[News] [Rival] ODF Gains the Upper Hand Despite Microsoft Crimes, Smears, FUD
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
ODF and the Art of Interoperability
,----[ Quote ]
| While OOXML-compliant software seems conspicuous by its absence, ODF goes
| from strength to strength: there is literally no contest between the rival
| standards in this respect.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?blogid=14&entryid=2282
Improving Interoperability ODF in Office Applications
,----[ Quote ]
| Over more than forty organisations and a total of sixty representatives from
| businesses, public sector organisations, open source projects and research
| institutions, came together this Monday and Tuesday to improve the
| interoperability of their office applications on the implementation of the
| open standard Open Document Format (ODF) during the ODF Interoperability
| Workshop . The support for ODF as an open standard is required for Dutch
| government organisations in accordance with the actionplan Netherland Open in
| Connection . ODF is a modern and flexible exchange format for word
| processors, spreadsheet programs and presentation programs and offers an
| alternative to vendor specific file formats.
`----
http://www.noiv.nl/node/65771/en
ODF Plugfest at The Hague
,----[ Quote ]
| The Dutch government program, Netherlands in Open Connection, and the OpenDoc
| Society cosponsored the two-day ODF “plugfest” at the Royal Library in The
| Hague, 15-16 June 2009, where vendors and open source projects were able to
| test ODF capabilities with each other in real-world, collaborative scenarios.
| OASIS TC chairs, Bart Hanssens, (ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC),
| and Rob Weir (co-Chair ODF TC), participated and delivered presentations.
`----
http://opendocument.xml.org/news/odf-plugfest-at-the-hague
New ODF Interoperability Initiatives Launched At Dutch Government Workshop
,----[ Quote ]
| The Hague, June 17, 2009. New ODF interoperability initiatives were unveiled
| this week at an international conference organized by the Dutch government,
| which has mandated ODF for reading, writing, exchange and publication of
| documents and also initiated a requirement to ask for ODF when issuing or
| renewing IT contracts. The Dutch government program Netherlands in Open
| Connection (NOiV) and the OpenDoc Society cosponsored the two-day
| ODF “plugfest” at the Royal Library in The Hague, where vendors and open
| source projects were able to test their ODF capabilities with each other in
| real-world, collaborative scenarios.
`----
http://www.odfalliance.org/press/Release20090617-HaguePlugFest.pdf
Recent:
Path:
Why Microsoft Hates - No, *Really* Hates - ODF
,----[ Quote ]
| What this means is that Microsoft is only making big money on its Office
| suite, for whose luxurious margins it must therefore fight tooth and nail.
| Which, judging by its behaviour at the ISO, and some more recent stories, is
| exactly what it is doing in the face of growing pressure from open ODF-based
| alternatives like OpenOffice.org.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2269&blogid=14
Rob Weir Exposes an Anti-ODF Whisper Campaign
,----[ Quote ]
| Alex Brown, the convenor of the OOXML BRM, has been editing Wikipedia's
| article on ODF. That strikes me odd, like finding out Steve Jobs had been
| editing the Microsoft Zune page. Some things are simply inappropriate. It
| puzzles me why Wikipedia allows it, frankly.
|
| If you read the talk page on ODF, you'll see that there are others there
| trying mightily to spin the article on ODF more negatively than is factual.
| And such rudeness! Plenty of smears against Groklaw too, I couldn't help but
| notice. It does seem to me that there is a marked increase in what I view as
| a concerted submarine marketing effort. Some of it is subtle. Most of it is
| not. A fair measure of it is mean-spirited. Some of it is lies, pure and
| simple.
|
| In the good old days, dead people supported Microsoft, if you remember that
| funny headline about a pro-Microsoft astroturfing campaign, but at least it
| wasn't a smear campaign, just pro-Microsoft. Nowadays, I think I would have
| to rewrite the headline to read, "Mean People Support Microsoft." Or worse.
| You see, Groklaw has been visited recently by several OOXML types, including
| Alex Brown, Doug Mahue of Microsoft, and Rick Jelliffe, all singing pretty
| much the same songs, posting on our ODF articles, so I got to watch it close
| up. I puzzled over it, because they seemed so deliberately rude.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009061001520015
http://markmail.org/search/?q=Alex+Brown&q=list%3Aorg.oasis-open.lists.office-comment
ODF Lies and Whispers
,----[ Quote ]
| So what is one to do? You obviously can't trust Wikipedia whatsoever in this
| area. This is unfortunate, since I am a big fan of Wikipedia. But since the
| day when Microsoft decided they needed to pay people to "improve" the ODF and
| OOXML articles, they have been a cesspool of FUD, spin and outright lies,
| seemingly manufactured for Microsoft's re-use in their whisper campaign. My
| advice would be to seek out official information on the standards, from the
| relevant organizations, like OASIS, the chairs of the relevant committees,
| etc. Ask the questions in public places and seek a public response. That is
| the ultimate weakness of FUD and lies. They cannot stand the light of public
| exposure. Sunlight is the best antiseptic.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/06/odf-lies-and-whispers.html
Microsoft Office tries to break ODF
,----[ Quote ]
| Just a quick update to our OpenDocument campaign, with news that Microsoft
| Office has added support for ODF, but in a state that leaves it incompatible
| with every other ODF capable application out there, including OpenOffice.org
| and KOffice.
`----
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/odf-office
Sun ODF Plugin 3.1 for Microsoft Office
,----[ Quote ]
| A new version of the ODF Plugin for Microsoft Office is available.
|
| As I wrote in the last ODF Plugin announcement, the Plugin nowadays uses the
| same version number like the underlying OpenOffice.org version, so this
| version is now based on OpenOffice.org 3.1.
`----
http://blogs.sun.com/malte/entry/sun_odf_plugin_3_01
6 Projects We Hope Apple Is Building
,----[ Quote ]
| 2. OpenDocument Format (ODF) support in iWorks
|
| ODF is an ISO standard for office document formats, with many government
| agencies in the world adopt the standard as compulsory interchange format.
| More organizations would be willing to adopt iWorks if ODF is a supported
| format. For consumers, it means their files can be saved in a format that is
| independent of iWorks software version changes.
`----
http://sanziro.com/2009/06/6-projects-we-hope-apple-is-building.html
ODF adoption continues - has it ‘crossed the chasm’?
,----[ Quote ]
| What prompted me to realize this just today? I receive the ODF Alliance
| Newsletter regularly in my inbox. Today, I noticed the following:
|
| (note that while the URL is in Spanish, the translation can be seen here
| thanks to Google)
| ECUADOR CHARTS PATH TO ODF ADOPTION
`----
http://www.michaeldolan.com/1420
Microsoft And ODF: Bad For Everyone
,----[ Quote ]
| In shocking news, Microsoft’s support of ODF in Microsoft Office is basically
| unusable in many respects, according to the OpenDocument Format Alliance.
| This is a real problem for ODF’s adoption, since Office users who try using
| it, either for opening a document or for sending a document to someone else,
| will likely blame their issues on ODF, and, thus, avoid it.
|
| What Microsoft has done with ODF support seems likely to harm ODF’s
| acceptance, rather than help it. It’s hard to tell if this move was
| incompetent or malicious or something entirely different?
`----
http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2009/05/22/microsoft-and-odf-bad-for-everyone/
Microsoft's ODF support is broken, says alliance
ODF is not the same as ODF?
,----[ Quote ]
| ODF implemented by one company is not the same as implemented by the other
| seven products.
|
| There's rumble in the web during the last days. And the reason is something
| to celebrate, but regrettably only for the first look. Microsoft published
| Service Pack 2 for their Microsoft Office 2007 product and for the first time
| in history they decided to officially support saving and opening in Open
| Document Standard (ODF). Really, that's the right step towards a higher level
| of interoperability! Congratulations!
`----
http://www.osor.eu/communities/openoffice-in-public-authorities/blog/odf-is-not-the-same-as-odf
Microsoft’s ODF support is broken, says alliance
,----[ Quote ]
| ODF Alliance managing director Marino Marcich said in a press statement this
| week that “support for ODF represents an important and ongoing test of
| Microsoft’s commitment to real-world interoperability. Unfortunately, serious
| shortcomings have been identified in Microsoft’s support for ODF. Putting
| potentially millions of ODF files into circulation that are non-interoperable
| and incompatible with the ODF support provided by other vendors is a recipe
| for fragmentation.”
`----
http://www.tectonic.co.za/?p=4806
Links for the 20th of May 2009
,----[ Quote ]
| # I could point to other blogs, but this one comes from Jeremy Allison,
| author of Samba, now working for the great Satan Google. It’s actually quite
| interesting because what Jeremy is saying is that all this dispute seems to
| be based on the impression that Microsoft did the minimum to have ODF work
| inside MS Office. My take on this is we should first stop getting ballistic
| at each other, especially inside the ODF TC. What is needed in the interest
| of ODF and the users, is to have a careful examination not on the ODF
| conformance in MS Office, but on why, based on experience, the
| interoperability is severely hampered when using ODF with MS Office. Based on
| this analysis we should be able to go forward. But don’t let this fool you:
| this has, I’m afraid, nothing to do with the development of ODF 1.2.
| # As an interesting reminder, here’s what the European Commission was saying
| about Microsoft’s announcement on the support of ODF inside MS Office last
| year.
`----
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/20/links-for-the-20th-of-may-2009/
Is OOXML the better standard?
,----[ Quote ]
| No, it is not in my opinion. But I think that is what Microsoft now tries to
| make us public authorities think. I know about the facts behind the scenes. I
| know that this company declines real support for ODF by doing something
| strange, not aiming at real interoperability, but at a Microsoft
| implementation of ODF, not compatible with others. So they, as worldwide
| market leader, can proof the insufficiency of ODF. And they have the solution
| for us. Use OOXML instead. It implements every function Microsoft Office
| does. And the next step is, that other interested implementations should
| improve their products to implement everything OOXML does. Really simple,
| isn’t it?
`----
http://www.floschi.info/2009/05/is-ooxml-the-better-standard/
Overunderdoing: patterns in Microsoft's interoperability stance
,----[ Quote ]
| Well, if we're talking about interoperability it has been done. Or tried. We
| could call it overunderdoing. Here's the algorithm:
|
| 1. pick one interoperability concern
| 2. solve it up to 85% (percentage may vary)
| 3. wisely choose the 15% to leave out so interoperability can be said
| to work but with constant annoyances
| 4. make a loud announcement to the press
| 5. profit: everyone will read the announcement but only a small
| fraction of such readers will notice the missing bits; despite the
| claimable advances over the previous situation it still won't be
| practical to make any use of the announced interoperability
`----
http://blog.angulosolido.pt/2009/05/overunderdoing-patterns-in-microsofts.html
Microsoft's latest aggression on ODF, codenamed "cast lead"
,----[ Quote ]
| Once again they did it. Microsoft is telling the world that they are
| improving interoperability across existing office formats and applications
| thanks to their native support for the ODF file format, a leading office file
| format based on existing ISO standards. But it could not be further from the
| truth.
|
| Microsoft are actually killing ODF, like the digital nazis that they are.
| Kissinger is proud of their spiritual sons.
|
| What kind of white phosphorus are they using ?
|
| First they don't write to ODF but to a canada dry version that we shall call
| MS-ODF, a variant filled with countless exploding mines, thrown from the air
| like any coward would do. Namely they are implanting the proprietary Excel
| formula syntax right inside files expecting the ODF formula syntax as exposed
| by all the ODF compatible applications out there. Since formulas are used in
| many elements such as charts, conditional formattings and so on, it wrecks
| any serious spreadsheet.
`----
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2009/05/microsofts-latest-aggression-on-odf.html
ODF Alliance Tests Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 ODF Support - Finds Serious
Shortcomings
,----[ Quote ]
| The ODF Alliance has prepared a Fact Sheet [PDF; also available as text on
| their website, if you scroll down] for governments and others interested in
| how Microsoft's SP2 for Office 2007 handles ODF. The ODF Allliance says their
| testing revealed "serious shortcomings that, left unaddressed, would break
| the open standards based interoperability that the marketplace, especially
| governments, is demanding". The Fact Sheet itemizes the major problems
| testing revealed. Marino Marcich, managing director of ODF Alliance, points
| to one huge shortcoming:
|
| “For example, even the most basic spreadsheet functions, such as adding
| the numbers contained in two cells, were simply stripped in an ODF file
| when opened and re-saved in Microsoft Office 2007. A document created in
| one ODF-supporting application, when re-saved in Microsoft Office 2007,
| rendered differently – missing bullets, page numbers, charts and other
| objects, changed fonts – making collaboration on an ODF file with Office
| 2007 very difficult. Indeed, some of the so-called 'plug-ins’ were
| revealed to provide better support for ODF than the recently released
| Microsoft Office 2007 SP2. This is no way to achieve the interoperability
| around ODF that the marketplace is demanding.”
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009051922175320
Microsoft’s ODF Support Falls Short
,----[ Quote ]
| The OpenDocument Format (ODF) Alliance today cautioned that serious
| deficiencies in Microsoft’s support for ODF needed to be addressed to ensure
| greater interoperability with other ODF-supporting software.
`----
http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/microsofts_odf_support_falls_short/
Microsoft & Interoperability: I think that now I really understood :)
,----[ Quote ]
| As most of you already know, I spent the month of October in a marathon of
| speeches about ODF. During the marathon, I had the opportunity to attend some
| presentations about Microsoft Interoperability and would like to share with
| you here some information about that cool experience (the post is long but
| worth a read).
|
| The first opportunity to see our friends from Redmond featuring the theme was
| at the rally held by them at the end of Latinoware 2008. I do not call that a
| presentation, because they did not allow questions from the audience, as a
| rally. Luckily the audience was not that big and I was on that room just be
| able to “write the facts” about the speech.
`----
http://homembit.com/2008/11/microsoft-interoperability-i-think-that-now-i-really-understood.html
ODF Alliance Warns Governments About Office 2007 ODF Support
,----[ Quote ]
| The ODF Alliance has prepared a Fact Sheet for governments and others
| interested in how Microsoft's SP2 for Office 2007 handles ODF. The report
| revealed 'serious shortcomings that, left unaddressed, would break the open
| standards based interoperability that the marketplace, especially
| governments, is demanding.
`----
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/20/1935232&from=rss
ODF Alliance: Microsoft Support for ODF is Lacking
,----[ Quote ]
| The Open Document Format (ODF) Alliance has analyzed whether Microsoft’s
| Service Pack 2 for Office 2007 fulfills the promise for compatibility with
| the free document standard. Their findings give little reason to hope.
`----
http://www.linux-magazine.com/online/news/odf_alliance_microsoft_support_for_odf_is_lacking
Working to Rule
,----[ Quote ]
| Yet Microsoft Office SP2 claims to have a fully compliant version of ODF, and
| that's probably true, as defined by the specification. It's just completely
| useless at interoperating with other vendors products. This is not
| interoperability, it's an attack on the very concept.
`----
MS forking ODF? They would love to.
,----[ Quote ]
| By the looks of it, I cannot but feel that MS has found a way to fork the ODF
| 1.1 to suite their world view of having their product as the only one out
| there. I have to agree with IBM's Rob Weir in this post.
`----
http://harishpillay.livejournal.com/158370.html
ODF interoperability event - Royal Library, The Hague - June 15/16 2009
ODF@WWW - An ODF Wiki
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI0AEJkotzM
,----[ Quote ]
| I received from the ODF Alliance the following response to my email:
|
| That’s the plan for next week. A harder-hitting press release with Fact
| Sheet. Stay tuned!
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-154383/microsoft-now-attempts-to-sabotage-odf
A follow-up on Excel 2007 SP2's ODF support
,----[ Quote ]
| In other words, all of those Interoperability Directors and Interoperability
| Architects at Microsoft seem to have (hopefully temporarily) switched into
| Minimal Conformance Directors and Minimal Conformance Architects, and are
| gazing at their navels. I hope they did not suffer a reduction in salary
| commensurate with the reduction in their claimed responsibilities.
|
| [...]
|
| In any case, this comes down to why do you implement a standard. What are
| your goals? If your goal is be interoperable, then you perform
| interoperability testing and make those adjustments to your product necessary
| to make it be both conformant and interoperable. But if your goal is to
| simply fulfill a checkbox requirement without actually providing any tangible
| customer benefit, then you will do as little as needed. However, if your goal
| is to destroy a standard, then you will create a non-conformant,
| non-interoperable implementation, automatically download it to millions of
| users and sow confusion in the marketplace by flooding it with millions of
| incompatible documents. It all depends on your goals. Voluntary standards do
| not force, or prevent, one approach or another.
|
| To wrap this up, I stand on the table of interoperability results in the
| previous post. SP2 has reduced the level of interoperability among ODF
| spreadsheets, by failing to produce conforming ODF documents, and failing to
| take note of the spreadsheet formula conventions that had been adopted by all
| of the other vendors and which are working their way through OASIS as a
| standard.
`----
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/follow-up-on-excel-2007-sp2s-odf.html
Microsoft now attempts to sabotage ODF
,----[ Quote ]
| - Ask the ODF Alliance to publish a press release recommending not using
| the "Save as ODF" facility included MS Office SP2, due to the bad quality of
| the produced ODF files.
|
| [...]
|
| - Start a petition asking Microsoft to make MS Office SP2 unavailable until
| the design flaws in the product have been corrected.
|
| We must make it clear to Microsoft that their attitude is not acceptable, and
| force them to behave in a better way.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-154383/microsoft-now-attempts-to-sabotage-odf
Engage, embrace, extinguish
,----[ Quote ]
| Today we have OpenOffice.org 3.1 gets released. In the meantime, the
| proprietary product from Redmond claims to be able to wirte ODF format, but
| fails. Pity. Money corrupts, but MS Tax Dollars corrupts absolutely.
`----
http://harishpillay.livejournal.com/157565.html
Microsoft now attempt to fragment ODF
,----[ Quote ]
| One of the first articles published about SP2 and for which I call the
| attention of everyone is from Rob Weir, chair of the OASIS ODF TC (group that
| develops the ODF, to which I belong). It is simply scary to see what Office
| 2007 does with existing ODF spreadsheets.
|
| The technical details are all on Rob’s blog, but in summary, when opening an
| ODF spreadsheet (.ods file) using Office 2007, it simply removes all existing
| formulas without telling anything to the user, leaving only the values in
| cells (results of formulas evaluation, previously stored in the document). If
| a user wants to test the ODF support in Office, and without giving due
| attention, save an existing spreadsheet, will overwrite the document removing
| all the formulas (as if you were writing a table). I saw absurdities in life,
| but nothing compared to this.
`----
http://homembit.com/2009/05/microsoft-now-attempt-to-fragment-odf.html
OpenDocument Format: The Standard for Office Documents
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/05/opendocument-format-standard-for-office.html
A Few Facts As Antidote Against Microsoft's anti-ODF FUD Campaign
,----[ Quote ]
| The best antidote against FUD is facts. FUD only works when people don't know
| any better. So, given some recent anti-ODF FUD in the air, I thought it would
| be useful to provide some facts.
|
| First, I'd like to show you who voted Yes to approve OpenDocument v1.1 as an
| OASIS Standard in January of 2007. ODF v1.2 is already being adopted by some
| now, of course, as development has continued, but Microsoft chose to stick
| with v1.1, so let's do the same. I think you'll find the list dispositive as
| to who is sincere in this picture. Next time you read some criticism of ODF,
| then, you can just take a look at the list and ask yourself what it tells
| you. And if you are a technical person, here's ODF v1.1, so you can compare
| any claims of deficiencies. Here's Groklaw's chronicle of the OOXML/ODF saga,
| where you can find many resources, including a chronology of events from 2005
| to the present.
`----
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009050712493241
Microsoft vs. ODF: arrogance on display
,----[ Quote ]
| Note to Microsoft: This is not how standards work. Frankly, if you don’t
| intend to support ODF properly, you may as well not support it at all. What
| your product writes isn’t ODF. When your product reads ODF, it silently
| discards important parts of the data. (Yes, the formulas in spreadsheets are
| important. That’s the whole purpose of a spreadsheet program! Otherwise we
| may as well be using pencil, paper, and calculators.)
`----
http://www.shawnkquinn.com/2009/05/microsoft-vs-odf-arrogance-on-display/
Should we waterboard Rob Weir? And other crucial questions…
,----[ Quote ]
| These are very interesting times for ODF and Open Standards. Microsoft’s
| latest outrage by Gray Knowlton does at least show that if there’s a company
| who practices the « Do as I say, not as I do », it’s Microsoft. Gray Knowlton
| is now calling for Rob Weir, chair of the ODF Technical Committee at the
| OASIS Consortium to resign. I understand Gray. Gray is the Product Manager of
| Microsoft Office at Microsoft. Which means he is ultimately to blame for the
| lousy job Microsoft engineers have done in implementing ODF inside Microsoft
| Office. Gray is in the front line, and you can bet he’s having to answer some
| tough calls from customers right now. Gray does not have to ride the smooth «
| try Seven after Vista » wave; he has to go through the clutter that
| Microsoft’s big heads have created by thinking: What if we had ODF wrecked
| inside Office and get the world to believe that it’s not our fault? That’s
| Gray’s problem. And this is how we come to the waterboarding of Rob. But I
| digress.
|
| [...]
|
| Bad, bad, evil Rob. Not only he didn’t go to your grand astroturfing party,
| but he apparently forgot to mention SP2 at the coffee machine ten times in a
| rowthe day you released it. That must be depressing. Anyway; talking about
| missing the chance to provide your input before things happen: How come
| Microsoft left the OASIS ODF TC in 2003?
`----
http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2009/05/08/should-we-waterboard-rob-weir-and-other-crucial-questions/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAko+o80ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo55rwCgkM3x/rfOicVlokbUC0iq4o8f
QKUAoLFNFW85YY21XMdDux6Jkgg+06N+
=ZQot
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Erik Funkenbusch
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ODF and the Art of Interoperability
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| While OOXML-compliant software seems conspicuous by its absence
What???
Even Google docs can read OOXML.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/02/finally-google-docs-can-open-docx-and-xlsx-files
So all this is vapor?
Hans Lister
This is a perfect example of why I say to check every single one
of Schestowitz's posts because he slings the shit like a short
order cook slings the hash.
Of course Roy Schestowitz floods the groups with posts in order
to make it difficult to check things due to the volume.
IOW he is scatter shooting because he knows some of his tripe
will go unchallenged.
The idea is to seed Google and promote his sites.
Mart van de Wege
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:19:09 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> ODF and the Art of Interoperability
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| While OOXML-compliant software seems conspicuous by its absence
>
> What???
>
> Even Google docs can read OOXML.
>
> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/02/finally-google-docs-can-open-docx-and-xlsx-files
>
BZZZT! Wrong!
.docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
OOXML.
Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:19:09 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> ODF and the Art of Interoperability
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| While OOXML-compliant software seems conspicuous by its absence
>>
>> What???
>>
>> Even Google docs can read OOXML.
>>
>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/02/finally-google-docs-can-open-docx-and-xlsx-files
>>
> BZZZT! Wrong!
>
> .docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
> OOXML.
>
> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
Stop being a pedantic twit.
ECMA OOXML is still OOXML, regardles. ISO OOXML is only superficially
different, and is not incompatible with ECMA OOXML.
This argument is a red herring, and only serves to make you look like a
jackass.
Mart van de Wege
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:27:43 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:19:09 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> ODF and the Art of Interoperability
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| While OOXML-compliant software seems conspicuous by its absence
>>>
>>> What???
>>>
>>> Even Google docs can read OOXML.
>>>
>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/02/finally-google-docs-can-open-docx-and-xlsx-files
>>>
>> BZZZT! Wrong!
>>
>> .docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
>> OOXML.
>>
>> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
>> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
>
> Stop being a pedantic twit.
What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
And BTW, when are we getting a link to that royalty-free patent license
for C#/CLI?
bbgruff
I found that last link a tad confusing when I came to this bit. No doubt
you could put it simply for me:-
=====================================
Microsoft Office 2010
* Microsoft has stated that Microsoft Office 2010 will be the first
version of Microsoft Office to support ISO/IEC 29500, though no release
date has been announced.[104]
Microsoft Office 2007
* On July 28, 2008 Murray Sargent, a software development engineer in
the Microsoft Office team confirmed that Word 2007 will have a service pack
release that enables it to read and write ISO standard OOXML files.[105]
However, as of Service Pack 2 (released 2009) Microsoft are not claiming
Microsoft Office 2007 compatibility with the ISO OOXML standard.[106]
Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> .docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
> OOXML.
They are as compliant with OOXML as OpenOffice files are compliant with
ODF. If it is acceptable to claim OpenOffice reads/writes ODF files,
then it is acceptable to claim that Office reads/writes OOXML files.
--
--Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege
So what? We weren't talking about OpenOffice, now were we? Moving the
goalposts again, Timmy?
Oh, and where is that royalty-free patent licesn for C#/CLI, BTW?
Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> .docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
> >> OOXML.
> >
> > They are as compliant with OOXML as OpenOffice files are compliant with
> > ODF. If it is acceptable to claim OpenOffice reads/writes ODF files,
> > then it is acceptable to claim that Office reads/writes OOXML files.
>
> So what? We weren't talking about OpenOffice, now were we? Moving the
> goalposts again, Timmy?
We are talking about compliance, which cannot be done without first
defining what we mean by "compliant". Looking at other standards and
implementations is relevant to that.
>
> Oh, and where is that royalty-free patent licesn for C#/CLI, BTW?
You've been answered four times now. That you don't like the answers is
your problem.
--
--Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege
> In article <86hby88...@gareth.avalon.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> .docx and .xlsx are MS Office 2007 files. They are *not* compliant with
>> >> OOXML.
>> >
>> > They are as compliant with OOXML as OpenOffice files are compliant with
>> > ODF. If it is acceptable to claim OpenOffice reads/writes ODF files,
>> > then it is acceptable to claim that Office reads/writes OOXML files.
>>
>> So what? We weren't talking about OpenOffice, now were we? Moving the
>> goalposts again, Timmy?
>
> We are talking about compliance, which cannot be done without first
> defining what we mean by "compliant". Looking at other standards and
> implementations is relevant to that.
>
In this case, no, you are shifting the goalposts. Someone stated that
there isn't even an OOXML compliant application yet, and Erik and you
want us to to believe that Office 2007, which by the word of Microsoft
isn't compliant, actually *is* compliant.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Oh, BTW, I just checked an ODT document saved by OOo 3.1. Guess what the
XML namespace declaration says? That's right, it's an OASIS OpenDocument
file, version 1.0.
Now, if you can point to specific flaws in OOo's implementation of ODF
1.0, be my guest, but it at least does a good faith effort in
implementing the standard. Whereas Microsoft openly admits that MSOXML
is *not* OOXML at all.
>>
>> Oh, and where is that royalty-free patent licesn for C#/CLI, BTW?
>
> You've been answered four times now. That you don't like the answers is
> your problem.
Well, if I ask where the sun comes up, and you guys keep insisting that
it is in the North, I think I can't be blamed for not liking the answer,
now can I?
So, where is that royalty-free patent license? The ECMA statement is
merely RAND, and Jim Miller's informal post to a mailing list does not
qualify as a patent license.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
>>> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
>>
>> Stop being a pedantic twit.
>
> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
> And BTW, when are we getting a link to that royalty-free patent license
> for C#/CLI?
I've told you this already.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:56:15 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>>> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
>>>> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
>>>
>>> Stop being a pedantic twit.
>>
>> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
>> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
>
> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>
> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
> affect compatibility.
Which means, because you say it, absolutely nothing. So one can safely
assume that there are giant issues, and compatibility is only minor
> Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible
> with ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
Nice. So you attempt to introduce a *new* standard definition which is not
yet approved.
And then complain that not all ODF apps have been "upgraded" to a standard
which is "all shiny, brand new"
>> And BTW, when are we getting a link to that royalty-free patent license
>> for C#/CLI?
>
> I've told you this already.
No, you have not. You tried your usual weasel wording
--
Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:56:15 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>>> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
>>>> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
>>>
>>> Stop being a pedantic twit.
>>
>> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
>> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
>
> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>
> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
> affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
> ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
Do you have a metric for that, hmmm?
Or just more hand-waving?
--
Your manuscript is both good and original, but the part that is good is not
original and the part that is original is not good.
-- Samuel Johnson
Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
> > We are talking about compliance, which cannot be done without first
> > defining what we mean by "compliant". Looking at other standards and
> > implementations is relevant to that.
> >
> In this case, no, you are shifting the goalposts. Someone stated that
> there isn't even an OOXML compliant application yet, and Erik and you
> want us to to believe that Office 2007, which by the word of Microsoft
> isn't compliant, actually *is* compliant.
>
> Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
You don't read very well. No one claimed Office complies with OOXML.
What we claimed is that the non-compliance is small, similar to the
non-compliance you find in other office suites (such as OO) for the
standards they are trying to follow.
For example, the difference between documents produced by current
versions of Office and the final version of OOXML often come down to
attribute naming. For example, very late in standardization, the way
boolean values are recorded was changed: the attribute value change from
"true/false" to "1/0" or vice versa or something like that.
> Oh, BTW, I just checked an ODT document saved by OOo 3.1. Guess what the
> XML namespace declaration says? That's right, it's an OASIS OpenDocument
> file, version 1.0.
And my spreadsheet saved in .xlsx from Office 2008 uses the namespaces
given in the OOXML spec. Same for the .docx file I just saved.
> Now, if you can point to specific flaws in OOo's implementation of ODF
> 1.0, be my guest, but it at least does a good faith effort in
> implementing the standard. Whereas Microsoft openly admits that MSOXML
> is *not* OOXML at all.
How many major and minor releases of OO have there been since ODF 1.0
was approved? Yet OO still has minor deviations from the standard. If
that is acceptable, how is it not acceptable that Office (all versions
of which came out *BEFORE* OOXML was approved) have similar minor
deviations from the OOXML standard?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> > Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
> > affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
> > ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>
> Do you have a metric for that, hmmm?
>
> Or just more hand-waving?
Number of errors when validated against the schema. This was extensively
discussed last year in one of those threads where you manage to have a
lot of opinions but somehow overlook all the links to data.
--
--Tim Smith
Mart van de Wege
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:56:15 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>>> Did you think we would forget that? The author of the neowin article
>>>> sure does, as he is conflating MSOXML 2007 with OOXML.
>>>
>>> Stop being a pedantic twit.
>>
>> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
>> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
>
> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>
Ahh, going to play the standards institutes shell game eh?
OOXML was included as a comparison to ODF. So I did mean ISO OOXML, the
only standard that counts, which you would have known if you were smart
enough to read for context.
So, you are either an idiot or dishonest.
> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
> affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
> ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>
Which one of these is *not* an ISO standard?
>> And BTW, when are we getting a link to that royalty-free patent license
>> for C#/CLI?
>
> I've told you this already.
No you didn't.
So where is that link to that mysterious royalty-free license?
Mart van de Wege
> In article <86ws749...@gareth.avalon.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
>> > We are talking about compliance, which cannot be done without first
>> > defining what we mean by "compliant". Looking at other standards and
>> > implementations is relevant to that.
>> >
>> In this case, no, you are shifting the goalposts. Someone stated that
>> there isn't even an OOXML compliant application yet, and Erik and you
>> want us to to believe that Office 2007, which by the word of Microsoft
>> isn't compliant, actually *is* compliant.
>>
>> Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
>
> You don't read very well. No one claimed Office complies with OOXML.
How about actually reading the link provided, Timmy boy? The neowin
article did exactly that.
>
> For example, the difference between documents produced by current
> versions of Office and the final version of OOXML often come down to
> attribute naming.
Oh yeah. And that is not a big difference. No sir, it isn't.
>> Oh, BTW, I just checked an ODT document saved by OOo 3.1. Guess what the
>> XML namespace declaration says? That's right, it's an OASIS OpenDocument
>> file, version 1.0.
>
> And my spreadsheet saved in .xlsx from Office 2008 uses the namespaces
> given in the OOXML spec. Same for the .docx file I just saved.
>
>> Now, if you can point to specific flaws in OOo's implementation of ODF
>> 1.0, be my guest, but it at least does a good faith effort in
>> implementing the standard. Whereas Microsoft openly admits that MSOXML
>> is *not* OOXML at all.
>
> How many major and minor releases of OO have there been since ODF 1.0
> was approved?
Irrelevant. OOo complies to ODT. Whereas MSOffice 2007 does not comply
to OOXML, by word of Microsoft itself.
> Yet OO still has minor deviations from the standard.
Examples, or you're a liar.
> If that is acceptable, how is it not acceptable that Office (all
> versions of which came out *BEFORE* OOXML was approved) have similar
> minor deviations from the OOXML standard?
Completely different attribute names are not minor deviations. And if
the deviations are so minor, why does Microsoft itself disclaim OOXML
compliance? Whereas OOo *is* confident enough in its ODF implementation
to claim full compliance.
Hadron
Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
"hmmm"s.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <YbT%l.13998$Xw4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
Data? You mean chaff, don't you?
You overlooked the key phrase, Tim. "last year". A long time in Internet
time.
Get real! What about /now/? Mart seems to disagree with your dour
assessment of "ODF apps".
--
Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back?
A: A stick.
Mart van de Wege
No, Tim is being dishonest.
The accepted ISO standard is ODF1.0. ODF1.1 is an update which either is
currently working its way through commissions or has just been
accepted. ODF1.2 is a future revision currently in development.
So, OOo, which supports ODF1.0, not supporting the full feature set of
ODF1.2 is not a surprise. Whereas Microsoft Office 2007, after two
Service Packs, still not supporting ISO OOXML according to Microsoft
itself, is a different matter altogether.
Of course, expect Tim and Erik to now turn up and try to re-confuse the
issue.
Mart van de Wege
>
> The accepted ISO standard is ODF1.0. ODF1.1 is an update which either is
> currently working its way through commissions
Argh. Should be 'committees' of course (I mixed it up with
'commissies'). I blame the flu, as I seldom mix up Dutch and English
like that.
Hans Lister
> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
> "hmmm"s.
Like you say, it's very creepy.
Mart van de Wege
Peter Köhlmann
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with
>>> his "hmmm"s.
>>
>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>
> Why don't you guys get a room?
>
There are no "rooms" under those bridges
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Hadron
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>> "hmmm"s.
>>
>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>
> Why don't you guys get a room?
>
> Mart
The irony.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>>
>> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
>> affect compatibility.
>
> Which means, because you say it, absolutely nothing. So one can safely
> assume that there are giant issues, and compatibility is only minor
Your logic is.. well, not even logic.
>> Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible
>> with ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>
> Nice. So you attempt to introduce a *new* standard definition which is not
> yet approved.
> And then complain that not all ODF apps have been "upgraded" to a standard
> which is "all shiny, brand new"
Yet you expect Office to conform to the "all shiny, brand new" ISO OOXML?
Hypocrite.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> How many major and minor releases of OO have there been since ODF 1.0
>> was approved?
>
> Irrelevant. OOo complies to ODT. Whereas MSOffice 2007 does not comply
> to OOXML, by word of Microsoft itself.
No, it doesn't actually. OOo doesn't validate even against OOo 1.2
schemas, even though it claims 1.2 compatibility, and it's got significant
validation issues against 1.1 as well.
>> Yet OO still has minor deviations from the standard.
>
> Examples, or you're a liar.
Sun's ODF validator deliberately ignores OOo's incompatibilities.
http://www.adjb.net/?tag=/validation#odf12update
"嚙瘟OpenOffice failed because its manifest was not valid to the 1.1 schema.
Now, this is an odd result as the manifest claims to be valid to version
"1.2" of the ODF schema, yet consulting the latest drafts of ODF 1.2 it
appears the manifest schema is not defined there, but has been planned for
being specified in a new "Part 3" of ODF. I cannot find Part 3 of ODF in
draft 嚙碾 maybe the OOo code has been written, but the standards text not
fitted to it yet. If somebody can point me to a public draft of this
schema, I'd like to re-run this test. [Update: I have now been pointed at
the draft of Part 3 of ODF 1.2, and it does indeed contain a new schema.
This draft is unfinished and contains non conformance clause, so it is not
really possible to know for sure whether a package conforms to it. However,
the OOo package here is invalid to the schema. I am going to assume that
Part 3 will mirror the draft of Part 1 of ODF 1.2, and so will require
schema validity. On that (reasonable) basis this OOo package is
non-conformant; but of course the draft might change tomorrow. We do not
know quite what version of the spec is being targetted here ...]"
>> If that is acceptable, how is it not acceptable that Office (all
>> versions of which came out *BEFORE* OOXML was approved) have similar
>> minor deviations from the OOXML standard?
>
> Completely different attribute names are not minor deviations. And if
> the deviations are so minor, why does Microsoft itself disclaim OOXML
> compliance? Whereas OOo *is* confident enough in its ODF implementation
> to claim full compliance.
OOo is *NOT* compliant to their own schemas. So don't give me that.
MS is not claiming conformance because they're not, but the issues are so
minor that any app can easily provide compatibility with only minor
changes.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
>>> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
>>
>> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>>
> Ahh, going to play the standards institutes shell game eh?
I'm doing no such thing. The problem is, there are multiple versions of
each standard.
> OOXML was included as a comparison to ODF. So I did mean ISO OOXML, the
> only standard that counts, which you would have known if you were smart
> enough to read for context.
Yet the current ODF is not the ISO standard ODF. You know, the one OOo 2.x
and 3.0 target. And OOo targets ODF 1.2, which isn't even an OASIS
standard yet. So don't act like only ISO documents are being considered.
> So, you are either an idiot or dishonest.
I'd say you're being both.
>> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
>> affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
>> ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>>
> Which one of these is *not* an ISO standard?
Which one of these is the default format of the currently shipping version
of OpenOffice?
chrisv
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> Quack snotted:
>>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>> "hmmm"s.
>>
>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>
>Why don't you guys get a room?
I wonder if they ever stop and really think about the kind of slime
whose leg they are humping? Another lying, trolling, mentally-stunted
twit like themselves.
--
chrisv - BSEE
Hans Lister
> I wonder if they ever stop and really think about the kind of slime
> whose leg they are humping? Another lying, trolling, mentally-stunted
> twit like themselves.
You'll have to ask Chris Ahlstrom and Roy Schestowitz that
question.
Tim Smith
OO *might* now comply with ODF (the tests I've seen were with 2.x
releases, so I don't know about 3.x). ODF became in ISO standard on
November 30, 2006. Yet almost a year later, OO 2.3 still would generate
non-validating ODF:
<http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/30/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>
Note that at the same time, Office OOXML files did validate against ECMA
376.
So how come you are fine with OO taking at least 8 months after
publication of the final ODF 1.0 spec to produce valid ODF, but seem to
think there is something wrong that Office 2007, which came out before
the ISO version of OOXML was approved, generating OOXML that is only
very very close to the final standard?
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
Mart van de Wege
Mart van de Wege
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:47:57 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>> How many major and minor releases of OO have there been since ODF 1.0
>>> was approved?
>>
>> Irrelevant. OOo complies to ODT. Whereas MSOffice 2007 does not comply
>> to OOXML, by word of Microsoft itself.
>
> No, it doesn't actually. OOo doesn't validate even against OOo 1.2
> schemas, even though it claims 1.2 compatibility, and it's got significant
> validation issues against 1.1 as well.
Which is quite possible, as ODF1.2 isn't standardized yet.
>
>>> Yet OO still has minor deviations from the standard.
>>
>> Examples, or you're a liar.
>
> Sun's ODF validator deliberately ignores OOo's incompatibilities.
>
> http://www.adjb.net/?tag=/validation#odf12update
Yes, that link talks about weird behaviour in parsing ODF1.1 elements
in an ODF1.2 document.
Which, again, is not standardized yet.
>>> If that is acceptable, how is it not acceptable that Office (all
>>> versions of which came out *BEFORE* OOXML was approved) have similar
>>> minor deviations from the OOXML standard?
>>
>> Completely different attribute names are not minor deviations. And if
>> the deviations are so minor, why does Microsoft itself disclaim OOXML
>> compliance? Whereas OOo *is* confident enough in its ODF implementation
>> to claim full compliance.
>
> OOo is *NOT* compliant to their own schemas. So don't give me that.
>
OOo is not compliant to their own schemas THAT ARE STILL IN DEVELOPMENT.
God, you're thick.
> MS is not claiming conformance because they're not, but the issues are
> so minor that any app can easily provide compatibility with only minor
> changes.
MS is DISCLAIMING conformance. MS Office 2007 does not process valid ISO
OOXML, according to themselves. Support is not planned until the next
full office version.
However, there have already been two Service Packs. SPs that, BTW, *do*
add new format compatibility.
Hans Lister
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:21:42 -0500, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I wonder if they ever stop and really think about the kind of slime
>>> whose leg they are humping? Another lying, trolling, mentally-stunted
>>> twit like themselves.
>>
>> You'll have to ask Chris Ahlstrom and Roy Schestowitz that
>> question.
>
> Well, ask Liarnut and he can ask Roy what to say.
Hahaha!
Mart van de Wege
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:42:17 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>>> What's pedantic about saying that MS Office 2007 does not comply with
>>>> ISO OOXML? Are you saying it does, then?
>>>
>>> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma OOXML.
>>>
>> Ahh, going to play the standards institutes shell game eh?
>
> I'm doing no such thing. The problem is, there are multiple versions of
> each standard.
>
>> OOXML was included as a comparison to ODF. So I did mean ISO OOXML, the
>> only standard that counts, which you would have known if you were smart
>> enough to read for context.
>
> Yet the current ODF is not the ISO standard ODF.
It isn't? Explain how.
> You know, the one OOo 2.x and 3.0 target. And OOo targets ODF 1.2,
> which isn't even an OASIS standard yet. So don't act like only ISO
> documents are being considered.
>
Erm.
Whether or not OOo targets ODF1.2 by default is irrelevant. What is
relevant is how ODF1.0 (and depending on its current status, 1.1) is
supported.
Which, as far as I know, is 100%.
>> So, you are either an idiot or dishonest.
>
> I'd say you're being both.
>
>>> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to not
>>> affect compatibility. Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible with
>>> ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>>>
>> Which one of these is *not* an ISO standard?
>
> Which one of these is the default format of the currently shipping version
> of OpenOffice?
OOo appears to save in ODF1.0 by default on my box.
Mart van de Wege
> In article <86ocsf9...@gareth.avalon.lan>,
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> wrote:
>> Completely different attribute names are not minor deviations. And if
>> the deviations are so minor, why does Microsoft itself disclaim OOXML
>> compliance? Whereas OOo *is* confident enough in its ODF implementation
>> to claim full compliance.
>
> OO *might* now comply with ODF (the tests I've seen were with 2.x
> releases, so I don't know about 3.x). ODF became in ISO standard on
> November 30, 2006. Yet almost a year later, OO 2.3 still would generate
> non-validating ODF:
>
> <http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/04/30/Conformance-of-ODF-documents.aspx>
>
> Note that at the same time, Office OOXML files did validate against ECMA
> 376.
>
ECMA is irrelevant. Stop dragging in misdirections.
> So how come you are fine with OO taking at least 8 months after
> publication of the final ODF 1.0 spec to produce valid ODF, but seem to
> think there is something wrong that Office 2007, which came out before
> the ISO version of OOXML was approved, generating OOXML that is only
> very very close to the final standard?
Gosh. OpenOffice has been patched and now supports the full
standard. Microsoft Office has received two Service Packs, and still
doesn't support the ISO standard.
Yes, I still think there is something wrong with MSO2007.
And with your head.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>> "hmmm"s.
>>
>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>
> Why don't you guys get a room?
They're just tag-team trolling. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Same shit, different day.
--
Q: How many elephants can you fit in a VW Bug?
A: Four. Two in the front, two in the back.
Q: How can you tell if an elephant is in your refrigerator?
A: There's a footprint in the mayo.
Q: How can you tell if two elephants are in your refrigerator?
A: There's two footprints in the mayo.
Q: How can you tell if three elephants are in your refrigerator?
A: The door won't shut.
Q: How can you tell if four elephants are in your refrigerator?
A: There's a VW Bug in your driveway.
Hans Lister
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>>> "hmmm"s.
>>>
>>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>>
>> Why don't you guys get a room?
>
> They're just tag-team trolling. Move along. Nothing to see here.
> Same shit, different day.
Why not ask Roy Schestowitz to roll over?
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
I always get a laugh over that "master" shit.
The oldest trolling trick in the book.
Wait... receiving orders... yes... yes... yes.... Will implement new
phraseology.
I. NEVER. READ. ANY. OF. ROY'S. LINKS.
HADRON. IS. CORRECT. ABOUT. PULSE. AUDIO.
--
You will be divorced within a year.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:47:57 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
>>> How many major and minor releases of OO have there been since ODF 1.0
>>> was approved?
>>
>> Irrelevant. OOo complies to ODT. Whereas MSOffice 2007 does not comply
>> to OOXML, by word of Microsoft itself.
>
> No, it doesn't actually. OOo doesn't validate even against OOo 1.2
> schemas, even though it claims 1.2 compatibility, and it's got significant
> validation issues against 1.1 as well.
>
>>> Yet OO still has minor deviations from the standard.
>>
>> Examples, or you're a liar.
>
> Sun's ODF validator deliberately ignores OOo's incompatibilities.
>
> http://www.adjb.net/?tag=/validation#odf12update
"From the test above we have the hard fact that most of the mainstream
ODF applications are failing to emit standards-conformant ODF, even for a
case as simple as "Maya's Wedding Planner". Surprisingly when assessing
conformance it appears KOffice, Microsoft and CleverAge are leading the
conformance pack; while Sun, Google and IBM have fallen behind."
Finally! Something concrete.
Thanks, Erik.
> OOo is *NOT* compliant to their own schemas. So don't give me that.
To me this merely goes to confirm one of the fundamental dynamics of
standardisation; done right, standards wrench "ownership" from those who
thought they owned them, and distributes that ownership through the
community at large. We, as users, should be applauding the widening
adoption of ODF - and should be keeping the pressure on those vendors
that seem to have been left behind, to raise their games.
> MS is not claiming conformance because they're not, but the issues are so
> minor that any app can easily provide compatibility with only minor
> changes.
Oh boy, back to Handwaving Mode.
--
Mind! I don't mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is
particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself,
to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade.
But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands
shall not disturb it, or the Country's done for. You will therefore permit
me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.
-- Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
TIM. IS. NOT. OBSESSED. WITH. ROY.
--
Slow day. Practice crawling.
Hans Lister
You really should read some of what is written about Roy
Schestowitz because then you would see how utterly foolish you
look defending some of his points.
Seriously.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:24:24 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>>> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma
>>> OOXML.
>>>
>>> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to
>>> not affect compatibility.
>>
>> Which means, because you say it, absolutely nothing. So one can safely
>> assume that there are giant issues, and compatibility is only minor
>
> Your logic is.. well, not even logic.
Fine. In that case you will rally to prove me wrong.
Did you get it that *you* said there are "minor issues", and because of
that I don't believe a single word of it?
You have blatantly lied far too often, Erik Funkenbusch. I don't believe
*anything* at all at face value when it comes from you
>>> Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible
>>> with ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>>
>> Nice. So you attempt to introduce a *new* standard definition which is
>> not yet approved.
>> And then complain that not all ODF apps have been "upgraded" to a
>> standard which is "all shiny, brand new"
>
> Yet you expect Office to conform to the "all shiny, brand new" ISO
> OOXML?
>
> Hypocrite.
After service packs where issued for it. You bet
And no, I don't expect OO to adhere fully to a not yet approved standard.
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
Erik Funkenbusch
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:24:24 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>
>>>> First, you didn't say ISO OOXML, as Office fully conforms to Ecma
>>>> OOXML.
>>>>
>>>> Second, I'm saying that the "conformance" issues are so minor as to
>>>> not affect compatibility.
>>>
>>> Which means, because you say it, absolutely nothing. So one can safely
>>> assume that there are giant issues, and compatibility is only minor
>>
>> Your logic is.. well, not even logic.
>
> Fine. In that case you will rally to prove me wrong.
>
> Did you get it that *you* said there are "minor issues", and because of
> that I don't believe a single word of it?
>
> You have blatantly lied far too often, Erik Funkenbusch. I don't believe
> *anything* at all at face value when it comes from you
>
>>>> Certainly, Office 2007 is far more compatible
>>>> with ISO OOXML than most ODF apps are with ODF 1.2.
>>>
>>> Nice. So you attempt to introduce a *new* standard definition which is
>>> not yet approved.
>>> And then complain that not all ODF apps have been "upgraded" to a
>>> standard which is "all shiny, brand new"
>>
>> Yet you expect Office to conform to the "all shiny, brand new" ISO
>> OOXML?
>>
>> Hypocrite.
>
> After service packs where issued for it. You bet
>
> And no, I don't expect OO to adhere fully to a not yet approved standard.
Do you expect it to adhere to the approved standard? It doesn't. It's
producing ODF 1.2 draft files, which don't validate against OO 1.0 either.
SP1 was primarily targeting ODF compliance, not OOXML compliance. The
reason is that Office 2010 is in development which will fully conform to
ISO OOXML, and once that code is done, they will issue a service pack for
Office 2007 that provides the compatibility.
There's no point in patching 2007 and writing new code for 2010, they will
use the same code.
Sinister Midget III
> SP1 was primarily targeting ODF compliance, not OOXML compliance. The
> reason is that Office 2010 is in development which will fully conform to
> ISO OOXML, and once that code is done, they will issue a service pack for
> Office 2007 that provides the compatibility.
>
> There's no point in patching 2007 and writing new code for 2010, they will
> use the same code.
But it makes more sense to come up with the code and hold it back until
some date in the future? How does that make sense?
--
People are always available for work in the past tense.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eee PC900 16G SSD 2G RAM Ubuntu 9.04
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2009-06-24, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>
>> SP1 was primarily targeting ODF compliance, not OOXML compliance. The
>> reason is that Office 2010 is in development which will fully conform to
>> ISO OOXML, and once that code is done, they will issue a service pack for
>> Office 2007 that provides the compatibility.
>>
>> There's no point in patching 2007 and writing new code for 2010, they will
>> use the same code.
>
> But it makes more sense to come up with the code and hold it back until
> some date in the future? How does that make sense?
They should ship beta code as a service pack? Is that what you're really
suggesting?
Sinister Midget
How would that be any different from shipping beta code as an
"operating system" like, say, Vista?
What you're admitting is they aren't ready. At least we finally have
*one* admission from you.
How do you know their "beta code" will be ready to meet the artificial
deadline placed on it of 2010?
--
Bus stations are where busses stop. Train stations are where trains stop.
Windows is for work stations.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>> But it makes more sense to come up with the code and hold it back until
>>> some date in the future? How does that make sense?
>>
>> They should ship beta code as a service pack? Is that what you're really
>> suggesting?
>
> How would that be any different from shipping beta code as an
> "operating system" like, say, Vista?
So you are, in fact, advocating that Microsoft should ship beta code.
There goes any defense you might have about whether MS should have shipped
vista or not.
> How do you know their "beta code" will be ready to meet the artificial
> deadline placed on it of 2010?
They've already shipped a technical preview that's pretty stable. And,
considering that Windows 7 is shipping early, and is being run by the same
manager, well you doubt it at your own peril.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:16:09 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>>>> But it makes more sense to come up with the code and hold it back
>>>> until some date in the future? How does that make sense?
>>>
>>> They should ship beta code as a service pack? Is that what you're
>>> really suggesting?
>>
>> How would that be any different from shipping beta code as an
>> "operating system" like, say, Vista?
>
> So you are, in fact, advocating that Microsoft should ship beta code.
Well, it would be a real advantage to their current practice of shipping
pre-alpha, don't you think?
> There goes any defense you might have about whether MS should have
> shipped vista or not.
Leave it to Erik F to mingle things which have nothing to do with the
topic
>> How do you know their "beta code" will be ready to meet the artificial
>> deadline placed on it of 2010?
>
> They've already shipped a technical preview that's pretty stable.
Will it include WinFS?
> And,
> considering that Windows 7 is shipping early, and is being run by the
> same manager, well you doubt it at your own peril.
With MS one better adopts the stance of "wait and see" what they deliever
at the end, and which parts have been dropped
--
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
chrisv
>> How would that be any different from shipping beta code as an
>> "operating system" like, say, Vista?
>
>So you are, in fact, advocating that Microsoft should ship beta code.
>
>There goes any defense you might have about whether MS should have shipped
>vista or not.
LOL
Nice logic, Erik. Of course, no matter *what* angle the other guy
takes, you'll spin it to "Microsoft good". "Microsoft OK".
Hans Lister
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>> "hmmm"s.
>>
>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>
> Why don't you guys get a room?
>
> Mart
No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and
[Homer] have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end
Conference".
BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
Mart van de Wege
Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
in far outstrips what William posts.
Now fuck off, flatfish.
Hadron
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:33:07 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>>>> "hmmm"s.
>>>>
>>>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>>>
>>> Why don't you guys get a room?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>
>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and
>> [Homer] have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end
>> Conference".
>>
>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
>
> Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
> in far outstrips what William posts.
>
> Now fuck off, flatfish.
>
> Mart
I can't work out who the most dangerous "street opponent would be. Marti
here or that kid with the degree who keeps talking about knocking
people's teeth out. Tough hombres obviously!
William Poaster
of the trolls Mart van de Wege was heard to say:
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:33:07 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>
>>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with
>>>>> his "hmmm"s.
>>>>
>>>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>>>
>>> Why don't you guys get a room?
>>>
>>> Mart
>>
>>
>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and [Homer]
>> have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end Conference".
>>
>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
--------------------------------------------------------
STANDARD REPLY TO DUMBASS TROLL FORM (version 1.2.3 Revsion D)
--------------------------------------------------------
Tick all that apply:-
Dear:
[x] Troller
You Are Ignored/Killfiled Because:
[x] You are a troll.
[x] You posted low-IQ flamebait
[x] You posted a blatantly obvious troll
[x] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll
[x] You made a baseless assertion
[x] You're a braindead waste of space.
[x] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally
worthless that you are being flamed anyway
To Repent, You Must:
[x] Refrain from nymshifting until you have a vague of how to do it
properly.
[x] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor (monitor must be
plugged in)
[x] Go dive into a dumpster full of medical waste.
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[x] Get a clue
[x] Get a life
[x] Fuck off.
[x] Never post again
[x] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[x] Go back to school and actually learn something
------------------END-------------------------------------
> Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
> in far outstrips what William posts.
>
> Now fuck off, flatfish.
Well said.
(OOPS! Another "me too"! LOL)
--
For a bit of Devilment!
Ubuntu Satanic Edition 666.6 (Jesus’ Jugular)
http://ubuntusatanic.org/
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and
>> [Homer] have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end
>> Conference".
I've never interacted with Roy or Homer anywhere other than right here in
COLA.
>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
>
> Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
> in far outstrips what William posts.
They comprise the bizarre "Shadow COLA".
--
The better part of valor is discretion.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"
William Poaster
of the trolls Chris Ahlstrom was heard to say:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Mart van de Wege belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and [Homer]
>>> have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end Conference".
>
> I've never interacted with Roy or Homer anywhere other than right here
> in COLA.
>
>>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
>>
>> Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
>> in far outstrips what William posts.
>
> They comprise the bizarre "Shadow COLA".
Do they indeed. Dunno about "Shadow COLA", maybe "Shallow COLA" would
suit them better, for that is what they are.
chrisv
>the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
>in far outstrips what William posts.
Worse yet, the trolls will hump each other's legs even when they are
making jackasses of themselves, being completely and obviously in the
wrong.
Anything goes, if they can fling some snot at their moral and
intellectual superiors...
--
"I am siding here with decency and honesty." - lying asshole Hadron
Quark, defending the serial liar Sn^Hhit, and nearly making me spit
coffee all over my brand-new flat-screen
Hans Lister
> Mart van de Wege <mvd...@mail.com> writes:
>
>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:33:07 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>>>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with his
>>>>>> "hmmm"s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you guys get a room?
>>>>
>>>> Mart
>>>
>>>
>>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and
>>> [Homer] have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end
>>> Conference".
>>>
>>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
>>
>> Because the amount of backpatting you, Hardon, DooFus and Timmy engage
>> in far outstrips what William posts.
>>
>> Now fuck off, flatfish.
>>
>> Mart
>
> I can't work out who the most dangerous "street opponent would be. Marti
> here or that kid with the degree who keeps talking about knocking
> people's teeth out. Tough hombres obviously!
I think it's something to do with the name "Mart".
Hans Lister
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:42:10 +0200, above the shrieking, whining & FUDding
> of the trolls Mart van de Wege was heard to say:
>
>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:33:07 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:20:50 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Ahlstrom does not have his own opinions. He parrots his master
>>>>>> Roy's. And I see he's started copying that kid with the degree with
>>>>>> his "hmmm"s.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like you say, it's very creepy.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you guys get a room?
>>>>
>>>> Mart
>>>
>>>
>>> No room at the Inn because Roy Schestowitz, Chris Ahlstrom and [Homer]
>>> have the entire motel booked for their weekly "Back end Conference".
>>>
>>> BTW it's interesting that you never seem to complain about Willy
>>> Poaster and his useless "me too" messages.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> STANDARD REPLY TO DUMBASS TROLL FORM (version 1.2.3 Revsion D)
> --------------------------------------------------------
Yet you never fail to reply 3rd party.
Hahaha!
What a fool you are Willy Poaster.
Now run along and pull some wings off flies or something.