ee...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
>>> embed say another application in the document, then that application
>>> may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
>>> very likely scenario....
>>
>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
>> format - not an application or platform.
>
> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
> bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
I wouldn't trust a thing you say about OOXML, Roy Schestowitz and neither
should the other poster.
If you want to hear what Roy Schestowitz doesn't know about OOXML, listen
here:
http://www.linux.com/feature/122470
Schestowitz gets drilled a new one by people who DO know about OOXML.
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
> bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
It would be more interesting if you would explain what you think is bad
about that.
Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
code.
--
--Tim Smith
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
OLE objects don't work with OSX versions of MS-Office?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHwylmd90bcYOAWPYRAlhPAJ43ee85IL3HfspbZCfoud4l86hsogCfdh/y
JvbqlcOGI6r8t0FOxrOGxG8=
=2PbG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you
didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable.
--Leslie Lamport
Jesper Lund Stocholm
news:1326774.0...@schestowitz.com:
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____
>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
>> document format - not an application or platform.
>
> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
until it makes your face blue.
I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
they wish in the files.
What do you think the alternative should be?
Tim Smith
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> > Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
> > has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
> > code.
> >
> >
>
>
> OLE objects don't work with OSX versions of MS-Office?
I thought they used something similar but not quite the same on OS X,
but could be wrong.
--
--Tim Smith
Jesper Lund Stocholm
news:reply_in_group-8C6...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
That is actually not true. ODF does not have explixit support for OLE-
objects. Section 9.3.3 (if I remember correctly) has a <draw:object-ole>-
element for "binary objects", but the term "OLE" is used as a general
term to describe general "Object linking and embedding" and is not
specific to Windows.
It is exactly the same way it is done in OOXML.
:o)
Jesper Lund Stocholm
An "OLE file" is actually just a file or more correctly, a "OLE2
Compound file format" file, but it is essentially just a file format
that allows seperate streams to be persisted on disk. Conceptionally it
is comparable to a "Zip archive" where several streams (files) are saved
in a single file. The term "filesystem within a file" is often used to
describe it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_storage for more details.
On Windows, the technology "OLE" is used to read these compound files
but on Macs, Linux, mainframes etc they use alternative tools or
technologies to read the contents of these files.
Roy Schestowitz
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in
> news:1326774.0...@schestowitz.com:
>
>> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____
>
>>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
>>> document format - not an application or platform.
>>
>> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
>> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
>> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
^
typo.
> Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
> you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
> until it makes your face blue.
>
> I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
> they wish in the files.
>
> What do you think the alternative should be?
With all the Microsoft agents in this newsgroup, I don't know what noise you
get exposed to (I filter them out), but here are some pointers taken from the
past week (ish) alone:
This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
,----[ Quote ]
| <Relationships xmlns="…">
| <Relationship Id="rId7"
| Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
| </Relationships>
|
| [...]
|
| Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
| vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
|
| Good Bye Interoperability!
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries-inside
OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')
DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
,----[ Quote ]
| Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
| Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies from the
| specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for deprecated
| information. With the removal of this information from the DIS-29500, the
| design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The entire specification has
| therefore effectively become obsolete.
`----
http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly indicate
that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions right there inside
OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given the flood here of Microsoft
agents I don't think it's the right place to discuss this.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 147 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
Tom Shelton
<jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
> Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@comcast.net> wrote innews:7519ea72-a579-46ee...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
> > embed say another application in the document, then that application
> > may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
> > very likely scenario....
>
> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
> format - not an application or platform.
>
links to other applications - or activex controls.
--
Tom Shelton
Tom Shelton
wrote:
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 22:01 : \____
>
> >news:1326774.0...@schestowitz.com:
>
> >> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____
>
> >>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
> >>> document format - not an application or platform.
>
> >> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
> >> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
> >> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.
>
> ^
> typo.
>
> > Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
> > you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
> > until it makes your face blue.
>
> > I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
> > they wish in the files.
>
> > What do you think the alternative should be?
>
> With all the Microsoft agents in this newsgroup, I don't know what noise you
> get exposed to (I filter them out), but here are some pointers taken from the
> past week (ish) alone:
>
> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | <Relationship Id="rId7"
> | Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
> | </Relationships>
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
> | vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
> |
> | Good Bye Interoperability!
> `----
>
>
> OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')
>
>
> DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
> | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies from the
> | specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for deprecated
> | information. With the removal of this information from the DIS-29500, the
> | design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The entire specification has
> | therefore effectively become obsolete.
> `----
>
> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
>
> I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly indicate
> that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions right there inside
> OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given the flood here of Microsoft
> agents I don't think it's the right place to discuss this.
>
> --
> ~~ Best of wishes
>
> Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
> Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 147 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Why do you keep trying to deflect attention from the fact that ODF
allows the EXACT same thing? It does - read the spec. People in
glass houses and all that...
--
Tom Shelton
Jesper Lund Stocholm
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 22:01 : \____
>
>> What do you think the alternative should be?
>
> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| <Relationships xmlns="…">
>| <Relationship Id="rId7"
>| Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
>| </Relationships>
But Roy, all document formats permit inclusion of arbitrary binary
chunks. You are correct that it poses a problem with interoperability,
but that's sadly the reality of the world we live in. Would you prefer
that OOXML should be the only document format without this ability?
> OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')
>
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41316/good-bye-interoperability-2-with-p
> roprietary-audio-and-video-formats
Some of the problems stated on the page are nonsense. Which ones are you
referring to?
> DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
>| Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies
>| from the specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for
>| deprecated information. With the removal of this information from the
>| DIS-29500, the design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The
>| entire specification has therefore effectively become obsolete.
> `----
They misunderstand the term "deprecated". Deprecated items are still
normative and still part of the specifation. So the goals can still be
met.
> http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
>
> I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly
> indicate that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions
> right there inside OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given
> the flood here of Microsoft agents I don't think it's the right place
> to discuss this.
Please provide them. It is true that OOXML allows storing printer
specific data in the file. These are naturally platform specific, but
they are not Windows-only.
Jesper Lund Stocholm
> On Feb 25, 12:34 am, Jesper Lund Stocholm
> <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
>> Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@comcast.net> wrote
>> innews:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff
> -870ddb...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if
>> > they
>
>> > embed say another application in the document, then that
>> > application may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really
>> > think this is a very likely scenario....
>>
>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
>> document format - not an application or platform.
>>
>
> links to other applications - or activex controls.
Exactly - but that is not the same as "embedding another application".
Where can you embed ActiveX-controls in OOXML?
Tim Smith
Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
> > I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly
> > indicate that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions
> > right there inside OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given
> > the flood here of Microsoft agents I don't think it's the right place
> > to discuss this.
>
> Please provide them. It is true that OOXML allows storing printer
> specific data in the file. These are naturally platform specific, but
> they are not Windows-only.
For those who haven't caught on, Mr. Stocholm is representing Denmark at
the BRM, and is *thoroughly* familiar with OOXML and ODF, and also
appears to be unbiased. It's going to be fun watching Roy's attempts to
"educate" him about OOXML.
Anyone want to guess how long it will take Roy to figure out that he
(and everyone else in this group) is thoroughly outclassed when it comes
to arguing details OOXML or ODF spec content with Mr. Stocholm, and
shuts up?
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz
Hi Jesper,
Your stubborn prejudice here makes a discussion here a lost cause. Sorry, but
this seems like a waste of time for both of us. You already made up your mind.
Good luck in Geneva. I hear (read rather) that Microsoft employees are flying
in, so you'll probably have more enjoyable people to talk to than me. You
know, like-minded people.
For all I know and learned, the purpose of standard is not just to spur
competition (a negligible factor) but to ensure programs interact with one
another. The question you need to ask yourself is whether you can turn
documents into something open like the WWW. It wasn't the case before
(Microsoft was prosecuted for technical sabotage, AFAIK) and it still isn't
the case, esp. with OOXML which has SharePoint tags and other hooks that are
bound to make lockin much worse and more extensive.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 127 total, 1 running, 126 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Hadron
So thats two in one day.
OOXL expert here. DVD/CD burning SW maven here. Two COLA freaks running
for cover in the face of facts. Same cartoon, different day.
Jesper Lund Stocholm
> Your stubborn prejudice here makes a discussion here a lost cause.
Hi Rob,
If I appear stubborn I appologize for it. I do not try to be stubborn but
I think it is important to have a fact-based discussion.
> Sorry, but this seems like a waste of time for both of us. You already
> made up your mind. Good luck in Geneva. I hear (read rather) that
> Microsoft employees are flying in, so you'll probably have more
> enjoyable people to talk to than me. You know, like-minded people.
Even though I would like to comment on your comment here, I have decided
not to comment on anything BRM-related while the BRM is being held.
> For all I know and learned, the purpose of standard is not just to
> spur competition (a negligible factor) but to ensure programs interact
> with one another.
This is true. Enhanced competition is a positive side-effect to enhanced
interoperability.
> The question you need to ask yourself is whether you
> can turn documents into something open like the WWW. It wasn't the
> case before (Microsoft was prosecuted for technical sabotage, AFAIK)
> and it still isn't the case, esp. with OOXML which has SharePoint tags
OOXML does not contain SharePoint-elements. The word "SharePoint" appears
three times in the specification (according to my interim search) in Part
3 section 4.5 where slide syncronization is described. Please be aware
that Part 3 is a "Primer" and it does not specify element nor attribute
behaviour. This is done in Part 4 (the reference part) section 7.4.1
(sldSyncPr) where SharePoint is not mentioned. Please also note here that
the references to SharePoint, WebDav, SOAP have been removed in "Response
471" as response to the Indian comment IN-0022.
> and other hooks that are bound to make lockin much worse and more
> extensive.
Could you please provide me with data of these?
I think it is important for you guys to know that I am not exclusively
pro OOXML. I am a "pro-choice"-kindda guy that see benefits of having
both document formats in ISO.
It's not either/or - at least not to me.
:o)
Erik Funkenbusch
> For those who haven't caught on, Mr. Stocholm is representing Denmark at
> the BRM, and is *thoroughly* familiar with OOXML and ODF, and also
> appears to be unbiased. It's going to be fun watching Roy's attempts to
> "educate" him about OOXML.
>
> Anyone want to guess how long it will take Roy to figure out that he
> (and everyone else in this group) is thoroughly outclassed when it comes
> to arguing details OOXML or ODF spec content with Mr. Stocholm, and
> shuts up?
Lol, Roy's answer is basically "I don't want to have a fact based
discussion, I prefer to spread FUD, and if I don't listen to you, I can
continue to pretend I don't know the facts"
Hadron
How can he continue to want to be such a laughing stock? Did you hear
what a fool he made of himself on that webcast? It was obvious he didn't
have a clue about the technical rights or wrongs of OOXML or ODF and was
only there on some misguided moral crusade against anything MS. The
other guys were pretty much laughing in his face. It was painful.
Vernon Wormer
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:401355675....@schestowitz.com...
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Tuesday 26 February 2008 09:47 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in
>> news:1431145.k...@schestowitz.com:
>>
>>> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 22:01 : \____
>>>
>>>> What do you think the alternative should be?
>>>
>>> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
When confronted with facts and reason, Roy Schestowitz resorts to name
calling and then runs away like the immature little child that he is.
This is Marti's and Doug's "hero" that they worship and follow. With
"advocates" like Roy representing linux, it's no wonder it hasn't progressed
beyond 0.6% of the desktops. Is it any wonder why normal people shun away
from zealot idiots like Roy Schestowitz and even the Linux community in
large is starting to distance themselves from the Schestowitz kook.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> Your stubborn prejudice here makes a discussion here a lost cause. Sorry, but
> this seems like a waste of time for both of us. You already made up your mind.
> Good luck in Geneva. I hear (read rather) that Microsoft employees are flying
> in, so you'll probably have more enjoyable people to talk to than me. You
> know, like-minded people.
Roy clearly has never read Mr. Stocholm's blog, which is full of
criticism of OOXML. Of course, Mr. Stocholm limits his criticism to
things that are *actually* problems, and so must be pro-Microsoft in
Roy's view.
--
--Tim Smith
Vernon Wormer
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-2FF...@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
The difference is that the respected Mr. Stocholm is educated in these
matters and is representing his country at the international standards
committee.
Roy Schestowitz on the other hand is a worthless "know it all" spammer who
does nothing but whine and fabricate lies and conspiracy theories instead of
confronting real issues.
This is why Mr. Stocholm is representing his nation and is one of the
leaders and decision makers in this process. And also why Roy Schestowitz is
some low life spammer who sits in a dorm room 24/7 where he has no power or
influence and Roy's opinion in any matter is absolutely meaningless.
> --
> --Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
With all due respect Mr. Stocholm, you are trying to get complex
information from an idiot, Roy Schestowitz.
Give a listen here to get a deeper understanding of how little Roy
Schestowitz knows about OOXML etc.
This is a podcast that discusses these very issues.
http://www.linux.com/feature/122470
Moshe Goldfarb
Yes, Mr Stocholm is obviously very well versed in the topic and like you
say he appears to have no axe to grind WRT this issue.
Watch for Roy Schestowitz go right down the drain on this one.
Moshe Goldfarb
Hahaha!!
Roy is probably cowering in a corner wrapped in his favorite blanket,
sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth like some kind of a retard.
Moshe Goldfarb
I thought the other guys were very professional for not totally drilling
Roy Schestowitz into the ground.
Once they figured out he didn't know what he was talking about, which took
about 35 seconds, they mostly ignored him.
Listen here:
http://www.linux.com/feature/122470
Moshe Goldfarb
He is not prejudice at all.
That describes *YOU* Roy Schestowitz.
In fact you are the one on some kind of a mission here.
You sound like a total paranoid idiot in this and just about every other
thread you post and with very few exceptions.
> Good luck in Geneva. I hear (read rather) that Microsoft employees are flying
> in, so you'll probably have more enjoyable people to talk to than me. You
> know, like-minded people.
Bury your head in the sand rather than debate facts, which you obviously
can't do or you would not be running away, Roy Schestowitz.
> For all I know and learned, the purpose of standard is not just to spur
> competition (a negligible factor) but to ensure programs interact with one
> another. The question you need to ask yourself is whether you can turn
> documents into something open like the WWW. It wasn't the case before
> (Microsoft was prosecuted for technical sabotage, AFAIK) and it still isn't
> the case, esp. with OOXML which has SharePoint tags and other hooks that are
> bound to make lockin much worse and more extensive.
Discussing a topic is a lot more difficult than SPAMMING all day isn't it
Roy Schestowitz?
Moshe Goldfarb
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in
> news:401355675....@schestowitz.com:
>
>> Your stubborn prejudice here makes a discussion here a lost cause.
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> If I appear stubborn I appologize for it. I do not try to be stubborn but
> I think it is important to have a fact-based discussion.
You are not being stubborn at all Jesper, you are stating facts.
The problem is, facts and Roy Schestowitz do not mix well.
Google him and see for yourself.
Take a look at his *work* on digg.com.
The truth of the matter is that the evidence pretty much supports the idea
that Roy Schestowitz is being paid to SPAM his lies, half truths and
paranoia to this group and many, many others.
His mission is not a noble one but a self serving compensatory one.
>> Sorry, but this seems like a waste of time for both of us. You already
>> made up your mind. Good luck in Geneva. I hear (read rather) that
>> Microsoft employees are flying in, so you'll probably have more
>> enjoyable people to talk to than me. You know, like-minded people.
>
> Even though I would like to comment on your comment here, I have decided
> not to comment on anything BRM-related while the BRM is being held.
There is nothing wrong with that.
You show your independence here, unlike Roy Schestowitz.
>> For all I know and learned, the purpose of standard is not just to
>> spur competition (a negligible factor) but to ensure programs interact
>> with one another.
>
> This is true. Enhanced competition is a positive side-effect to enhanced
> interoperability.
Competition is good for everyone. It results in better products.
>> The question you need to ask yourself is whether you
>> can turn documents into something open like the WWW. It wasn't the
>> case before (Microsoft was prosecuted for technical sabotage, AFAIK)
>> and it still isn't the case, esp. with OOXML which has SharePoint tags
>
> OOXML does not contain SharePoint-elements. The word "SharePoint" appears
> three times in the specification (according to my interim search) in Part
> 3 section 4.5 where slide syncronization is described. Please be aware
> that Part 3 is a "Primer" and it does not specify element nor attribute
> behaviour. This is done in Part 4 (the reference part) section 7.4.1
> (sldSyncPr) where SharePoint is not mentioned. Please also note here that
> the references to SharePoint, WebDav, SOAP have been removed in "Response
> 471" as response to the Indian comment IN-0022.
Once again Roy Schestowitz demonstrates his total lack of knowledge on the
subject.
Get ready for him to run and hide.
he would much rather spew SPAM and set up his various boycott sites in an
effort to seed the search engines and spread misinformation.
>> and other hooks that are bound to make lockin much worse and more
>> extensive.
>
> Could you please provide me with data of these?
I can't wait to see this....
> I think it is important for you guys to know that I am not exclusively
> pro OOXML. I am a "pro-choice"-kindda guy that see benefits of having
> both document formats in ISO.
>
> It's not either/or - at least not to me.
>
> :o)
Like I have said, Schestowitz is a fake, a fraud and a phony and you are
wasting your time with him.
He is not interested in providing proof of his claims.
Watch Roy Schestowitz run like hell from this thread and then crap flood
the group with his usual SPAM in order to keep this thread off the Google
front page for COLA.
Moshe Goldfarb
See Roy Schestowitz.
See Roy Schestowitz get confronted by an obviously well learned person.
See Roy Schestowitz get asked to prove his points with facts.
See Roy Schestowitz crap flood and run away.
Moshe Goldfarb
All true.
Roy Schestowitz as usual has gone down in flames and is now hiding.
Get ready for a huge crap flood to COLA so he can bury this thread.
Jesper Lund Stocholm
news:9iedkyors17z.xagucxqxelxi$.d...@40tude.net:
>> Please provide them. It is true that OOXML allows storing printer
>> specific data in the file. These are naturally platform specific, but
>> they are not Windows-only.
>
> With all due respect Mr. Stocholm, you are trying to get complex
> information from an idiot, Roy Schestowitz.
Well, I think it is important to get people to realize that a lot of the
crititism of OOXML is not fact-based or (at least) dramatically taken out
of context (e.g. the "SharePoint-tags"). There /are/ a lot of things to
duly critizise in OOXML from the initial submission - Denmark has 168 of
them, effectively being, I think, in Top-3 of comment #. That is why
Denmark votes "No, with comments" to DIS 29500 in September 2007. But it
is also important to note that these complaints Denmark and the rest of
the countries had are being dealt with by ECMA, ISO/IEC and the assembly
at the BRM in Geneva.
Now, I have noticed that the "tone" in this group can be quite harsh but
it is my experience that the point I am trying to make about OOXML is
better heard with insistingly supplying the technical information
(regardless of the interest- or technical capabilities of the poster)
than with name-calling.
:o)
The BRM in Geneva is the last chance we have to improve the DIS so I am
very interested in hearing any new concerns about OOXML and its technical
merits. But please - provide correct information to avoid wasting our
time. I have said this over and over again - it is not rocket science.
All it takes is to sit down, concentrate and read the text.
Moshe Goldfarb
Very well put and to be honest I really have no opinion which way this
should go.
I am in favor of an open document format but I feel it needs to have
structure, sound principles and a documented and well implemented
architecture behind it.
IOW 1000 people all chanting their own song without a leader and management
of the project is not the way to go.
The problem with Roy Schestowitz is that he is a confirmed zealot who loves
to talk but rarely if ever does he back his claims up with any sort of
facts.
This thread is a prime example and in fact is a perfect platform for him to
state his case, present his facts and debate you.
Roy chooses to run and hide because he risks exposing his true purpose for
posting on COLA along with demonstrating his total lack of subject matter
when it comes to the OOXML topic.
I would suggest you listen to the podcast I posted where you can hear Roy
in action on this very subject.
It's an honor to speak with you Mr. Stocholm and I wish you well in your
work and whatever happens you can at least say you were there, well
informed and educated in the subject matter and presented your case.
You are in effect making history you know and you should be mighty proud to
be involved.
That's far more than a dorm room dwelling career student like Roy
Schestowitz could ever claim in an entire lifetime.
Hadron
Some chance of that. Roy knows nothing about it and has no desire
to. Take the time to listen to the podcast linked in another post and
who will quickly realise you are talking to a zealot who has an anti MS
agenda. You would be wasting your time debating with him. Try another
COLA poster, "7" - he is the OOXML expert here. He uses an "Appil" or
something so is not anti everything "not Linux".
Moshe Goldfarb
I'd love to hear 7 via podcast.
I wonder if he speaks like he writes.
Reminds me of Archie Bunker from the TV show "All In The Family".
It's time for me to visit my 'groin-a-cologist' <bg>
JodyGnumeric
> It saysGnumericsupports it. So I installGnumeric(1.6.3) from Debian
> unstable, and run it. I try to save as, and I don't find any "Open XML"
> format. I see CSV, DIF,GnumericXML, three HTML formats, LaTeX,
> Microsoft 95/97/2000/XP, OpenOffice OASIS_UNFINISHED, Troff, text, and
> XHTML.
MOOX support (import and some export) was added during the 1.7.x
development phase. The first stable release with it was 1.8.0. The
id is 'MS Office (tm) 2007'. There is a similar level of support for
ODF which we call OpenOffice.org Calc.
Tom Shelton
<jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
> Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@comcast.net> wrote innews:e2ab387f-033d-4e8e...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 12:34 am, Jesper Lund Stocholm
> > <jls2...@lundstocholm.invalid> wrote:
> >> Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@comcast.net> wrote
> >> innews:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff
>
> >> > That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if
> >> > they
>
> >> > embed say another application in the document, then that
> >> > application may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really
> >> > think this is a very likely scenario....
>
> >> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
> >> document format - not an application or platform.
>
> > links to other applications - or activex controls.
>
> Exactly - but that is not the same as "embedding another application".
>
Links to applications isn't exactly the same, since that is going to
use automation to find the client application. But sometimes, at
least in the old days (I haven't looked at this in quite a while) - AX
controls were packaged inside of documents...
> Where can you embed ActiveX-controls in OOXML?
>
I assume were you put binary data. I could be wrong.
--
Tom Shelton
Linonut
So does Gnumeric implement DIS-29500, or the Microsoft Office 2007
format?
(Thanks for the info, by the way. So far, at work we don't yet have to
deal with MSO 2007.)
--
We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and
underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten. Don't let yourself
be lulled into inaction.
-- Bill Gates
JodyGnumeric
> * JodyGnumeric peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
> > On Feb 22, 11:08 pm, Linonut <lino...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >> It saysGnumericsupports it. So I installGnumeric(1.6.3) from Debian
> >> unstable, and run it. I try to save as, and I don't find any "Open XML"
> >> format. I see CSV, DIF,GnumericXML, three HTML formats, LaTeX,
> >> Microsoft 95/97/2000/XP, OpenOffice OASIS_UNFINISHED, Troff, text, and
> >> XHTML.
>
> > MOOX support (import and some export) was added during the 1.7.x
> > development phase. The first stable release with it was 1.8.0. The
> > id is 'MS Office (tm) 2007'. There is a similar level of support for
> > ODF which we call OpenOffice.org Calc.
>
> format?
A difference without a distinction at this point. I have not hit a
situation where Excel2007 generated something different than th ECMA
docs.
The name was chosen to as the one most likely to be familiar to
someone trying to get some work done. It might make some sense to add
'MOOX' and 'ODF' to the labels to avoid situations like this.